The Phase Transition

Moscow
June 11, 2014
The Erd˝os-R´enyi
Phase Transition
Joel Spencer
1

Any new possibility that existence ac-
quires, even the least likely, transforms
everything about existence.
– from Slowness by Milan Kundera
2

Paul Erd˝os and Alfred Rényi
On the Evolution of Random Graphs
Magyar Tud. Akad. Mat. Kutató Int. Közl
volume 8, 17-61, 1960
Γn,N(n): n vertices, random N(n) edges
[. . .] the largest component of Γn,N(n) is of or-
der log n for N(n)
n ∼ c < 1
2, of order n2/3 for
N(n)
n ∼ 1
2 and of order n for N(n)
n ∼ c > 1
2. This
double “jump” when c passes the value 1
2 is one
of the most striking facts concerning random
graphs.
3

The (Traditional) “Double Jump”
G(n, p), p = c
n (or ∼ c
2n edges)
(Average Degree c, “natural” model)
• c < 1
Biggest Component O(ln n)
|C1| ∼ |C2| ∼ . . .
All Components simple (= tree/unicyclic)
• c = 1
Biggest Component Θ(n2/3)
|C1|n−2/3 nontrivial distribution
|C2|/|C1| nontrivial distribution
Complexity of C1 nontrivial distribution
• c > 1
Giant Component |C1| ∼ yn, y = y(c) > 0
All other |Ci| = O(ln n) and simple
4

The Five Phases
Subcritical: p = c
n and c < 1
Barely subcritical: p ∼ 1
n and p = 1
n −λ(n)n−4/3
with λ(n) → ∞
The Critical Window
p =
1
n
+ λn−4/3
λ arbitrary real, but constant.
Barely supercritical: p ∼ 1
n and p = 1
n+λ(n)n−4/3
with λ(n) → ∞
Supercritical: p = c
n and c > 1
5

• Barely Subcritical
p ∼ 1
n and p = 1
n − λ(n)n−4/3 with λ(n) → ∞
All components simple.
Top k components about same size
|C1| = o(n2/3)
• Barely Supercritical
p ∼ 1
n and p = 1
n + λ(n)n−4/3 with λ(n) → ∞
Dominant Component
|C1| ≫ n2/3, High Complexity
All other |C| ≪ n2/3, Simple
Duality: Remove Dominant Component and
get Subcritical Picture.
6

Math Physics Bond Percolation
Zd. Bond “open” with probability p
There exists a critical probability pc
• Subcritical, p < pc.
All C finite, E[|C(0)|] finite
Pr[|C(0)| ≥ u] exponential tail
• Supercritical, p > pc.
Unique Infinite Component
E[|C(0)|] infinite
Pr[|C(0)| ≥ u|finite] exponential tail
• Critical, p = pc.
All C finite, E[|C(0)|] infinite, heavy tail
Key topic: p = pc ± ǫ as ǫ → 0.
7

Random 3-SAT
n Boolean x1, . . . , xn
L = {x1, x1, . . . , xn, xn} literals
Random Clauses Ci = yi1 ∨ yi2 ∨ yi3, yij ∈ L
f(m) := Pr[C1 ∧ · · · ∧ Cmsatisﬁable]
Conjecture: There exists critical c0
• Subcritical, c < c0, f(cn) ∼ 1
• Supercritical, c > c0, f(cn) ∼ 0
Friedgut: Criticality, but possibly nonuniform
But what is the Critical Window
I.e.: Parametrize m = m(n) to “see” f(m) go
ǫ to 1 − ǫ
Open Question!
8

Evolution of n-Cube
Ajtai, Komlos, Szemeredi
Bollobas, Luczak, Kohayakawa
Borgs, Chayes, Slade, JS, van der Hofstad
p = c/n
c < 1 subcritical
c > 1 giant Ω(2n) component
Critical p0 ∼ n−1
At p0(1 − ǫ) all “small”
At p0(1 + ǫ). For ǫ = Ω(n−100) and more:
Giant 2ǫn. Second open
But what is the Critical Window
Open Question!
9

The Bohman-Frieze Process
Begin empty. One edge each round.
Two random {x1, y1}, {x2, y2}
IF x1, y1 isolated ADD {x1, y1}
ELSE ADD {x2, y2}
Criticality at p = tcr/n proprotion
tcr > 1 Bohman Frieze
Exact tcr: Wormald, JS
Critical Window: Kang, Perkins, Bhamidi
Budhiraja, Wang, Sen · · ·
But what is the Critical Window?
Same as Erd˝os-R´enyi
10

The Product Rule Process
Begin empty. One edge each round.
Two random {x1, y1}, {x2, y2}
IF |C(x1)|·|C(y1)| ≤ |C(x2)|·|C(y2)| ADD {x1, y1}
ELSE ADD {x2, y2}
JS, D’Souza, Achlioptas:
Simulation gives “Explosive” percolation
DeCosta, Dorogovtsev, Goltsev, Mendes:
Physics says NO
Riordan, Warnke: Math also says NO
But what is the Critical Window?
Open Question!
11

Poisson Birth Process
Root node “Eve”
Parameter c
Each node has Po(c) children
(Poisson: Pr[Po(c) = k] = e−cck/k!)
Zt ∼ Po(c), iid
t-th node has Zt children
Queue Size Yt. Y0 = 1 (Eve)
Yt = Yt−1 + Zt − 1 (Has children and dies)
Fictional Continuation: Yt deﬁned though pro-
cess stops when some Ys = 0.
Size T = T
po
c is minimal t with Yt = 0.
T = ∞: All Yt > 0.
T = Tc is total size
12

Binomial Birth Process
Parameters m, p
Zt ∼ B[m, p], iid
T = Tbin
m,p total size.
For m large, p small, mp moderate:
Binomial is very close to Poisson c = mp.
Binomial Birth Process very close to Poisson
Birth Process
13

Graph Birth Process
Parameters n, p
Generate C(v) in G(n, p). BFS
Queue: Y0 = 1, Yt = Yt−1 + Zt − 1
Points Born: Zt ∼ B[Nt−1, p]
Dead Points (popped): t
Live Points (in Queue): Yt
Neutral Points(in Reservoir): Nt
t + Yt + Nt = n
N0 = n−1, Nt = Nt−1−Zt, Nt ∼ B[n−1, (1−p)t]
T = T
gr
n,p: minimal t with Yt = 0
T = t implies Nt = n − t
14

Poisson Birth Trichotomy
• c < 1
T finite
• c = 1
T finite
E[T] infinite (heavy tail)
• c > 1
Pr[T = ∞] = y = y(c) > 0
15

Poisson Birth Exact
Pr[Tc = u] =
e−uc(uc)u−1
u!
Pr[T1 = u] =
e−uuu−1
u!
= Θ(u−3/2
)
For c > 1, Pr[T = ∞] = y = y(c) > 0 where
1 − y = e−cy
For c < 1, α := ce1−c < 1
Pr[Tc > u] = O(αu) Exponential Tail
16

Poisson Birth Near Criticality
c = 1 + ǫ, T = T
po
c
Pr[T = ∞] ∼ 2ǫ
Pr[T = u] ∼ (2π)−1/2u−3/2(ce1−c)u
ln[ce1−c] ∼ −ǫ2/2
• u small: u = o(ǫ−2)
Pr[Tc = u] ∼ Pr[T1 = u] = Θ(u−3/2)
Scaling: u = Aǫ−2
Pr[∞ > T1+ǫ > Aǫ−2] = ǫe−(1+o(1))A/2
Pr[T1−ǫ > Aǫ−2] = ǫe−(1+o(1))A/2
17

Poisson Birth ∼ Graph Birth
Z1 ∼ B[n − 1, p] roughly Po(c), c = pn.
Ecological Limitation: Zt ∼ B[Nt−1, p].
Process succeeds, Nt−1 gets smaller
Fewer new vertices
Death is inevitable
Upper: Pr[T
gr
n,p ≥ u] ≤ Pr[Tbin
n−1,p ≥ u]
Proof: Replenish reservoir
Lower: Pr[T
gr
n,p ≥ u] ≥ Pr[Tbin
n−u,p ≥ u]
Proof: Hold reservoir to n − u.
18

Why n−4/3 for Critical Window
p = (1 + ǫ)/n, ǫ > 0, ǫ = o(1).
Pr[T
po
1+ǫ = ∞] ∼ 2ǫ.
The ∼ 2ǫn points “going to infinity” merge to
form dominant component.
Tpo finite is O(ǫ−2), corresponds to component
sizes O(ǫ−2).
Finite/Infinite Poisson Dichotomy becomes
Small/Dominant Graph Dichotomy
if ǫ−2 ≪ 2nǫ, or ǫ ≫ n−1/3.
19

The Barely Subcritical Region
p = (1 − ǫ)/n, ǫ = λn−1/3,
Pr[|C(v)| ≥ u] ≤ Pr[T1−ǫ ≥ u]
u = Kǫ−2 ln n ⇒ Pr = o(n−1)
No Such component.
More delicately:
Parametrize u = Kǫ−2 ln λ = Kn2/3λ−2 ln λ
K big: Pr[|C(v)| ≥ u] = O(ǫλ−10)
Expected nǫλ−10 = n2/3λ−9 vertices in com-
ponents of size ≥ Kn2/3λ−2 ln λ
No such component!
20

Barely Supercritical
p = (1 + ǫ)/n, ǫ = λn−1/3, λ → +∞
Trichotomy on Component Size
Small: |C| < Kǫ−2 ln n [can be impoved!]
Large: (1 − δ)2ǫn < |C| < (1 + δ)2ǫn
Awkward: All else
No Middle Ground
No Awkward Components
Suﬃces: Pr[C(v) awkward] = o(n−1)
21

No Middle Ground
Yt = n − t − Nt = B[n − 1, 1 − (1 − p)t] − (t − 1)
At start E[Yt] ∼ ǫt [Negligible EcoLim]
When t ≫ ǫ−2 ln n, E[Yt] ≫ Var[Yt]1/2 ∼ t1/2,
Pr[Yt = 0] = o(n−10)
Later E[Yt] = (n−1)[1−(1−p)t]−(t−1) ∼ ǫt− t2
2n
For t ∼ 2ǫn, E[Yt] ∼ 0, dominant component.
|C(v)| = t implies Yt = 0.
For t ∼ yǫn, y = 2:
Pr[|C(v)| = t] ≤ Pr[Yt = 0] = o(n−10).
22

Escape Probability
S := Kǫ−2 ln n, α := Pr[|C(v)| ≥ S]
Pr[|C(v)| ≥ S] ≤ Pr[Tbin
n−1,p ≥ S]
np = 1 + ǫ, S ≫ ǫ−2 so ∼ 2ǫ
Pr[Tbin
n−S,p ≥ S] ≤ Pr[|C(v)| ≥ S]
(Here ǫ ≫ n−1/3 ln1/3 n but with care . . . )
• As Sp = o(ǫ) EcoLim negligible!
p(n − S) = 1 + ǫ + o(ǫ) so Pr ∼ 2ǫ
Sandwich: Escape Prob ∼ 2ǫ
23

Almost Done
Not Small implies Large ∼ 2ǫn
Expected 2ǫn in Large components
BUT
Can we have two
of size 2ǫn
half the time?
24

Sprinkling
Add sprinkle of n−4/3, p ← p+
If G(n, p) had two Large they would merge
That would give ≥ 4ǫn in G(n, p+)
But p+ = (1 + ǫ + o(ǫ))/n has nothing ≥ 4ǫn
Conclusion:
• G(n, p) has precisely one Large component
• It has size ∼ 2ǫn
• As no middle ground:
All other component sizes ≤ Kǫ−2 ln n.
So Large Component is Dominant Component
25

Computer Experiment (Try It!)
n = 500000 vertices. Start: Empty
Add random edges
Parametrize e/ n
2 = (1 + λn−1/3)/n
Merge-Find for Component Size/Complexity
−4 ≤ λ ≤ +4, |Ci| = cin2/3
See biggest merge into dominant
26

If I have seen further it is by standing
on the shoulders of giants.
Isaac Newton, 1676
27

If I have seen further it is by standing
on the shoulders of Hungarians.
Peter Winkler
28

The Phase Transition

Related slideshows

More Related Content

The Phase Transition