there is a vast literature on epidemics on complex networks ( see @xcite for a review ) .
most of the epidemic models consider a transmission mechanism which is independent of the local condition faced by the agents concerned .
however , if there is a factor of coordination or persuasion involved , relative considerations tend to be important in understanding whether some new belief or behavior is adopted @xcite . to fix ideas , it may be useful to think of the diffusion process as modeling the adoption of a new technology . in this case , when an agent is confronted with the possibility of adoption , her decision depends on the persuasion effort exerted on her by each of her neighbors in the social network .
more formally , those neighborhood effects can be captured as follows : the probability that an agent adopts the new technology when @xmath0 out of her @xmath1 neighbors have already adopted can be modeled by a threshold function : this probability is one if @xmath2 and it is zero otherwise . for @xmath3 , this would correspond to a local majority rule .
more generally , some simple models for the diffusion of a new behavior have been proposed in term of a basic underlying model of individual decision - making : as individuals make decisions based on the choices of their neighbors , a particular pattern of behavior can begin to spread across the links of the network @xcite , @xcite . in this work ,
we analyze the diffusion in the large population limit when the underlying graph is a random network with given vertex degrees .
there is now a large literature on the study of complex networks across different disciplines such as physics @xcite , mathematics @xcite , sociology @xcite , networking @xcite or economics @xcite .
there is also a large literature on local interaction and adoption externalities @xcite , @xcite , @xcite , @xcite .
similarly to these works , we study a game where players payoffs depend on the actions taken by their neighbors in the network but not on the specific identities of these neighbors . our most general framework ( presented in section [ sec : mod ] ) allows to deal with threshold games of complements , i.e. a player has an increasing incentive to take an action as more neighbors take the action .
the main contribution of our paper is a model which allows us to study rigorously semi - anonymous threshold games of complements with local interactions on a complex network .
we use a very simple dynamics for the evolution of the play : each time , agents choose the strategy with best payoff , given the current behavior of their neighbors .
stochastic versions of best response dynamics have been studied extensively as a simple model for the emergence of conventions @xcite , @xcite .
a key finding in this line of work is that local interaction may drive the system towards a particular equilibrium in which all players take the same action .
most of the literature following @xcite , @xcite is concerned with stochastic versions of best response dynamics on fixed networks and a simple condition known as risk dominance @xcite determines whether an innovation introduced in the network will eventually become widespread . in this case , bounds on the convergence time have been computed @xcite , @xcite as a function of the structure of the interaction network . in this paper , we focus on properties of deterministic ( myopic ) best response dynamics .
in such a framework , as shown in @xcite , coordination on the risk dominant strategy depends on the network structure , the dynamics of the game and the initial configuration . in particular , this coordination might fail and equilibria with co - existent strategies can exist .
this was shown in @xcite already in the simple case where the underlying network is the two - dimensional lattice . while the results in @xcite depend very much on the details of the particular graph considered
, @xcite derives general results that depend on local properties of the graphs .
more formally , agents are nodes of a fixed infinite graph and revise their strategies synchronously .
there is an edge @xmath4 if agents @xmath5 and @xmath6 can interact with each other .
each node has a choice between two possible behaviors labeled @xmath7 and @xmath8 . on each edge @xmath4
, there is an incentive for @xmath5 and @xmath6 to have their behaviors match , which is modeled as the following coordination game parametrized by a real number @xmath9 : if @xmath5 and @xmath6 choose @xmath7 ( resp .
@xmath8 ) , they each receive a payoff of @xmath10 ( resp .
@xmath11 ) ; if they choose opposite strategies , then they receive a payoff of @xmath12 .
then the total payoff of a player is the sum of the payoffs with each of her neighbors .
if the degree of node @xmath5 is @xmath13 and @xmath14 is her number of neighbors playing @xmath8 , then the payoff to @xmath5 from choosing @xmath7 is @xmath15 while the payoff from choosing @xmath8 is @xmath16 .
hence the best response strategy for agent @xmath5 is to adopt @xmath8 if @xmath17 and @xmath7 if @xmath18 .
a number of qualitative insights can be derived from this simple diffusion model @xcite .
clearly , a network where all nodes play @xmath7 is an equilibrium of the game as is the state where all nodes play @xmath8 .
consider now a network where all nodes initially play @xmath7 and a small number of nodes are forced to adopt strategy @xmath8 ( constituting the seed ) .
other nodes in the network apply best - response updates , then these nodes will be repeatedly applying the following rule : switch to @xmath8 if enough of your neighbors have already adopted @xmath8
. there can be a cascading sequence of nodes switching to @xmath8 such that a network - wide equilibrium is reached in the limit .
in particular , contagion is said to occur if action @xmath8 can spread from a finite set of players to the whole population .
it is shown in @xcite that there is a contagion threshold such that contagion occurs if and only if the parameter @xmath10 is less than the contagion threshold . in particular
the contagion threshold is always at most @xmath19 so that @xmath8 needs to be the risk - dominant action in order to spread .
however this condition is not sufficient and @xcite gives a number of characterizations of the contagion threshold and also shows that low contagion threshold implies the existence of equilibria where both actions are played .
most of the results on this model are restricted to deterministic infinite graphs and the results in @xcite depend on local properties of graphs that need to be checked node - by - node . in networks exhibiting heterogeneity among the nodes
, this approach will be limited in its application . in this work ,
we analyze the diffusion in the large population limit when the underlying graph is a random network @xmath20 with @xmath21 vertices and where @xmath22 is a given degree sequence ( see section [ sec : conf ] for a detailed definition ) .
although random graphs are not considered to be highly realistic models of most real - world networks , they are often used as first approximation and are a natural first choice for a sparse interaction network in the absence of any known geometry of the problem @xcite .
our analysis yields several insights into how the diffusion propagates and we believe that they could be used in real - world situations . as an example , we show some implications of our results for the design of optimal advertising strategies .
our results extend the previous analysis of global cascades made in @xcite using a threshold model .
they differ greatly from the study of standard epidemics models used for the analysis of the spread of viruses @xcite where an entity begin as susceptible and may become infected and infectious through contacts with her neighbors with a given probability . already in the simple coordination game presented above , we show that connectivity ( i.e. the average number of neighbors of a typical agent ) plays an ambiguous role : while it allows the diffusion to spread , when the network is highly connected , the diffusion is also limited by high - degree nodes , which are very stable .
these nodes require a lot of their neighbors to switch to @xmath8 in order to play @xmath8 themselves .    in the case of a sparse random network of interacting agents ,
we compute the contagion threshold in section [ sec : cont ] and relate it to the important notion of _ pivotal players_. we also show the existence of ( continuous and discontinuous ) phase transitions . in section [ sec : eq ] , we analyze the possible equilibria of the game for low values of @xmath10 .
in particular , we give conditions under which an equilibrium with coexistence of large ( i.e. containing a positive fraction of the total population ) connected sets of players @xmath7 and @xmath8 is possible . in section [ sec : ad ] , we also compute the minimal size of a seed of new adopters in order to trigger a global cascade in the case where these adopters can only be sampled without any information on the graph .
we show that this minimal size has a non - trivial behavior as a function of the connectivity . in section [ sec : lmf ] , we give a heuristic argument allowing to recover the technical results which gives some intuition behind our formulas .
our results also explain why social networks can display a great stability in the presence of continual small shocks that are as large as the shocks that ultimately generate a global cascade .
cascades can therefore be regarded as a specific manifestation of the robust yet fragile nature of many complex systems @xcite : a system may appear stable for long periods of time and withstand many external shocks ( robustness ) , then suddenly and apparently inexplicably exhibit a large scale cascade ( fragility ) .
our paper is divided into two parts .
the first part is contained in the next section .
we apply our technical results to the particular case of the coordination game presented above .
we describe our main findings and provide heuristics and intuitions for them .
these results are direct consequences of our main theorems stated and proved in the second part of the paper .
this second part starts with section [ sec : mod ] , where we present in details our most general model of diffusion ( where initial activation and thresholds can vary among the population and also be random ) .
this general model allows to recover and extend results in the random graphs literature and is used in @xcite for the analysis of the impact of clustering .
we also state our main technical results : theorem [ th : epi ] and theorem [ prop : cascade ] .
their proofs can be found in sections [ sec : thepi ] and [ sec : casc ] respectively .
section [ sec : conc ] contains our concluding remarks .
* probability asymptotics : * in this paper , we consider sequences of ( random ) graphs and asymptotics as the number of vertices @xmath21 tends to infinity . for notational simplicity we will usually not show the dependency on @xmath21 explicitly .
all unspecified limits and other asymptotics statement are for @xmath23 . for example , w.h.p .
( with high probability ) means with probability tending to 1 as @xmath24 and @xmath25 means convergence in probability as @xmath26 .
similarly , we use @xmath27 , @xmath28 and @xmath29 in a standard way , see @xcite . for example
, if @xmath30 is a parameter of the random graph , @xmath31 means that @xmath32 as @xmath23 for every @xmath33 , equivalently @xmath34 , or for every @xmath33 , @xmath35 w.h.p .
in this section , we first present the model for the underlying graph .
this is the only part of this section required to understand our main technical results in section [ sec : mod ] .
the remaining parts of this section present and discuss applications and special cases exploring the significance of the technical results derived in the sequel .
we consider a set @xmath36=\{1,\dots , n\}$ ] of agents interacting over a social network .
let @xmath37 be a sequence of non - negative integers such that @xmath38 is even . for notational simplicity we will usually not show the dependency on @xmath21 explicitly .
this sequence is the degree sequence of the graph : agent @xmath39 $ ] has degree @xmath13 , i.e. has @xmath13 neighbors .
we define a random multigraph ( allowing for self - loop and multiple links ) with given degree sequence @xmath40 , denoted by @xmath41 by the configuration model @xcite : take a set of @xmath13 half - edges for each vertex @xmath5 and combine the half - edges into pairs by a uniformly random matching of the set of all half - edges . conditioned on the multigraph @xmath41 being a simple graph
, we obtain a uniformly distributed random graph with the given degree sequence , which we denote by @xmath42 @xcite .
we will let @xmath23 and assume that we are given @xmath43 satisfying the following regularity conditions , see @xcite :    [ cond ] for each @xmath21 , @xmath44 is a sequence of non - negative integers such that @xmath38 is even and , for some probability distribution @xmath45 independent of @xmath21 ,    * @xmath46 for every @xmath47 as @xmath48 ; * @xmath49 ; * @xmath50 } d_i^2=o(n)$ ] .    in words , we assume that the empirical distribution of the degree sequence converges to a fixed probability distribution @xmath51 with a finite mean @xmath52 .
condition [ cond ] ( iii ) ensures that @xmath51 has a finite second moment and is technically required .
it implies that the empirical mean of the degrees converges to @xmath52 .    in some cases
, we will need the following additional condition which implies that the asymptotic distribution of the degrees @xmath51 has a finite third moment :    [ cond2 ] for each @xmath21 , @xmath44 is a sequence of non - negative integers such that @xmath50 } d_i^3=o(n)$ ] .
the results of this work can be applied to some other random graphs models too by conditioning on the vertex degrees ( see @xcite ) . for example
, for the erds - rnyi graph @xmath53 with @xmath54 , our results will hold with the limiting probability distribution @xmath51 being a poisson distribution with mean @xmath52 .
an interesting perspective is to understand how different network structures are more or less hospitable to cascades .
going back to the diffusion model described in the introduction , we see that the lower @xmath10 is , the easiest the diffusion spreads . in @xcite , the contagion threshold of a connected infinite network ( called the cascade capacity in @xcite )
is defined as the maximum threshold @xmath55 at which a finite set of initial adopters can cause a complete cascade , i.e. the resulting cascade of adoptions of @xmath8 eventually causes every node to switch from @xmath7 to @xmath8 .
there are two possible models to consider depending whether the initial adopters changing from @xmath7 to @xmath8 apply or not best - response update .
it is shown in @xcite that the same contagion threshold arises in both models . in this section ,
we consider a model where the initial adopters are forced to play @xmath8 forever . in this case , the diffusion is monotone and the number of nodes playing @xmath8 is non - decreasing .
we say that this case corresponds to the _ permanent adoption model _ : a player playing @xmath8 will never play @xmath7 again .
we will discuss a model where the initial adopters also apply best - response update in section [ sec : eq ] .    to illustrate the notion of contagion threshold , consider the infinite network depicted on figure [ fig : counter34 ] .
it is easy to see that the contagion threshold for such a network is @xmath56 , the same as for the @xmath57-dimensional lattice .
note that in the network of figure [ fig : counter34 ] the density of nodes with degree @xmath58 is @xmath59 and the density of nodes of degree @xmath60 is @xmath61 , whereas in the @xmath57-dimensional lattice , all vertices have degree @xmath60 .
we will see in the sequel that the sequence of random graphs @xmath20 with asymptotic degree distribution such that @xmath62 and @xmath63 has a contagion threshold of @xmath64.to be done     and with density of nodes with degree @xmath58 equals to @xmath59 and degree @xmath60 equals to @xmath61.,width=188 ]    we now compute the contagion threshold for a sequence of random networks . since a random network is finite and not necessarily connected , we first need to adapt the definition of contagion threshold to our context .
we start by recalling a basic result on the size of the largest component of a random graph with a given degree sequence @xcite , namely a sufficient condition for the existence of a _
giant component_.    consider the random graph @xmath20 satisfying conditions [ cond ] with asymptotic degree distribution @xmath45 . if @xmath65 then the size of the largest component of @xmath20 is @xmath66 .
in this case , we say that there exists a _
giant component_.    for a graph @xmath67 and a parameter @xmath10 , we consider the largest connected component of the induced subgraph in which we keep only vertices of degree strictly less than @xmath68 .
we call the vertices in this component _ pivotal players _ :
if only one pivotal player switches from @xmath7 to @xmath8 then the whole set of pivotal players will eventually switch to @xmath8 in the permanent adoption model . for a player @xmath69 ,
we denote by @xmath70 the final number of players @xmath8 in the permanent adoption model with parameter @xmath10 , when the initial state consists of only @xmath71 playing @xmath8 , all other players playing @xmath7 .
informally , we say that @xmath70 is the size of the cascade induced by player @xmath71 .    [ prop : cap ] consider the random graph @xmath20 satisfying conditions [ cond ] and [ cond2 ] with asymptotic degree distribution @xmath45 such that @xmath72 .
we define @xmath55 by : @xmath73 let @xmath74 be the set of pivotal players in @xmath20 .    * for @xmath75 , there are constants @xmath76 such that w.h.p .
@xmath77 and for any @xmath78 , @xmath79 . * for @xmath80 , for an uniformly chosen player @xmath71
, we have @xmath81 .
the same result holds if @xmath82 players are chosen uniformly at random .
note that proposition [ prop : cap ] is valid only for graphs with a giant component ( for graphs with all components @xmath83 , we have trivially that @xmath81 for all values of @xmath10 )
. we can rewrite ( [ eq : cap ] ) as follows : let @xmath84 be a random variable with distribution @xmath51 , i.e. @xmath85 , then @xmath86>{{\mathbb{e}}}[d]\right\}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    we can restate proposition [ prop : cap ] as follows : let @xmath87 be the size of a cascade induced by switching a random player from @xmath7 to @xmath8 .
proposition [ prop : cap ] implies that for @xmath80 , we have @xmath88 as @xmath23 for every @xmath33 , whereas for @xmath75 there exists constants @xmath89 depending only on @xmath10 and the parameters of the graph such that for every @xmath33 , @xmath90 .
informally , we will say that global cascades ( i.e. reaching a positive fraction of the population ) occur when @xmath75 and do not occur when @xmath80 .
we call @xmath55 defined by ( [ eq : cap ] ) the contagion threshold for the sequence of random networks with degree distribution @xmath91 .
this result is in accordance with the heuristic result of @xcite ( see in particular the cascade condition eq . 5 in @xcite ) .
proposition [ prop : cap ] follows from theorem [ prop : cascade ] below which also gives estimates for the parameters @xmath92 and @xmath93 when @xmath75 . under additional technical conditions ,
theorem [ prop : cascade ] shows that @xmath94 in case ( i ) .
note that the condition @xmath95 implies that @xmath96 so that for @xmath97 , we have , @xmath98 .
hence we have the following elementary corollary :    [ cor1/3 ] for any random graph @xmath20 satisfying conditions [ cond ] and [ cond2 ] with asymptotic degree distribution @xmath45 such that @xmath72 , we have @xmath99 .
recall that for general graphs , it is shown in @xcite that @xmath100 .
note also that our bound in corollary [ cor1/3 ] is tight : for a @xmath0-regular network with @xmath101 chosen uniformly at random ( i.e. @xmath20 such that @xmath102 for all @xmath39 $ ] ) , proposition [ prop : cap ] implies that @xmath103 corresponding to the contagion threshold of a @xmath0-regular tree , see @xcite . for @xmath101 ,
a @xmath0-regular random graph is connected w.h.p , so that for any @xmath104 , an initial adopter will cause a complete cascade ( i.e. reaching all players ) . in particular , in this case , the only possible equilibria of the game are all players playing @xmath7 or all players playing @xmath8
. we will come back to the analysis of equilibria of the game in section [ sec : eq ] .
given a degree distribution @xmath51 , proposition [ prop : cap ] gives the typical value of @xmath105 under the uniform distribution on graphs with the prescribed degree distribution .
a question of interest is to find among all graphs with a given degree sequence , which ones achieve the lowest or highest value of the contagion threshold .
indeed , the contagion threshold of a graph can be seen as a proxy for its susceptibility to cascades : the higher the contagion threshold is , the more susceptible the graph is to cascading behavior . clearly if @xmath106 is the maximal degree in the graph , we have @xmath107 . in the case of regular graphs , we saw that the typical contagion threshold is equal to this lower bound : @xmath108 .
note however that there are examples of regular graphs in @xcite with a strictly higher threshold ( see figure 3 there : a @xmath109-regular graph with contagion threshold @xmath110 ) .
hence among all @xmath0-regular graphs , picking a graph at random will give w.h.p . a graph which is the least susceptible to cascades among those @xmath0-regular graphs .
however it is not always the case that picking a graph at random among all graphs with a given degree sequence will result in the least susceptible one .
there are situations where the typical value of the contagion threshold exceeds the lowest possible value : this is the case in the example presented above in figure [ fig : counter34 ] for which the contagion threshold is @xmath111 whereas the sequence of random graphs @xmath20 with asymptotic degree distribution such that @xmath62 and @xmath63 has a contagion threshold of @xmath64 . the recent work @xcite has a similar focus .     for erds - rnyi random graphs and for power law graphs ( dashed curve ) as a function of the average degree @xmath52 .
right : @xmath112 for erds - rnyi random graphs as a function of @xmath52 in the range @xmath113$].,title="fig:",width=188 ]   for erds - rnyi random graphs and for power law graphs ( dashed curve ) as a function of the average degree @xmath52 .
right : @xmath112 for erds - rnyi random graphs as a function of @xmath52 in the range @xmath113$].,title="fig:",width=151 ]    we now consider some examples . first the case of erds - rnyi random graphs @xmath53 where each of the @xmath114 edges is present with probability @xmath115 for a fixed parameter @xmath52 . in this case
, we can apply our results with @xmath116 for all @xmath47 , i.e. the poisson distribution with mean @xmath52 .
as shown in figure [ fig : qc ] ( left ) for the case of erds - rnyi random graphs @xmath53 , @xmath55 is well below @xmath117 , indeed we have @xmath118 for any value of @xmath52 .
as shown in figure [ fig : qc ] ( right ) , we see that @xmath55 is a non - decreasing function of @xmath52 the average degree in the graph for @xmath119 .
clearly on figure [ fig : qc ] ( left ) , @xmath55 is a non - increasing function of @xmath52 , for @xmath120 .
the second curve in figure [ fig : qc ] corresponds to the contagion threshold for a scale - free random network whose degree distribution @xmath121 ( with @xmath122 ) is parametrized by the decay parameter @xmath123 .
we see that in this case we have @xmath124 . in other words , in an erds - rnyi random graph , in order to have a global cascade , the parameter @xmath10 must be such that any node with no more than four neighbors must be able to adopt @xmath8 even if it has a single adopting neighbor . in the case of the scale free random network considered , the parameter @xmath10 must be much lower and any node with no more than nine neighbors must be able to adopt @xmath8 with a single adopting neighbor .
this simply reflects the intuitive idea that for widespread diffusion to occur there must be a sufficient high frequency of nodes that are certain to propagate the adoption .
we also observe that in both cases , for @xmath10 sufficiently low , there are two critical values for the parameter @xmath52 , @xmath125 such that a global cascade for a fixed @xmath10 is only possible for @xmath126 .
the heuristic reason for these two thresholds is that a cascade can be prematurely stopped at high - degree nodes . for erds - rnyi random graphs , when @xmath127 , there exists a giant component , i.e. a connected component containing a positive fraction of the nodes .
the high - degree nodes are quite infrequent so that the diffusion should spread easily . however , for @xmath52 close to one , the diffusion does not branch much and progresses along a very thin tree , `` almost a line '' , so that its progression is stopped as soon as it encounters a high - degree node . due to the variability of the poisson distribution ,
this happens before the diffusion becomes too big for @xmath128 .
nevertheless the condition @xmath129 is not sufficient for a global cascade .
global diffusion also requires that the network not be too highly connected .
this is reflected by the existence of the second threshold @xmath130 where a further transition occurs , now in the opposite direction . for @xmath131 ,
the diffusion will not reach a positive fraction of the population .
the intuition here is clear : the frequency of high - degree nodes is so large that diffusion can not avoid them and typically stops there since it is unlikely that a high enough fraction of their many neighbors eventually adopts .
following @xcite , we say that these nodes are locally stable .     of the cascade ( in percent of the total population ) for erds - rnyi random graphs as a function of @xmath52 the average degree for a fixed @xmath132 .
the lower curve gives the asymptotic fraction of pivotal players @xmath133.,width=170 ]    the proof of our theorem [ prop : cascade ] makes previous intuition rigorous for a more general model of diffusion and gives also more insights on the nature of the phase transitions .
we describe it now .
the lower curve in figure [ fig : cascade ] represents the number of pivotal players in an erds - rnyi random graph as a function of @xmath52 the average connectivity for @xmath134 : hence we keep only the largest connected component of an erds - rnyi random graph where we removed all vertices of degree greater than @xmath135 . by the same heuristic argument as above , we expect two phase transitions for the size of the set of pivotal players . in the proof of theorem [ prop : cascade ] , we show that it is indeed the case and moreover that the phase transitions occur at the same values @xmath136 and @xmath130 as can be seen on figure [ fig : cascade ] where the normalized size ( i.e. fraction ) @xmath133 of the set of pivotal players is positive only for @xmath137 .
hence a cascade is possible if and only if there is a giant component of pivotal players .
note also that both phase transitions for the pivotal players are continuous , in the sense that the function @xmath138 is continuous .
this is not the case for the second phase transition for the normalized size of the cascade given by @xmath139 in proposition [ prop : cap ] : the function @xmath140 is continuous in @xmath136 but not in @xmath130 as depicted on figure [ fig : cascade ] .
this has important consequences : around @xmath136 the propagation of cascades is limited by the connectivity of the network as in standard epidemic models . but around @xmath130 , the propagation of cascades is not limited by the connectivity but by the high - degree nodes which are locally stable .     of the cascade ( in percent of the total population ) for erds - rnyi random graphs as a function of the frequency of the cascade.,width=170 ]    to better understand this second phase transition , consider a dynamical model where at each step a player is chosen at random and switches to @xmath8 .
once the corresponding cascade is triggered , we come back to the initial state where every node play @xmath7 before going to the next step .
then for @xmath52 less than but very close to @xmath130 , most cascades die out before spreading very far .
however , a set of pivotal players still exists , so very rarely a cascade will be triggered by such a player in which case the high connectivity of the network ensures that it will be extremely large .
as @xmath52 approaches @xmath130 from below , global cascades become larger but increasingly rare until they disappear implying a discontinuous phase transition . for low values of @xmath52 , the cascades are infrequent and small .
as @xmath52 increases , their frequencies and sizes also increase until a point where the cascade reaches almost all vertices of the giant component of the graph .
then as @xmath52 increases , their sizes remain almost constant but their frequencies are decreasing .
we considered so far the permanent adoption model : the only possible transitions are from playing @xmath7 to @xmath8 .
there is another possible model in which the initial adopters playing @xmath8 also apply best - response update .
we call this model the _ non - monotonic _ model ( by opposition to the permanent adoption model ) . in this model ,
if the dynamic converges , the final state will be an equilibrium of the game .
an equilibrium of the game is a fixed point of the best response dynamics .
for example , the states in which all players play @xmath7 or all players play @xmath8 are trivial equilibria of the game .
note that the permanent adoption model does not necessarily yield to an equilibrium of the game as the initial seed does not apply best response dynamics . to illustrate the differences between the two models consider the graph of figure [ fig : contrex ] for a value of @xmath141 :
if the circled player switches to @xmath8 , the whole network will eventually switch to @xmath8 in the permanent adoption model , whereas the dynamic for the non - monotonic model will oscillate between the state where only the circled player plays @xmath8 and the state where only his two neighbors of degree two play @xmath8 ( agents still revise their strategies synchronously ) .
( each triangle represents a long line of players).,width=75 ]    clearly if a player induces a global cascade for the non - monotonic model , it will also induce a global cascade in the permanent adoption model . as illustrated by the case of figure [ fig : contrex ] , the converse is not true in general .
hence , a priori , a pivotal player as defined in previous section might not induce a global cascade in the non - monotonic model . in @xcite
, it is shown that if one can find a finite set of initial adopters causing a complete cascade for the permanent adoption model , it is also possible to find another , possibly larger but still finite , set of initial adopters leading to a complete cascade for the non - monotonic model .
hence the contagion threshold as defined in @xcite for infinite graphs is the same for both models . in our case
, we see that if we switch from @xmath7 to @xmath8 two pivotal players who are neighbors , then the whole set of pivotal players will eventually switch to @xmath8 in the non - monotonic model .
hence in our analysis on random networks , we also say that the contagion threshold is the same in both models .
moreover , both models will have exactly the same dynamics if started with the set of pivotal players playing @xmath8 and all other players playing @xmath7 .
in particular , it shows that the dynamic converges and reaches an equilibrium of the game .
hence we have the following corollary :    [ prop : equil ] consider the random graph @xmath20 satisfying conditions [ cond ] and [ cond2 ] with asymptotic degree distribution @xmath45 .
for @xmath75 , there exists w.h.p .
an equilibrium of the game in which the number of players @xmath8 is more than @xmath142 ( defined in proposition [ prop : cap ] ) and it can be obtained from the trivial equilibrium with all players playing @xmath7 by switching only two neighboring pivotal players .    hence for @xmath75 , the trivial equilibrium all @xmath7 , is rather weak since two pivotal players can induce a global cascade and there are @xmath66 such players so that switching two neighbors at random will after a finite number of trials ( i.e. not increasing with @xmath21 ) induce such a global cascade .
we call this equilibrium the pivotal equilibrium
. figure [ fig : mgeo ] shows the average number of trials required .
it goes to infinity at both extremes @xmath136 and @xmath130 .
moreover , we see that for most values of @xmath52 inside this interval , the average number of trials is less than @xmath57 .
if @xmath80 , then by definition if there are pivotal players , their number must be @xmath83 . indeed , in the case of @xmath0-regular graphs , there are no pivotal players for @xmath143 .
hence , it is either impossible or very difficult ( by sampling ) to find a set of players with cardinality bounded in @xmath21 leading to a global cascade since in all cases , their number is @xmath83 .     as a function of @xmath52.,width=188 ]
we now show that equilibria with _ co - existent _ strategies exist . here by co - existent , we mean that a connected fraction of players @xmath7 and @xmath8 are present in the equilibrium .
more formally , we call a _ giant component _ : a subset of vertices containing a positive fraction ( as @xmath21 tends to infinity ) of the total size of the graph such that the corresponding induced graph is connected .
we ask if there exists equilibrium with a giant component of players @xmath7 and @xmath8 ? in the case
@xmath75 , for values of @xmath52 close to @xmath130 , the global cascade reaches almost all nodes of the giant component leaving only very small of connected component of players @xmath7 .
however for @xmath52 close to @xmath136 , this is not the case and co - existence is possible as shown by the following proposition :    [ prop : inactiveer ] in an erds - rnyi random graph @xmath53 , for @xmath75 , there exists @xmath144 $ ] such that :    * for @xmath145 , in the pivotal equilibrium , there is coexistence of a giant component of players @xmath7 and a giant component of players @xmath8 . * for @xmath146 , in the pivotal equilibrium
, there is no giant component of players @xmath7 , although there might be a positive fraction of players @xmath7 .    .
the lower ( green ) curve is the fraction of players @xmath8 in the pivotal equilibrium as a function of @xmath52 ( for @xmath147 ) .
the last ( brown ) curve is the size of the giant component of players @xmath7 in the pivotal equilibrium as a function of @xmath52.,width=188 ]    figure [ fig : inactive ] illustrates this proposition in the case of erds - rnyi random graphs @xmath53 .
the difference between the upper ( red ) and lower ( green ) curve is exactly the fractions of players @xmath7 in the pivotal equilibrium while the brown curve represent the size ( in percentage of the total population ) of the largest connected component of players @xmath7 in the pivotal equilibrium .
this curve reaches zero exactly at @xmath148 .
hence for @xmath146 , we see that there is still a positive fraction of the population playing @xmath7 , but the set of players @xmath7 is divided in small ( i.e. of size @xmath82 ) connected components , like islands of players
@xmath7 in a sea of players @xmath8 .
note also that for erds - rnyi random graphs , the value of @xmath148 is close to @xmath136 .
proposition [ prop : inactiveer ] follows from the following proposition whose proof is given in section [ sec : inactive ] .
we first introduce some notations : for @xmath84 a random variable , we define for @xmath149 , @xmath150 the thinning of @xmath84 obtained by taking @xmath84 points and then randomly and independently keeping each of them with probability @xmath151 , i.e. given @xmath152 , @xmath153 .
we define @xmath154 ( corresponding to the function @xmath155 defined in previous section for @xmath156 and @xmath157 ) , @xmath158 and @xmath159    [ prop : inactive ] consider the random graph @xmath20 satisfying conditions [ cond ] and [ cond2 ] with asymptotic degree distribution @xmath45 .
let @xmath84 be a random variable with distribution @xmath51 .
if @xmath75 , then @xmath160 .
assume moreover that there exists @xmath33 such that @xmath161 for @xmath162 .
there is coexistence of a giant component of players @xmath7 and a giant component of players @xmath8 in the pivotal equilibrium if @xmath163 > 0.\end{aligned}\ ] ]      we consider now scenarios where @xmath164 $ ] and the initial set of adopters grows linearly with the total population @xmath21 .
more precisely , consider now a firm advertising to a group of consumers , who share product information among themselves : potential buyers are not aware of the existence of the product and the firm undertakes costly informative advertising .
the firm chooses the fraction of individuals who receive advertisements .
individuals are located in a social network modeled by a random network @xmath20 with given vertex degrees as in previous section .
however contrary to most work on viral marketing @xcite , @xcite , we assume that the advertiser has limited knowledge about the network : the firm only knows the proportions of individuals having different degrees in the social network .
one possibility for the firm is to sample individuals randomly and to decide the costly advertising for this individual based on her degree ( i.e. her number of neighbors ) .
the action of the firm is then encoded in a vector @xmath165 , where @xmath166 represents the fraction of individuals with degree @xmath1 which are directly targeted by the firm .
these individuals will constitute the seed ( in a permanent adoption model ) and we call them the early adopters
. note that the case @xmath167 for all @xmath1 corresponds to a case where the firm samples individuals uniformly .
this might be one possibility if it is unable to observe their degrees . in order to optimize its strategy ,
the firm needs to compute the expected payoff of its marketing strategy as a function of @xmath168 .
our results allows to estimate this function in terms of @xmath168 and the degree distribution in the social network .
we assume that a buyer might buy either if she receives advertisement from the firm or if she receives information via word of mouth communication @xcite .
more precisely , following @xcite , we consider the following general model for the diffusion of information : a buyer obtains information as soon as one of her neighbors buys the product but she decides to buy the product when @xmath169 where @xmath1 is her number of neighbors ( i.e. degree ) and @xmath170 the number of neighbors having the product , @xmath171 is a binomial random variable with parameters @xmath170 and @xmath172 $ ] and @xmath173 is a general random variable ( depending on @xmath1 ) . in words
, @xmath174 is the probability that a particular neighbor does influence the possible buyer .
this possible buyer does actually buy when the number of influential neighbors having bought the product exceeds a threshold @xmath173 .
thus , the thresholds @xmath173 represent the different propensity of nodes to buy the new product when their neighbors do . the fact that these are possibly randomly selected is intended to model our lack of knowledge of their values and a possibly heterogeneous population .
note that for @xmath175 and @xmath172 $ ] , our model of diffusion is exactly a contact process with probability of contagion between neighbors equals to @xmath174 .
this model is also called the si ( susceptible - infected ) model in mathematical epidemiology @xcite .
also for @xmath157 and @xmath176 , we recover the model of @xcite described previously where players @xmath7 are non - buyers and players @xmath8 are buyers .
we now give the asymptotic for the final number of buyers for the case @xmath172 $ ] and @xmath177 , with @xmath178 ( the general case with a random threshold is given in theorem [ th : epi ] ) .
we first need to introduce some notations . for integers @xmath179 and @xmath180 let @xmath181 denote the binomial probabilities @xmath182 . given a distribution @xmath183
, we define the functions : @xmath184 where @xmath185 .
we define @xmath186:\ : g(z;\balpha,\boldp,\pi)= 0\right\}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] we refer to section [ sec : lmf ] for an intuition behind the definitions of the functions @xmath187 and @xmath188 in terms of a branching process approximation of the local structure of the graph .
[ prop : ad ] consider the random graph @xmath189 for a sequence @xmath190 satisfying condition [ cond ] .
if the strategy of the firm is given by @xmath168 , then the final number of buyers is given by @xmath191 provided @xmath192 , or @xmath193 $ ] , and further @xmath194 for any @xmath195 in some interval @xmath196 .
for three different values of @xmath197 ( @xmath198 and @xmath199 ) .
right : function @xmath200 ( the green function is @xmath201 , the size of the initial seed).,title="fig:",width=188 ]   for three different values of @xmath197 ( @xmath198 and @xmath199 ) .
right : function @xmath200 ( the green function is @xmath201 , the size of the initial seed).,title="fig:",width=188 ]    to illustrate this result , we consider the simple case of erds - rnyi random graphs @xmath53 with @xmath157 , @xmath167 for all @xmath1 , and @xmath202 where @xmath112 is the contagion threshold for this network ( defined in previous section ) . for simplicity , we omit to write explicitly the dependence in @xmath174 and replace the dependence in @xmath51 by the parameter @xmath52 .    as we will see , for some values of @xmath52 there is a phase transition in @xmath203 . for a certain value @xmath204
, we have : if @xmath205 , the size of the diffusion is rather small whereas it becomes very large for @xmath206 .
clearly the advertising firm has a high interest in reaching the critical mass of @xmath207 early adopters .
this phase transition is reminiscent of the one described in previous section .
recall that we are now in a setting where @xmath202 so that a global cascade triggered by a single ( or a small number of ) individual(s ) uniformly sampled is not possible .
hence , the firm will have to advertise to a positive fraction of individuals constituting the seed for the diffusion .
the intuition is the following : if the seed is too small , then each early adopter starts a small cascade which is stopped by high - degree nodes .
when the seed reaches the critical mass , then the cascades coalesce and are able to overcome barriers constituted by high - degree nodes so that a large fraction of the nodes in the giant component of the graph adopt . then increasing the size of the seed has very little effect since most of the time
, the new early adopters ( chosen at random by the firm ) are already reached by the global diffusion .
our theorem [ th : epi ] makes this heuristic rigorous for the general model of diffusion described above ( with random thresholds ) .
we now give some more insights by exploring different scenarios for different values of @xmath10 .    .
the green ( upper ) curve is the size of the final set of players @xmath8 for @xmath208 given by @xmath209 as a function of @xmath52 .
the brown ( lower ) curve corresponds to the minimal size of the seed for a global cascade @xmath210 .
the red curve corresponds to the size of a global cascade when @xmath211 similar as in figure [ fig : cascade].,width=188 ]    consider first a case where @xmath212 , then thanks to the results of previous section , we know that there exists @xmath213 such that for any @xmath214 , a global cascade is possible with positive probability if only one random player switches to @xmath8 . in particular , if a fraction @xmath203 of individuals uniformly sampled are playing @xmath7 , then for any @xmath215 , such a global cascade will occur with high probability . for @xmath131
, we know that a single player can not trigger a global cascade . more precisely , if players are chosen at random without any information on the underlying network , any set of initial adopters with size @xmath82 can not trigger a global cascade , as shown by theorem [ prop : cascade ] .
however the final size of the set of players playing @xmath8 is a discontinuous function of @xmath203 the size of the initial seed .
if @xmath204 is defined as the point at which this function is discontinuous , we have : for @xmath205 , the final set of players @xmath8 will be only slightly larger than @xmath203 but if @xmath206 the final set of players @xmath8 will be very large .
hence we will say that there is a global cascade when @xmath206 and that there is no global cascade when @xmath205 . as shown in figure [ fig : qpetit ] , for @xmath212 , we have @xmath216 for @xmath217 $ ] and @xmath218 for @xmath131 . in figure
[ fig : qpetit ] , we also see that our definition of global cascade when @xmath131 is consistent with our previous definition since the function @xmath219 giving the size of the final set of players @xmath8 when the seed has normalized size @xmath204 is continuous in @xmath52 and agrees with the previous curve for the size of the final set of players @xmath8 when @xmath220 and with only one early adopter .
. minimal size of the seed for a global cascade @xmath210 as a function of @xmath52.,width=188 ]    we now consider the case where @xmath221 . in this case , thanks to the results of previous section , we know that for any value of @xmath52 , a single initial player @xmath8 ( sampled uniformly ) can not trigger a global cascade .
but our definition of @xmath204 still makes sense and we now have @xmath218 for all @xmath52 .
figure [ fig : alphac ] gives a plot of the function @xmath222 .
we see that again there are two regimes associated with the low / high connectivity of the graph . for low values of @xmath52 ,
the function @xmath223 is non - increasing in @xmath52 .
this situation corresponds to the intuition that is correct for standard epidemic models according to which an increase in the connectivity makes the diffusion easier and hence the size of the critical initial seed will decrease .
, low connectivity regime .
size of the final set of players @xmath8 , @xmath224 as a function of the size of the initial seed @xmath203 for different values of @xmath225.,width=188 ]    figure [ fig : va1 ] shows the size @xmath226 of the final set of players @xmath8 as a function of the size of the initial seed @xmath203 for various small values of @xmath52 .
we see that for the smallest values of @xmath52 , there is no discontinuity for the function @xmath227 . in this case
@xmath204 is not defined .
we also see that there is a natural monotonicity in @xmath52 : as the connectivity increases , the diffusion also increases
. however figure [ fig : alphac ] shows that for @xmath228 , the function @xmath222 becomes non - decreasing in @xmath52 .
hence even if the connectivity increases , in order to trigger a global cascade the size of the initial seed has to increase too .
the intuition for this phenomenon is now clear : in order to trigger a global cascade , the seed has to overcome the local stability of high - degree nodes which now dominates the effect of the increase in connectivity .    , high connectivity regime .
size of the final set of players @xmath8 , @xmath224 as a function of the size of the initial seed @xmath203 for different values of @xmath229 ( red , green , brown respectively).,width=188 ]    figure [ fig : va2 ] shows the size @xmath226 of the final set of players @xmath8 as a function of the size of the initial seed @xmath203 for various value of @xmath52 .
here we see that connectivity hurts the start of the diffusion : for small value of @xmath203 , an increase in @xmath52 results in a lower size for the final set of players @xmath8 ! however when @xmath203 reaches the critical value @xmath204 , then a global cascade occurs and its size is an increasing function of @xmath52 . in other words ,
high connectivity inhibits the global cascade but once it occurs , it facilitates its spread .      in this subsection
, we say that a player @xmath7 is inactive and a player @xmath8 is active .
we describe an approximation to the local structure of the graph and present a heuristic argument which leads easily to a prediction for the asymptotic probability of being active .
this heuristic allows us to recover the formulas for the functions @xmath230 .
results from this section are not needed for the rigorous proofs given in sections [ sec : thepi ] and [ sec : casc ] and are only presented to give some intuition about our technical formulas .
this branching process approximation is standard in the random graphs literature @xcite and is related to the generating function approach in physics @xcite .
it is called local mean field ( lmf ) in @xcite and in the particular case of an epidemics with independent contagion on each edge , the lmf approximation was turned into a rigorous argument . for our model of diffusion with threshold , this seems unlikely to be straightforward and our proof will not use the lmf approximation .
the lmf model is characterized by its connectivity distribution @xmath51 defined in condition [ cond ] .
we now construct a tree - indexed process .
let @xmath231 be a galton - watson branching process @xcite with a root which has offspring distribution @xmath232 and all other nodes have offspring distribution @xmath233 given by @xmath234 for all @xmath235 . recall that @xmath236 corresponds to the probability that an edge points to a node with degree @xmath0 , see @xcite .
the tree @xmath231 describes the local structure of the graph @xmath237 ( as @xmath21 tends to infinity ) : the exploration of the successive neighborhoods of a given vertex is approximated by the branching process @xmath231 as long as the exploration is local ( typically restricted to a finite neighborhood independent of @xmath21 ) .
we denote by @xmath238 the root of the tree and for a node @xmath5 , we denote by @xmath239 the generation of @xmath5 , i.e. the length of the minimal path from @xmath238 to @xmath5 .
also we denote @xmath240 if @xmath5 belongs to the children of @xmath6 , i.e. @xmath241 and @xmath6 is on the minimal path from @xmath238 to @xmath5 . for an edge @xmath4 with @xmath240 ,
we denote by @xmath242 the sub - tree of @xmath231 with root @xmath5 obtained by the deletion of edge @xmath4 from @xmath231 .
we now consider the diffusion model described in section [ sec : ad ] ( with threshold for a vertex of degree @xmath1 given by @xmath176 and probability for a neighbor to be influential given by @xmath172 $ ] ) on the tree @xmath231 , where the initial set of active nodes is given by a vector @xmath243}$ ] : if @xmath244 then vertex @xmath5 is in the initial set of active vertices , otherwise @xmath245 . in our model
the @xmath246 s are independent bernoulli random variables with parameter @xmath247 where @xmath13 is the degree of node @xmath5 in the tree .
thanks to the tree structure , it is possible to compute the probability of being active recursively as follows : for any node @xmath248 , let @xmath249 if node @xmath5 is active on the sub - graph @xmath250 with initial set of active nodes given by the restriction of @xmath251 to individuals in @xmath242 and with individual @xmath6 held fix in the inactive state .
then for any node @xmath252 of degree @xmath13 , @xmath5 becomes active if the number of active influential children exceeds @xmath253 .
hence , we get @xmath254 where the @xmath255 s are independent bernoulli random variables with parameter @xmath174
. then the state of the root is given by @xmath256 in order to compute the distribution of @xmath257 , we first solve the recursive distributional equation ( rde ) associated to the @xmath258 s : thanks to the tree structure , the random variables @xmath259 in ( [ eq : y ] ) are i.i.d . and have the same distribution as @xmath258 . hence their distribution
solve the rde given by @xmath260 where for a given @xmath1 , the random variable @xmath261 is bernoulli with parameter @xmath166 , @xmath262 s are independent bernoulli with parameter @xmath174 , @xmath263 has distribution @xmath233 , @xmath264 and the @xmath258 s are i.i.d . copies ( with unknown distribution ) . to solve the rde ( [ eq : rde ] )
, we need to compute only the mean of the bernoulli random variable @xmath264 . hence taking expectation in ( [ eq : rde ] )
directly gives a fixed - point equation for this mean and the following lemma follows ( its proof is deferred to appendix [ sec : techlem ] ) :    [ lem : lmf ] the solutions of the rde ( [ eq : rde ] ) are bernoulli random variable with mean @xmath151 , where @xmath151 is any solution of the fixed point equation : @xmath265 .
for any such solution , the random variable @xmath257 defined in ( [ eq : x ] ) is a bernoulli random variable with mean @xmath266 .    by the change of variable @xmath267 , we see that lemma [ lem : lmf ] is consistent with proposition [ prop : ad ] and allow to recover the functions @xmath230 .
however note that , the rde ( [ eq : rde ] ) has in general several solutions one being the trivial one with @xmath268 corresponding to the trivial equilibrium where every node are active .
the fact that this rde has several solutions is a major difficulty in order to turn this lmf approximation into a rigorous argument . finally , the crucial point allowing previous computation is the fact that in recursion ( [ eq : y ] ) the @xmath258 can be computed `` bottom - up '' so that the @xmath258 s of a given generation ( from the root ) are independent .
the @xmath258 s in ( [ eq : x ] ) encode the information that @xmath5 is activated by a node in the subtree of @xmath231 `` below '' @xmath5 ( and not by the root ) .
if one considers a node in the original graph and runs a directed contagion model on a local neighborhood of this node where only directed contagion toward this node are allowed , then the state of the graph seen from this node is well approximated by the @xmath258 s .
we first present the model for the diffusion process and then our main results for the spread of the diffusion .      in this section ,
we describe the diffusion for any given finite graph @xmath237 with vertex set @xmath36 $ ] .
we still denote by @xmath13 the degree of node @xmath39 $ ] . from now on ,
a vertex @xmath5 is either active or inactive . in our model ,
the initial set of active nodes @xmath269 ( the seed ) will remain active during the whole process of the diffusion ( results for the non - monotonic model are derived in section [ sec : inactive ] ) .
we will consider * single activation * where the seed contains only one vertex and * degree based activation * where the vertex @xmath5 is in the seed with probability @xmath247 , where @xmath13 is the degree of the vertex independently of the others . in other words , each node @xmath5 draws independently of each other a bernoulli random variable @xmath246 with parameter @xmath247 and is considered as initially active if @xmath244 and not initially active otherwise . in the case of degree based activation , we denote @xmath165 the parameters of this activation . in particular , if @xmath270 for all @xmath1 , then a fraction @xmath203 chosen uniformly at random among the population is activated before the diffusion takes place .
* symmetric threshold model : * we first present the symmetric threshold model which generalizes the bootstrap percolation @xcite : a node becomes active when a certain threshold fraction of neighbors are already active .
we allow the threshold fraction to be a random variable with distribution depending on the degree of the node and such that thresholds are independent among nodes .
formally , we define for each node @xmath5 a sequence of random variables in @xmath271 denoted by @xmath272 .
the threshold associated to node @xmath5 is @xmath273 where @xmath13 is the degree of node @xmath5 .
we assume that for any two vertices @xmath5 and @xmath6 , the sequences @xmath272 and @xmath274 are independent and have the same law as a sequence denoted by @xmath275 .
for @xmath276 , we denote @xmath277 the probability distribution of the threshold for a node of degree @xmath278 .
for example in the model of @xcite described in the introduction , we take @xmath279 so that @xmath280 .
we will use the notation @xmath281 and @xmath282 denotes the distribution of thresholds .
now the progressive dynamic of the diffusion on the finite graph @xmath237 operates as follows : some set of nodes @xmath269 starts out being active ; all other nodes are inactive .
time operates in discrete steps @xmath283 . at a given time @xmath284 ,
any inactive node @xmath5 becomes active if its number of active neighbors is at least @xmath285 .
this in turn may cause other nodes to become active .
it is easy to see that the final set of active nodes ( after @xmath21 time steps if the network is of size @xmath21 ) only depends on the initial set @xmath269 ( and not on the order of the activations ) and can be obtained as follows : set @xmath286 for all @xmath5 .
then as long as there exists @xmath5 such that @xmath287 , set @xmath288 , where @xmath289 means that @xmath5 and @xmath6 share an edge in @xmath237 .
when this algorithm finishes , the final state of node @xmath5 is represented by @xmath290 : @xmath288 if node @xmath5 is active and @xmath291 otherwise .
note that we allow for the possibility @xmath292 in which case , node @xmath5 is never activated unless it belongs to the initial set @xmath269 .
note also that the condition @xmath293 is actually not restrictive .
if we wish to consider a model where @xmath294 is possible , we just need to modify the initial seed @xmath269 so as to put node @xmath5 in @xmath269 if @xmath294 .
hence this model is equivalent to ours if we increase @xmath247 accordingly .
* percolated threshold model : * this model depends on a parameter @xmath172 $ ] and a distribution of random thresholds @xmath295 given by @xmath296 as described above .
given any graph @xmath237 and initial set @xmath269 , we now proceed in two phases .
* bond percolation : randomly delete each edge with probability @xmath297 independently of all other edges .
we denote the resulting random graph by @xmath298 ; * apply the symmetric threshold model with thresholds @xmath173 : set @xmath286 and then as long as there is @xmath5 such that @xmath299 , set @xmath288 , where @xmath300 means that @xmath5 and @xmath6 share an edge in @xmath298 and @xmath13 is the degree of node @xmath5 in the original graph @xmath237 .
clearly if @xmath157 , this is exactly the symmetric threshold model .
if in addition @xmath301 , then this model is known as bootstrap percolation @xcite .
on the other hand if @xmath302 and @xmath175 for any @xmath1 , then this is the contact process with probability of activation @xmath174 on each edge .
note that the percolated threshold model is not equivalent to the symmetric threshold model on the ( bond ) percolated graph since threshold depends on the degree in the original graph ( and not in the percolated graph ) .
recall that for integers
@xmath179 and @xmath180 , @xmath181 denotes the binomial probabilities @xmath182 .    for a graph @xmath237 , let @xmath303 and @xmath304 denote the numbers of vertices and edges in @xmath237 respectively . in this section ,
we assume that the followings are given : a sequence of independent thresholds @xmath305 drawn according to a distribution @xmath306 , a parameter @xmath172 $ ] and an activation set drawn according to the distribution @xmath168 .
the subgraph of @xmath189 induced by the activated ( resp .
inactive ) nodes at the end of the diffusion is denoted by @xmath307 ( resp .
@xmath308 ) . for @xmath309 , we denote by @xmath310 the number of vertices in @xmath308 with degree @xmath278 in @xmath237 and @xmath0 in @xmath308 , i.e. the number of vertices with degree @xmath278 in @xmath237 which are not activated and with @xmath0 neighbors which are not activated either . we denote by @xmath311 the number of activated vertices of degree @xmath278 in @xmath237 ( and with possibly lower degree in @xmath307 ) .
we define the functions : @xmath312 where @xmath185 .
we define @xmath313:\ : g(z;\boldp,\boldt,\balpha , \pi)= 0\right\}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] we refer to appendix [ sec : max ] for a justification of the use of the @xmath314 in ( [ eq : max ] ) .
[ th : epi ] consider the random graph @xmath189 ( or @xmath41 ) for a sequence @xmath43 satisfying condition [ cond ] .
we are given with a sequence of independent thresholds @xmath305 drawn according to a distribution @xmath306 , a parameter @xmath172 $ ] and an activation set drawn according to the distribution @xmath168 .
for the percolated threshold diffusion on the graph @xmath189 , we have : if @xmath315 , or if @xmath316 $ ] , and further @xmath317 for any @xmath195 in some interval @xmath196 , then @xmath318 if we condition the induced graph @xmath319 of inactive nodes in @xmath41 on its degree sequence @xmath320 and let @xmath321 be the number of its vertices , then @xmath319 has the distribution of @xmath322 .
the proof of this theorem is given in section [ sec : thepi ] . note that proposition [ prop : ad ] follows easily .      in this section ,
we look at the diffusion with one ( or a small number @xmath82 of ) initial active node(s ) in @xmath189 .    for @xmath323 $ ] , let @xmath324 ( resp .
@xmath325 ) be the subgraph induced by the final active nodes with initial active node @xmath326 ( resp .
initial active nodes @xmath327 ) .
we also define @xmath328 as the subgraph induced by the inactive nodes with initial active node @xmath326 .
the set of vertices of @xmath324 and @xmath328 is a partition of the vertices of the original graph . to ease notation
, we denote @xmath329 , @xmath330 and @xmath331 .
we define @xmath332    we also define @xmath333 and @xmath334 .
we call the following condition the cascade condition : @xmath335 which can be rewritten as @xmath336>{{\mathbb{e}}}[d]$ ] where @xmath84 is a random variable with distribution @xmath51 .
we denote by @xmath337 the largest connected component of the graph @xmath338 on which we apply a bond percolation with parameter @xmath174 ( i.e. we remove each edge independently with probability @xmath297 ) and then apply a site percolation by removing all vertices with @xmath339 .
the vertices of the connected graph @xmath340 are called pivotal vertices : for any @xmath341 , we have @xmath342 .    [
prop : cascade ] consider the random graph @xmath189 ( or @xmath41 ) for a sequence @xmath43 satisfying conditions [ cond ] and [ cond2 ] .
we are given with a sequence of independent thresholds @xmath305 drawn according to a distribution @xmath306 and a parameter @xmath172 $ ] .
* if the cascade condition ( [ eq : casc ] ) is satisfied , then @xmath343 moreover , for any @xmath341 , we have w.h.p .
@xmath344 where @xmath345 is defined by ( [ eq : defxi ] )
. moreover if @xmath346 or @xmath345 is such that there exists @xmath33 with @xmath347 for @xmath162 , then we have for any @xmath341 : @xmath348 if we condition the induced graph @xmath349 of inactive nodes in @xmath41 on its degree sequence @xmath350 and let @xmath351 be the number of its vertices , then @xmath349 has the distribution of @xmath352 . *
if @xmath353 , then for any @xmath354 , @xmath355 .    a proof of this theorem is given in section [ sec : casc ] .
we end this section with some remarks : if the distribution of @xmath173 does not depend on @xmath1 , then the cascade condition becomes with @xmath84 a random variable with distribution @xmath51 : @xmath356}{{{\mathbb{e}}}[d(d-1)]}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] in particular , if @xmath357 ( i.e. the diffusion is a simple exploration process ) , then we find the well - known condition for the existence of a giant component. this corresponds to existing results in the literature see in particular theorem 3.9 in @xcite which extend the standard result of @xcite .
more generally , in the case @xmath172 $ ] and @xmath357 ( corresponding to the contact process ) , a simple computation shows that @xmath358 where @xmath359 $ ] is the generating function of the asymptotic degree distribution . applying theorems [ th : epi ] and [ prop : cascade ]
allow to obtain results for the contact process .
similarly , the bootstrap percolation has been studied in random regular graphs @xcite and random graphs with given vertex degrees @xcite .
the bootstrap percolation corresponds to the particular case of the percolated threshold model with @xmath157 and @xmath360 and our theorems [ th : epi ] and [ prop : cascade ] allow to recover results for the size of the diffusion . finally , the case where @xmath176 and @xmath157 implies directly proposition [ prop : cap ] .
it is well - known that it is often simpler to study the random multigraph @xmath41 with given vertex sequence @xmath43 defined in section [ sec : conf ] .
we consider asymptotics as the number of vertices tends to infinity and thus assume throughout the paper that we are given , for each @xmath21 , a sequence @xmath361 with @xmath362 even .
we may obtain @xmath189 by conditioning the multigraph @xmath41 on being a simple graph .
by @xcite , we know that the condition @xmath363 implies @xmath364 . in this case , many results transfer immediately from @xmath41 to @xmath189 , for example , every result of the type @xmath365 for some events @xmath366 , and thus every result saying that some parameter converges in probability to some non - random value .
this includes every results in the present paper .
henceforth , we will in this paper study the random multigraph @xmath41 and in a last step ( left to the reader ) transfer the results to @xmath189 by conditioning .
we run the dynamic of the diffusion of section [ sec : stm ] on a general graph @xmath41 in order to compute the final size of the diffusion in a similar way as in @xcite .
the main point here consists in coupling the construction of the graph with the dynamic of the diffusion .
the main difference with previous analysis consists in adding to each vertex a threshold with distribution @xmath306 independently form the graph @xmath41 as described in section [ sec : stm ] .
the proof of theorem [ th : epi ] follows then easily see section [ sec : spread ] . in order to prove theorem [ prop : cascade ]
, we use the same idea of coupling ( in a similar spirit as in @xcite for the analysis of the giant component ) but we have to deal with an additional difficulty due to the following lack of symmetry : if @xmath324 is the final set of the diffusion with only @xmath326 as initial active node , then for any @xmath367 , we do not have in general @xmath368 .
we take care of this difficulty in section [ sec : casc ] . in the next section
, we present a preliminary lemma that will be used in the proofs .
a pure death process with rate 1 is a process that starts with some number of balls whose lifetime are i.i.d .
rate 1 exponentials .
each time a ball dies , it is removed . now consider @xmath21 bins with independent rate @xmath369 death processes .
to each bin , we attach a couple @xmath370 where @xmath13 is the number of balls at time 0 in the bin and @xmath273 is the threshold corresponding to the bin .
we now modify the death process as follows : all balls are initially white . for any living ball ,
when it dies , with probability @xmath297 and independently of everything else , we color it green ( an leave it in he bin ) , otherwise we remove it from the bin .
let @xmath371 and @xmath372 denote the number of white and green balls respectively in bin @xmath6 at time @xmath284 , where @xmath373 and @xmath374 .
let @xmath375 be the number of bins that have @xmath278 balls at time @xmath12 and @xmath0 white balls , @xmath5 green balls at time @xmath284 and threshold @xmath376 , i.e. @xmath377 . in what follows we suppress the superscripts to lighten the notation .
the following lemma is an extension of lemma 4.4 in @xcite :    [ lem : death ] consider the @xmath21 independent processes defined above and assume that the sequence @xmath43 satisfies condition [ cond ] where @xmath45 can be a defective probability distribution : @xmath378 .
we assume that the thresholds @xmath379}$ ] are independent in @xmath5 and have distribution @xmath282 as described in section [ sec : stm ] .
then , with the above notation , as @xmath23 , @xmath380    let @xmath381 .
in particular @xmath382 .
first fix integers @xmath383 and @xmath6 with @xmath384 .
consider the @xmath385 bins that start with @xmath278 balls and with threshold @xmath376 .
for @xmath386 , let @xmath387 be the time the @xmath6th ball is removed or recolored in the @xmath170th such bin .
then @xmath388 .
moreover , for the @xmath170th bin , we have @xmath389 . multiplying by @xmath390 and using glivenko - cantelli theorem ( see e.g. proposition 4.24 in @xcite ) , we have @xmath391 since @xmath392 ( by condition [ cond](i ) and the law of large numbers ) , we see that @xmath393 the law of @xmath394 given @xmath395 and @xmath396 is a binomial distribution with parameters @xmath397 and @xmath297 .
hence by the law of large numbers , we have @xmath398    hence each term in ( [ eq : limsup ] ) tends to @xmath12 in probability .
the same holds for any finite partial sum .
let @xmath33 and @xmath269 be such that @xmath399 . by condition [ cond](iii ) , we have @xmath400 .
hence , also @xmath401 .
so that for sufficiently large @xmath21 , we get @xmath402 and @xmath403 and the lemma follows .      our proof of theorem [ th : epi ] is an adaptation of the coupling argument in @xcite .
we start by analyzing the symmetric threshold model .
we can view the algorithm of section [ sec : stm ] as follows : start with the graph @xmath237 and remove vertices from @xmath269 , i.e. the initially active nodes . as a result ,
if vertex @xmath5 has not been removed , its degree has been lowered .
we denote by @xmath404 the degree of @xmath5 in the evolving graph .
then iteratively remove vertices @xmath5 such that @xmath405 .
all removed vertices at the end of this procedure are active and all vertices left are inactive .
it is easily seen that we obtain the same result by removing edges where one endpoint satisfy @xmath405 , until no such edge remains , and finally removing all isolated vertices , which correspond to active nodes .
regard each edge as consisting of two half - edges , each half - edge having one endpoint .
we introduce types of vertices .
we set the type of vertices in the seed @xmath269 to @xmath8 .
say that a vertex ( not in @xmath269 ) is of type @xmath7 if @xmath406 and of type @xmath8 otherwise .
in particular at the beginning of the process , all vertices not in @xmath269 are of type @xmath7 since @xmath407 and all vertices in @xmath269 are by definition of type @xmath8 .
as the algorithm evolves , @xmath408 decreases so that some type @xmath7 vertices become of type @xmath8 during the execution of the algorithm .
similarly , say that a half - edge is of type @xmath7 or @xmath8 when its endpoint is .
as long as there is any half - edge of type @xmath8 , choose one such half - edge uniformly at random and remove the edge it belongs to .
this may change the other endpoint from @xmath7 to @xmath8 ( by decreasing @xmath409 ) and thus create new half - edges of type @xmath8 . when there are no half - edges of type @xmath8 left , we stop .
then the final set of active nodes is the set of vertices of type @xmath8 ( which are all isolated ) .    as in @xcite ,
we regard vertices as bins and half - edges as balls . at each step
, we remove first one random ball from the set of balls in @xmath8-bins and then a random ball without restriction .
we stop when there are no non - empty @xmath8-bins .
we thus alternately remove a random @xmath8-ball and a random ball .
we may just as well say that we first remove a random @xmath8-ball .
we then remove balls in pairs , first a random ball and then a random @xmath8-ball , and stop with the random ball , leaving no @xmath8-ball to remove .
we change the description a little by introducing colors . initially all balls are white , and we begin again by removing one random @xmath8-ball .
subsequently , in each deletion step we first remove a random white ball and then recolor a random white @xmath8-ball red ; this is repeated until no more white @xmath8-balls remain .
we now run this deletion process in continuous time such that , if there are @xmath6 white balls remaining , then we wait an exponential time with mean @xmath410 until the next pair of deletions . in other words ,
we make deletions at rate @xmath6 .
this means that each white ball is deleted with rate 1 and that , when we delete a white ball , we also color a random white @xmath8-ball red .
let @xmath411 and @xmath412 denote the numbers of white @xmath7-balls and white @xmath8-balls at time @xmath284 , respectively , and @xmath413 denotes the number of @xmath7-bins at time @xmath284 .
since red balls are ignored , we may make a final change of rules , and say that all balls are removed at rate @xmath369 and that , when a white ball is removed , a random white @xmath8-ball is colored red ; we stop when we should recolor a white @xmath8-ball but there is no such ball .
let @xmath414 be the stopping time of this process .
first consider the white balls only .
there are no white @xmath8-balls left at @xmath414 , so @xmath415 has reached zero .
however , let us consider the last deletion and recoloring step as completed by redefining @xmath416 ; we then see that @xmath414 is characterized by @xmath416 and @xmath417 for @xmath418 .
moreover , the @xmath7-balls left at @xmath414 ( which are all white ) are exactly the half - edges in the induced subgraph @xmath308 of inactive nodes .
hence , the number of edges in this subgraph is @xmath419 , while the number of nodes not activated is @xmath420 .
if we consider only the total number @xmath421 of white balls in the bins , ignoring the types , the process is as follows : each ball dies at rate @xmath369 and upon its death another ball is also sacrificed .
the process @xmath421 is a death process with rate @xmath57 ( up to time @xmath414 ) .
consequently , by lemma 4.3 of @xcite ( or lemma [ lem : death ] above ) , we have @xmath422 since condition [ cond ] ( iii ) implies @xmath423 .
now if we consider the final version of the process restricted to @xmath7-bins , it corresponds exactly to the death process studied in section [ sec : lem ] above with @xmath157 .
we need only to compute the initial condition for this process . for a degree
based activation , each vertex of degree @xmath278 is activated ( i.e. the corresponding bin becomes a @xmath8-bin ) with probability @xmath424 .
hence by the law of large numbers , the number of @xmath7-bins with initially @xmath278 balls and threshold @xmath376 is @xmath425 . with the notation of lemma [ lem : death ]
, we have @xmath426 with the defective probability distribution @xmath427 .
hence by lemma [ lem : death ] we get ( recall that @xmath157 here ) : @xmath428 it is then easy to finish the proof as in @xcite for this model ( the complete argument is presented below for the more general percolated threshold model ) .
in particular , it ends the proof of theorem [ th : epi ] for the case @xmath157 .
we now consider the percolated threshold model with @xmath429 .
we modify the process as follows : for any white @xmath7-ball when it dies , with probability @xmath297 , we color it green instead of removing it .
a bin is of type @xmath7 if @xmath430 , where @xmath0 is the number of withe balls in the bin , @xmath5 the number of green balls ( which did not transmit the diffusion ) and @xmath278 and @xmath376 are the initial degree and threshold .
let @xmath411 be the number of white @xmath7-balls .
by lemma [ lem : death ] , we now have : @xmath431 in particular , we have thanks to lemma [ lem : equiv ] ( in appendix [ sec : techlem ] ) for @xmath432 , @xmath433 by looking at white balls ( without taking types in consideration ) , we see that equation ( [ eq : ab ] ) is still valid . hence , we have @xmath434    for simplicity we write @xmath435 for @xmath436 .
assume now that @xmath437 is a constant independent of @xmath21 with @xmath438 so that @xmath439 and @xmath440
. hence , we have @xmath441 for @xmath442 $ ] and thus @xmath443 for @xmath444 .
we can find some @xmath445 such that @xmath446 for @xmath444 .
but @xmath416 , so if @xmath447 then @xmath448 and from ( [ eq : b ] ) , we have @xmath449 . in case @xmath315 , we may take any finite @xmath450 and find @xmath451 and ( [ eq : limtau ] ) with @xmath452 , yields that @xmath453 in case @xmath454 , by the hypothesis we can find @xmath455 such that @xmath456 . if @xmath457 , then @xmath458 and thus @xmath459 . hence by ( [ eq : b ] ) , we have @xmath460 . since we can choose @xmath450 and @xmath461 arbitrarily close to @xmath462 , we have @xmath463 and ( [ eq : limtau ] ) with @xmath464 yields that @xmath465 note that @xmath466 and @xmath467 .
hence we proved theorem [ th : epi ] for @xmath468 and @xmath469 .
the results for @xmath470 and @xmath471 follows from the same argument , once we note that @xmath472 finally , the statement concerning the distribution of the induced subgraph @xmath319 follows from the fact that this subgraph has not been explored when previous algorithm stops .
we start this section with some simple calculations .
we define for @xmath473 $ ] , @xmath474 for @xmath475 and @xmath476 , we have @xmath477 so that for @xmath473 $ ] , we have @xmath478 . hence by condition [ cond2 ] , @xmath479 is differentiable on @xmath480 $ ] and we have @xmath481 in particular , we have @xmath482 so that we have @xmath483 . note also that @xmath484 and @xmath485 .
consider now the case ( ii ) where @xmath486 , so that @xmath487 .
the proof for an upper bound on @xmath488 follows easily from theorem [ th : epi ] .
take a parameter @xmath489 with @xmath490 for all @xmath1 . clearly the final set of active nodes @xmath491 will be greater than for any seed with size @xmath83 .
now when @xmath203 goes to zero , the fact that @xmath492 ensures that @xmath493 in theorem [ th : epi ] so that @xmath494 . hence point ( ii ) in theorem
[ prop : cascade ] follows .
we now concentrate on the case where the cascade condition holds .
in particular we have @xmath495 so that @xmath345 defined in ( [ eq : defxi ] ) by @xmath496 is strictly less than one and we have @xmath497 also as soon as there exists @xmath33 such that @xmath347 for @xmath498 , we can use the same argument as above . since , we have in this case @xmath499 as @xmath500
, it gives an upper bound that matches with the statement ( i ) of theorem [ prop : cascade ] . in order to prove a lower bound , we follow the general approach of @xcite . we modify the algorithm defined in section [ sec : spread ] as follows : the initial set @xmath269 now contains only one vertex , say @xmath501 .
when there is no half - edge ( or ball ) of type @xmath8 , we say that we make an exception and we select a vertex ( or a bin ) of type @xmath7 uniformly at random among all vertices of type @xmath7 .
we declare its white half - edges of type @xmath8 and remove its other half - edges , i.e. remove the green balls contained in the corresponding bin if there are any .
exceptions are done instantaneously .    for any set of nodes @xmath502 , let @xmath503 be the subgraph induced by the final active nodes with initial active nodes @xmath502 .
if @xmath504 , then clearly when the algorithm has exhausted the half - edges of type @xmath8 , it removed the subgraph @xmath505 from the graph and all edges with one endpoint in @xmath505 .
then an exception is made by selecting a vertex say @xmath506 in @xmath507 .
similarly when the algorithm exhausted the half - edges of type @xmath8 , it removed the subgraph @xmath508 and all edges with one endpoint in this set of vertices . more generally , if @xmath170 exceptions are made consisting of selecting nodes @xmath509 , then before the @xmath510-th exception is made ( or at termination of the algorithm if there is no more exception made ) , the algorithm removed the subgraph @xmath503 and all edges with one endpoint in this set of vertices .
we use the same notation as in section [ sec : spread ] .
in particular , we still have : @xmath511    we now ignore the effect of the exceptions by letting @xmath512 be the number of white @xmath7 balls if no exceptions were made , i.e. assuming @xmath513 for all @xmath284 .
if @xmath514 is the maximum degree of @xmath515 , then we have @xmath516 $ ] . by condition [ cond ] ( iii ) , @xmath517 , and thus @xmath518 .
hence we can apply results of previous section : @xmath519    we now prove that : @xmath520 the fact that @xmath521 is clear . furthermore , @xmath522 increases only when exceptions are made .
if an exception is made at time @xmath284 , then the process @xmath8 reached zero and a vertex with @xmath6 white half - edges is selected so that @xmath523 .
hence we have @xmath524 between exceptions , if @xmath7 decreases by one then so does @xmath525 , hence @xmath522 does not increase . consequently if @xmath278 was the last time before @xmath284 that an exception was performed , then @xmath526 and ( [ eq : bd ] ) follows .
let @xmath527 , then we have @xmath528 equation ( [ eq : bd ] ) can be written as @xmath529    we first assume that @xmath345 given by ( [ eq : defxi ] ) is such that @xmath530 and there exists @xmath33 such that @xmath347 and hence @xmath531 for @xmath162 .
let @xmath532 .
then by ( [ eq : pos ] ) , we have @xmath533 for @xmath534 so that @xmath535 and hence by ( [ eq : tb ] ) , @xmath536 by condition [ cond ] ( iii ) , @xmath537 .
consequently , ( [ eq : bd1 ] ) yields @xmath538 and thus by ( [ eq : tb ] ) @xmath539    by assumption , there exists @xmath33 sufficiently small for @xmath540 . since @xmath533 on the interval
@xmath541 $ ] , ( [ eq : b2 ] ) implies that w.h.p .
@xmath412 remains positive on @xmath541 $ ] , and thus no exception is made during this interval .
on the other hand , @xmath540 and ( [ eq : tb ] ) implies @xmath542 , while @xmath543 .
thus with @xmath544 , w.h.p . @xmath545 while ( [ eq : tbtau ] ) yields @xmath546 w.h.p . consequently , w.h.p . @xmath547 and
an exception is performed between @xmath414 and @xmath548 .
let @xmath549 be the last time an exception was performed before @xmath550 and let @xmath551 be the next time it is performed .
we have shown that for any @xmath33 , w.h.p .
@xmath552 and @xmath553 .
[ lm : int ] let @xmath554 and @xmath555 be two random times when an exception is performed , with @xmath556 , and assume that @xmath557 and @xmath558 , where @xmath559 . if @xmath560 is the number of vertices removed by the algorithm by time @xmath561 , then @xmath562 in particular , if @xmath563 , then @xmath564 .    by definition
, we have : @xmath565 since @xmath566 and @xmath567 is continuous , @xmath568 , and ( [ eq : tb ] ) and ( [ eq : bd1 ] ) imply , in analogy with ( [ eq : tbinf ] ) and ( [ eq : tbtau ] ) , @xmath569 and @xmath570    let @xmath571 be the number of bins if no exceptions were made
. then we clearly have @xmath572 since each time an exception is made @xmath573 increases by one while @xmath522 increases by more than one . hence ( [ eq : lev ] ) follows from results in previous section .
let @xmath574 ( resp .
@xmath575 ) be the subgraph induced by the vertices removed by the algorithm between @xmath12 and @xmath549 ( resp .
@xmath551 ) . by lemma [ lm : int ]
, we have @xmath576 hence informally , the exception made at time @xmath549 triggers a large cascade .
now consider the case @xmath346 .
note in particular that we have @xmath577 and since @xmath578 , we also have @xmath579 . then with the same argument as above
, we have that @xmath412 remains positive on @xmath580 and thus no exception is made after a last exception made at time @xmath549 with @xmath581 .
hence ( [ eq : c ] ) and ( [ eq : c  ] ) follow with @xmath575 being the whole graph ( except possibly @xmath83 vertices ) , @xmath579 .
we now finish the proof of theorem [ prop : cascade ] in the case where @xmath346 or there exists @xmath33 such that @xmath347 for @xmath582 .
first by @xcite theorems 3.5 and 3.9 , the cascade condition implies that @xmath583 .
the result @xmath584 could be derived from @xcite .
we give an alternative proof for this result at the end of this section . for now , we denote @xmath585 . coming back to the diffusion process analyzed above
, we clearly have @xmath586 .
we now prove that @xmath587 .
this is clear in the case @xmath346 .
we now concentrate on the case @xmath530 .
first , let @xmath588 be the first time after @xmath551 when an exception is made .
since @xmath522 increases by at most @xmath589 each time an exception is made , we obtain from ( [ eq : ta - a ] ) : @xmath590 hence similarly as in ( [ eq : tau ] ) , we have for every @xmath33 , w.h.p .
@xmath591 . since also @xmath592
, it follows that @xmath593 .
if @xmath594 is the subgraph removed by the algorithm between @xmath551 and @xmath588 , then lemma [ lm : int ] implies that @xmath595 .
assume now that @xmath596 , then with probability at least @xmath597 , the vertex chosen for the exception at @xmath551 belongs to @xmath340 and then we have @xmath598 , in contradiction with @xmath595 .
hence we have @xmath599 and then @xmath587 as claimed .
we clearly have for any @xmath341 : @xmath600 hence we only need to prove that @xmath601 . to see this , attach to each vertex @xmath5 a random variable @xmath602 uniformly distributed over @xmath480 $ ] .
each time an exception has to be made , pick the vertex among the remaining ones with minimal @xmath602 so that we do not change the algorithm described at the beginning of the section . from the analysis above
, we see that all exceptions made before @xmath549 are vertices not in @xmath340 and the exception made at time @xmath549 belongs to @xmath340 . now consider the graph @xmath603 obtained from the original graph where @xmath574 has been removed but all other variables are the same as in the original graph . since @xmath604 , this graph satisfies conditions [ cond ] and [ cond2 ] .
hence previous analysis applies and we have in addition that the first exception made by the algorithm belongs to @xmath340 since a pivotal vertex in @xmath237 is also pivotal in @xmath603 .
hence the subgraph of @xmath603 removed between times @xmath605 and @xmath606 by the algorithm is exactly @xmath607 in @xmath603 .
since @xmath603 is a subgraph of @xmath237 , we have @xmath608 in the original graph .
and the first claim in ( i ) follows from ( [ eq : c  ] ) applied to the graph @xmath603 .
the second claim in ( i ) follows exactly as in the proof of theorem [ th : epi ] given in previous section .
now consider the case where @xmath530 but for any @xmath33 , there exists @xmath162 such that @xmath609 and hence @xmath610 . the idea to get a lower bound is to let @xmath174 vary . since @xmath611 , for any @xmath612 , we see that by a standard coupling argument , for any given initial seed all active nodes in the model with @xmath613 will also be active in the model with @xmath174 .
hence the model with @xmath613 provides a lower bound for the number of active nodes in the model with @xmath174 .
now consider the function @xmath614 as a function of @xmath174 .
we have @xmath615\end{aligned}\ ] ] since @xmath345 is a local minimum of @xmath616 and @xmath155 is differentiable as a function of @xmath195 , we have @xmath617 hence we have @xmath618 .
in particular for @xmath619 , we have @xmath620 .
let @xmath621 , then we have @xmath622 for any @xmath623 and @xmath624 for @xmath625 .
moreover , we have @xmath626 as @xmath627 and previous argument is valid for the model with @xmath613 as close as desired from @xmath174 showing that @xmath628 is a lower bound for the fraction of active nodes in the model with @xmath174 .
we finish this proof by computing the asymptotic for the size of @xmath340 using our previous analysis but for a modified threshold as done in @xcite .
we add a bar for quantities associated to this new model .
namely , consider a modification of the original diffusion with threshold @xmath629 . in words , a node @xmath5 becomes active if one of its neighbor is active and @xmath630 in the original diffusion model .
clearly the nodes that become active in this model need to have only one active neighbor in the original diffusion model with parameter @xmath631 .
we denote by @xmath632 the subgraph of final active nodes with initial active node @xmath326 .
note that our algorithm is an exploration process of the components of the graph on which we apply a bond percolation with parameter @xmath174 and a site percolation by removing all vertices with @xmath339 .
in particular , the largest component explored is exactly @xmath340 .
note that the computations made before are valid with the following functions : @xmath633 hence we have @xmath634,\ : \bg(z)=0 \}$ ] .
note that if we denote @xmath635 , then we have @xmath636 in particular , @xmath637 is concave on @xmath638 $ ] and strictly concave unless @xmath639 for @xmath640 .
note also that @xmath641 , so that under the cascade condition @xmath642 and @xmath637 is strictly concave .
hence , we have @xmath643 and @xmath644 for @xmath645 and if @xmath530 , then @xmath646 for @xmath647 . in particular
, previous analysis allows to conclude that @xmath584 .
we start with the proof of proposition [ prop : inactive ] . by theorem [ prop : cascade ] ,
when the cascade condition holds , the set of active vertices contain the set of pivotal vertices and hence has a giant component .
we denote @xmath648 the induced subgraph of inactive vertices , in the pivotal equilibrium ( i.e. in the final state when all pivotal nodes are initially active ) . by theorem [ prop : cascade ]
, we have for @xmath649 , the number of vertices in @xmath648 with degree @xmath0 in @xmath648 : @xmath650 we denote @xmath651 .
thanks to the result on the distribution of @xmath648 , there is a giant component of inactive vertices if @xmath652 which can be rewritten as in proposition [ prop : inactive ] .
we now prove proposition [ prop : inactiveer ] .
we assume that @xmath653 , @xmath157 and @xmath654 .
the function @xmath655 is increasing for @xmath656 and then decreasing .
we assume that @xmath10 is fixed such that the cascade condition holds . then @xmath657 . then @xmath658 while @xmath659 .
we denote @xmath660 then , there is a giant component of inactive vertices if @xmath661 .
both functions are non - increasing in @xmath137 and are intersecting only once in @xmath662 .
this paper analyzes the spread of new behaviors or technologies in large social networks .
our analysis is motivated by the two qualitative features of global cascades in social and economics systems : they occur rarely , but are large when they do .    in our simplest model , agents play a local interaction binary game where the underlying social network is modeled by a sparse random graph . considering the deterministic best response dynamics ,
we compute the contagion threshold for this model .
we find that when the social network is sufficiently sparse , the contagion is limited by the low connectivity of the network ; when it is sufficiently dense , the contagion is limited by the stability of the high - degree nodes .
this phenomenon explains why contagion is possible only in a given range of the global connectivity .
most importantly , we identify the set of agents able to trigger a large cascade : the pivotal players , i.e. the largest component of players requiring a single neighbor to change strategy in order to follow the change .
the notion of pivotal player is crucial in the context of random graphs .
cascades occur only when pivotal players represent a positive fraction of the population and in this case , any cascade will be triggered by such a pivotal player .
we found that these pivotal players exist only if the connectivity of the network is in a given range . at both ends of this range ( i.e. for low and high - connectivity ) ,
the number of pivotal players is low .
however in the high - connectivity case , we found that the system displays a robust - yet - fragile quality : while pivotal players are very rare , they trigger very large cascades .
this feature makes global contagions exceptionally hard to anticipate .
we also analyze possible equilibria of the game and in particular , we find conditions for the existence of equilibria with co - existent conventions .    motivated by social advertising , we also consider cases where the number of pivotal players is a negligible fraction of the population . in this case , contagion is still possible if the set of initial adopters is sufficiently large .
we compute the final size of the contagion as a function of the fraction of the initial adopters .
we find that the low and high - connectivity cases still have different features : in the first case , the global connectivity helps the spread of the contagion while in the second case , high connectivity inhibits the global contagion but once it occurs , it facilitates its spread .
finally , we analyze a general percolated threshold model for the diffusion allowing to give different weights to the ( anonymous ) neighbors .
our general analysis gives explicit formulas for the spread of the diffusion in terms of the initial condition , the degree sequence of the random graph , and the distribution of the thresholds .
it is hoped that this analysis will stimulate applications of our results to other practical cases .
one such possibility is the study of financial networks as started in @xcite and @xcite .
amini , h. ( 2010 ) .
bootstrap percolation and diffusion in random graphs with given vertex degrees .  _
17_(1 ) , research paper 25 , 20 .
athreya , k.  b. and p.  e. ney ( 1972 ) . .
new york : springer - verlag .
die grundlehren der mathematischen wissenschaften , band 196 .
bailey , n. t.  j. ( 1975 ) .
( second ed . ) .
hafner press [ macmillan publishing co. , inc . ]  new york .
balogh , j. and b.  g. pittel ( 2007 ) .
bootstrap percolation on the random regular graph .  _
30_(1 - 2 ) , 257286 .
battiston , s. , d.  gatti , m.  gallegati , b.  greenwald , and j.  stiglitz ( 2009 ) .
blume , l. , d.  easley , j.  kleinberg , r.  kleinberg , and e.  tardos ( 2011 ) . in _
focs 2011_.    blume , l.  e. ( 1993 ) .
the statistical mechanics of strategic interaction .  _
5_(3 ) , 387424 .
blume , l.  e. ( 1995 ) .
the statistical mechanics of best - response strategy revision .  _
11_(2 ) , 111145 . evolutionary game theory in biology and economics .
bollobs , b. ( 2001 ) .
( second ed . ) , volume  73 of _ cambridge studies in advanced mathematics_. cambridge : cambridge university press .
carlson , j. and j.  doyle ( 2002 ) . .
99_(suppl 1 ) , 2538 .
coupechoux , e. and m.  lelarge ( 2011 ) . .
netgcoop 2011_.    durrett , r. ( 2007 ) . .
cambridge : cambridge university press .
easley , d. and j.  kleinberg ( 2010 ) . .
cambridge university press .
ellison , g. ( 1993 ) .
learning , local interaction , and coordination .  _
61_(5 ) , 10471071 .
ellison , g. and d.  fudenberg ( 1995 ) .
word - of - mouth communication and social learning .  _
110_(1 ) , 93125 .
gai , p. and s.  kapadia ( 2010 ) . .  _
466_(2120 ) , 2401 .
galeotti , a. and s.  goyal ( 2009 ) . influencing the influencers : a theory of strategic diffusion .  _
40_(3 ) , 509532 .
galeotti , a. , s.  goyal , m.  o. jackson , and f.  vega - redondo ( 2010 ) . network games .  _
77_(1 ) , 218244 .    harsanyi , j.  c. and r.  selten ( 1988 ) .
, volume  1 of _ mit press books_. the mit press .
jackson , m.  o. ( 2008 ) . .
princeton , nj , usa : princeton university press .
jackson , m.  o. and l.  yariv ( 2007 ) .
diffusion of behavior and equilibrium properties in network games .  _
97_(2 ) .    janson , s. ( 2009a ) .
on percolation in random graphs with given vertex degrees .
_ 14 _ , 86118 .
janson , s. ( 2009b ) .
the probability that a random multigraph is simple .  _
18_(1 - 2 ) , 205225 .
janson , s. and m.  j. luczak ( 2007 ) .
a simple solution to the @xmath170-core problem .  _
30_(1 - 2 ) , 5062 .
janson , s. and m.  j. luczak ( 2009 ) . a new approach to the giant component problem .  _
34_(2 ) , 197216 .
janson , s. , t.  uczak , and a.  rucinski ( 2000 ) . .
wiley - interscience series in discrete mathematics and optimization .
wiley - interscience , new york .
kallenberg , o. ( 2002 ) .
( second ed . ) .
probability and its applications ( new york ) .
new york : springer - verlag .
kandori , m. , g.  j. mailath , and r.  rob ( 1993 ) .
learning , mutation , and long run equilibria in games .  _
61_(1 ) , 2956 .
kempe , d. , j.  kleinberg , and e.  tardos ( 2003 ) .
maximizing the spread of influence through a social network . in _ proceedings of the ninth acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining _ , kdd 03 , new york , ny , usa , pp .
lelarge , m. ( 2008 ) .
diffusion of innovations on random networks : understanding the chasm . in c.
h. papadimitriou and s.  zhang ( eds . ) , _ wine _ , volume 5385 of _ lecture notes in computer science _ , pp .
springer .
lelarge , m. ( 2009 ) .
efficient control of epidemics over random networks . in j.
r. douceur , a.  g. greenberg , t.  bonald , and j.  nieh ( eds . ) , _ sigmetrics / performance _ , pp .
lelarge , m. and j.  bolot ( 2008 ) .
network externalities and the deployment of security features and protocols in the internet . in z.
liu , v.  misra , and p.  j. shenoy ( eds . ) , _ sigmetrics _ , pp .
lpez - pintado , d. ( 2008 ) .
diffusion in complex social networks .  _
62_(2 ) , 573590 .    molloy , m. and b.  reed ( 1995 ) . a critical point for random graphs with a given degree sequence .  _
6_(2 - 3 ) , 161179 .
montanari , a. and a.  saberi ( 2010 ) . .
107_(47 ) , 2019620201 .
morris , s. ( 2000 ) . contagion .  _
67_(1 ) , 5778 .
newman , m. e.  j. ( 2003 ) .
the structure and function of complex networks .  _
45_(2 ) , 167256 ( electronic ) .
richardson , m. and p.  domingos ( 2002 ) . mining knowledge - sharing sites for viral marketing . in _
kdd 02 : proceedings of the eighth acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining _
, new york , ny , usa , pp .
6170 . acm .
vega - redondo , f. ( 2007 ) .
, volume  44 of _ econometric society monographs_. cambridge : cambridge university press .
watts , d.  j. ( 2002 ) . a simple model of global cascades on random networks .  _
99_(9 ) , 57665771 ( electronic ) .
young , h.  p. ( 1993 ) .
the evolution of conventions .  _
61_(1 ) , 5784 .
young , h.  p. ( 2000 ) .
the diffusion of innovations in social networks .
economics working paper archive 437 , the johns hopkins university , department of economics .
young , h.  p. ( 2009 ) .
innovation diffusion in heterogeneous populations : contagion , social influence , and social learning .  _
99_(5 ) , 18991924 .
this follows from the following observations for @xmath666 : @xmath667 where the @xmath668 s and @xmath258 s are independent bernoulli random variables with parameter @xmath174 and @xmath669 respectively .
now we also have : @xmath670 which corresponds exactly to ( [ eq : tec ] ) .
the relation is clearly true for @xmath676 .
we now assume that @xmath666 and compute the following expression : @xmath677,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the @xmath668 s and @xmath258 s are independent bernoulli random variables with parameter @xmath174 and @xmath151 respectively and @xmath678 is distributed according to @xmath679 and independent form the @xmath262 s and @xmath258 s .
this expression is natural when one consider the branching process approximation of the diffusion described in @xcite section 3.3 .
we have : @xmath680 note that @xmath681 for @xmath475 , so that @xmath682 where in the last equality we used the fact that for @xmath683 , we have @xmath684 .
now we have @xmath688 so that @xmath689 , where we denote explicitly the dependence in @xmath174 for @xmath690 .
the monotonicity of @xmath567 in @xmath174 can be easily seen form ( [ eq : monot ] ) since @xmath691 is strictly decreasing in @xmath174 .
we now justify the use of the @xmath314 in ( [ eq : max ] ) .
let @xmath261 be a bernoulli random variable with parameter @xmath166 .
let for @xmath149 , @xmath150 be the thinning of @xmath84 obtained by taking @xmath84 points and then randomly and independently keeping each of them with probability @xmath151 .
thus given @xmath152 , @xmath153 . with these notations
, we have @xmath693\\ h_1(z;\boldp,\boldt,\balpha , \pi)&= & { { \mathbb{p}}}\left(\sigma(d)=0,\ : d_{1-\pi+\pi      z}\geq d - k(d)\right),\end{aligned}\ ] ] so that both @xmath692 and @xmath694 are non - decreasing in @xmath195 and non - increasing in @xmath174 .
note that if @xmath156 , then @xmath695 so that @xmath696 and @xmath697 .
we now consider the case @xmath698 , so that there exists @xmath699 such that @xmath700 . in this case
, we have @xmath701 .
the statement then follows from the fact that the only possible jumps for @xmath702 are downwards .
more precisely , let @xmath703 , g(z;\boldp,\boldt,\balpha , \pi)=0\}$ ] .
since the function @xmath692 is non - decreasing in @xmath195 , its set of discontinuity points is denumerable say @xmath704 and @xmath692 admits a left and right limit at any point @xmath195 denoted by @xmath705 and @xmath706 respectively . if @xmath707 , then we have @xmath708 .
in particular , we have @xmath709 for any @xmath710 which contradicts the fact that @xmath711 .
hence the functions @xmath692 and @xmath155 are continuous at @xmath188 and the @xmath712 is attained and can be replaced by a @xmath314 .
taking expectation in ( [ eq : rde ] ) , we get with @xmath713 $ ] , @xmath714 note that @xmath681 for @xmath475 , so that @xmath715 hence , we get @xmath716 and the first part of the lemma follows . because we have ( see @xcite ) : @xmath717 taking expectation in ( [ eq : x ] ) gives : @xmath718 = 1-\sum_{s;j\geq s-\ell}(1-\alpha_s)p_st_{s\ell}b_{sj}(1-x\pi)$ ] , and the second part of the lemma follows .