rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks a.j. ganesh university of bristol
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks
A. J. GaneshUniversity of Bristol
![Page 2: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Rumor spreading
• Population of size n• One person knows a rumor at time 0• Time is discrete• In each time step, each person who knows the
rumor chooses another person at random and informs them of it
• How long before everyone knows the rumor?
![Page 3: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Motivation
• Simple model for diffusion of information, spread of infection etc., over social networks
• Basis of information dissemination algorithms in large-scale distributed systems
• Primitive of algorithms for distributed computing, distributed consensus etc.
![Page 4: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Results
• With high probability, all n people learn the rumor in time– log2n + log n + o(log n) : Frieze and Grimmett
– log2n + log n + O(1) : Pittel
• Intuition:– in early stages, number of informed people
doubles in each time step– in late stages, number uninformed decreases by
factor of 1/e in each time step
![Page 5: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
A continuous time model
• Identify individuals with nodes of a complete graph
• Associate mutually independent unit rate Poisson processes, one with each node
• If a node is informed, then, at points of the associated Poisson process, it informs a randomly chosen node
• How long till all nodes are informed?
![Page 6: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Edge-driven model
![Page 7: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Analysis
• Tk : first time that k nodes know the rumor• Number of edges between informed and
uninformed nodes : k(n-k)• Time to inform one more node is minimum of
k(n-k) independent Exp(1) r.v.s.
knknknk
TTE kk
111
)(
1][ 1
![Page 8: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Analysis (cont.)
• Time to inform all nodes isTn = (TnTn1)+(Tn1Tn2)+...+(T2T1)+T1
• So E[Tn] 2 log n• Similar calculations show variance < 2/3• Chebyshev’s inequality implies
Tn = 2 log n + O(1)
in probability
![Page 9: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Rumor spread on networks
• G=(V,E) : directed, strongly connected graph• R = (rij), i,jV : contact rate matrix• Model: – node i contacts node j at the points of a Poisson
process of rate rij
– informs node j at this time if node i is informed
Mosk-Aoyama & Shah: • Bound the time to inform all nodes, based on
properties of G or R
![Page 10: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Graph properties
• The generalized conductance of the non-negative matrix R is defined as
• If R is the adjacency matrix, this is closely related to the isoperimetric constant
||||1
min)( ,
c
SjSi ijVS
SSn
rR
c
![Page 11: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Analysis of rumor spreading
• Tk : first time that k nodes are informed• S(k) : set of informed nodes at this time• Total contact rate of uninformed nodes by
informed nodes is iS(k), jS(k) rij
• Time to inform one more node is stochastically dominated by Exp(k(nk)(R)/n)
• Implies that mean time to inform all nodes is bounded by 2log(n) / (R)
![Page 12: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Examples
• G=Kn ; rij =1/n for all i,jV(R)=1, bound is 2 log n, E[T] 2 log n,
• G is the star on n nodes, rij =• 1/n, if i is the hub and j a leaf, • 1, if i is a leaf and j the hub
(R)1/n, bound is 2n log n, E[T] n log n• G is the cycle on n nodes, rij=1/2 for all (i,j)E
(R)=4/n, bound is (n log n)/2, E[T] = n1
![Page 13: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Remarks
• Rumor spreading is– fast on the complete graph, expander graphs– slow on the cycle, grids, geometric random graphs
• Can it be speeded up by passing the rumor to random contacts rather than neighbors?– Not obvious: sampling random contacts takes time– Dimakis, Sarwate, Wainwright: Geographic gossip– Benezit, Dimakis, Thiran, Vetterli: Randomized
path averaging
![Page 14: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Other models: stifling
• Stop spreading rumors when they are stale• Nodes may be uninformed (U), spreaders (I) or
stiflers (S)– U+I = I+I; I+I = I+S; I+S = S+S
• Rumor only reaches a fraction of population, rather than all nodes– Daley & Kendall, Maki & Thomson
![Page 15: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Other models: push-pull
Discrete time model:• Push is effective in early stages• In late stages, Pull is much better• Say fraction of nodes is uninformed at time t– Push: e uninformed at time t+1– Pull : 2 uninformed at time t+1
• Exploited by Karp et al. to reduce number of messages required, from nlog(n) to nloglog(n)
![Page 16: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Consensus: de Groot model
• n agents, initial opinions xi(0), i=1,...,n• Discrete time• Agents update opinions according to
xi(t+1) = j pij xj(t),
where P is a stochastic matrixDo all agents reach consensus on a value? If so, what is the consensus value, and how long
does it take?
![Page 17: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Results for de Groot model
• Recursion is x(t+1)=Px(t) • Reaching consensus means x(t) c1 as t,
where c is a constant and 1 is the all-1 vector• This is guaranteed for all initial conditions if and
only if P is irreducible and aperiodic• Consensus value is x(0), where is the unique
invariant distribution of P• Time to reach consensus is determined by the
spectral gap of P
![Page 18: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Consensus: the voter model
• n agents, with opinions in {0,1}• Agent i contacts agents j at the points of a
Poisson(qij) process, and adopts its opinion• Once all agents have the same opinion, no
further change is possibleHow long does it take to reach consensus?What is the probability that the consensus value
is 1?
![Page 19: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
The voter model in pictures
![Page 20: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Voter model on the complete graph
• All agents can contact all other agents.• They do so at equal rates: qij = 1/n for all i,j• Equivalently, – each undirected edge is activated at rate 2/n, – and then oriented at random– agent at tail of arrow copies agent at head
![Page 21: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Motivation
• Voter model on complete graph is same as Moran model in population genetics– also used to model cultural transmission, and– competition between products or technologies,
especially with network externalities• Consensus is important in distributed systems
and algorithms– and in collective decision making in biology
![Page 22: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Final state: complete graph case
• Each direction equally likely to be chosen.• So, 01 and 10 are equally likely transitions.
Hence,– number of 1s is a martingale.– P(consensus value is 1) = initial fraction of 1s
![Page 23: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Final state: general case
• Contact rates qij, ij
• Define qii = ji qij
• Assume Q is an irreducible rate matrix• Then it has unique invariant distribution Hassin and Peleg: X(t) is a martingale. Therefore,
P(consensus value is 1) = X(0)
![Page 24: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Duality with coalescing random walks
![Page 25: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Coalescing random walks
• Initially a single particle at each site• Particles perform random walks according to
rate matrix Q, but– if particle moves from node i to node j and j is
occupied, it coalesces with the particle there– random walks are independent between
coalescence events• When there is a single particle left, consensus
has been reached
![Page 26: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Coalescence time: complete graph
• Tk : time when k particles remain. Tn=0.
• At Tk, have k(k1) directed edges between occupied nodes, rate 1/n on each edge
• Tk1 Tk Exp(k(k1)/n)
• Mean time to consensus bounded by n– linear in population size for consensus– logarithmic for rumor spreading
kknTTE kk
1
1
1][ 1
![Page 27: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Coalescence time: general graphs
• Suppose Q is the generator of a reversible random walk, with invariant distribution
Aldous and Fill : Mean coalescence time of two independent random walks started at any nodes i, j bounded by n log 4, where
ijiAjAi
c
A q
AA
)()(
max
![Page 28: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
General graphs (continued)
Example: G is a connected, undirected graph and qij = 1{(i,j)E}
• Then, i = 1/n for all i• n/4 since there is always at least one edge
between any A and Ac
• Mean coalescence time of any two random walks bounded by n2 log(2)/2
![Page 29: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Consensus time on general graphs
Even-Dar and Shapira: For Q as above, – use Markov’s inequality to bound the probability
that two random walks haven’t coalesced– then union bound to bound the probability that
there is some random walk that hasn’t coalesced with a specific one, say one starting at i
– implies that, with high probability, consensus reached within O(n3 log n) time
![Page 30: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Open problem: Evolving voter model
• Graph G, nodes in state 0 or 1• Pick a discordant edge at random and orient it
at random– with probability 1p, caller copies called node– with probability p, it rewires to a random node
with same current state• Simulations show critical value of p, – below which network reaches consensus, – and above which it fragments
![Page 31: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Epidemics: SIS model
• Graph G=(V,E) on n nodes, undirected• Each node in one of two states, {S,I}• Nodes change state independently,– S I at rate (# of infected neighbours)– I S at rate
How long is it until all nodes are in state S?
![Page 32: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
SIS model in pictures
![Page 33: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Motivation
• Models spread of certain diseases, and certain kinds of malware (SIR model better for others)
• Propagation of faults• Models persistence of data in peer-to-peer /
cloud networks• Can be used to model diffusion of certain
technologies or behaviours
![Page 34: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Upper bound: branching random walk
• Infected individuals initially placed on graph• Each individual gives birth to offspring at rate
at each neighboring node, dies at rate How long does it take for the population to die
out?
![Page 35: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Branching random walks
• Yi(t) : # of individuals at node i at time t+1 at rate ji Yj(t)
1 at rate Yi(t)
• A : adjacency matrix of graph GdE[Y(t)]/dt = (A) EY(t)E[Y(t)] = exp((A) t) Y(0)
• : spectral radius of A
![Page 36: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Upper bound on epidemic lifetime
G., Massoulie, Towsley: Epidemic stochastically bounded by branching random walk– therefore, so is epidemic lifetime
• If , then E[Y(t)] 0• By Markov’s inequality, P(|Y(t)|1) 0• Implies that mean epidemic lifetime is
bounded by log(n)/()
![Page 37: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Lower bound
Generalised isoperimetric constant of G :
• S(t) : set of infected nodes at time t• If S(t) m, then – rate of infecting new nodes mS(t)– rate of recovery of infected nodes = S(t)
||
|),(|min ||, S
SSE c
mSVSm
![Page 38: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Lower bound on epidemic lifetime
G., Massoulie, Towsley• If m , then epidemic lifetime is exponential
in m , because• when # of infected nodes is less than m, new
nodes are infected faster than infected nodes recover
• biased random walk, hits m exponentially many times before hitting 0
![Page 39: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Remarks
• Upper and lower bounds – match on complete graphs, hypercubes, dense Erdos-
Renyi and random regular graphs– separated by big gap on cycles, grids etc.– Gap is also big on scale-free random graphs, but can
handle them by focusing on high-degree stars• Results imply that epidemic lifetime is – logarithmic in population size for small infection rates,– exponential in population size for large infection rates
![Page 40: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Epidemics: SIR model
• G=(V,E) : n nodes, undirected, connected• Each node in one of three states, {S,I,R}• Nodes change state independently,– S I at rate (# of infected neighbours)– I R at rate , or after random time with specified
distribution
How many nodes are ever infected?
![Page 41: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
SIR model description
• Single initial infective• p : probability that a node which becomes
infected ever tries to infect a given neighbor• p = E(length of infectious period)– insensitive to distribution of infectious period
• i : probability that node i is ever infected
![Page 42: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Upper bound on epidemic sizes
Draief, G., Massoulie• j pij i : union bound
• (pA) es , where s is the initial infective• If p < 1, implies that mean number of nodes ever
infected (n)/(1p)• Upper bound can be improved to 1/(1p) if graph
is regular• Matching lower bounds in some cases – star,
Erdos-Renyi random graphs
![Page 43: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Lower bound on epidemic sizes
Bandyopadhyay and Sajadi• Consider any BFS spanning tree T of G• Epidemic on G stochastically dominates
epidemic on T• Hence, i pd(i,s), d(,) – graph distance• Implies lower bound on mean number of
infected nodes:
How good is this lower bound?
![Page 44: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Results
• Gn : sequence of graphs indexed by |V|
• sn : infection source in Gn
• Xn : mean number of infected nodes
• LBn : lower bound based on BFS spanning tree
Theorem: If there is an (log n) sequence of neighborhoods of sn in which Gn is a tree, then there is a pc>0 such that, for p<pc, Xn/LBn 1
![Page 45: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Results (continued)
Theorem: Suppose there is a deterministic or random rooted tree (T,s) such that (Gn,sn) (T,s) in the sense of local weak convergence. Suppose the maximum node degree in all Gn is bounded uniformly by , and p < 1. Then,
Xn LBn 0
![Page 46: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Spread of influence
• Rumor-spreading and voter models are simplistic
• What if node is only influenced if some number, or some fraction, of neighbors have a different opinion?
• Can be motivated by best response dynamics in network games
![Page 47: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Bootstrap percolation
• Connected, undirected graph G=(V,E)• Initial states of nodes in {0,1}• Node changes state from 0 to 1 if at least k of
its neighbors are in state 1• Nodes don’t change from 1 to 0
Can we guarantee that all nodes will eventually be in state 1?
![Page 48: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Results
• G=(V,E) is the d-regular random graph• Bernoulli initial condition : each node in state
1, with probability p, independent of othersTheorem (Balogh and Pittel) : Suppose 1<k<d-1.
There is a p*(0,1) such thatp>p*+ : all nodes eventually in state 1 whpp<p* : the fraction of nodes in state 0 tends to
a non-zero constant whp
![Page 49: Rumors, consensus and epidemics on networks A.J. Ganesh University of Bristol](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/551c1179550346b24f8b5461/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Conclusions
• Variety of stochastic processes on graphs can be studied using elementary probabilistic tools
• Analysis can often be greatly simplified by choosing the right model
• Often, exact analysis is intractable, but can get good (?) bounds
• Many applications!