On reversible cascades in scale-free and Erdős-Rényi random graphs

Ching-Lueh Chang 111Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Yuan Ze University, Taoyuan, Taiwan. Email: clchang@saturn.yzu.edu.tw
Abstract

Consider the following cascading process on a simple undirected graph G(V,E)𝐺𝑉𝐸G(V,E) with diameter ΔΔ\Delta. In round zero, a set SV𝑆𝑉S\subseteq V of vertices, called the seeds, are active. In round i+1,𝑖1i+1, i,𝑖i\in\mathbb{N}, a non-isolated vertex is activated if at least a ρ( 0,1]𝜌 01\rho\in(\,0,1\,] fraction of its neighbors are active in round i𝑖i; it is deactivated otherwise. For k,𝑘k\in\mathbb{N}, let min-seed(k)(G,ρ)superscriptmin-seed𝑘𝐺𝜌\text{min-seed}^{(k)}(G,\rho) be the minimum number of seeds needed to activate all vertices in or before round k𝑘k. This paper derives upper bounds on min-seed(k)(G,ρ)superscriptmin-seed𝑘𝐺𝜌\text{min-seed}^{(k)}(G,\rho). In particular, if G𝐺G is connected and there exist constants C>0𝐶0C>0 and γ>2𝛾2\gamma>2 such that the fraction of degree-k𝑘k vertices in G𝐺G is at most C/kγ𝐶superscript𝑘𝛾C/k^{\gamma} for all k+,𝑘superscriptk\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}, then min-seed(Δ)(G,ρ)=O(ργ1|V|)superscriptmin-seedΔ𝐺𝜌𝑂superscript𝜌𝛾1𝑉\text{min-seed}^{(\Delta)}(G,\rho)=O(\lceil\rho^{\gamma-1}\,|\,V\,|\rceil). Furthermore, for n+,𝑛superscriptn\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}, p=Ω((ln(e/ρ))/(ρn))𝑝Ω𝑒𝜌𝜌𝑛p=\Omega((\ln{(e/\rho)})/(\rho n)) and with probability 1exp(nΩ(1))1superscript𝑛Ω11-\exp{(-n^{\Omega(1)})} over the Erdős-Rényi random graphs G(n,p),𝐺𝑛𝑝G(n,p), min-seed(1)(G(n,p),ρ)=O(ρn)superscriptmin-seed1𝐺𝑛𝑝𝜌𝑂𝜌𝑛\text{min-seed}^{(1)}(G(n,p),\rho)=O(\rho n).

1 Introduction

Let G(V,E)𝐺𝑉𝐸G(V,E) be a simple directed graph, ρ( 0,1]𝜌 01\rho\in(\,0,1\,] and SV,𝑆𝑉S\subseteq V, where each vertex of G𝐺G can be in one of two states, active or inactive. The synchronous reversible cascade proceeds in rounds. In round zero, only the vertices in S,𝑆S, called the seeds, are active. In round i+1,𝑖1i+1, a vertex with a positive indegree is activated (resp., deactivated) if at least (resp., less than) a ρ𝜌\rho fraction of its in-neighbors are active in round i,𝑖i, where i𝑖i\in\mathbb{N}. For k,𝑘k\in\mathbb{N}, define min-seed(k)(G,ρ)superscriptmin-seed𝑘𝐺𝜌\text{min-seed}^{(k)}(G,\rho) to be the minimum number of seeds needed so that all vertices will be active in or before round k𝑘k.

The synchronous reversible cascade above is the same as the local interaction game with full rationality except that the latter is defined on infinite graphs with finite degrees [65, 51]. For local interaction games, Morris [65] studies conditions allowing finitely many seeds to activate each vertex sooner or later. Blume [13], Ellison [37], Young [85, 86] and Montanari and Saberi [61] study a variant where there is another variable specifying the vertices’ degree of rationality and the states are updated according to a Poisson clock. In their fully rational scenario, updating the state of a vertex v𝑣v means activating or deactivating v,𝑣v, respectively, if at least or less than a certain fraction of v𝑣v’s neighbors are active. They analyze the expected waiting time until all or most vertices enter the same state.

Consider the special cases of the synchronous reversible cascade with ρ=1/2𝜌12\rho=1/2 or ρ=1/2+1/(2|V|)𝜌1212𝑉\rho=1/2+1/(2\,|\,V\,|). So a vertex is activated in a round if the simple or strict majority of its in-neighbors are active in the previous round; it is deactivated otherwise. Both special cases, among other similar dynamics, are suitable for modeling transient faults in majority-based fault-tolerant systems [74, 41, 42]. Call a set of seeds a k𝑘k-round monopoly if it activates all vertices in or before round k,𝑘k, where k𝑘k\in\mathbb{N}. Any finite-round monopoly is called a dynamic monopoly. If a set of seeds does not lead to the deactivation of active vertices in any round, then it is said to be monotone. Peleg [73] shows an Ω(|V|)Ω𝑉\Omega(\sqrt{|\,V\,|}\,) lower bound on the minimum size of 222-round monopolies in any simple undirected graph G(V,E)𝐺𝑉𝐸G(V,E). Bounds are known on the minimum size of monotone dynamic monopolies in planar graphs [41], toroidal meshes, torus cordales, torus serpentini [42] and simple undirected graphs [73]. Berger [10] shows the existence of constant-size dynamic monopolies in an infinite family of simple undirected graphs. Optimal bounds on the minimum size of 111-round monopolies are also derived for planar graphs, hypercubes, graphs with a given girth, graphs with diameter 222 [56] and simple undirected graphs [56, 72]. Bermond et al. [11] derive bounds on the minimum size of 111-round monopolies under the variant where a vertex v𝑣v is activated or deactivated, respectively, if the majority or minority of the vertices within distance r𝑟r from v𝑣v are active, r2𝑟2r\geq 2. Peleg [74] surveys the above and many related results.

As an important variant, the irreversible cascade on a graph forbids the deactivation of vertices. In its most general form, a vertex v𝑣v is activated in a round if at least ϕ(v)italic-ϕ𝑣\phi(v) of its in-neighbors are active in the previous round, where ϕ(v)italic-ϕ𝑣\phi(v)\in\mathbb{N}. It is sometimes defined as an asynchronous process because the order of activating the vertices does not affect the set of vertices that will be active. With various threshold functions ϕ(),italic-ϕ\phi(\cdot), irreversible cascades describe the propagation of permanent faults in majority-based systems [59, 40, 41, 42], spread of diseases [36], complex propagation [20, 44, 80], socio-economic cascades [47, 83] and cascading failures in infrastructure or organizational networks [83]. Assuming irreversible cascades, bounds are derived on the minimum number of seeds activating all vertices eventually for complete trees, rings, butterflies, wrapped butterflies, cube-connected cycles, shuffle-exchange graphs, DeBruijn graphs, hypercubes [59, 41], toroidal meshes [57, 42, 76, 55, 36], torus cordales, torus serpentini [57, 42, 36], chordal rings [40], multidimensional cubes [7], complete multipartite graphs, regular graphs [36], Erdős-Rényi random graphs [23, 22, 21], undirected connected graphs [24] and directed graphs with positive indegrees [24, 1]. More bounds are derived on the minimum number of seeds activating all vertices in one round for near-regular graphs, bounded-degree graphs [72] and, under several variants, simple undirected graphs [11].

A family of undirected graphs, {Gn(Vn,En)|Vn|=n}n=1,superscriptsubscriptconditional-setsubscript𝐺𝑛subscript𝑉𝑛subscript𝐸𝑛subscript𝑉𝑛𝑛𝑛1\{G_{n}(V_{n},E_{n})\mid|\,V_{n}\,|=n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}, is scale-free if there is a constant 2<γ<32𝛾32<\gamma<3 such that for sufficiently large k+𝑘superscriptk\in\mathbb{Z}^{+} and as n,𝑛n\to\infty, the fraction of vertices with degree k𝑘k in Gnsubscript𝐺𝑛G_{n} is proportional to 1/kγ1superscript𝑘𝛾1/k^{\gamma}. Directed scale-free graphs are defined similarly by using the in- or outdegrees of vertices instead. Many socio-economic, physical, biological and semantic networks are scale-free. Generative models of scale-free networks include preferential attachment models [5, 8, 6, 16, 68], copying models [18, 19, 52, 54], growth-deletion models [33, 29, 39], random-surfer models [12, 25], traffic-driven model [9], heuristically optimized trade-off model [38], hybrid models [75, 31, 71], semantic growth model [82] and random-graph models with given expected degree sequences [28, 30]. Many of these suitably describe the Webgraph [17, 35].

Let G(V,E)𝐺𝑉𝐸G(V,E) be an undirected connected graph with diameter Δ,Δ\Delta, γ>2𝛾2\gamma>2 be a constant and ρ( 0,1]𝜌 01\rho\in(\,0,1\,] such that the fraction of vertices with degree k𝑘k in G𝐺G is O(1/kγ)𝑂1superscript𝑘𝛾O(1/k^{\gamma}). This paper proves min-seed(Δ)(G,ρ)=O(ργ1|V|)superscriptmin-seedΔ𝐺𝜌𝑂superscript𝜌𝛾1𝑉\text{min-seed}^{(\Delta)}(G,\rho)=O(\lceil\rho^{\gamma-1}\,|\,V\,|\rceil). As scale-free graphs typically have small distances between vertices [70, 32, 15, 30, 31], activating all vertices within ΔΔ\Delta rounds may be fast. Furthermore, the O(ργ1|V|)𝑂superscript𝜌𝛾1𝑉O(\lceil\rho^{\gamma-1}\,|\,V\,|\rceil) bound continues to hold even if the synchronous reversible cascade is modified to proceed asynchronously instead.

For n+𝑛superscriptn\in\mathbb{Z}^{+} and p[ 0,1],𝑝 01p\in[\,0,1\,], the Erdős-Rényi random graph G(n,p)𝐺𝑛𝑝G(n,p) is a simple undirected graph with vertices 1,2,,n12𝑛1,2,\ldots,n where each of the (n2)binomial𝑛2\binom{n}{2} possible edges appears independently with probability p𝑝p [14]. Assuming irreversible cascades, Chang and Lyuu [22, 21] consider the case where a non-isolated vertex of G(n,p)𝐺𝑛𝑝G(n,p) is activated when at least a ρ( 0,1]𝜌 01\rho\in(\,0,1\,] fraction of its neighbors are active. They prove that for a sufficiently large constant β>0,𝛽0\beta>0, n+,𝑛superscriptn\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}, δ{1/n,2/n,,n/n},𝛿1𝑛2𝑛𝑛𝑛\delta\in\{1/n,2/n,\ldots,n/n\}, pβ(ln(e/min{δ,ρ}))/(ρn)𝑝𝛽𝑒𝛿𝜌𝜌𝑛p\geq\beta(\ln(e/{\min\{\delta,\rho\}}))/(\rho n) and with probability 1nΩ(1)1superscript𝑛Ω11-n^{-\Omega(1)} over G(n,p),𝐺𝑛𝑝G(n,p), the minimum number of seeds needed to eventually activate at least δn𝛿𝑛\delta n vertices is Θ(min{δ,ρ}n)Θ𝛿𝜌𝑛\Theta(\min\{\delta,\rho\}\,n). The hidden constant in the Θ()Θ\Theta(\cdot) notation is independent of p𝑝p. For a sufficiently large constant λ>0,𝜆0\lambda>0, n+,𝑛superscriptn\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}, pλ(ln(e/ρ))/n𝑝𝜆𝑒𝜌𝑛p\geq\lambda(\ln(e/\rho))/n and with probability 1nΩ(1)1superscript𝑛Ω11-n^{-\Omega(1)} over G(n,p),𝐺𝑛𝑝G(n,p), they also prove the existence of O(ρn)𝑂𝜌𝑛O(\lceil\rho n\rceil) seeds that activate all vertices eventually.

This paper proves that for n+,𝑛superscriptn\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}, p=Ω((ln(e/ρ))/(ρn))𝑝Ω𝑒𝜌𝜌𝑛p=\Omega((\ln(e/\rho))/(\rho n)) and with probability 1exp(nΩ(1))1superscript𝑛Ω11-\exp{(-n^{\Omega(1)})} over G(n,p),𝐺𝑛𝑝G(n,p), min-seed(1)(G(n,p),ρ)=O(ρn)superscriptmin-seed1𝐺𝑛𝑝𝜌𝑂𝜌𝑛\text{min-seed}^{(1)}(G(n,p),\rho)=O(\rho n). Together with Chang and Lyuu’s Θ(min{δ,ρ}n)Θ𝛿𝜌𝑛\Theta(\min\{\delta,\rho\}\,n) bound for irreversible cascades with an unbounded duration, our result shows that neither the reversibility of synchronous cascades nor the number of rounds played can change the asymptotically minimum number of seeds needed to activate all vertices for pβ(ln(e/min{δ,ρ}))/(ρn)𝑝𝛽𝑒𝛿𝜌𝜌𝑛p\geq\beta(\ln(e/{\min\{\delta,\rho\}}))/(\rho n) with a sufficiently large constant β𝛽\beta — it is always Θ(ρn)Θ𝜌𝑛\Theta(\rho n). Furthermore, our O(ρn)𝑂𝜌𝑛O(\rho n) bound continues to hold even if the synchronous reversible cascade is modified to proceed asynchronously instead.

Other related topics include periodic behavior of synchronous reversible cascades [46, 45, 77, 78, 43, 62, 63, 64], inapproximability of minimum-seed problems [26, 24, 1], majority consensus computers [69], stable sets of active vertices [2, 4, 3, 48, 53], network decontamination [60, 58], maximization of social influence [34, 79, 49, 50, 66] and percolation theory [81], among others.

This paper is organized as follows. Sec. 2 presents the notations and the preliminaries. Sec. 3 derives general bounds on the minimum number of seeds needed to activate all vertices in a number of rounds. Secs. 45 investigate the cases of connected scale-free and Erdős-Rényi random graphs, respectively. Sec. 6 concludes the paper.

2 Definitions

A directed graph G(V,E)𝐺𝑉𝐸G(V,E) consists of a set V𝑉V of vertices and a set EV×V𝐸𝑉𝑉E\subseteq V\times V of edges. An edge (u,v)E𝑢𝑣𝐸(u,v)\in E goes from u𝑢u to v𝑣v. An undirected graph is a directed one with each edge accompanied by the edge in the opposite direction. Unless otherwise specified, all graphs in this paper are simple, i.e., self-loops are not allowed [84]. For vV,𝑣𝑉v\in V, define

Nin(v)superscript𝑁in𝑣\displaystyle N^{\text{in}}(v)\displaystyle\equiv{uV(u,v)E},conditional-set𝑢𝑉𝑢𝑣𝐸\displaystyle\left\{u\in V\mid(u,v)\in E\right\},
Nin[v]superscript𝑁indelimited-[]𝑣\displaystyle N^{\text{in}}[v]\displaystyle\equivNin(v){v}superscript𝑁in𝑣𝑣\displaystyle N^{\text{in}}(v)\cup\{v\}

to be the open and closed in-neighborhoods of v,𝑣v, respectively. The indegree of v𝑣v is din(v)|Nin(v)|superscript𝑑in𝑣superscript𝑁in𝑣d^{\text{in}}(v)\equiv|\,N^{\text{in}}(v)\,|. For AV,𝐴𝑉A\subseteq V, define Nin(A)aANin(a)superscript𝑁in𝐴subscript𝑎𝐴superscript𝑁in𝑎N^{\text{in}}(A)\equiv\cup_{a\in A}\,N^{\text{in}}(a) as the set of vertices incident on an edge coming into A𝐴A. In case G𝐺G is undirected, write Nin(),superscript𝑁inN^{\text{in}}(\cdot), Nin[]superscript𝑁indelimited-[]N^{\text{in}}[\cdot] and din()superscript𝑑ind^{\text{in}}(\cdot) simply as N(),𝑁N(\cdot), N[]𝑁delimited-[]N[\cdot] and d(),𝑑d(\cdot), respectively. For an undirected graph G(V,E),𝐺𝑉𝐸G(V,E), UV𝑈𝑉U\subseteq V and i0,𝑖0i\geq 0, define Ni[U]superscript𝑁𝑖delimited-[]𝑈N^{i}[U] to be the set of vertices with distance less than or equal to i𝑖i from at least one vertex in U𝑈U. That is, N0[U]=Usuperscript𝑁0delimited-[]𝑈𝑈N^{0}[U]=U and Ni+1[U]=Ni[U]N(Ni[U])superscript𝑁𝑖1delimited-[]𝑈superscript𝑁𝑖delimited-[]𝑈𝑁superscript𝑁𝑖delimited-[]𝑈N^{i+1}[U]=N^{i}[U]\cup N(N^{i}[U]) for i0𝑖0i\geq 0. Furthermore, each vertex can be in one of two states, active or inactive.

The synchronous reversible cascade on G(V,E)𝐺𝑉𝐸G(V,E) with seed set SV𝑆𝑉S\subseteq V and threshold ρ( 0,1]𝜌 01\rho\in(\,0,1\,] proceeds in rounds. In round zero, only the vertices in S,𝑆S, called the seeds, are active. For each i,𝑖i\in\mathbb{N}, a vertex with a positive indegree is activated or deactivated in round i+1,𝑖1i+1, respectively, if at least or less than a ρ𝜌\rho fraction of its in-neighbors are active in round i𝑖i. Vertices with indegree zero, instead, never change their states. For k,𝑘k\in\mathbb{N}, define Active(k)(S,G,ρ)superscriptActive𝑘𝑆𝐺𝜌\text{\sf Active}^{(k)}(S,G,\rho) to be the set of active vertices in round k𝑘k. Then define

min-seed(k)(G,ρ)minWV,Active(k)(W,G,ρ)=V|W|,superscriptmin-seed𝑘𝐺𝜌subscriptformulae-sequence𝑊𝑉superscriptActive𝑘𝑊𝐺𝜌𝑉𝑊\text{min-seed}^{(k)}\left(G,\rho\right)\equiv\min_{W\subseteq V,\text{\sf Active}^{(k)}(W,G,\rho)=V}\,|\,W\,|,

which is the minimum number of seeds needed to activate all vertices in round k𝑘k (it is possible that a set of seeds activates all vertices in round k𝑘k by doing so before round k𝑘k). Clearly, once all vertices are active, they will remain active forever. Therefore, min-seed(k)(,)superscriptmin-seed𝑘\text{min-seed}^{(k)}(\cdot,\cdot) monotonically decreases as k𝑘k increases.

Next, we describe an asynchronous reversible cascade. At any instant, one or more vertices may update their states. When a vertex with a positive indegree updates its state, it is activated or deactivated if at least or less than a ρ𝜌\rho fraction of its in-neighbors are active, respectively. Instead, vertices with indegree zero never update their states. The only requirement on the synchronization of updates is that, if the state of a vertex can change at time t,𝑡t, then at least one vertex must change its state after time t,𝑡t, where t0𝑡0t\geq 0. Such a synchronization is said to be progressive. In other words, whenever changes of states are possible, an asynchronous reversible cascade cannot simply refuse them all forever. Define min-seedasync(G,ρ)superscriptmin-seedasync𝐺𝜌\text{min-seed}^{\text{async}}(G,\rho) to be the minimum number of seeds that activate all vertices within a finite amount of time in every asynchronous reversible cascade with threshold ρ𝜌\rho. So min-seedasync(G,ρ)ssuperscriptmin-seedasync𝐺𝜌𝑠\text{min-seed}^{\text{async}}(G,\rho)\leq s precisely when there exist s𝑠s seeds activating all vertices within a finite amount of time no matter how the updates of states are synchronized in a progressive way. Furthermore, define min-seedmonotoneasync(G,ρ)subscriptsuperscriptmin-seedasyncmonotone𝐺𝜌\text{min-seed}^{\text{async}}_{\text{monotone}}(G,\rho) to be the minimum number of seeds meeting the following criteria in every asynchronous reversible cascade with threshold ρ𝜌\rho:

  • All vertices are active after a finite amount of time;

  • No active vertices are ever deactivated.

So min-seedmonotoneasync(G,ρ)ssubscriptsuperscriptmin-seedasyncmonotone𝐺𝜌𝑠\text{min-seed}^{\text{async}}_{\text{monotone}}(G,\rho)\leq s precisely when there exist s𝑠s seeds that, regardless of the (progressive) synchronizations of the reversible cascades, activate all vertices without ever deactivating any active one.

The following fact is folklore. See, e.g., [40, pp. 25, Sec. 2].

Fact 1.

Let G(V,E)𝐺𝑉𝐸G(V,E) be a directed graph, ρ( 0,1],𝜌 01\rho\in(\,0,1\,], t+𝑡superscriptt\in\mathbb{Z}^{+} and SV𝑆𝑉S\subseteq V satisfy

S𝑆\displaystyle S\displaystyle\subseteqActive(1)(S,G,ρ),superscriptActive1𝑆𝐺𝜌\displaystyle\text{\sf Active}^{(1)}\left(S,G,\rho\right),(1)
V𝑉\displaystyle V=\displaystyle=Active(t)(S,G,ρ).superscriptActive𝑡𝑆𝐺𝜌\displaystyle\text{\sf Active}^{(t)}\left(S,G,\rho\right).

Then

min-seedmonotoneasync(G,ρ)|S|.subscriptsuperscriptmin-seedasyncmonotone𝐺𝜌𝑆\text{\rm min-seed}^{\text{\rm async}}_{\text{\rm monotone}}\left(G,\rho\right)\leq|\,S\,|.

The following is Markov’s inequality.

Fact 2.

([67, Theorem 3.2]) Let X𝑋X be a random variable taking nonnegative values. Then for each t>0,𝑡0t>0,

Pr[Xt]E[X]t.Pr𝑋𝑡𝐸delimited-[]𝑋𝑡\Pr\left[\,X\geq t\,\right]\leq\frac{E[\,X\,]}{t}.

We will use the following form of Chernoff’s bound [27].

Fact 3.

([67, Theorem 4.2]) Let X1,X2,,Xksubscript𝑋1subscript𝑋2subscript𝑋𝑘X_{1},X_{2},\ldots,X_{k} be independent random variables taking values in {0,1}01\{0,1\} and p[ 0,1]𝑝 01p\in[\,0,1\,] such that Pr[Xi=1]=pPrsubscript𝑋𝑖1𝑝\Pr[\,X_{i}=1\,]=p for 1ik1𝑖𝑘1\leq i\leq k. Then for each δ(0,1),𝛿01\delta\in(0,1),

Pr[i=1kXi(1δ)kp]exp(δ2kp2)Prsuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑘subscript𝑋𝑖1𝛿𝑘𝑝superscript𝛿2𝑘𝑝2\Pr\left[\,\sum_{i=1}^{k}X_{i}\leq(1-\delta)\,kp\,\right]\leq\exp{\left(-\frac{\delta^{2}kp}{2}\right)}

For n+𝑛superscriptn\in\mathbb{Z}^{+} and p[ 0,1],𝑝 01p\in[\,0,1\,], the Erdős-Rényi random graph G(n,p)𝐺𝑛𝑝G(n,p) is the simple undirected graph with vertices 1,2,,n12𝑛1,2,\ldots,n where each of the possible (n2)binomial𝑛2\binom{n}{2} edges appears independently with probability p𝑝p [14]. Below is an easy consequence of Chernoff’s bound.

Fact 4.

([22, Lemma 9]) Let n+,𝑛superscriptn\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}, p[ 0,1]𝑝 01p\in[\,0,1\,] and κ{1/n,,n/n}𝜅1𝑛𝑛𝑛\kappa\in\{1/n,\ldots,n/n\}. If

0.99(κn2)+κn(nκn)κn21,0.99binomial𝜅𝑛2𝜅𝑛𝑛𝜅𝑛𝜅superscript𝑛21\displaystyle 0.99\leq\frac{\binom{\kappa n}{2}+\kappa n(n-\kappa n)}{\kappa n^{2}}\leq 1,

then

Pr[|{v[n]d(v)pn2}|κn](nκn)exp(κpn29),Prconditional-set𝑣delimited-[]𝑛𝑑𝑣𝑝𝑛2𝜅𝑛binomial𝑛𝜅𝑛𝜅𝑝superscript𝑛29\Pr\left[\,\left|\,\left\{v\in[\,n\,]\,\mid\,d(v)\leq\frac{pn}{2}\right\}\,\right|\geq\kappa n\,\right]\leq\binom{n}{\kappa n}\exp{\left(-\frac{\kappa pn^{2}}{9}\right)},

where the probability is taken over the Erdős-Rényi random graphs G(n,p)𝐺𝑛𝑝G(n,p).

The irreversible cascade is the modification of our synchronous reversible cascade that prohibits the deactivation of vertices. It can also be defined as an asynchronous process without affecting the set of vertices that will be active [40, pp. 25, Sec. 2]. Assuming irreversible cascades, Chang and Lyuu [22, 21] prove the following bound on activating vertices of Erdős-Rényi random graphs.

Fact 5.

([22, 21]) Assume irreversible cascades. For a sufficiently large constant β>0,𝛽0\beta>0, n+,𝑛superscriptn\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}, ρ( 0,1],𝜌 01\rho\in(\,0,1\,], δ{1/n,2/n,,n/n},𝛿1𝑛2𝑛𝑛𝑛\delta\in\{1/n,2/n,\ldots,n/n\}, pβ(ln(e/min{δ,ρ}))/(ρn)𝑝𝛽𝑒𝛿𝜌𝜌𝑛p\geq\beta(\ln{(e/\min\{\delta,\rho\})})/(\rho n) and with probability 1nΩ(1)1superscript𝑛Ω11-n^{-\Omega(1)} over G(n,p),𝐺𝑛𝑝G(n,p), the minimum number of seeds needed to eventually activate at least δn𝛿𝑛\delta n vertices of G(n,p)𝐺𝑛𝑝G(n,p) is Θ(min{δ,ρ}n)Θ𝛿𝜌𝑛\Theta(\min\{\delta,\rho\}\,n). The hidden constant in the Θ()Θ\Theta(\cdot) notation is independent of p𝑝p.

3 General bounds

We begin with several lemmas that will be useful for analyzing reversible cascades on scale-free graphs.

Lemma 6.

Let G(V,E)𝐺𝑉𝐸G(V,E) be an undirected connected graph with diameter Δ,Δ\Delta, |V|2𝑉2|\,V\,|\geq 2 and {vVd(v)>1/ρ}conditional-set𝑣𝑉𝑑𝑣1𝜌\{v\in V\mid d(v)>1/\rho\}\neq\emptyset. Then

min-seed(Δ)(G,ρ)vV,d(v)>1/ρ(ρd(v)+1).superscriptmin-seedΔ𝐺𝜌subscriptformulae-sequence𝑣𝑉𝑑𝑣1𝜌𝜌𝑑𝑣1\displaystyle\text{\rm min-seed}^{(\Delta)}\left(G,\rho\right)\leq\sum_{v\in V,d(v)>1/\rho}\,\left(\left\lceil\rho\,d(v)\right\rceil+1\right).(2)
Proof.

For each vV,𝑣𝑉v\in V, pick a set B(v)N(v)𝐵𝑣𝑁𝑣B(v)\subseteq N(v) of size ρd(v)𝜌𝑑𝑣\lceil\rho\,d(v)\rceil. Let

X={vVd(v)>1ρ}.𝑋conditional-set𝑣𝑉𝑑𝑣1𝜌\displaystyle X=\left\{v\in V\mid d(v)>\frac{1}{\rho}\right\}.(3)

Then take

S=vX(B(v){v})𝑆subscript𝑣𝑋𝐵𝑣𝑣S=\bigcup_{v\in X}\,\left(B(v)\cup\{v\}\right)

as the set of seeds. Clearly, S𝑆S\neq\emptyset. As the righthand side of Eq. (2) is an upper bound on |S|,𝑆|\,S\,|, it suffices to establish Active(Δ)(S,G,ρ)=VsuperscriptActiveΔ𝑆𝐺𝜌𝑉\text{\sf Active}^{(\Delta)}(S,G,\rho)=V.

For any uS,𝑢𝑆u\in S, we have

|N(u)S|ρd(u)𝑁𝑢𝑆𝜌𝑑𝑢\displaystyle\left|\,N(u)\cap S\,\right|\geq\lceil\rho\,d(u)\rceil(4)

by the following arguments:

  • If uX,𝑢𝑋u\in X, then B(u)S,𝐵𝑢𝑆B(u)\subseteq S, implying Eq. (4).

  • Otherwise, uB(v)𝑢𝐵𝑣u\in B(v) for some vX𝑣𝑋v\in X. Therefore, vN(u)S,𝑣𝑁𝑢𝑆v\in N(u)\cap S, implying Eq. (4) because d(u)1/ρ𝑑𝑢1𝜌d(u)\leq 1/\rho.

By Eq. (4), if all vertices in S𝑆S are active in a round, then they will remain to be active in the next round. Therefore, as the vertices in S𝑆S are active in round zero,

Sk0Active(k)(S,G,ρ).𝑆subscript𝑘0superscriptActive𝑘𝑆𝐺𝜌\displaystyle S\subseteq\bigcap_{k\geq 0}\,\text{\sf Active}^{(k)}\left(S,G,\rho\right).(5)

For each i0,𝑖0i\geq 0, denote by P(i)𝑃𝑖P(i) the relation

Ni[S]kiActive(k)(S,G,ρ).superscript𝑁𝑖delimited-[]𝑆subscript𝑘𝑖superscriptActive𝑘𝑆𝐺𝜌\displaystyle N^{i}[S]\subseteq\bigcap_{k\geq i}\,\text{\sf Active}^{(k)}\left(S,G,\rho\right).(6)

By construction, every wVS𝑤𝑉𝑆w\in V\setminus S satisfies d(w)1/ρ𝑑𝑤1𝜌d(w)\leq 1/\rho and thus

ρd(w)=1.𝜌𝑑𝑤1\displaystyle\left\lceil\rho\,d(w)\right\rceil=1.(7)

For i,𝑖i\in\mathbb{N}, P(i)𝑃𝑖P(i) implies P(i+1)𝑃𝑖1P(i+1) by the following arguments:

  • Every wNi+1[S]Ni[S]𝑤superscript𝑁𝑖1delimited-[]𝑆superscript𝑁𝑖delimited-[]𝑆w\in N^{i+1}[S]\setminus N^{i}[S] has a neighbor in Ni[S]superscript𝑁𝑖delimited-[]𝑆N^{i}[S]. So by P(i),𝑃𝑖P(i), w𝑤w has at least one active neighbor in rounds i,i+1,𝑖𝑖1i,i+1,\ldots Hence by Eq. (7) and the definition of the synchronous reversible cascade, w𝑤w is active in rounds i+1,i+2,𝑖1𝑖2i+1,i+2,\ldots

  • By P(i),𝑃𝑖P(i), all vertices in Ni[S]superscript𝑁𝑖delimited-[]𝑆N^{i}[S] are active in rounds i+1,i+2,𝑖1𝑖2i+1,i+2,\ldots

As Eq. (5) is precisely P(0),𝑃0P(0), P(i)𝑃𝑖P(i) holds for all i𝑖i\in\mathbb{N} by mathematical induction. Finally, P(Δ)𝑃ΔP(\Delta) gives Active(Δ)(S,G,ρ)=VsuperscriptActiveΔ𝑆𝐺𝜌𝑉\text{\sf Active}^{(\Delta)}(S,G,\rho)=V. ∎

The following lemma reduces the bound of Lemma 6 to 222 if all degrees are less than or equal to ρ𝜌\rho.

Lemma 7.

Let G(V,E)𝐺𝑉𝐸G(V,E) be an undirected connected graph with diameter Δ,Δ\Delta, |V|2𝑉2|\,V\,|\geq 2 and {vVd(v)>1/ρ}=conditional-set𝑣𝑉𝑑𝑣1𝜌\{v\in V\mid d(v)>1/\rho\}=\emptyset. Then

min-seed(Δ)(G,ρ)2.superscriptmin-seedΔ𝐺𝜌2\displaystyle\text{\rm min-seed}^{(\Delta)}\left(G,\rho\right)\leq 2.(8)
Proof.

Modify the proof of Lemma 6 by taking X𝑋X to contain a single vertex in Eq. (3) and replacing the reference to “Eq. (2)” by “Eq. (8).” The rest of the proof follows, word for word. ∎

Lemma 8.

Let G(V,E)𝐺𝑉𝐸G(V,E) be an undirected connected graph with diameter ΔΔ\Delta and |V|2𝑉2|\,V\,|\geq 2. Then

min-seed(Δ)(G,ρ)2+vV,d(v)>1/ρ(ρd(v)+1).superscriptmin-seedΔ𝐺𝜌2subscriptformulae-sequence𝑣𝑉𝑑𝑣1𝜌𝜌𝑑𝑣1\text{\rm min-seed}^{(\Delta)}\left(G,\rho\right)\leq 2+\sum_{v\in V,d(v)>1/\rho}\,\left(\left\lceil\rho\,d(v)\right\rceil+1\right).
Proof.

Immediate from Lemmas 67. ∎

Corollary 9.

Let G(V,E)𝐺𝑉𝐸G(V,E) be an undirected connected graph with diameter ΔΔ\Delta and |V|2𝑉2|\,V\,|\geq 2. Then

min-seedmonotoneasync(G,ρ)2+vV,d(v)>1/ρ(ρd(v)+1).subscriptsuperscriptmin-seedasyncmonotone𝐺𝜌2subscriptformulae-sequence𝑣𝑉𝑑𝑣1𝜌𝜌𝑑𝑣1\text{\rm min-seed}^{\text{\rm async}}_{\text{\rm monotone}}\left(G,\rho\right)\leq 2+\sum_{v\in V,d(v)>1/\rho}\,\left(\left\lceil\rho\,d(v)\right\rceil+1\right).
Proof.

Eq. (4) holds in our proofs of Lemmas 67, and it implies Eq. (1). Hence the corollary follows from Fact 1 and the proofs of Lemmas 67. ∎

Next, we analyze the following picking of seeds in a directed graph G(V,E)𝐺𝑉𝐸G(V,E): First, choose each vertex as a seed independently with some probability. Second, choose the vertices that cannot be activated in round 111 also as seeds. The expected number of chosen seeds serves as an upper bound on min-seed(1)(G,ρ)superscriptmin-seed1𝐺𝜌\text{min-seed}^{(1)}(G,\rho). Chang and Lyuu [23, Theorem 9] use a similar technique to analyze irreversible cascades. Their results are improved by Ackerman, Ben-Zwi and Wolfovitz [1, Sec. 3].

Lemma 10.

For a directed graph G(V,E),𝐺𝑉𝐸G(V,E), ρ( 0,1]𝜌 01\rho\in(\,0,1\,] and C>1,𝐶1C>1,

min-seed(1)(G,ρ)O(Cρ|V|)+vV(din(v)+1)exp(3Cρdin(v)).superscriptmin-seed1𝐺𝜌𝑂𝐶𝜌𝑉subscript𝑣𝑉superscript𝑑in𝑣13𝐶𝜌superscript𝑑in𝑣\displaystyle\text{\rm min-seed}^{(1)}\left(G,\rho\right)\leq O\left(C\rho\,|\,V\,|\right)+\sum_{v\in V}\,\left(d^{\text{\rm in}}(v)+1\right)\exp{\left(-3C\rho\,d^{\text{\rm in}}(v)\right)}.(9)
Proof.

Assume ρ<1/(8C)𝜌18𝐶\rho<1/(8C) for, otherwise, Eq. (9) holds trivially. Let SV𝑆𝑉S\subseteq V contain each vertex independently with probability 8Cρ8𝐶𝜌8C\rho and

A={vV|Nin(v)S|ρdin(v)}.𝐴conditional-set𝑣𝑉superscript𝑁in𝑣𝑆𝜌superscript𝑑in𝑣A=\left\{v\in V\mid\left|\,N^{\text{in}}(v)\cap S\,\right|\leq\rho\,d^{\text{in}}(v)\right\}.

By construction, VAActive(1)(S,G,ρ)𝑉𝐴superscriptActive1𝑆𝐺𝜌V\setminus A\subseteq\text{\sf Active}^{(1)}(S,G,\rho). Clearly, AActive(1)(Nin(A)A,G,ρ)𝐴superscriptActive1superscript𝑁in𝐴𝐴𝐺𝜌A\subseteq\text{\sf Active}^{(1)}(N^{\text{in}}(A)\cup A,G,\rho). Consequently,

Active(1)(SNin(A)A,G,ρ)=V.superscriptActive1𝑆superscript𝑁in𝐴𝐴𝐺𝜌𝑉\displaystyle\text{\sf Active}^{(1)}\left(S\cup N^{\text{in}}(A)\cup A,G,\rho\right)=V.(10)

Clearly,

E[|S|]𝐸delimited-[]𝑆\displaystyle E\left[\,|\,S\,|\,\right]=\displaystyle=8Cρ|V|,8𝐶𝜌𝑉\displaystyle 8C\rho\,|\,V\,|,(11)
|Nin(A)A|superscript𝑁in𝐴𝐴\displaystyle\left|\,N^{\text{in}}(A)\cup A\,\right|\displaystyle\leqvA(din(v)+1).subscript𝑣𝐴superscript𝑑in𝑣1\displaystyle\sum_{v\in A}\,\left(d^{\text{in}}(v)+1\right).(12)

By Chernoff’s bound (Fact 3),

Pr[vA]exp(3Cρdin(v))Pr𝑣𝐴3𝐶𝜌superscript𝑑in𝑣\displaystyle\Pr\left[\,v\in A\,\right]\leq\exp{\left(-3C\rho\,d^{\text{in}}(v)\right)}(13)

for all vV𝑣𝑉v\in V. By Eqs. (12)–(13) and the linearity of expectation,

E[|Nin(A)A|]vV(din(v)+1)exp(3Cρdin(v)).𝐸delimited-[]superscript𝑁in𝐴𝐴subscript𝑣𝑉superscript𝑑in𝑣13𝐶𝜌superscript𝑑in𝑣E\left[\,\left|\,N^{\text{in}}(A)\cup A\,\right|\,\right]\leq\sum_{v\in V}\,\left(d^{\text{in}}(v)+1\right)\,\exp{\left(-3C\rho\,d^{\text{in}}(v)\right)}.

This and Eqs. (10)–(11) complete the proof because there must exist a realization of SNin(A)A𝑆superscript𝑁in𝐴𝐴S\cup N^{\text{in}}(A)\cup A with size less than or equal to its expected value. ∎

Lemma 11.

For a directed graph G(V,E),𝐺𝑉𝐸G(V,E), ρ( 0,1]𝜌 01\rho\in(\,0,1\,] and C>1,𝐶1C>1,

min-seed(1)(G,ρ)O(Cρ|V|)+vV,din(v)<(1/(Cρ))ln(e/ρ)(din(v)+1)exp(3Cρdin(v)).superscriptmin-seed1𝐺𝜌𝑂𝐶𝜌𝑉subscriptformulae-sequence𝑣𝑉superscript𝑑in𝑣1𝐶𝜌𝑒𝜌superscript𝑑in𝑣13𝐶𝜌superscript𝑑in𝑣\text{\rm min-seed}^{(1)}\left(G,\rho\right)\leq O\left(C\rho\,|\,V\,|\right)+\sum_{v\in V,d^{\text{\rm in}}(v)<(1/(C\rho))\ln(e/\rho)}\,\left(d^{\text{\rm in}}(v)+1\right)\exp{\left(-3C\rho\,d^{\text{\rm in}}(v)\right)}.
Proof.

By elementary calculus,

maxx(1/(Cρ))ln(e/ρ)(x+1)exp(3Cρx)=O(ρ).subscript𝑥1𝐶𝜌𝑒𝜌𝑥13𝐶𝜌𝑥𝑂𝜌\max_{x\geq(1/(C\rho))\ln(e/\rho)}\,(x+1)\exp(-3C\rho x)=O(\rho).

Therefore, in the summation of Eq. (9), vertices with indegrees at least (1/(Cρ))ln(e/ρ)1𝐶𝜌𝑒𝜌(1/(C\rho))\ln(e/\rho) contribute O(ρ|V|)𝑂𝜌𝑉O(\rho\,|\,V\,|) in total. ∎

Lemma 12.

For a directed graph G(V,E),𝐺𝑉𝐸G(V,E), ρ( 0,1]𝜌 01\rho\in(\,0,1\,] and C>1,𝐶1C>1,

min-seed(1)(G,ρ)O(Cρ|V|)+|{vVdin(v)<1Cρlneρ}|(1Cρ(lneρ)+1).superscriptmin-seed1𝐺𝜌𝑂𝐶𝜌𝑉conditional-set𝑣𝑉superscript𝑑in𝑣1𝐶𝜌𝑒𝜌1𝐶𝜌𝑒𝜌1\text{\rm min-seed}^{(1)}\left(G,\rho\right)\leq O\left(C\rho\,|\,V\,|\right)+\left|\,\left\{v\in V\mid d^{\text{\rm in}}(v)<\frac{1}{C\rho}\ln{\frac{e}{\rho}}\right\}\,\right|\cdot\left(\frac{1}{C\rho}\left(\ln{\frac{e}{\rho}}\right)+1\right).
Proof.

Invoke Lemma 11 and observe that exp(3Cρdin(v))13𝐶𝜌superscript𝑑in𝑣1\exp{(-3C\rho\,d^{\text{in}}(v))}\leq 1 for all vV𝑣𝑉v\in V. ∎

Corollary 13.

Let G(V,E)𝐺𝑉𝐸G(V,E) be a directed graph ρ( 0,1]𝜌 01\rho\in(\,0,1\,] and C>1𝐶1C>1. If every vertex of G𝐺G has indegree Ω((1/ρ)ln(e/ρ)),Ω1𝜌𝑒𝜌\Omega((1/\rho)\,\ln{(e/\rho)}), then

min-seed(1)(G,ρ)=O(ρ|V|).superscriptmin-seed1𝐺𝜌𝑂𝜌𝑉\text{\rm min-seed}^{(1)}\left(G,\rho\right)=O\left(\rho\,|\,V\,|\right).
Proof.

Invoke Lemma 12 with a sufficiently large constant C𝐶C. ∎

Corollary 13 holds, e.g., for Ω((1/ρ)ln(e/ρ))Ω1𝜌𝑒𝜌\Omega((1/\rho)\,\ln{(e/\rho)})-regular graphs.

4 Bounds for connected scale-free graphs

Let G(V,E)𝐺𝑉𝐸G(V,E) be a connected scale-free graph with diameter ΔΔ\Delta and 2<γ<32𝛾32<\gamma<3 be a constant such that G𝐺G has an O(1/kγ)𝑂1superscript𝑘𝛾O(1/k^{\gamma}) fraction of degree-k𝑘k vertices, k+𝑘superscriptk\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}. This section shows that min-seed(Δ)(G,ρ)=O(ργ1|V|),superscriptmin-seedΔ𝐺𝜌𝑂superscript𝜌𝛾1𝑉\text{min-seed}^{(\Delta)}(G,\rho)=O(\lceil\rho^{\gamma-1}\,|\,V\,|\rceil), which suggests rapid reversible cascades because scale-free graphs typically have small diameters or average vertex-vertex distances [70, 32, 15, 30, 31]. In the case of asynchronous reversible cascades, min-seedmonotoneasync(G,ρ)=O(ργ1|V|)subscriptsuperscriptmin-seedasyncmonotone𝐺𝜌𝑂superscript𝜌𝛾1𝑉\text{min-seed}^{\text{async}}_{\text{monotone}}(G,\rho)=O(\lceil\rho^{\gamma-1}\,|\,V\,|\rceil). Compared with Fact 5, therefore, activating all vertices requires fewer seeds on connected scale-free graphs than on Erdős-Rényi random graphs G(n,p)𝐺𝑛𝑝G(n,p) for ω(1/n)ρo(1)𝜔1𝑛𝜌𝑜1\omega(1/n)\leq\rho\leq o(1) and p=Ω((ln(e/ρ))/(ρn))𝑝Ω𝑒𝜌𝜌𝑛p=\Omega((\ln(e/\rho))/(\rho n)) with a sufficiently large hidden constant in the Ω()Ω\Omega(\cdot) notation. This holds even if we allow deactivations and require the cascades to succeed regardless of the (progressive) synchronizations in connected scale-free graphs but not in Erdős-Rényi random graphs.

Theorem 14.

Let G(V,E)𝐺𝑉𝐸G(V,E) be an undirected connected graph with diameter ΔΔ\Delta and ρ( 0,1]𝜌 01\rho\in(\,0,1\,]. If C>0𝐶0C>0 and γ>2𝛾2\gamma>2 are constants with

|{vVd(v)=k}||V|Ckγconditional-set𝑣𝑉𝑑𝑣𝑘𝑉𝐶superscript𝑘𝛾\displaystyle\frac{\left|\,\left\{v\in V\mid d(v)=k\right\}\,\right|}{|\,V\,|}\leq\frac{C}{k^{\gamma}}(14)

for all k+,𝑘superscriptk\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}, then

min-seed(Δ)(G,ρ)=O(ργ1|V|).superscriptmin-seedΔ𝐺𝜌𝑂superscript𝜌𝛾1𝑉\displaystyle\text{\rm min-seed}^{(\Delta)}\left(G,\rho\right)=O\left(\left\lceil\rho^{\gamma-1}\,|\,V\,|\right\rceil\right).(15)
Proof.

We may assume without loss of generality that ρ<0.1𝜌0.1\rho<0.1 for, otherwise, Eq. (15) holds trivially (note that γ𝛾\gamma is a constant). By Lemma 8,

min-seed(Δ)(G,ρ)=O(2+vV,d(v)>1/ρρd(v)).superscriptmin-seedΔ𝐺𝜌𝑂2subscriptformulae-sequence𝑣𝑉𝑑𝑣1𝜌𝜌𝑑𝑣\displaystyle\text{\rm min-seed}^{(\Delta)}\left(G,\rho\right)=O\left(2+\sum_{v\in V,d(v)>1/\rho}\,\rho\,d(v)\right).(16)

Now,

vV,d(v)>1/ρd(v)subscriptformulae-sequence𝑣𝑉𝑑𝑣1𝜌𝑑𝑣\displaystyle\sum_{v\in V,d(v)>1/\rho}\,d(v)
Eq. (14)superscriptEq. (14)\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{Eq.~{}(\ref{thescalefreecondition})}}}{{\leq}}k,k>1/ρkC|V|kγsubscriptformulae-sequence𝑘𝑘1𝜌𝑘𝐶𝑉superscript𝑘𝛾\displaystyle\sum_{k\in\mathbb{N},k>1/\rho}\,k\cdot\frac{C\,|\,V\,|}{k^{\gamma}}
\displaystyle\leq1/ρ1C|V|xγ1dxsuperscriptsubscript1𝜌1𝐶𝑉superscript𝑥𝛾1differential-d𝑥\displaystyle\int_{1/\rho-1}^{\infty}\!\frac{C\,|\,V\,|}{x^{\gamma-1}}\,\mathrm{d}x
=\displaystyle=O(ργ2|V|),𝑂superscript𝜌𝛾2𝑉\displaystyle O\left(\rho^{\gamma-2}|\,V\,|\right),

where the second inequality follows from elementary calculus and the O()𝑂O(\cdot) notation hides constants dependent on C𝐶C and γ𝛾\gamma. This and Eq. (16) complete the proof. ∎

Corollary 15.

Let G(V,E)𝐺𝑉𝐸G(V,E) be an undirected connected graph with diameter ΔΔ\Delta and ρ( 0,1]𝜌 01\rho\in(\,0,1\,]. If C>0𝐶0C>0 and γ>2𝛾2\gamma>2 are constants satisfying Eq. (14) for all k+,𝑘superscriptk\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}, then

min-seedmonotoneasync(G,ρ)=O(ργ1|V|).subscriptsuperscriptmin-seedasyncmonotone𝐺𝜌𝑂superscript𝜌𝛾1𝑉\displaystyle\text{\rm min-seed}^{\text{\rm async}}_{\text{\rm monotone}}\left(G,\rho\right)=O\left(\left\lceil\rho^{\gamma-1}\,|\,V\,|\right\rceil\right).(17)
Proof.

In the proof of Theorem 14, invoke Corollary 9 instead of Lemma 8. ∎

5 Bounds for Erdős-Rényi random graphs

Fact 5 does not give that

min-seed(1)(G(n,p),ρ)=O(ρn),superscriptmin-seed1𝐺𝑛𝑝𝜌𝑂𝜌𝑛\displaystyle\text{min-seed}^{(1)}\left(G(n,p),\rho\right)=O\left(\rho n\right),
min-seedmonotoneasync(G(n,p),ρ)=O(ρn)subscriptsuperscriptmin-seedasyncmonotone𝐺𝑛𝑝𝜌𝑂𝜌𝑛\displaystyle\text{min-seed}^{\text{async}}_{\text{monotone}}\left(G(n,p),\rho\right)=O\left(\rho n\right)

because of possible deactivations, the requirement of activating all vertices in only one round and the arbitrary (yet progressive) synchronizations of the cascades. Still, this section proves both equations for p=Ω((ln(e/ρ))/(ρn))𝑝Ω𝑒𝜌𝜌𝑛p=\Omega((\ln(e/\rho))/(\rho n)).

Lemma 16.

Let n+,𝑛superscriptn\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}, ρ[ 1/n1/3,1],𝜌1superscript𝑛131\rho\in[\,1/n^{1/3},1\,], C>1𝐶1C>1 and p(100/(Cρn))ln(e/ρ)𝑝100𝐶𝜌𝑛𝑒𝜌p\geq(100/(C\rho n))\ln(e/\rho). Then with probability 1exp(Ω((ρ2n/C)ln(e/ρ)))1Ωsuperscript𝜌2𝑛𝐶𝑒𝜌1-\exp{(-\Omega((\rho^{2}n/C)\ln{(e/\rho)}))} over the Erdős-Rényi random graphs G(n,p),𝐺𝑛𝑝G(n,p),

min-seed(1)(G(n,p),ρ)=O(Cρn).superscriptmin-seed1𝐺𝑛𝑝𝜌𝑂𝐶𝜌𝑛\displaystyle\text{\rm min-seed}^{(1)}\left(G(n,p),\rho\right)=O\left(C\rho n\right).(18)
Proof.

Assume ρ<1/(10C)𝜌110𝐶\rho<1/(10C) for, otherwise, Eq. (18) holds trivially. By Fact 4,

Pr[|{vVd(v)<1Cρlneρ}|ρ3n]exp(Ω(ρ2nClneρ)).Prconditional-set𝑣𝑉𝑑𝑣1𝐶𝜌𝑒𝜌superscript𝜌3𝑛Ωsuperscript𝜌2𝑛𝐶𝑒𝜌\displaystyle\Pr\left[\,\left|\,\left\{v\in V\mid d(v)<\frac{1}{C\rho}\ln{\frac{e}{\rho}}\right\}\,\right|\geq\left\lfloor\rho^{3}n\right\rfloor\,\right]\leq\exp{\left(-\Omega\left(\frac{\rho^{2}n}{C}\ln{\frac{e}{\rho}}\right)\right)}.

This and Lemma 12 complete the proof. ∎

Lemma 17.

Let n+,𝑛superscriptn\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}, ρ( 0,1],𝜌 01\rho\in(\,0,1\,], C>1𝐶1C>1 and p(100/(Cρn))ln(e/ρ)𝑝100𝐶𝜌𝑛𝑒𝜌p\geq(100/(C\rho n))\ln(e/\rho). Then with probability 1(1/ρ3)exp(Ω((1/(Cρ))ln(e/ρ)))11superscript𝜌3Ω1𝐶𝜌𝑒𝜌1-(1/\rho^{3})\exp{(-\Omega((1/(C\rho))\ln{(e/\rho)}))} over the Erdős-Rényi random graphs G(n,p),𝐺𝑛𝑝G(n,p),

min-seed(1)(G(n,p),ρ)=O(Cρn).superscriptmin-seed1𝐺𝑛𝑝𝜌𝑂𝐶𝜌𝑛\text{\rm min-seed}^{(1)}\left(G(n,p),\rho\right)=O\left(C\rho n\right).
Proof.

By Chernoff’s bound (Fact 3),

Pr[d(v)<1Cρlneρ]exp(Ω(1Cρlneρ)),Pr𝑑𝑣1𝐶𝜌𝑒𝜌Ω1𝐶𝜌𝑒𝜌\Pr\left[\,d(v)<\frac{1}{C\rho}\ln{\frac{e}{\rho}}\,\right]\leq\exp{\left(-\Omega\left(\frac{1}{C\rho}\ln{\frac{e}{\rho}}\right)\right)},

v{1,2,,n}𝑣12𝑛v\in\{1,2,\ldots,n\}. So by the linearity of expectation,

E[|{v{1,2,,n}d(v)<1Cρlneρ}|]nexp(Ω(1Cρlneρ)),𝐸delimited-[]conditional-set𝑣12𝑛𝑑𝑣1𝐶𝜌𝑒𝜌𝑛Ω1𝐶𝜌𝑒𝜌E\left[\,\left|\,\left\{v\in\{1,2,\ldots,n\}\mid d(v)<\frac{1}{C\rho}\ln{\frac{e}{\rho}}\right\}\,\right|\,\right]\leq n\,\exp{\left(-\Omega\left(\frac{1}{C\rho}\ln{\frac{e}{\rho}}\right)\right)},

implying

Pr[|{v{1,2,,n}d(v)<1Cρlneρ}|ρ3n]1ρ3exp(Ω(1Cρlneρ))Prconditional-set𝑣12𝑛𝑑𝑣1𝐶𝜌𝑒𝜌superscript𝜌3𝑛1superscript𝜌3Ω1𝐶𝜌𝑒𝜌\Pr\left[\,\left|\,\left\{v\in\{1,2,\ldots,n\}\mid d(v)<\frac{1}{C\rho}\ln{\frac{e}{\rho}}\right\}\,\right|\geq\rho^{3}n\,\right]\leq\frac{1}{\rho^{3}}\,\exp{\left(-\Omega\left(\frac{1}{C\rho}\ln{\frac{e}{\rho}}\right)\right)}

by Markov’s inequality (Fact 2). This and Lemma 12 complete the proof. ∎

Theorem 18.

Let n+,𝑛superscriptn\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}, ρ( 0,1]𝜌 01\rho\in(\,0,1\,] and p=Ω((ln(e/ρ))/(ρn))𝑝Ω𝑒𝜌𝜌𝑛p=\Omega((\ln(e/\rho))/(\rho n)). Then with probability 1exp(nΩ(1))1superscript𝑛Ω11-\exp{(-n^{\Omega(1)})} over the Erdős-Rényi random graphs G(n,p),𝐺𝑛𝑝G(n,p),

min-seed(1)(G(n,p),ρ)=O(ρn).superscriptmin-seed1𝐺𝑛𝑝𝜌𝑂𝜌𝑛\text{\rm min-seed}^{(1)}\left(G(n,p),\rho\right)=O\left(\rho n\right).
Proof.

For a sufficiently large constant C,𝐶C, invoke Lemma 16 if ρ1/n1/3𝜌1superscript𝑛13\rho\geq 1/n^{1/3} and Lemma 17 otherwise. ∎

By Fact 5 and Theorem 18, for p=Ω((ln(e/ρ))/(ρn))𝑝Ω𝑒𝜌𝜌𝑛p=\Omega((\ln(e/\rho))/(\rho n)) with a sufficiently large hidden constant in the Ω()Ω\Omega(\cdot) notation,

min-seed(k)(G(n,p),ρ)=Θ(ρn)superscriptmin-seed𝑘𝐺𝑛𝑝𝜌Θ𝜌𝑛\text{\rm min-seed}^{(k)}\left(G(n,p),\rho\right)=\Theta\left(\rho n\right)

with probability 1nΩ(1)1superscript𝑛Ω11-n^{-\Omega(1)} for all k+𝑘superscriptk\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}. This is asymptotically the same as the bound in Fact 5 for irreversible cascades.

Corollary 19.

Let n+,𝑛limit-fromn\in\mathbb{Z}+, ρ( 0,1]𝜌 01\rho\in(\,0,1\,] and p=Ω((ln(e/ρ))/(ρn))𝑝Ω𝑒𝜌𝜌𝑛p=\Omega((\ln(e/\rho))/(\rho n)). Then with probability 1exp(nΩ(1))1superscript𝑛Ω11-\exp{(-n^{\Omega(1)})} over the Erdős-Rényi random graphs G(n,p),𝐺𝑛𝑝G(n,p),

min-seedmonotoneasync(G(n,p),ρ)=O(ρn).subscriptsuperscriptmin-seedasyncmonotone𝐺𝑛𝑝𝜌𝑂𝜌𝑛\text{\rm min-seed}^{\text{\rm async}}_{\text{\rm monotone}}\left(G(n,p),\rho\right)=O\left(\rho n\right).
Proof.

By Theorem 18, there exists a set S𝑆S of O(ρn)𝑂𝜌𝑛O(\rho n) seeds with Active(1)(S,G,ρ)=VsuperscriptActive1𝑆𝐺𝜌𝑉\text{\sf Active}^{(1)}(S,G,\rho)=V. Hence the theorem follows from Fact 1. ∎

6 Conclusions

Reversible cascades are central in local interaction games with full rationality [65, 51] and the propagation of transient faults in majority-based systems [74, 41, 42]. We investigated them in connected scale-free and Erdős-Rényi random graphs. Suppose ω(1/n)ρo(1)𝜔1𝑛𝜌𝑜1\omega(1/n)\leq\rho\leq o(1) and p=Ω((ln(e/ρ))/(ρn))𝑝Ω𝑒𝜌𝜌𝑛p=\Omega((\ln(e/\rho))/(\rho n)) with a sufficiently large hidden constant in the Ω()Ω\Omega(\cdot) notation. Theorems 1418 and Fact 5 show that activating all vertices is easier (in terms of the number of seeds deployed) on connected scale-free graphs than on Erdős-Rényi random graphs G(n,p)𝐺𝑛𝑝G(n,p). However, an asymptotically smallest set of seeds that activate all vertices of G(n,p)𝐺𝑛𝑝G(n,p) (which has size Θ(ρn)Θ𝜌𝑛\Theta(\rho n) by Fact 5 and Theorem 18) can do so in one round by Theorem 18, whereas Theorem 14 does not show seeds activating all vertices of connected scale-free graphs within O(1)𝑂1O(1) rounds. It thus remains to further investigate the tradeoff between the number of seeds and the round complexity for activating all vertices in scale-free graphs. Such tradeoffs are studied for many graphs by Flocchini et al. [41] because of their theoretical and practical importance. Another interesting direction is to refine the O(ργ1|V|)𝑂superscript𝜌𝛾1𝑉O(\lceil\rho^{\gamma-1}|\,V\,|\rceil) bound in Theorem 14 for many important scale-free graphs such as those mentioned in Sec. 1.

References

  • [1] E. Ackerman, O. Ben-Zwi, and G. Wolfovitz. Combinatorial model and bounds for target set selection. Theoretical Computer Science, 2010. Forthcoming. DOI: 10.1016/j.tcs.2010.08.021.
  • [2] Z. Agur. Resilience and variability in pathogens and hosts. IMA Journal on Mathematical Medicine and Biology, 4(4):295–307, 1987.
  • [3] Z. Agur. Fixed points of majority rule cellular automata with application to plasticity and precision of the immune system. Complex Systems, 5(3):351–357, 1991.
  • [4] Z. Agur, A. S. Fraenkel, and S. T. Klein. The number of fixed points of the majority rule. Discrete Mathematics, 70(3):295–302, 1988.
  • [5] W. Aiello, F. Chung, and L. Lu. Random evolution in massive graphs. In J. Abello, P. M. Pardalos, and M. G. C. Resende, editors, Handbook of Massive Data Sets, pages 97–122. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.
  • [6] R. Albert and A.-L. Barabási. Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics, 74(1):47–97, 2002.
  • [7] J. Balogh and G. Pete. Random disease on the square grid. Random Structures & Algorithms, 13(3–4):409–422, 1998.
  • [8] A.-L. Barabási and R. Albert. Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286(5439):509–512, 1999.
  • [9] A. Barrat, M. Barthélemy, and A. Vespignani. Traffic-driven model of the World Wide Web graph. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Algorithms and Models for the Web-Graph, pages 56–67, 2004.
  • [10] E. Berger. Dynamic monopolies of constant size. Journal of Combinatorial Theory Series B, 83(2):191–200, 2001.
  • [11] J.-C. Bermond, J. Bond, D. Peleg, and S. Perennes. The power of small coalitions in graphs. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 127(3):399–414, 2003.
  • [12] A. Blum, T.-H. H. Chan, and M. R. Rwebangira. A random-surfer web-graph model. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Algorithm Engineering and Experiments, pages 238–246, 2006.
  • [13] L. E. Blume. The statistical mechanics of strategic interaction. Games and Economic Behavior, 5(3):387–424, 1993.
  • [14] B. Bollobás. Random Graphs. Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition, 2001.
  • [15] B. Bollobás and O. Riordan. The diameter of a scale-free random graph. Combinatorica, 24(1):5–34, 2004.
  • [16] B. Bollobás, O. Riordan, J. Spencer, and G. Tusnády. The degree sequence of a scale-free random graph process. Random Structures and Algorithms, 18(3):279–290, 2001.
  • [17] A. Bonato. A survey of models of the Web graph. In A López-Ortiz and A. Hamel, editors, Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Combinatorial and Algorithmic Aspects of Networking, pages 159–172. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2004.
  • [18] A. Bonato and J. Janssen. Infinite limits of copying models of the Web graph. Internet Mathematics, 1(2):193–213, 2004.
  • [19] A. Bonato and J. Janssen. Limits and power laws of models for the Web graph and other networked information spaces. In A López-Ortiz and A. Hamel, editors, Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Combinatorial and Algorithmic Aspects of Networking, pages 42–48. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2004.
  • [20] D. Centola, V. M. Eguíluz, and M. W. Macy. Cascade dynamics of complex propagation. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 374(1):449–456, 2007.
  • [21] C.-L. Chang. Analysis of Threshold-Based Processes of Cascading Activation in Graphs. PhD thesis, National Taiwan University, 2010. Advisor: Prof. Yuh-Dauh Lyuu.
  • [22] C.-L. Chang and Y.-D. Lyuu. Spreading of messages in random graphs. Theory of Computing Systems. Forthcoming. DOI: 10.1007/s00224-010-9258-7.
  • [23] C.-L. Chang and Y.-D. Lyuu. Spreading messages. Theoretical Computer Science, 410(27–29):2714–2724, 2009.
  • [24] C.-L. Chang and Y.-D. Lyuu. Bounding the number of tolerable faults in majority-based systems. In T. Calamoneri and J. Díaz, editors, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Algorithms and Complexity, pages 109–119, Rome, Italy, 2010. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
  • [25] P. Chebolu and P. Melsted. PageRank and the random surfer model. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 1010–1018, 2008.
  • [26] N. Chen. On the approximability of influence in social networks. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 1029–1037, 2008.
  • [27] H. Chernoff. A measure of the asymptotic efficiency of tests of a hypothesis based on the sum of observations. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 23(4):493–507, 1952.
  • [28] F. Chung and L. Lu. Connected components in random graphs with given expected degree sequences. Annals of Combinatorics, 6(2):125–145, 2002.
  • [29] F. Chung and L. Lu. Coupling online and offline analyses for random power law graphs. Internet Mathematics, 1(4):409–461, 2003.
  • [30] F. Chung and L. Lu. The average distance in a random graph with given expected degrees. Internet Mathematics, 1(1):91–114, 2004.
  • [31] F. Chung and L. Lu. The small world phenomenon in hybrid power law graphs. In E. Ben-Naim, H. Frauenfelder, and Z. Toroczkai, editors, Complex Networks, pages 89–104. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2004.
  • [32] R. Cohen and S. Havlin. Scale-free networks are ultrasmall. Physical Review Letters, 90(5):058701, 2003.
  • [33] C. Cooper, A. M. Frieze, and J. Vera. Random deletion in a scale-free random graph process. Internet Mathematics, 1(4):463–483, 2003.
  • [34] P. Domingos and M. Richardson. Mining the network value of customers. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 57–66, 2001.
  • [35] D. Donato, L. Laura, S. Leonardi, and S. Millozzi. Simulating the Webgraph: A comparative analysis of models. Computing in Science and Engineering, 6(6):84–89, 2004.
  • [36] P. A. Dreyer and F. S. Roberts. Irreversible k𝑘k-threshold processes: Graph-theoretical threshold models of the spread of disease and of opinion. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 157(7):1615–1627, 2009.
  • [37] G. Ellison. Learning, local interaction, and coordination. Econometrica, 61(5):1047–1071, 1993.
  • [38] A. Fabrikant, E. Koutsoupias, and C. H. Papadimitriou. Heuristically optimized trade-offs: A new paradigm for power laws in the Internet. In Proceedings of the 29th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, pages 110–122, 2002.
  • [39] A. D. Flaxman, A. M. Frieze, and J. Vera. Adversarial deletion in a scale-free random graph process. Combinatorics, Probability and Computing, 16(2):261–270, 2007.
  • [40] P. Flocchini, F. Geurts, and N. Santoro. Optimal irreversible dynamos in chordal rings. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 113(1):23–42, 2001.
  • [41] P. Flocchini, R. Královič, P. Ružička, A. Roncato, and N. Santoro. On time versus size for monotone dynamic monopolies in regular topologies. Journal of Discrete Algorithms, 1(2):129–150, 2003.
  • [42] P. Flocchini, E. Lodi, F. Luccio, L. Pagli, and N. Santoro. Dynamic monopolies in tori. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 137(2):197–212, 2004.
  • [43] Y. Ginosar and R. Holzman. The majority action on infinite graphs: Strings and puppets. Discrete Mathematics, 215(1–3):59–71, 2000.
  • [44] J. P. Gleeson and D. J. Cahalane. Seed size strongly affects cascades on random networks. Physical Review E, 75(5):056103, 2007.
  • [45] E. Goles and J. Olivos. Periodic behavior of generalized threshold functions. Discrete Mathematics, 30(2):187–189, 1980.
  • [46] E. Goles-Chacc, F. Fogelman-Soulie, and D. Pellegrin. Decreasing energy functions as a tool for studying threshold networks. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 12(3):261–277, 1985.
  • [47] M. Granovetter. Threshold models of collective behavior. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(6):1420–1443, 1978.
  • [48] A. Granville. On a paper by Agur, Fraenkel and Klein. Discrete Mathematics, 94(2):147–151, 1991.
  • [49] D. Kempe, J. Kleinberg, and É. Tardos. Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 137–146, 2003.
  • [50] D. Kempe, J. Kleinberg, and É. Tardos. Influential nodes in a diffusion model for social networks. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, pages 1127–1138, 2005.
  • [51] J. Kleinberg. Cascading behavior in networks: Algorithmic and economic issues. In N. Nisan, T. Roughgarden, É. Tardos, and V. Vazirani, editors, Algorithmic Game Theory. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
  • [52] J. Kleinberg, R. Kumar, P. Raghavan, S. Rajagopalan, and A. Tomkins. The Web as a graph: Measurements, models, and methods. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual International Computing and Combinatorics Conference, pages 1–17, 1999.
  • [53] R. Královič. On majority voting games in trees. In Proceedings of the 28th Conference on Current Trends in Theory and Practice of Informatics, pages 282–291, 2001.
  • [54] R. Kumar, P. Raghavan, S. Rajagopalan, D. Sivakumar, A. Tomkins, and E. Upfal. Stochastic models for the Web graph. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 57–65, 2000.
  • [55] J. Kynčl, B. Lidický, and T. Vyskočil. Irreversible 222-conversion set is NP-complete. Technical Report KAM-DIMATIA Series 2009-933, Department of Applied Mathematics, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic, 2009.
  • [56] N. Linial, D. Peleg, Y. Rabinovich, and M. Saks. Sphere packing and local majorities in graphs. In Proceedings of the 2nd Israel Symposium on Theory of Computing Systems, pages 141–149, 1993.
  • [57] F. Luccio. Almost exact minimum feedback vertex set in meshes and butterflies. Information Processing Letters, 66(2):59–64, 1998.
  • [58] F. Luccio and L. Pagli. Web marshals fighting curly link farms. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Fun with Algorithms, pages 240–248, 2007.
  • [59] F. Luccio, L. Pagli, and H. Sanossian. Irreversible dynamos in butterflies. In Proceedings of the 6th International Colloquium on Structural Information & Communication Complexity, pages 204–218, 1999.
  • [60] F. Luccio, L. Pagli, and N. Santoro. Network decontamination in presence of local immunity. International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science, 18(3):457–474, 2007.
  • [61] A. Montanari and A. Saberi. Convergence to equilibrium in local interaction games. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 303–312, 2009.
  • [62] G. Moran. Parametrization for stationary patterns of the r𝑟r-majority operators on 0-1 sequences. Discrete Mathematics, 132(1–3):175–195, 1994.
  • [63] G. Moran. The r𝑟r-majority vote action on 0-1 sequences. Discrete Mathematics, 132(1–3):145–174, 1994.
  • [64] G. Moran. On the period-two property of the majority operator in infinite graphs. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 347(5):1649–1667, 1995.
  • [65] S. Morris. Contagion. Review of Economic Studies, 67(1):57–78, 2000.
  • [66] E. Mossel and S. Roch. On the submodularity of influence in social networks. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 128–134, 2007.
  • [67] R. Motwani and P. Raghavan. Randomized Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, 1995.
  • [68] R. Motwani and Y. Xu. Evolution of page popularity under random Web graph models. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 134–142, 2006.
  • [69] N. H. Mustafa and A. Pekeč. Majority consensus and the local majority rule. In Proceedings of the 28th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, pages 530–542, 2001.
  • [70] M. E. J. Newman, S. H. Strogatz, and D. J. Watts. Random graphs with arbitrary degree distributions and their applications. Physical Review E, 64(2):026118, 2001.
  • [71] G. Pandurangan, P. Raghavan, and E. Upfal. Using PageRank to characterize Web structure. Internet Mathematics, 3(1):1–20, 2006.
  • [72] D. Peleg. Graph immunity against local influence. Technical Report CS96-11, Weizmann Science Press of Israel, 1996.
  • [73] D. Peleg. Size bounds for dynamic monopolies. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 86(2–3):263–273, 1998.
  • [74] D. Peleg. Local majorities, coalitions and monopolies in graphs: A review. Theoretical Computer Science, 282(2):231–257, 2002.
  • [75] D. M. Pennock, G. W. Flake, S. Lawrence, E. J. Glover, and C. L. Giles. Winners don’t take all: Characterizing the competition for links on the Web. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(8):5207–5211, 2002.
  • [76] D. A. Pike and Y. Zou. Decycling Cartesian products of two cycles. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 19(3):651–663, 2005.
  • [77] S. Poljak and M. Sura. On periodical behavior in societies with symmetric influences. Combinatorica, 3(1):119–121, 1983.
  • [78] S. Poljak and D. Turzik. On an application of convexity to discrete systems. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 13(1):27–32, 1986.
  • [79] M. Richardson and P. Domingos. Mining knowledge-sharing sites for viral marketing. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 61–70, 2002.
  • [80] B. Samuelsson and J. E. S. Socolar. Exhaustive percolation on random networks. Physical Review E, 74(3):036113, 2006.
  • [81] D. Stauffer and A. Aharony. Introduction to Percolation Theory. Taylor & Francis, 2nd edition, 1994.
  • [82] M. Steyvers and J. B. Tenenbaum. The large-scale structure of semantic networks: Statistical analyses and a model of semantic growth. Cognitive Science, 29(1):41–78, 2005.
  • [83] D. J. Watts. A simple model of global cascades on random networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(9):5766–5771, 2002.
  • [84] D. B. West. Introduction to Graph Theory. Prentice-Hall, 2nd edition, 2001.
  • [85] H. P. Young. Individual Strategy and Social Structure. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1998.
  • [86] H. P. Young. The diffusion of innovations in social networks. In L. E. Blume and S. N. Durlauf, editors, Economy as an Evolving Complex System, volume 3 of Proceedings volume in the Santa Fe Institute studies in the sciences of complexity, pages 267–282. Oxford University Press, New York, 2006.