1: \documentclass[twocolumn,aps,floatfix,showpacs]{revtex4}

2: 

3: \usepackage{amsmath}

4: \usepackage{amssymb} 

5: \usepackage{graphics}

6: 

7: \begin{document}

8: 

9: \newcommand\UBA{{\sc uba}}

10: \newcommand\RBN{{\sc rbn}}

11: \newcommand\EP{{\sc ep}}

12: \newcommand\SP{{\sc sp}}

13: \newcommand\trm\textrm

14: \newcommand\mbf\mathbf

15: \newcommand\s{\mbf{s}}

16: \newcommand\kb{\mbf{k}}

17: \newcommand\Nt{\tilde N}

18: \newcommand\pt{\tilde p}

19: \newcommand\ut{\tilde u}

20: \newcommand\yt{\tilde y}

21: \newcommand\tti{\tilde t}

22: \newcommand\Nh{\hat N}

23: \newcommand\uh{\hat u}

24: \newcommand\rh{\hat r}

25: \newcommand\ti{\trm i}

26: \newcommand\tn{\trm n}

27: \newcommand\tu{\trm u}

28: \newcommand\tsa{{0*}}

29: \newcommand\tsia{{0,0*}}

30: \newcommand\msa{\trm\tsa}

31: \newcommand\msia{\trm\tsia}

32: \newcommand\Pex{P_{\trm{\sc cc}}}

33: \newcommand\PNex{P_{\trm{\sc cc}}^1}

34: \newcommand\Pn{P_{\tn,N}}

35: \newcommand\Pu{P_{\tu,N}}

36: \newcommand\Oc{{\cal O}}

37: 

38: \title{Exhaustive percolation on random networks}

39: 

40: \author{Bj\"orn~Samuelsson} 

41: \email[]{bjorn.samuelsson@duke.edu}

42: \author{Joshua~E.~S.~Socolar} 

43: \email[]{socolar@phy.duke.edu}

44: \affiliation{Physics Department and Center for Nonlinear and Complex

45:   Systems, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27514}

46: 

47: \date{\today}

48: 

49: \begin{abstract}

50:   We consider propagation models that describe the spreading of an

51:   attribute, called ``damage'', through the nodes of a random network.

52:   In some systems, the average fraction of nodes that remain undamaged

53:   vanishes in the large system limit, a phenomenon we refer to as {\it

54:     exhaustive percolation}.  We derive scaling law exponents and

55:   exact results for the distribution of the number of undamaged nodes,

56:   valid for a broad class of random networks at the exhaustive

57:   percolation transition and in the exhaustive percolation regime.

58:   This class includes processes that determine the set of frozen nodes

59:   in random Boolean networks with indegree distributions that decay

60:   sufficiently rapidly with the number of inputs.  Connections between

61:   our calculational methods and previous studies of percolation

62:   beginning from a single initial node are also pointed out.  Central

63:   to our approach is the observation that key aspects of damage

64:   spreading on a random network are fully characterized by a single

65:   function specifying the probability that a given node will be

66:   damaged as a function of the fraction of damaged nodes.  In addition

67:   to our analytical investigations of random networks, we present a

68:   numerical example of exhaustive percolation on a directed lattice.

69: \end{abstract}

70: 

71: \pacs{89.75.Da, 02.50.Ey, 02.10.Ox, 05.50.+q}

72: 

73: \maketitle

74: 

75: \section{Introduction}

76: \subsection{Overview}

77: Propagation models on lattices or more general graphs describe the

78: spreading of some discrete signal through a set of discrete

79: entities.  In the most general terms, the signal corresponds to some

80: qualitative change that causes the entity to interact differently with

81: its neighbors.  Examples include the spreading of damage in power

82: grids \cite{Sachtjen:00, Kinney:05}, the spreading of disease through

83: a population \cite{Hethcote:00, Newman:02, Cohen:03}, the spreading of

84: a computer virus on the Internet \cite{Pastor-Satorras:01, Lloyd:01},

85: or the alteration of gene expression patterns in a cell due to a

86: mutation \cite{Hughes:00, Ramo:06}.  In the general case, the

87: individual entities are represented as nodes in a graph where the

88: links indicate paths along which the signal can spread

89: \cite{Watts:99,Newman:03, Callaway:00, Moreno:02, Watts:02, Motter:04,

90: Crucitti:04}.  Because the signal can be thought of as disrupting the

91: static or dynamical state of the original system, we refer to its

92: propagation as spreading {\it damage}, though in many cases the ``damage''

93: may enhance a desired property or simply represent some natural

94: dynamical process.  A single instance of a given spreading process

95: initiated from a particular subset of nodes is often called an

96: avalanche.

97: 

98: In analyzing spreading processes, one is often interested in the

99: transition between those that die out quickly and those that spread to

100: a finite fraction of the system in the large-system limit, a

101: transition that may occur as the probability of transmitting damage

102: across links is varied.  This percolation transition is relevant for

103: systems in which the fraction of initially damaged nodes tends to

104: zero in the limit of infinite system size.  The order parameter for

105: the transition is the average fraction of nodes damaged in a single

106: avalanche, which remains zero for small transmission probabilities and

107: continuously increases when the probability rises above a threshold

108: value.  We will refer to this as the {\it sparse percolation} (\SP)

109: transition.  The \SP\ transition occurs for spreading processes in

110: which the probability that a node becomes damaged is zero unless at

111: least one of its neighbors is damaged.  (If this probability were

112: nonzero, a nonzero fraction of the nodes would always get damaged.)

113: 

114: For a certain class of propagation models, there is another transition

115: of interest.  When the fraction of initially affected nodes remains

116: fixed as the system size is increased, the fraction of nodes that

117: remain {\it undamaged} can undergo a transition from finite values to

118: zero at transmission probabilities above some threshold.  We refer to

119: this as the {\it exhaustive percolation} (\EP) transition.  The \EP\ 

120: transition occurs only for propagation models in which the probability

121: of a node remaining undamaged is zero when all of its neighbors are

122: damaged (all of its inputs in the case of a directed graph).  We

123: assume also that there is a nonzero probability for a node to remain

124: undamaged if it has at least one undamaged input.  There is then one

125: more condition for the \EP\ transition: the density of directed loops

126: of any specified size must vanish in the large system limit.  For any

127: loop there is a finite probability that no member of the loop will be

128: damaged, since no member of the loop can have all of its inputs

129: damaged until one of the members becomes damaged through a

130: probabilistic event.  Thus \EP\ is {\it not} observable on spatial

131: lattices of the type generally encountered in statistical mechanics.

132: \EP\ is observable, however, on directed lattices and on graphs in

133: which the nodes serving as inputs to a given node are selected at

134: random.

135: 

136: In this paper we derive the probability distribution for the number of

137: undamaged nodes at the \EP\ transition on random graphs for a general

138: class of propagation models exhibiting what we call {\it unordered

139:   binary avalanches} (\UBA).  This is analogous to finding the

140: distribution of avalanche sizes at the usual percolation transition,

141: but here we are asking for the distribution of the number of nodes

142: {\it not} participating in the avalanche.

143: 

144: As an application of our \EP\ results, we consider the problem of

145: identifying unfrozen nodes in a random Boolean network (\RBN).  In a

146: \RBN, each node has a binary state that is updated according to a rule

147: that takes the values of some other nodes as inputs. The dynamics of

148: \RBN s has been investigated extensively; see, e.g.,

149: \cite{Kauffman:69, Derrida:86a, Bastolla:97, Socolar:03, Aldana:03a,

150:   Aldana:03b, Samuelsson:03, Kauffman:04, Drossel:05b}.  A \RBN\ can

151: have several dynamical attractors, but some nodes might have the same

152: value at all times on all attractors. Such nodes are called {\it

153:   stable} and the set of stable nodes is important for the dynamics in

154: \RBN s \cite{Flyvbjerg:88b, Bastolla:98a, Bilke:01}.

155: 

156: Almost all stable nodes in a broad class of \RBN s can be identified

157: through a dynamic process that was introduced by Flyvbjerg

158: \cite{Flyvbjerg:88b} and formalized to facilitate numeric simulations

159: by Bilke and Sjunnesson \cite{Bilke:01}.  We call the stable nodes

160: that can be identified by this dynamic process {\it frozen} (and nodes

161: that are not frozen are called {\it unfrozen}).  Provided that the

162: Boolean rule distribution is symmetric with respect to inversion of

163: any subset of inputs, the set of frozen nodes can be identified

164: through an \UBA\ in which frozen inputs cause new nodes to become

165: frozen (damaged).  Most rule distributions that have been examined in

166: the literature exhibit this symmetry.  The requirement is satisfied,

167: for example, for any model that assigns given probability $p$ for

168: obtaining a 1 in each entry of the truth table for each node.  

169: 

170: This paper is organized as follows.  We first develop the notation and

171: basic definitions required for discussing \UBA s in general.  In

172: Section~\ref{sec: basic defs}, we give an introduction to the \UBA\ 

173: formalism from the perspective of percolation processes.  A more

174: formal description is given in Section~\ref{sec: introduction to EP},

175: followed by a numerical illustration of the basic concepts.  In

176: Section~\ref{sec: random networks}, we present analytic derivations

177: for \UBA\ in random networks with emphasis on \EP\ and the \EP\ 

178: transition.  We also present explicit results for the special case of

179: Erd\H{o}s--R\'{e}nyi networks with a natural choice for the avalanche

180: rules.

181: 

182: In Section~\ref{sec: application} we show how to apply the \UBA\ 

183: formalism to obtain the statistics of frozen nodes in two-input \RBN

184: s.  In the present context, this serves as an illustration of the

185: general theory, but this particular example was also the primary

186: motivation for studying \EP.  The results on \RBN s are consistent

187: with those found by Kaufman, Mihaljev, and Drossel.~\cite{Kaufman:05}.

188: The main advantage of using the \EP\ formalism for this problem is

189: that it makes clear how the calculation can be extended to networks

190: with more than two inputs per node, including networks with an

191: in-degree distribution that (with a low probability) allows

192: arbitrarily large in-degrees.

193: 

194: \subsection{Basic definitions}

195: \label{sec: basic defs}

196: 

197: An unordered binary avalanche (\UBA ) is defined as a spreading process

198: with the following properties:

199: 

200: \begin{description} 

201:   

202: \item[Binary states:] the state of each node can be characterized as a

203:   binary variable $s$, with $s=0$ meaning {\it undamaged} and $s=1$

204:   meaning {\it damaged};

205:   

206: \item[Boolean rules:] the state of each node is determined by a

207:   Boolean function of the states of its input nodes;

208:   

209: \item[Order independence:] the probability of having a given set of

210:   nodes damaged at the end of the process does not depend upon the

211:   order in which nodes are chosen for updating.

212: 

213: \end{description}

214: 

215: Order independence refers to the dynamics of the spreading process or

216: a simulation of it.  In such a simulation, one typically chooses a

217: site and updates it according to a rule depending on the states of

218: sites that provide inputs to it, repeating the process until a test of

219: every site yields no change in the state of the system.  We are

220: interested in cases where the order in which sites are chosen for

221: possible updating has no bearing on the final state of the system.

222: 

223: \UBA\ is a natural extension of site or bond percolation.  To determine

224: the avalanche size distribution in site percolation, for example, one

225: identifies an initial subset of damaged sites and then tests neighbors

226: of damaged sites to see whether the damage spreads to them.  After a

227: given site is tested for the first time, its value is permanently

228: fixed.  The process is iterated until no new damaged sites are

229: generated.  See, e.g., Ref.~\cite{Sahimi:03}.  This method of

230: investigating site percolation is equivalent to assigning all sites a

231: value, then beginning with a damaged site and determining all of the

232: damaged sites in a connected cluster.  Site percolation where each

233: site has the probability $p$ to be occupied can be recast as a \UBA\

234: system as follows.  Let each site be associated with a rule that is an

235: {\sc or}-rule of all of its neighbors with probability $p$ and is a constant

236: 0 with probability $1-p$. Then the above described site percolation

237: is achieved by first selecting the rules and clamping the value of a

238: given site to 1, and then repeatedly updating the system according to

239: the Boolean rules.  In this situation, the 1s in the final state mark

240: a site percolation cluster.  A more practical way of simulating the

241: same \UBA\ is to determine probabilistically the Boolean rule at each

242: site only when that site is first encountered in the percolation

243: process and to update only those nodes where the rules have been

244: determined.

245: 

246: To ensure order independence in \UBA, it is sufficient to require that

247: each Boolean function is non-decreasing, meaning that if one of the

248: inputs to the rule changes from 0 to 1, the output is not allowed to

249: change from 1 to 0.  For non-decreasing Boolean functions, if a

250: specific node is eventually going to be assigned the value 1 during an

251: avalanche, updating other nodes to 1 first cannot change the outcome.

252: 

253: We are particularly interested in \UBA s that are initiated by damage

254: at a set of nodes comprising a nonzero fraction of the total number of

255: nodes.  Such a process would be relevant, for example, if the

256: probability that any given node is damaged at the start is independent

257: of the system size.

258: 

259: To clarify both the distinction between \EP\ (exhaustive percolation)

260: and \SP\ (sparse percolation) and the similarities between them, we

261: describe a particular case of a propagation model that exhibits both

262: transitions.  Consider a graph with a total of $N$ nodes, some of

263: which have three input links each while the others have no input links

264: at all.  The graph is random in that the node supplying the input

265: value on any given link is selected at random, but stays fixed

266: throughout the avalanche.  Let $\nu_0$ be the fraction of nodes with

267: no inputs.  Define a spreading process as follows: The initial

268: condition is that all nodes with no inputs are considered damaged.

269: Each other node is now selected in turn to see whether the damage

270: spreads to it.  If a node has one damaged input, the probability that

271: it will be damaged is $p_1$; if it has two damaged inputs, the

272: probability of damage is $p_2$ (with $p_2 \ge p_1$); and nodes with

273: three damaged inputs are guaranteed to become damaged ($p_3 = 1$).

274: These probabilities are realized, for example, by the following

275: Boolean rule distribution: a 3-input {\sc or}-rule with probability

276: $p_1$; a 3-input majority rule with probability $p_2-p_1$; and a

277: 3-input {\sc and}-rule with probability $1-p_2$.

278: 

279: As $N$ goes to infinity, the number of initially damaged nodes can be

280: a nonzero number that grows slower than $N$, meaning that

281: $\nu_0$ goes to zero as $N$ goes to infinity.  In this limit, the

282: \SP\ transition occurs at $p_1 = 1/3$ and the spreading from each

283: initially damaged node is described by a {\it Galton--Watson process}.

284: In a Galton--Watson process, a tree is created by adding branches to

285: existing nodes, with the number of branches emerging from each node

286: drawn from a fixed probability distribution.  Such branching processes

287: have been investigated extensively. (See, e.g.,

288: Ref.~\cite{Harris:63}.)  In particular, the correspondence to

289: Galton--Watson processes means that for critical \SP, the probability

290: of finding $n$ damaged nodes scales like $n^{-3/2}$ for $1\ll n\ll N$

291: \cite{Otter:49, Ramo:06}.

292: 

293: For any nonzero value of $\nu_0$, the \EP\ transition occurs for $p_2$

294: satisfying $(1 - p_2)(1-\nu_0) = 1/3$ (assuming that this value of

295: $p_2$ is greater than $p_1$.)  The analysis described in

296: Section~\ref{sec: random networks} provides a

297: method of calculating the probability $P(u)$ of having $u$ {\it

298:   undamaged} nodes in this case.  The result in the large $N$ limit is

299: $P(u) \sim P(0)u^{-1/2}$ for large $u$.  A difference between \EP\ and

300: \SP\ is that both $P(0)$ and the cutoff on the $u^{-1/2}$ distribution

301: scale with $N$ for \EP, while for \SP\ only the cutoff scales with

302: $N$.

303: 

304: \section{Introduction to exhaustive percolation}

305: \label{sec: introduction to EP}

306: 

307: \subsection{Formal description of UBA}

308: \label{sec: formal UBA}

309: 

310: We now describe a formalism and establish some notation that is

311: suitable for a detailed treatment of \UBA.  Let $N$ denote the number

312: of nodes in a network with a specified set of links and let the nodes

313: be indexed by $j=1,\ldots,N$.  The network state is described by the

314: vector $\s=\{s_1,\ldots,s_N\}$.  Let $K_j$ denote the number of inputs

315: to node $j$, and let $\kb_j$ denote the vector of $K_j$ inputs to node

316: $j$.  Furthermore, let $R$ denote a Boolean function and let

317: $\Pi_j(R)$ denote the initial probability that node $j$ has the rule

318: $R$. [It is required that $R$ has precisely $K_j$ inputs for

319: $\Pi_j(R)$ to be nonzero.]

320: 

321: To efficiently simulate \UBA, we keep track of the information that is

322: known about each node at each step in the process.  In

323: particular, it is important to keep track of whether or not the change

324: from 0 to 1 of a given input has already been accounted for in

325: determining the output.  The simplest way to do this is to introduce

326: an extra state \tsa\ that labels a site whose rule $R$ implies an

327: output value of 1 but for which the update to 1 has not yet been

328: implemented.  When a node changes its state from 0 to \tsa, it is a

329: silent change in the sense that the Boolean rules at the other nodes

330: treat an input \tsa\ exactly the same as 0. To retrieve the final

331: state of the network, all occurrences of \tsa\ must be updated to 1.

332: When a single update to 1 is made, the information that the given node

333: has value 1 is passed along to all nodes with inputs from it.  The

334: values of these nodes may then change from 0 to \tsa.  The conditional

335: probability that the value of node $i$ is updated from 0 to \tsa\ when

336: $j$ changes value from \tsa\ to 1, is given by

337: \begin{equation}

338:   U_i(\s,j) \equiv \frac{P_1(\kb'_i) - P_1(\kb_i)}{1 - P_1(\kb_i)},

339: \label{eq: Ui}

340: \end{equation}

341: where $\kb'_i$ is the value of $\kb_i$ after $s_j$ has been updated and

342: $P_1(\kb_i)$ is the probability that $R_i(\kb_i) = 1$:

343: \begin{equation}

344:   P_1(\kb_i) \equiv  \sum_R R(\kb_i)\Pi_i(R).

345: \label{eq: P1}

346: \end{equation}

347: The numerator in Eq.~(\ref{eq: Ui}) is the probability that $R_i$

348: produces a 1 after the update of node $j$ minus the probability that

349: $R_i$ produced a 1 before the update.  The denominator is the

350: probability that node $i$ had the value 0 before the update.

351: 

352: Let $\Pi_i(1)$ denote the probability that the rule at node $i$ has

353: output 1 regardless of its input values. If some particular nodes are

354: selected for initiation of the \UBA, $\Pi_i(1)$ is set to one for

355: these nodes [which means $\Pi_i(R) = 0$ for all other rules].

356: 

357: We are now ready to present a formal algorithm for determining the

358: final state of an instance of \UBA\ on a finite network.  We carry out

359: the following procedure (where $:=$ denotes the assignment operator):

360: \begin{enumerate}

361: \item $s_j:=0$ for all $j$; 

362: \item $s_j:=\msa$ with probability $\Pi_j(1)$ for each $j$; 

363: \item Some $j$ with $s_j=\msa$ is selected; \label{j select}

364: \item $s_i:=\msa$ with probability $U_i(\s,j)$ for each $i$ with $s_i=0$; 

365: \item $s_j:=1$; \label{j := 1}

366: \item Steps \ref{j select}--\ref{j := 1} are iterated as long as there

367: exists a node in state \tsa. \label{iterate}

368: \end{enumerate}

369: 

370: \UBA\ can also be considered on infinite networks, but that requires a

371: more technical description of the process. First, the choices of $j$ in

372: step 3 for both descriptions must be such that any given $j$ that

373: satisfies the conditions in step~\ref{j select} will be selected in a

374: finite number

375: of iterations.  Second, the ensemble of final states needs to be

376: defined in terms of a suitable limit process because the stopping

377: criterion in step~\ref{iterate} can not be applied to an infinite

378: system.

379: 

380: Note that the dynamics is only dependent on the probability functions

381: $\{P_1(\kb_i)\}$.  That is, the precise rule distributions affect the

382: avalanche results only through their contributions to $P_1$.  Because

383: the Boolean rules are non-decreasing functions, $P_1(\kb_i)$ is also a

384: non-decreasing function. In fact, every non-decreasing function,

385: $f(\kb_i)$, with values in the interval $[0,1]$ can be realized by

386: $P_1(\kb_i)$ for a suitable Boolean rule distribution.  One such rule

387: distribution can be constructed as follow: for each $i$ and each

388: $\kb_i$, select a random number $y$ from a uniform distribution on the

389: unit interval and set $R_i(\kb_i) = 1$ if and only if $y < f(\kb_i)$.

390: 

391: \subsection{An example of EP on a lattice}

392: \label{sec: EP lattice}

393: 

394: To illustrate the concepts of \UBA\ and \EP, consider a directed

395: network on a two-dimensional square lattice with periodic boundary

396: conditions.  Each node in the lattice has integral coordinates $(i,j)$

397: where $i+j$ is odd and the node at $(i,j)$ receives inputs from the

398: two nodes at $(i-1,j\pm1)$.  The rule for propagation of damage to a

399: node is either {\sc or} or {\sc and}, with probabilities

400: $\Pi_{(i,j)}(\trm{\sc or}) = r$ and $\Pi_{(i,j)}(\trm{\sc and}) = 1 -

401: r$, respectively.

402: 

403: \begin{figure}[bt]

404: \begin{center}

405: \includegraphics{uba_2d.eps}

406: \end{center}

407: \caption{\label{fig: lattice UBA} An example of \UBA\ on a lattice,

408:   displaying undamaged nodes (dots), initially damaged nodes (filled

409:   circles), and nodes damaged during the avalanche (empty circles).

410:   Each node has either an {\sc or}-rule or an {\sc and}-rule with

411:   inputs from its neighbors in the row immediately above the node.

412:   The probability for a node to be initially damaged is

413:   $\rho = 1/8$ and the probability for obtaining an {\sc

414:     or}-rule is $r=0.3$. Periodic boundary conditions are used and the

415:   first row and column are repeated in gray after the last row and

416:   column to illustrate the periodic boundary conditions. }

417: \end{figure}

418: 

419: Figure~\ref{fig: lattice UBA} displays an avalanche

420: that is initiated by letting each node be initially damaged with

421: probability $\rho=1/8$. A node assigned {\sc or} becomes

422: damaged if either of its neighbors one layer above is damaged; a node

423: assigned {\sc and} becomes damaged if and only if both neighbors above

424: it are damaged.  This means that

425: \begin{align}

426:   P_1(\kb_{(i,j)}) &= \left\{

427:   \begin{array}{ll}

428:      0 & \trm{if }\kb_{(i,j)} = (0,0)\\

429:      r & \trm{if }\kb_{(i,j)} \in \{(0,1),(1,0)\}\\

430:      1 & \trm{if }\kb_{(i,j)} = (1,1)~.

431:   \end{array}\right.

432: \end{align}

433: Note that clusters of damaged nodes formed in an avalanche initiated

434: by a single damaged node cannot contain any holes, as the uppermost

435: undamaged node in the hole would have to have two damaged inputs and

436: hence would become damaged when updated. 

437: 

438: For localized initial damage, the \SP\ threshold is found at $r =

439: 1/2$.  Above this value of $r$, domains of damage tend to widen as the

440: avalanche proceeds.  Since the growing cluster has no holes, this is

441: simultaneously an \EP\ transition.  The \EP\ transition can be found

442: for smaller values of $r$ in lattices where each node is initially

443: damaged with a given nonzero probability $\rho$. [For every

444: initially damaged node, $\Pi_{(i,j)}(1)$ is set to 1, meaning that

445: $P_1(\kb_{(i,j)})=1$ for every value of $\kb_{(i,j)}$.]

446: 

447: \begin{figure}[bt]

448: \begin{center}

449: \includegraphics{EP_2d.eps}

450: \end{center}

451: \caption{\label{fig: lattice EP} The average fraction of undamaged

452:   nodes for \UBA\ on a lattice of the type shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:

453:     lattice UBA}, as a function of the selection probability $p$ for

454:   {\sc or}-rules and the probability $\rho=1/8$ for initial

455:   damage.  The lattice has periodic boundary conditions and covers a

456:   square that has a side of $10$, $10^2$, $10^3$, and $10^4$ lattice

457:   points, respectively, with steeper curves for larger systems. The

458:   statistical uncertainty in the estimated mean is less than the line

459:   width. }

460: \end{figure}

461: 

462: Figure~\ref{fig: lattice EP} shows the average number of unaffected

463: nodes as a function of $r$ for $\rho=1/8$ on lattices with

464: periodic boundary conditions.  The numerics displayed in

465: Fig.~\ref{fig: lattice EP} clearly suggest that there is a

466: second-order \EP\ phase transition.  Furthermore, these numerical

467: results suggest that the avalanche in Fig.~\ref{fig: lattice UBA} is

468: within the parameter regime for \EP\ and that \EP\ does not occur in

469: this case due to finite size effects.

470: 

471: For the case $r = 0$, it is possible to map the \EP\ transition onto

472: ordinary, directed, site percolation on the same lattice.  When all

473: nodes in the lattice have {\sc and}-rules, the following algorithm may

474: be used to determine whether a given node will be damaged: select a

475: node; put a mark on the selected node unless it is initially damaged;

476: and recursively mark each initially undamaged node that has an output

477: to a marked node.  The selected node will get damaged if and only if

478: this recursion ends in a finite number of steps.  The algorithm

479: describes ordinary directed site percolation where the initially

480: undamaged (damaged) nodes are considered active (inactive) sites and

481: the process propagates in the opposite direction relative to the \UBA.

482: We therefore expect the \EP\ transition to  occur for a value of

483: $\rho$ equal to $1-p_{\trm c}$, where $p_{\trm c} = 0.70549$ is the threshold for

484: directed site percolation \cite{Essam:88} and we have confirmed this

485: with numerical tests.  Further study of \EP\ on the lattice is beyond

486: the scope of this paper.

487: 

488: \subsection{Suppression of EP by resistant motifs}

489: \label{sec: resistant motifs}

490: 

491: In the lattice example above, the fact that the network had no

492: feedback loops smaller than the lattice size was important.  In

493: general, \EP\ is suppressed by the presence of short feedback loops.

494: As already noted, for \EP\ to occur, it is required that the output of

495: each rule in the rule distribution is 1 if all of its inputs have the

496: value 1.  Otherwise, there would be a finite fraction of nodes that

497: keep the value 0 regardless of the influence from the rest of the

498: network.  Generalization of this reasoning allows us to rule out \EP\

499: in other situations, indicating that \EP\ is most likely to occur in

500: directed or highly disordered networks. To pursue this idea, we

501: introduce the notion of {\it resistant motifs}.

502: 

503: A {\it motif} is a small network with a particular arrangement of

504: internal links.  A given motif may occur many times in a network with

505: different rules assigned to its nodes and with different

506: configurations of external inputs.  A motif is {\it resistant} with

507: respect to a given ensemble of rule assignments if the probability of

508: damage entering the motif when all external inputs are damaged is

509: strictly less than unity.  For the rule distributions that we consider

510: for the \EP\ transition in random networks, each node has a nonzero

511: probability of being assigned a rule that sets its output to 0 if at

512: least one of its inputs is 0.  Thus when all of the nodes in a

513: feedback loop of any length have the value 0, there is a nonzero

514: probability that they will all remain 0 even if all external inputs to

515: the loop are set to 1.  Every feedback loop of a given length is

516: therefore a resistant motif.

517: 

518: If the number of occurrences of a resistant motif grows linearly with

519: the network size, there will in total be a finite fraction of nodes

520: that remain unaffected with a finite probability.  For such networks,

521: \EP\ cannot occur in the limit of large systems.  Examples include

522: typically studied regular lattices and small world networks with link

523: directions assigned so that short feedback loops are prevalent.

524: 

525: The problem resistant motifs can be avoided in random networks having

526: a mean indegree $\langle K\rangle$ that is well-defined and

527: independent of $N$, in which case the number of feedback loops of a

528: given length approaches a constant.  Though the total number of

529: resistant motifs may grow with system size, the larger motifs have a

530: low probability of avoiding damage.  For large $N$, the out-degree

531: distribution is a Poisson distribution with a mean value of $\langle

532: K\rangle$.  The outputs emerging from a given node form a tree with

533: approximately $\langle K\rangle^m$ nodes at the $m$th level.  Thus,

534: the probability for a given node to be part of a cycle of $m$ nodes is

535: approximately $\langle K\rangle^m/N$, which means that the typical

536: number of feedback loops of length $m$ is approximately $\langle

537: K\rangle^m/m$.  On the other hand, the loop may contain either

538: initially damaged nodes or some rules that allow damage to enter from

539: external inputs.  The probability that this will {\em not} occur

540: decays exponentially with $m$.  If the decay is faster than $\langle

541: K\rangle^{-m}$, the density of nodes in undamaged resistant motifs

542: will approach zero.

543: 

544: In summary, \EP\ (for the considered type of rule distributions) is excluded on

545: lattices with a high density of feedback loops.  For random networks,

546: however, the fraction of nodes in undamaged resistant motifs can go to

547: zero in the large $N$ limit. This property allows \EP\ to occur on

548: random networks as demonstrated in the following section.

549: 

550: \section{EP on random networks}

551: \label{sec: random networks}

552: \subsection{Criteria for EP}

553: \label{sec: criteria for EP}

554: Consider a network such that the inputs to each node are chosen

555: randomly and uniformly from all nodes in the network and the

556: probability functions $\{P_1(\kb_i)\}$ are determined from a given

557: distribution of Boolean rules.  For such networks, \UBA\ can be handled

558: analytically. 

559: 

560: Define $g(x)$ as the probability for a rule in the random network to

561: output $1$ if each input has the value $1$ with probability $x$.  The

562: function $g$ reflects the probability for propagation of damage to a

563: single node, for the considered instance of \UBA.  We refer to $g$ as

564: the {\it damage propagation function}.  In random networks,

565: $P_1(\kb_i)$ is independent of $i$ and can be replaced by $P_1(\kb)$.

566: Let $K$ denote the number of components of $\kb$, i.e., the number of

567: inputs to the considered node. $g(x)$ can then be expressed as

568: \begin{align}

569: \label{eq: g definition}

570:   g(x) &=

571:   \sum_{K=0}^\infty P(K)\!\!\!\!\sum_{\kb\in\{0,1\}^{K}}x^{I}(1-x)^{K-I}P_1(\kb),

572: \end{align}

573: where $I$ is the number of 1s in $\kb$ and $P(K)$ is the probability to

574: draw a rule with $K$ inputs.

575: 

576: Let $N$ denote the total number of nodes, and let $n_0$, $n_\msa$, and

577: $n_1$ denote the number of nodes with the values $0$, $\msa$, and $1$,

578: respectively. With these definitions and the fact that $U_i(\s,j)$ is

579: independent of $i$ for the random network, the role of

580: $\{P_1(\kb_i)\}$ is taken over by $g(n_1/N)$ and Eq.~\eqref{eq: Ui} is

581: replaced by

582: \begin{align}

583:   U(\s,j) &= \frac{g(n'_1/N)-g(n_1/N)}{1-g(n_1/N)},

584: \label{eq: n-update first}

585: \end{align}

586: where $n'_1=n_1+1$. This means that the size of the network, the

587: number of initially damaged nodes, and the damage propagation function

588: $g$ taken together are sufficient to uniquely determine the stochastic

589: spreading process.

590: 

591: After one pass of the update steps \ref{j select}--\ref{j := 1} (from

592: Section~\ref{sec: formal UBA}), the new values $n'_0$ and $n'_\msa$ of

593: $n_0$ and $n_\msa$ are given by

594: \begin{align}

595:   n'_0 &= n_0 - \delta

596: \intertext{and}

597:   n'_\msa &= n_\msa + \delta - 1

598: \intertext{where}

599:   \delta &= B_{n_0}[U(\s,j)],

600: \label{eq: n-update last}

601: \end{align}

602: with $B_n(a)$ being a stochastic function that returns the number of

603: selected items among $n$ items if the selection probability for each

604: of them is $a$.  The avalanche ends when $n_\msa=0$.

605: 

606: The number of damaged nodes, $n$, in a complete avalanche is the final

607: value of $n_1$, whereas the number of undamaged nodes, $u$, is the

608: final value of $n_0$. An order parameter for the system is $\phi =

609: \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\langle n/N\rangle$, where the average is

610: taken over the ensemble of networks. The \SP\ transition is found when

611: $\phi$ changes from zero to a nonzero value, whereas the \EP\ transition

612: is found when $\phi$ reaches 1.

613: 

614: To understand the typical development of an avalanche, it is

615: convenient to change from the variables $n_0$, $n_\msa$, and $n_1$,

616: which are constrained to sum to $N$, to the variables $x_1 \equiv

617: n_1/N$ and

618: \begin{align}

619:   c &\equiv \frac{n_0}{1-g(x_1)}.

620: \label{eq: c definition}

621: \end{align}

622: As long as $n_\msa>0$, the average value of $c$ after a single update

623: is given by

624: \begin{align}

625:   \langle c'\rangle 

626:     &= \frac{\langle n'_0\rangle}{1-g(x'_1)}\\

627:     &= \frac{n_0-c[g(x'_1)-g(x_1)]}{1-g(x'_1)}\\

628:     &= c.

629: \label{eq: c constant}

630: \end{align}

631: Hence, as long as $n_\msa>0$ for all members of an ensemble of

632: avalanches, $\langle c\rangle$ (the average of $c$ over the ensemble)

633: is conserved as the avalanche proceeds.

634: 

635: From Eqs.~\eqref{eq: n-update first}--\eqref{eq: n-update last} and

636: the definition of $c$, the variance in $c$ can be calculated.  We

637: begin by computing the increment of the variance due to one update

638: step, $\sigma^2(c')$.  To leading order as $N\rightarrow\infty$,

639: we get

640: \begin{align}

641:   \sigma^2(c')

642:        &= \frac{\sigma^2(\delta_0)}{[1-g(x'_1)]^2}\\

643:        &= \frac{n_0 U(\s,j)[1-U(\s,j)]}{[1-g(x'_1)]^2}\\

644:        &= \frac{c\,U(\s,j)}{1-g(x_1)}\\

645:        &= \frac{c}{N[1-g(x_1)]^2}\frac{dg(x)}{dx}\bigg|_{x=x_1}.

646: \label{eq: c-variance}

647: \end{align}

648: Eq.~\eqref{eq: c-variance} gives the increment of the variance of $c$

649: from one update step. To get the total variance of $c$, we need to sum

650: over all updates from $n_1=0$ to the desired value of $n_1$. Provided

651: that there is an upper bound $\kappa$ such that $dg(x)/dx<\kappa$ for all

652: $x$, the total variance of $c$ satisfies

653: \begin{align}

654:    \sigma_{\trm{tot}}^2(c)

655:        &< n_1\frac{c\,\kappa}{N[1-g(x_1)]^2}

656:         <\frac{\kappa N}{1-g(x_1)}

657: \label{eq: c tot var upper}

658: \end{align}

659: for $x_1 < 1$. (Note that $1/[1-g(x)]$ is a nondecreasing

660: function because $g(x)$ is nondecreasing.)

661: 

662: The avalanche is initiated with $n_\msa \equiv n_\msa^\ti$,

663: $n_0=N-n_\msa^\ti$, and $n_1=0$. The process ends when $n_0+n_1=N$ and

664: we seek the distribution of $n_0$ or $n_1$ when this happens.

665: According to Eq.~\eqref{eq: c tot var upper}, the standard deviation

666: of $c/N$ scales like $1/\sqrt{N}$, which implies that both $n_0/N$ and

667: $n_\msa/N$ have standard deviations that scale like $1/\sqrt{N}$.

668: ($x_1$ has zero standard deviation because $n_1$ is incremented by

669: exactly unity on every update step.)  Thus in the large system limit,

670: the probability of any member of the the ensemble of avalanches

671: stopping is negligibly small as long as $n_\msa/N$ is finite, and we

672: may treat $c$ as exactly conserved as long as this condition holds.

673: 

674: Using the initial values $x_1 = 0$ and $n_0 = N - n_\msa^\ti$, which

675: determine $c$, Eq.~\eqref{eq: c definition} can be rearranged to give

676: \begin{align}

677:   n_0 &= [1-g(x_1)]\frac{N-n_\msa^\ti}{1-g(0)}.

678: \end{align}

679: Noting that $n_0/N = 1 - x_1 - n_\msa/N$, we see that

680: in the large $N$ limit, the process continues as long as the strict inequality

681: \begin{align}

682:   1 - x_1 &> [1-g(x_1)]

683:          \frac{\displaystyle 1-\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}n_\msa^\ti/N}

684:               {1-g(0)}~

685: \label{eq: x1 fp}

686: \end{align}

687: holds, since the inequality implies that $n_\msa/N$ remains finite.

688: Moreover, in the large $N$ limit it is impossible to reach values of

689: $x_1$ for which the inequality has the opposite sign, because the

690: process stops when $n_\msa$ reaches zero.

691: 

692: Note that because of the zero probability of a node remaining

693: undamaged when all of its neighbors are damaged, we have $g(1)=1$,

694: which in turn implies that Eq.~\eqref{eq: x1 fp} becomes an equality

695: at $x_1 = 1$.  If Eq.~\eqref{eq: x1 fp} is satisfied for all $x_1 <

696: 1$, the process will be exhaustive in the sense that it will not end

697: with a finite value of $n_0/N$.  If, on the other hand, the inequality

698: changes sign for $x_1$ above some threshold value, then the process

699: will terminate when the threshold is reached.  If the left hand side

700: of Eq.~\eqref{eq: x1 fp} forms a tangent line to the right hand side

701: of the expression at some value of $x_1$, the process will exhibit

702: critical scaling laws.  The critical case for \EP\ occurs when the

703: when the tangency occurs at $x_1 = 1$.  Examples of these behaviors

704: are presented below and in Section~\ref{sec: application}.

705: 

706: As an aside, we note that the \SP\ transition is an instance of

707: criticality at $x_1=0$. For the above mentioned criterion of

708: criticality to hold at $x_1=0$, the right hand

709: side of Eq.~\eqref{eq: x1 fp} must have the value $1$ and the slope $-1$ at

710: $x_1=0$. Thus, the system is critical with respect to \SP\ if

711: $\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}n_\msa^\ti/N=0$ and

712: \begin{align}

713: \label{eq: critical g}

714:   \frac{dg(x)}{dx}\bigg|_{x=0} &= 1 - g(0).

715: \end{align}

716: 

717: Eqs.~\eqref{eq: g definition} and~\eqref{eq: critical g} immediately

718: give a criterion for critical percolation on graphs in which every

719: possible directed link (including self-inputs) exists with an

720: independent, fixed probability, assuming the conventional choice in

721: which damage spreads to a given node with probability $p$ from each of

722: its damaged neighbors.  In this case we have

723: \begin{align}

724:  g(x) &= 

725:  \sum_{K=0}^\infty P(K)\bigl[1 - (1-px)^K\bigr],

726: \end{align}

727: which yields

728: \begin{align}

729:   \frac{dg(x)}{dx}\bigg|_{x=0} &= p \sum_{K=0}^\infty P(K) K \\

730:   \ &= p \langle K \rangle.

731: \label{eq: ER percolation}

732: \end{align}

733: 

734: This result is closely related to the well-known criterion for the

735: presence of a percolating cluster in an Erd\H{o}s--R\'{e}nyi graph:

736: percolation occurs when the probability $p_{\trm {\sc er}}$ for the

737: presence of a link between two randomly selected nodes exceeds $1/N$,

738: where $N$ is the number of nodes.~\cite{Bollabas:85} In the present

739: context, $p_{\trm {\sc er}}$ is mapped to $p_{\trm{link}} p$, where

740: $p_{\trm{link}}$ is the probability that a link exists connecting the

741: two randomly selected nodes and $p$ is the probability that damage

742: spreads across that link.  At the same time, we have $\langle K\rangle

743: = p_{\trm{link}} N$.  (Recall that $K$ is only the indegree of a node,

744: not the total number of links connected to it.)  Thus Eq.~\eqref{eq:

745:   ER percolation}, which implies that the critical value of $p$ is

746: $1/\langle K \rangle$, is consistent with the well-known theory of

747: Erd\H{o}s--R\'{e}nyi graphs.~\cite{Bollabas:85}

748: 

749: Eq.~\eqref{eq: ER percolation} applies for any distribution of

750: indegrees so long as $\langle K \rangle$ is well-defined and the

751: source of each input is selected at random (so that the outdegrees are

752: Poisson distributed).  We note that the latter condition is {\em not}

753: met by random regular graphs (graphs in which all nodes have the same

754: outdegree) because the probabilities of two nodes getting an output

755: from the same node are correlated.

756: 

757: \SP\ can also be understood by the theory of Galton--Watson processes.

758: If $\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}n_\msa^\ti/N=0$, the update described by

759: Eqs.~\eqref{eq: n-update first}--\eqref{eq: n-update last} is

760: consistent with a Galton--Watson processes that has a Poisson

761: out-degree distribution with a mean value

762: \begin{align}

763:   \lambda &= \frac1{1 - g(0)}\frac{dg(x)}{dx}\bigg|_{x=0}.

764: \end{align}

765: See References~\cite{Harris:63, Otter:49, Ramo:06}. See

766: Appendix~\ref{app: SP} for more details on \SP\ in relation to known

767: results. Cases of tangencies at intermediate values of $x_1$ are

768: beyond the scope of the present work.

769: 

770: Returning to the question of the \EP\ transition, it is convenient to

771: change variables once again.  We define $x_\msia \equiv 1-x_1$ and

772: $q(x_\msia) \equiv 1-g(x_1)$.  In words, $q(x)$ is the probability

773: that a randomly selected node will output 0 given that each of its

774: inputs has the value 0 with probability $x$.  We refer to $q$ as the

775: {\it damage control function} as it characterizes the probability that

776: damage will be prevented from spreading to a single node.

777: Equation~\eqref{eq: x1 fp} is then transformed to

778: \begin{align}

779:   x_\msia &> q(x_\msia)

780:            \frac{\displaystyle 1-\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}n_\msa^\ti/N}

781:                 {q(1)}.

782: \label{eq: x0 gt}

783: \end{align}

784: Critical \EP\ is found when the left hand side of Eq.~\eqref{eq: x0

785:   gt} forms a tangent line to the right hand side of the expression at

786: $x_\msia=0$.  At criticality, the right hand side of Eq.~\eqref{eq: x0

787:   gt} should have the value 0 and the slope 1.  Hence, the conditions

788: $q(0)=0$ and

789: \begin{align}

790:   \frac{dq(x)}{dx}\bigg|_{x=0} &= \frac{q(1)}{1-n_\msa^\ti/N}

791: \label{eq: EP criticality}

792: \end{align}

793: are required for an \EP\ transition.

794: 

795: \subsubsection*{Example: EP on random digraphs}

796: We now consider the special case of graphs in which every possible

797: directed link (including self-inputs) exists with an independent,

798: fixed probability.  (We have already discussed \SP\ on such graphs.)

799: If damage spreads along each directed link with probability $p$, there

800: is no \EP\ transition because there is a nonzero probability for a

801: node to remain undamaged when all of its inputs are damaged.  A

802: minimal change that allows \EP\ on such graphs is to give a special

803: treatment to nodes whose inputs are all damaged, in which case the

804: considered node should always get damaged.  For the same reason, all

805: nodes with no inputs must be initially damaged.  Other nodes might

806: also be initially damaged, and we let this happen with a given

807: probability $\rho$ for each node with at least one input.  For such a

808: network, we can calculate the damage propagation function according to

809: \begin{align}

810:   g(x) &= \sum_{K=0}^\infty P(K)

811:   \bigl[1-(1-px)^K+(1-p)^Kx^K\bigr]\\

812:   &= 1-e^{-\langle K\rangle px}\bigl(1-e^{-\langle

813:     K\rangle(1-x)}\bigr).

814: \end{align}

815: 

816: The corresponding damage control function becomes

817: \begin{align}

818:   q(x) &= e^{-\langle K\rangle p(1-x)}\bigl(1-e^{-\langle K\rangle x}\bigr).

819: \end{align}

820: A necessary condition for the \EP\ transition is derived from

821: Eq.~\eqref{eq: EP criticality}, yielding

822: \begin{align}

823:   \langle K\rangle e^{-p\langle K\rangle} &= \frac1{1-\rho}~.

824: \label{eq: E-R EP slope}

825: \end{align}

826: For the \EP\ transition to occur, it is also required that

827: \begin{align}

828:   f(x) \equiv x - q(x)(1-\rho) &\ge 0

829: \label{eq: E-R EP ineq}

830: \end{align}

831: for all $x\in[0,1]$ according to Eq.~\eqref{eq: x0 gt}. If both

832: Eqs.~\eqref{eq: E-R EP slope} and~\eqref{eq: E-R EP ineq} are

833: satisfied, the \EP\ transition occurs at the value of $p$

834: given by Eq.~\eqref{eq: E-R EP slope}:

835: \begin{align}

836:   p_{\trm c} &= \frac{\ln\langle K\rangle+\ln(1-\rho)}{\langle K\rangle}~.

837: \end{align}

838: 

839: Equation~\eqref{eq: E-R EP slope} turns out to be a sufficient and

840: necessary condition for the \EP\ transition.  Provided that

841: Eq.~\eqref{eq: E-R EP slope} holds, the first derivative satisfies

842: $f'(0)=0$.  From the observation $f'''(x)<0$, it is then

843: straightforward to show that $f(x)$ has no local minimum on the

844: interval $(0,1)$.  Since $f(0)=0$ and $f(1)>0$, Eq.~\eqref{eq: E-R EP

845:   ineq} holds for all $x\in[0,1]$.

846: 

847: It is instructive to examine the phase diagram at fixed $\rho$.  A

848: negative value of $p_{\trm c}$ indicates that the system is always in

849: the \EP\ regime, so for $\langle K\rangle < 1$ the system exhibits

850: \EP\ and it is not possible to observe a transition.  For $\langle

851: K\rangle > 1$, an \EP\ transition can be observed at $p=p_{\trm c}$.

852: A curious feature of this system is that $p_{\trm c}$ is not a

853: monotonic function of $\langle K\rangle$, having a maximum value of

854: $(1-\rho)/e$ at $\langle K\rangle = e/(1-\rho)$ and approaching zero

855: as $\langle K\rangle$ approaches infinity.  Thus if $p$ is held fixed

856: at any value between zero and $(1-\rho)/e$, the system will undergo

857: two transitions as $\langle K\rangle$ is increased from zero.  The

858: system will begin in the \EP\ regime (i.e. $p>p_{\trm c}$), undergo a

859: transition to subcritical behavior at some $\langle K\rangle$, then

860: reenter the \EP\ regime for a higher value of $\langle K\rangle$.  The

861: calculated phase diagram is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig: E-R EP phase} and

862: has been verified by direct numerical simulations of avalanches.

863: Roughly speaking, at low $\langle K\rangle$ \EP\ occurs due to the

864: high density of initially damaged nodes with no inputs.  At high

865: $\langle K\rangle$, on the other hand, \EP\ occurs due to the high

866: probability of nodes being damaged because of their large number of

867: inputs.

868: 

869: \begin{figure}[bt]

870: \begin{center}

871: \includegraphics{E-R_EP_phase.eps}

872: \end{center}

873: \caption{\label{fig: E-R EP phase} Phase diagram for \EP\ on 

874:   random digraphs, where damage spreads along each directed link with

875:   probability $p$ and a node is guaranteed to get damaged in the

876:   special case that all of its inputs are connected to damaged nodes.

877:   All nodes with zero inputs are initially damaged, and the other

878:   nodes are initially damaged with probability $\rho$.  The gray area

879:   bounded by a solid line shows the region where \EP\ occurs for

880:   $\rho=0$ and the dashed lines show the \EP\ transition when $\rho$

881:   has the values $1/4$, $1/2$, and $3/4$, respectively.}

882: \end{figure}

883: 

884: \subsection{The probability of complete coverage}

885: \label{sec: cc}

886: An important quantity associated with \EP\ is the probability of an

887: avalanche yielding complete coverage of the system; i.e., the

888: probability that all sites are damaged by the \UBA\ so that $u=0$.

889: Let $\Pex(N,q; n_0,n_\msa)$ denote the probability that a \UBA\ on a

890: random network will yield complete coverage for a system with a given

891: network size $N$, a given damage control function $q$, and starting

892: with particular values of $n_0$ and $n_\msa$.  For future convenience

893: we also define $\Pex(N,q)$ to be the probability for complete coverage

894: assuming that each node is initially damaged with probability $1-q(1)$

895: and we average over the corresponding probability distribution for

896: $n_\msa$.

897: 

898: To calculate $\Pex(N,q; n_0,n_\msa)$, we note that 

899: \begin{align}

900: \Pex(N,q;m,0)=0\quad {\rm if\ } m>0,

901: \end{align} 

902: since the process stops when $n_\msa = 0$.  We also have 

903: \begin{align}

904:   \Pex(N,q;0,m)=1\quad {\rm for\ any\ } m,

905: \end{align} 

906: since updating can never create 0s.  These values of $\Pex$ can be

907: used for recursive calculation of $\Pex$. Let $n_\msia$ denote

908: $n_0+n_\msa$, or $Nx_\msia$.  Performing steps \ref{j select}--\ref{j

909:   := 1} (from Section~\ref{sec: formal UBA}) one time decreases

910: $n_\msia$ by $1$ as described by Eqs.~\eqref{eq: n-update

911:   first}--\eqref{eq: n-update last}.  This means that $\Pex(N,q;

912: n_0,n_\msa)$ can be calculated for all $n_\msia=m$ if $\Pex(N,q;

913: n_0,n_\msa)$ is known for all $n_\msia=m-1$. The recursion starts at

914: $n_\msia=0$ with $\Pex(N,q;0,0)=1$ and uses the boundary conditions

915: $\Pex(N,q; n_\msia,0)=0$ and $\Pex(N,q; 0,n_\msia)=1$ for $n_\msia>0$.

916: 

917: For large $N$, $\Pex$ can be calculated in the framework of a

918: continuous approximation. Let $p(n_\msia,c)$ denote a continuous version

919: of $\Pex(N,q$; $n_0,n_\msa)$. Then, the boundary conditions

920: $\Pex(N,q; n_\msia,0)=0$ and $\Pex(N,q$; $0,n_\msia)=1$ are

921: expressed as

922: \begin{align}

923:   p[n_\msia,c_{\trm{max}}(x_\msia)] &= 0,

924: \label{eq: p-diff bound beg}

925: \intertext{and}

926:   p(n_\msia,0) &= 1,

927: \intertext{where}

928:   c_{\trm{max}}(x_\msia) &= \frac{n_\msia}{q(x_\msia)}.

929: \label{eq: p-diff bound end}

930: \end{align}

931: 

932: In the continuous approximation, the recurrence relation that can be

933: derived from Eqs.~\eqref{eq: n-update first}--\eqref{eq: n-update

934: last} is transformed to a partial differential equation.  In such an

935: update, the change $n_\msia$ decreases by unity and, for large $N$,

936: the change in $c$ is much less than $c$ itself.  In the continuous

937: approximation, this means that $p(n_\msia,c)$ satisfies a partial

938: differential equation of the form

939: \begin{align}

940:   \frac{\partial p}{\partial n_\msia} 

941:         &= h_1(n_\msia,c)\frac{\partial p}{\partial c}

942:            + h_2(n_\msia,c)\frac{\partial^2p}{\partial c^2},

943: \label{eq: p-diff 0}

944: \end{align}

945: where $h_1(n_\msia,c)$ and $h_2(n_\msia,c)$ are functions to be

946: determined.  This is recognizable as a 1D diffusion equation in which

947: $n_\msia$ plays the role of time and $c$ the role of space.  Note that

948: later times in the diffusion equation correspond to earlier stages of

949: the \UBA, since $n_\msia$ decreases as nodes are converted to 1s.  The

950: boundary conditions on the diffusion are given by Eqs.~\eqref{eq:

951:   p-diff bound beg} and~\eqref{eq: p-diff bound end}.  We are

952: interested in computing $p(n_{\msia},c)$ for values of $n_\msia$ and

953: $c$ corresponding to $n_\msa = n_\msa^\ti$ and $n_1 = 0$.

954: 

955: The fact that the average of $c$ is constant means that the

956: coefficient of the drift term in the diffusion equation must vanish;

957: i.e., $h_1(n_\msia,c)=0$.  The diffusion coefficient,

958: $h_2(n_\msia,c)$, is given by

959: \begin{align}

960:   h_2 &= \tfrac12\sigma^2(c'),

961: \label{eq: h2}

962: \end{align}

963: where $\sigma^2(c')$ is the variance of $c'$ when a fixed $c$ is

964: updated.  

965: 

966: Using Eqs.\ \eqref{eq: c-variance} and \eqref{eq: h2} and converting

967: $g$'s to $q$'s, we find

968: \begin{align}

969:   \frac{\partial p}{\partial n_\msia} 

970:         &= \frac{c}{2N[q(x_\msia)]^2}

971:            \frac{dq(x)}{dx}\bigg|_{x=x_\msia}

972:            \frac{\partial^2p}{\partial c^2}.

973: \label{eq: p-diff 1}

974: \end{align}

975: 

976: The large $N$ behavior of Eq.~\eqref{eq: p-diff 1}, with the boundary

977: conditions in Eqs.\ \eqref{eq: p-diff bound beg} and \eqref{eq: p-diff

978: bound end}, can be found by expanding $q(x)$ around $x=0$. If $q(x)$

979: is well-behaved, such an expansion can be written as

980: \begin{align}

981:   q(x) &= \alpha_1x - \alpha_2x^2 + \Oc(x^3).

982: \label{eq: q-Taylor}

983: \end{align}

984: This expansion can always be performed if the probability $P(K)$ for a

985: node to have $K$ inputs decays as least as fast as $K^{-4}$ and in the

986: case that $p_K$ decays slower than $K^{-4}$ but faster than $K^{-3}$,

987: only the residue term can be affected.  See Appendix \ref{app: q

988:   calc}.  In particular, the expansion is always valid if $K$ has a

989: maximal value.

990: 

991: The most interesting case in terms of asymptotic behavior is when

992: $\alpha_1$ is close to $1$ and $\alpha_2$ is positive. With suitable

993: $N$-dependent transformations of $p$ and its arguments, described in

994: Appendix \ref{app: PEP}, the large $N$ behavior of Eq.~\eqref{eq:

995:   p-diff 1} can be expressed in terms of a function $\pt(\tti,\yt)$

996: determined by the differential equation

997: \begin{align}

998:   \frac{\partial\pt}{\partial\tti} &= \frac12

999:          \frac{\partial^2\pt}{\partial\yt^2},

1000: \label{eq: diffuse}

1001: \end{align}

1002: with the boundary conditions

1003: \begin{align}

1004:   \pt(\tti,1/\tti) &= 0 \quad\trm{for }\tti<0

1005: \label{eq: diffuse bound 0}

1006: \intertext{and}

1007:   \lim_{\tti\rightarrow-\infty}\pt(\tti,\yt) &= \yt

1008:            \quad \trm{for }\yt\ge0.

1009: \label{eq: diffuse bound 1}

1010: \end{align}

1011: The Crank--Nicholson method can be used to calculate $\pt(\tti,\yt)$

1012: numerically in an efficient way. (See, e.g., \cite{numrecip}.)

1013: 

1014: Appendix~\ref{app: PEP} shows that the probability for complete

1015: coverage is given by

1016: \begin{align}

1017:   \Pex(N, q) &\approx \Nt^{-1/3}\pt[0,\Nt^{1/3}(1-\alpha_1)],

1018: \label{eq: PexNq}

1019: \end{align}

1020: where $\Nt=\alpha_1N/\alpha_2$.  The calculation assumes that the

1021: avalanche is initiated on the nodes whose outputs are independent of

1022: their inputs, as accounted for in $q(1)$.

1023: 

1024: To our knowledge, the critical point for \EP\ has not been

1025: investigated previously in its own right.  Two special cases have been

1026: studied, however.  First, results for numbers of frozen and unfrozen

1027: nodes in critical \RBN s can be mapped to an \EP\ process, as

1028: discussed in Section~\ref{sec: application}.  In this context, frozen

1029: nodes in the network are considered to be the damaged nodes of the

1030: \UBA, and the scaling with $N$ of the number of unfrozen nodes at the

1031: phase transition has been investigated for certain class of \RBN s

1032: \cite{Socolar:03,Kaufman:05}.

1033: 

1034: Second, in the special case that $q(x)=x$, the exact result

1035: \begin{align}

1036:    \Pex(N,x\mapsto x;n_0,n_\msa)

1037:              &= \frac{n_\msa}{n_0+n_\msa}

1038: \label{eq: q-ident main}

1039: \end{align}

1040: is obtained.  [See Eq.~\eqref{eq: q-ident} in Appendix \ref{app:

1041:   PEP}.] This means that the probability for complete coverage is

1042: exactly $n^\ti_\msa/N$. The simplest realization of $q(x)=x$ is

1043: provided by a network of one-input nodes with rules that copy the

1044: input state.  Such networks have strong connections to random maps

1045: from a set of $N$ elements into itself.  A map $T$ is derived from a

1046: network of one-input nodes by letting each node map to the node from

1047: where its input is taken. In this picture, the damage originating from

1048: one initially damaged node $i$, corresponds to the set of nodes $j$

1049: such that $T^k(j)=i$ for some $k\ge0$ (where $T^k$ denotes the $k$th

1050: iterate of $T$). Such a $j$ is called a {\it predecessor} to $i$. See,

1051: e.g., Ref.~\cite{Bollabas:85} for an overview of the theory of

1052: random maps and see Refs.~\cite{Rubin:54, Harris:60} for results on

1053: predecessors in random maps. See Appendix~\ref{app: exact} for

1054: analytic results that relate \UBA\ to random maps.

1055: 

1056: \subsection{On the number of damaged nodes in random networks}

1057: \label{sec: avalanche size}

1058: 

1059: In the Sections~\ref{sec: criteria for EP} and~\ref{sec: cc} we

1060: focused on determining the parameters that lead to \EP\ (a vanishing

1061: fraction of undamaged nodes large $N$ limit) and on the probability

1062: that the number of undamaged nodes will be exactly zero (complete

1063: coverage).  We now consider the full probability distribution for the

1064: number of nodes damaged in an avalanche in a manner that provides a

1065: suitable base for understanding both \SP\ and \EP\ in random networks.

1066: The calculational strategy involves considering a given set of $n$

1067: nodes to be the damaged set and computing the probability that this is

1068: both consistent with all of the Boolean rules and the probability that

1069: the avalanche will actually cover the whole set.  The probability of

1070: consistency is calculated via elementary combinatorics.  The

1071: probability of reaching the whole set is precisely the probability of

1072: complete coverage for an avalanche on the sub-network of $n$ candidate

1073: nodes.  For this we can directly apply the results of the last

1074: section.  For the purposes of explaining the calculation, we refer to

1075: the selected set of $n$ nodes as the {\it candidate set}.

1076: 

1077: We let $\Pn(n)$ denote the probability that $n$ nodes will be damaged

1078: in an avalanche, averaged over the ensemble of $N$-node networks with

1079: a rule distribution characterized by a given damage propagation

1080: function $g$ or the corresponding damage control function $q$.  We

1081: assume that the avalanche is initiated by randomly selecting $\ell$

1082: nodes to set to $\msa$, regardless of their Boolean rules, then

1083: setting to $\msa$ all nodes with rules that always output 1 for any

1084: inputs.  The set of $\ell$ initially damaged nodes must be a subset of

1085: the candidate set.  The probability that the candidate set contains

1086: all of the nodes with ``always 1'' rules will be taken into account by

1087: the value of $g(0)$ in the expression below for the consistency

1088: probability.  We use the notation $\binom m k$ for the usual binomial

1089: coefficient (the number of combinations of $k$ objects chosen from a

1090: set of $m$ objects).

1091: 

1092: The probability $\Pn(n)$ can be expressed as

1093: \begin{align}

1094: \Pn(n) = \binom{N-\ell}{n-\ell} P_{\trm c}(n, \ell; N)\, \PNex(n,\ell;N),

1095: \label{eq: Pnn}

1096: \end{align}

1097: where $P_{\trm c}(n, \ell; N)$ and $\PNex(n,\ell;N)$ are defined below.

1098: The binomial factor counts the number of different sets of $n-\ell$

1099: nodes that could be damaged in a process corresponding to a given set

1100: of $\ell$ nodes that are initially damaged without regard to their

1101: rules.  $P_{\trm c}(n, \ell; N)$ is the probability that a given choice of

1102: $n-\ell$ nodes assumed to be damaged by the avalanche will constitute

1103: a final state that is consistent with the Boolean rules for each node,

1104: including the nodes that are initially damaged because their rules

1105: require it.  $\PNex(n,\ell;N)$ is the probability that the avalanche

1106: will not die out before damaging all $n$ nodes.  This factor is

1107: necessary to avoid counting final states that contain loops of damaged

1108: nodes consistent with the rules but unreachable because damage cannot

1109: spread to the loop from any nodes outside the loop.

1110: 

1111: Consistency with the Boolean rules requires that the given set of

1112: $n-\ell$ nodes damaged in the avalanche have inputs that cause them to

1113: be damaged.  In a random network, the probability that any single node

1114: will be damaged is $g(x_1)$, where $x_1$ is the fraction of damaged

1115: nodes.  Similarly, the probability that any node will {\it not} be

1116: damaged is $1-g(x_1)$.  We are considering candidate sets of damaged

1117: nodes with $x_1 = n/N$.  Thus we have

1118: \begin{align}

1119:   P_{\trm c}(n,\ell;N) = [g(n/N)]^{n-\ell}[1-g(n/N)]^{N-n}.

1120: \label{eq: Pconsistency}

1121: \end{align}

1122: 

1123: The computation of $\PNex(n,\ell;N)$ involves the rule distribution on

1124: the restricted network formed by the candidate set with all inputs

1125: from the undamaged nodes removed.  This distribution, $g^1(x)$, is

1126: different from $g(x)$ because $P_{\trm c}$ already accounts for rules that

1127: are not consistent with the pattern of damage.  Thus the spreading of

1128: damage on the $n$-node network involves $g(nx/N)$, the probability

1129: that a rule outputs $1$ when a fraction $x$ of the $n$-node candidate

1130: set is damaged.  The probability must be normalized such that it goes

1131: to unity when $x$ goes to 1.  (We know that a node in the $n$-node set

1132: should get damaged if all of its inputs are damaged.)  Thus

1133: we have

1134: \begin{align}

1135: g^1_{N,n}(x) = \frac{g(nx/N)}{g(n/N)}

1136: \label{eq: g1}

1137: \end{align}

1138: or, equivalently, 

1139: \begin{align}

1140:   q^1_{N,u}(x) &= \frac{q[u/N+(1-u/N)x]-q(u/N)}{1-q(u/N)}.

1141: \label{eq: q1}

1142: \end{align}

1143: (Recall that $u = N-n$ is the number of undamaged nodes after an

1144: avalanche.)

1145: 

1146: There are two cases of interest for the probability of complete

1147: coverage of the candidate set.  For \EP, $g(0)>0$ and the fixed number

1148: $\ell$ of nodes arbitrarily selected for damage is irrelevant compared

1149: to the finite fraction of nodes with rules that produce damage for any

1150: combination of inputs.  In this case, we assume $\ell=0$, which allows

1151: reduction of $\Pex$ to its two-argument form defined at the beginning of

1152: Section~\ref{sec: cc}:

1153: \begin{align}

1154:   \PNex(n,0;N) & = \Pex(n,q^1_{N,N-n}).

1155: \label{eq: cc on n EP}

1156: \end{align}

1157: 

1158: For \SP, we have $g(0)=0$ so the avalanche must be initiated with a 

1159: nonzero value of $\ell$.  In this case we have

1160: \begin{align}

1161:   \PNex(n,\ell;N) = \Pex(n,q^1_{N,N-n};n-\ell,\ell).

1162: \label{eq: cc on n SP}

1163: \end{align}

1164: Note that $\PNex(n,\ell;N)$ depends on $N$ only through $q^1$.

1165: 

1166: For notational convenience, we now let $\PNex$ stand for whichever

1167: expression on the right-hand side of Eqs.~\eqref{eq: cc on n EP}

1168: or~\eqref{eq: cc on n SP} is relevant, and we use $u$ where $N-n$

1169: would be the strictly proper form. By combining Eqs.~\eqref{eq: Pnn}

1170: and \eqref{eq: Pconsistency}, we get

1171: \begin{align}

1172:   \Pn(n) =\,&\binom{N-\ell}{n-\ell}[g(n/N)]^{n-\ell}[1-g(n/N)]^{u}

1173:            \PNex.

1174: \label{eq: Pn0}

1175: \end{align}

1176: 

1177: To make some important features of Eq.~\eqref{eq: Pn0} apparent, we

1178: introduce the functions

1179: \begin{align}

1180:   \rho(n) &= \frac{n^n}{e^nn!},\\

1181:   \tau(n, k) &= \frac{n!}{n^k(n-k)!},

1182: \intertext{and}

1183:   G(x) &= \biggl(\frac{g(x)}x\biggr)^{\!x}

1184:           \biggl(\frac{1-g(x)}{1-x}\biggr)^{\!1-x}.

1185: \end{align}

1186: Then Eq.~\eqref{eq: Pn0} can be rewritten as

1187: \begin{align}

1188:   \Pn(n) 

1189:       =\,&\frac{\rho(n)\rho(u)}{\rho(N)}

1190:           \frac{\tau(n, \ell)}{\tau(N, \ell)}

1191:           \biggl(\frac{n/N}{g(n/N)}\biggr)^{\!\ell} \nonumber\\ 

1192:          &\times [G(n/N)]^N \PNex.

1193: \label{eq: Pn1}

1194: \end{align}

1195: 

1196: Stirling's formula,

1197: \begin{align}

1198:   n! &\approx \sqrt{2\pi n}\,\frac{n^n}{e^n},

1199: \label{eq: Stirling}

1200: \end{align}

1201: yields

1202: \begin{align}

1203:   \rho(n)&\approx\frac1{\sqrt{2\pi n}}

1204: \intertext{and}

1205:   \frac{\rho(n)\rho(u)}{\rho(N)}&\approx\frac1{\sqrt{2\pi nu/N}}.

1206: \end{align}

1207: 

1208: The factor $\tau(n,\ell)/\tau(N,\ell)$ is approximately 1 for large $n$ and

1209: satisfies

1210: \begin{align}

1211:   \frac{\tau(n, \ell)}{\tau(N, \ell)}&\le1

1212: \end{align}

1213: for $n\leq N$, with equality if $n=N$ or $\ell=1$ or $\ell=0$. The

1214: only factors in Eq.~\eqref{eq: Pn1} that can show exponential

1215: dependence on $N$ are the $G$ and $\PNex$ factors.  Because $\PNex$ is

1216: a probability (and therefore cannot exceed unity) and $G(x)\leq1$ with

1217: equality if and only if $g(x)=x$, $\Pn(n)$ vanishes exponentially as

1218: $N$ goes to infinity for any fixed $n/N$ such that $g(n/N)\ne n/N$.

1219: This is consistent with the above result that the probability of an

1220: avalanche stopping with $x_1 \neq g(x_1)$ is vanishingly small.  [See

1221: Eqs.~\eqref{eq: x1 fp} and~\eqref{eq: x0 gt}.]

1222: 

1223: For \EP, we are interested in the number of undamaged nodes, $u$. We

1224: let

1225: \begin{align}

1226:   \Pu(u) &= \Pn(N-u)

1227: \intertext{and}

1228:   Q(x) &= G(1-x) \nonumber \\

1229:        &= \biggl(\frac{1-q(x)}{1-x}\biggr)^{\!1-x}

1230:           \biggl(\frac{q(x)}x\biggr)^{\!x}.

1231: \end{align}

1232: For \EP, $g(0)>0$ and a fixed $\ell$ is irrelevant when

1233: $N\rightarrow\infty$. Hence, we let $\ell=0$ and rewrite

1234: Eq.~\eqref{eq: Pn1} as

1235: \begin{align}

1236:   \Pu(u) =\frac{\rho(n)\rho(u)}{\rho(N)} [Q(u/N)]^N \PNex.

1237: \label{eq: Pu0}

1238: \end{align}

1239: 

1240: To some respects, $\Pu$ is similar to $\Pn$: the factor

1241: $[\rho(u)\rho(n)]/\rho(N)$ is fully symmetric with respect to

1242: interchange of $n$ and $u$; and the role of $G(n/N)$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:

1243:   Pn1} is identical to the role of $Q(u/N)$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq: Pu0}.

1244: However, the behavior of $\PNex$ for $n\ll N$ given by Eq.~\eqref{eq:

1245:   cc on n SP} is significantly different from the behavior of $\PNex$

1246: for $u\ll N$ given by Eq.~\eqref{eq: cc on n EP}.

1247: 

1248: For \EP, we consider damage control functions $q(x)$ that can be

1249: expanded according to Eq.~\eqref{eq: q-Taylor}. For supercritical \EP,

1250: with $\alpha_1<1$, $\Pu(u)$ decays exponentially with $u$. In Appendix

1251: \ref{app: super EP}, we demonstrate that

1252: \begin{align}

1253:   \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\Pu(u) 

1254:         &= (1-\alpha_1)\frac{(u\alpha_1)^{u}}{u!}e^{-u\alpha_1}

1255: \label{eq: pu(u) exact asympt}

1256: \\ 

1257:          \ &\approx\frac{1-\alpha_1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{u(1-\alpha_1)}

1258:             \alpha_1^uu^{-1/2}.

1259: \label{eq: pu(u) asympt}

1260: \end{align}

1261: 

1262: For critical \EP, Eq.~\eqref{eq: PexNq} gives

1263: \begin{align}

1264:   \PNex(n,0;N) & = \Pex(n,q^1_{N,N-n}) \nonumber \\

1265:                & \approx \tilde{n}^{-1/3}\pt[0,\tilde{n}^{1/3}(1-\alpha_1^1)],

1266: \label{eq: cc on n crit EP}

1267: \end{align}

1268: where $\tilde{n} \equiv \alpha_1^1 n/\alpha_2^1$ and $\alpha_1^1$ and

1269: $\alpha_2^1$ are the first two coefficients of the power series

1270: expansion of $q^1(x)$ about $x=0$.  With $\alpha_1=1$ and

1271: $\alpha_2>0$, a Taylor expansion of $\log Q(x)$ about $x=0$ gives

1272: \begin{align}

1273:   Q(x) &\approx \exp\biggl(-\frac{\alpha_2^2x^3}2\biggr)

1274: \end{align}

1275: for small $x$. This yields that the typical number of undamaged nodes,

1276: $u$, scales like $N^{2/3}$. In Appendix \ref{app: crit EP}, we derive

1277: the asymptotic distribution of $u$ for large $N$. With

1278: $\ut=\Nt^{-2/3}u = (\alpha_2/N)^{2/3}u$, we find that the large $N$

1279: limit of the probability density for $\ut$ is

1280: \begin{align}

1281:   P(\ut) &= \frac{\exp(-\frac12\ut^3)}

1282:                   {\sqrt{2\pi\ut}}\,\pt(0,2\ut).

1283: \label{eq: p(ut) asympt}

1284: \end{align}

1285: 

1286: Eq.~\eqref{eq: Pn1} is suitable for understanding \SP\ as well as \EP.

1287: For \SP, $g(0)=0$ and $\ell>0$. In the large $N$ limit, \SP\ is a

1288: branching process with a Poisson distribution in the number of

1289: branches from each node. The average number of branches per node is

1290: given by the derivative of $g(x)$ at $x=0$, because

1291: $\lim_{x\rightarrow0} g(x)/x$ is the average number of nodes that will

1292: be damaged in one update as a direct consequence of damaging a single

1293: node in the large network limit.  In Appendix \ref{app: SP}, we

1294: re-derive known results on \SP\ in the framework of our formalism.

1295: 

1296: \section{An application:  Frozen nodes in random Boolean networks}

1297: \label{sec: application}

1298: 

1299: An important application of our results on \EP\ in random networks is

1300: the determination of the size distribution for the set of unfrozen

1301: nodes in 2-input random Boolean networks, a subject of interest since

1302: the introduction of the Kauffman model in 1969 \cite{Kauffman:69}.

1303: The Kauffman model was originally proposed as a vehicle for studying

1304: aspects of the complex dynamics of transcriptional networks within

1305: cells.

1306: 

1307: In a Boolean network, there are usually some nodes that will reach a

1308: fixed final state after a transient time regardless of the initial

1309: state of the network.  For most random Boolean networks, nearly all of

1310: these nodes can be found by a procedure introduced in

1311: Ref.~\cite{Flyvbjerg:88b} and applied numerically in

1312: Ref.~\cite{Bilke:01}.  We refer to nodes identified by this procedure

1313: as {\it frozen}.

1314: 

1315: The nodes that cannot be identified as frozen are labeled {\it

1316:   unfrozen}.  Their output may switch on and off for all time or

1317: simply have different values on different attractors of the network

1318: dynamics.  A frozen node will always reach its fixed final state

1319: regardless of the initial state of the network.  The converse is not

1320: true: an unfrozen node can have a fixed final state that is

1321: independent of the initial state due to correlations that are not

1322: accounted for in the identification procedure for frozen nodes.  In a

1323: typical random Boolean network, the number of nodes that are

1324: mislabeled in this sense is negligible \cite{Bilke:01}.  For the

1325: purposes of investigating dynamics of the network at long times, one

1326: is interested in the size of the unfrozen set.

1327: 

1328: The procedure for identification of the frozen nodes starts by marking

1329: all nodes with a constant output function as frozen.  There may then

1330: be nodes that, as a consequence of receiving one or many inputs from

1331: frozen nodes, will also produce a constant output.  These nodes are

1332: also marked as frozen, and the process continues iteratively until

1333: there are no further nodes that can be identified as frozen.

1334: 

1335: We note here that the process of finding frozen nodes in a \RBN\ can

1336: often be framed as a \UBA, where the property of being frozen

1337: corresponds to damage.  That is, the process of identifying frozen

1338: nodes involves continually checking all nodes to see whether their

1339: inputs are frozen in such a way that they themselves become frozen, a

1340: process which satisfies the conditions for \UBA.  The damage

1341: propagation and damage control functions for the \UBA\ are determined

1342: by the relative weights of different Boolean logic functions in the

1343: \RBN.  By changing these weights, one can observe a transition in the

1344: dynamical behavior of \RBN s corresponding precisely to the \EP\ 

1345: transition in the \UBA.  We consider here \RBN s with exactly two

1346: inputs at each node, with some explicit choices for the weights of the

1347: Boolean logic functions that permit observation of both sides of the

1348: transition.

1349: 

1350: The only restriction required for mapping the freezing of nodes in a

1351: \RBN\ to a \UBA\ system is that the logic functions in the \RBN\ be

1352: symmetric with respect to the probability of freezing being due to

1353: {\sc true} and {\sc false} inputs.  That is, the probability that a

1354: node with a certain set of frozen inputs will itself be frozen should

1355: not depend on the values of the frozen inputs.  This condition is

1356: satisfied for the most commonly investigated classes of rule

1357: distributions, where there is a given probability $p$ for obtaining a

1358: 1 at each entry in the truth table for each rule.  If the above

1359: mentioned symmetry condition were violated, it would be necessary to

1360: distinguish nodes frozen {\sc true} from nodes frozen {\sc false},

1361: which would mean that the state of a node could not be specified by a

1362: binary variable.  For the rest of this section we consider only \RBN s

1363: that respect the symmetry condition.

1364: 

1365: It is useful to distinguish different types of Boolean logic

1366: functions.  A {\it canalizing} rule is one for which the output is

1367: independent of one of the inputs for at least one value of the other

1368: input.  Among the 16 possible 2-input Boolean rules, 2 rules are

1369: constant (``always on'' or ``always off''), 12 rules are non-constant

1370: and canalizing, and 2 rules are non-canalizing ({\sc xor} and not-{\sc

1371:   xor}).  The original version of the Kauffman model assumes that all

1372: 2-input Boolean rules are equally likely, which turns out to give

1373: critical dynamics.

1374: 

1375: Let $p_i$ denote the probability that a randomly selected node's

1376: output is frozen if exactly $i$ of its inputs are frozen.  The damage

1377: propagation function $g(x)$ can be expressed directly in terms of

1378: $p_i$:

1379: \begin{align}

1380:   g(x) = p_0(1-x)^2 + 2p_1x(1-x) + p_2x^2.

1381: \end{align}

1382: Nodes with constant rules are guaranteed to be frozen.  (These nodes

1383: will initiate the \UBA.)  Nodes with non-constant canalizing rules are

1384: unfrozen if both inputs are unfrozen, and they are frozen with

1385: probability $1/2$ if exactly one randomly selected input is frozen.

1386: Nodes with rules that are non-canalizing become frozen if and only if

1387: both of their inputs are frozen.  Finally, if both inputs are frozen,

1388: the output of any 2-input rule is frozen.  Thus for the 2-input

1389: Kauffman model, $p_0=1/8$, $p_1=1/2$, and $p_2=1$.

1390: 

1391: \begin{figure}[bt]

1392: \begin{center}

1393: \includegraphics{gq.eps}

1394: \includegraphics{GQ.eps}

1395: \end{center}

1396: \caption{\label{fig: gq} The functions (a) $g(x)\equiv 1-q(1-x)$ and

1397:   (b) $G(x)\equiv Q(1-x)$ for three 2-inputs rule distributions. All

1398:   three distributions have $p_0=1/8$ and $p_2=1$, whereas $p_1$ takes

1399:   the values $7/16$, $1/2$, and $9/16$. The case that has $p_1=1/2$

1400:   (marked with $=$) is critical with respect to \EP\ and corresponds

1401:   to the propagation of frozen node values in the original Kauffman

1402:   model. The other cases $p_1=7/16$ ($<$) and $p_1=9/16$ ($>$) are

1403:   subcritical and supercritical, respectively.  The dashed line in (a)

1404:   shows the identity function $x\mapsto x$.}

1405: \end{figure}

1406: 

1407: If the two non-canalizing rules in the 2-input Kauffman model are

1408: replaced by canalizing rules, $p_1$ becomes $9/16$, whereas $p_0$ and

1409: $p_2$ are unchanged. Such networks exhibit supercritical \EP. To get a

1410: subcritical network, we replace two of the canalizing rules with

1411: non-canalizing rules and get $p_1=7/16$.  (Note that some care must be

1412: taken to maintain the {\sc true}--{\sc false} symmetry mentioned

1413: above.)  The functions $g(x)$ and $G(x)$ for critical, supercritical,

1414: and subcritical rule distributions are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig: gq}.

1415: 

1416: \begin{figure}[bt]

1417: \begin{center}

1418: \includegraphics{K2_sub.eps}

1419: \\\vspace*{-42pt}

1420: \includegraphics{K2_cri.eps}

1421: \\\vspace*{-42pt}

1422: \includegraphics{K2_sup.eps}

1423: \end{center}

1424: \caption{\label{fig: K2} The probability density distribution $N\Pn(n)$

1425:   with respect to the fraction of nodes ($n/N$) involved in an

1426:   avalanche. The rule distributions have the same $g(x)$ as displayed

1427:   in Fig.~\ref{fig: gq}, showing rule distributions that are ($<$)

1428:   subcritical, ($=$) critical, and ($>$) supercritical with respect to

1429:   \EP. The displayed networks sizes, $N$, are 10 (large dots), 100

1430:   (small dots), $10^3$ (bold line), $10^4$, $10^5$, and $10^6$

1431:   (gradually thinner lines).}

1432: \end{figure}

1433: 

1434: \begin{figure}[bt]

1435: \begin{center}

1436: \includegraphics{K2_num_N1000.eps}

1437: \end{center}

1438: \caption{\label{fig: K2_num} A numeric comparison between analytic

1439:   calculations (black lines) and explicit reductions of random Boolean

1440:   networks (gray lines). For both cases, the probability density

1441:   distribution $N\Pn(n)$ is displayed as a function of $n/N$. The rule

1442:   distributions have the same $g(x)$ as displayed in Figs.\ \ref{fig:

1443:   gq} and \ref{fig: K2}, showing rule distributions that are ($<$)

1444:   subcritical, ($=$) critical, and ($>$) supercritical with respect to

1445:   \EP. The \UBA\ rule distributions are realized in random Boolean

1446:   networks by rule distributions with the following respective

1447:   selection probabilities: $1/8$, $1/4$, $5/8-p_{\trm r}$, and

1448:   $p_{\trm r}$ for a constant rule, a rule that depends on exactly 1

1449:   input, a canalizing rule that depends on 2 inputs, a 2-input

1450:   reversible rule. The values of $p_{\trm r}$ are ($<$) 0, ($=$) 1/8,

1451:   and ($>$) 1/4. For each rule distribution, $10^6$ networks were

1452:   tested.}

1453: \end{figure}

1454: 

1455: As can be seen from Fig.~\ref{fig: gq}, a small change in $g(x)$ may

1456: lead to a qualitative change in $G(x)$ for rule distributions close to

1457: criticality.  Such changes have a strong impact on the avalanche size

1458: distribution for large $N$.  Figure~\ref{fig: K2} shows the probability

1459: density distribution of the fraction, $n/N$, of nodes that are

1460: affected by avalanches in networks with the above mentioned rule

1461: distributions. The probability distributions are obtained by recursive

1462: calculation of the distribution of $n_\msa$ as $n_1$ increases. The

1463: recurrence relations are obtained from Eqs.~\eqref{eq: n-update

1464:   first}--\eqref{eq: n-update last} and the result is exact up to

1465: truncation errors. To verify these calculations, we generated

1466: $10^6$ random Boolean networks of size $N=10^3$ for each of the above

1467: described rule distributions. The distributions in the numbers of

1468: frozen nodes in those networks are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:

1469: K2_num}.

1470: 

1471: \begin{figure}[bt]

1472: \begin{center}

1473: \includegraphics{EP_K2_cri.eps}

1474: \includegraphics{EP_K2_sup.eps}

1475: \end{center}

1476: \caption{\label{fig: EP_K2} Rescaled versions of the probability

1477:   distributions displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig: K2}: (a) the probability

1478:   density for the critical case, with respect to the rescaled number

1479:   of undamaged nodes, $\ut\equiv(\alpha_2/N)^{2/3}u=u/(4N^{2/3})$; (b)

1480:   the probability distribution $\Pu(u)$ for the supercritical case

1481:   without rescaling. The displayed networks sizes, $N$, are 10 (large

1482:   dots), 100 (small dots), $10^3$ (bold line), $10^4$, $10^5$, and

1483:   $10^6$ (gradually thinner lines).  The analytically derived

1484:   asymptotes are shown as dashed lines.  In (b), the distributions for

1485:   networks of sizes $10^4$, $10^5$, and $10^6$ are not plotted because

1486:   they are indistinguishable from the asymptotic curve.}

1487: \end{figure}

1488: 

1489: In Fig.~\ref{fig: EP_K2}, the probability distributions of the number

1490: of undamaged nodes, $u$, are shown in comparison to the asymptotic

1491: results in Eqs.~\eqref{eq: pu(u) exact asympt} and~\eqref{eq: p(ut) asympt}.

1492: Our analytic results are strengthened by the data in Fig.~\ref{fig:

1493: EP_K2} as the distributions for finite networks approaches the

1494: predicted asymptotes. Finite size effects are clearly visible in the

1495: critical case even for network sizes as big as $N=10^6$, whereas

1496: convergence in the supercritical case is achieved for $N \gtrsim

1497: 10^3$.

1498: 

1499: Kaufman, Mihaljev, and Drossel\ studied distributions of unfrozen nodes in

1500: 2-input critical \RBN s using a method similar to ours in that

1501: differential equations for populations of different types of nodes are

1502: developed from a discrete process in which frozen nodes are identified

1503: by the propagation of information from their inputs~\cite{Kaufman:05}.

1504: Their result for the numbers of unfrozen nodes

1505: in 2-input critical \RBN s corresponds to a particular application of

1506: Eq.~\eqref{eq: p(ut) asympt}. In Ref.~\cite{Kaufman:05}, the function

1507: corresponding to $P(\ut)$ [which they call $G(y)$] is

1508: determined by running a stochastic process and a numerically motivated

1509: approximation is proposed:

1510: \begin{align}

1511:   P(\ut) &\approx 0.25\exp(-\tfrac12\ut^3)

1512:      \frac{1-0.5\sqrt{\ut}+3\ut}{\sqrt{\ut}}.

1513: \label{eq: p(ut) Kaufman approx}

1514: \end{align}

1515: The scaling law $P(\ut)\propto\ut^{-1/2}$ for small $\ut$ is also

1516: derived analytically in Ref.~\cite{Kaufman:05}.

1517: 

1518: For large $x$, Eqs.~\eqref{eq: diffuse}--\eqref{eq: diffuse bound 1}

1519: imply $\pt(0,x)\propto x$ for large positive $x$.  This means that

1520: \begin{align}

1521:   P(\ut) \approx \sqrt{\frac{2\ut}{\pi}}\exp(-\tfrac12\ut^3)

1522: \end{align}

1523: for large $\ut$. Thus the large $\ut$ limit of Eq.~\eqref{eq: p(ut)

1524:   Kaufman approx} differs from the exact result by a factor of

1525: $(3/4)\sqrt{\pi/2}$, an underestimate of about 6\%.

1526: 

1527: We are able to improve further on Eq.~\eqref{eq: p(ut) Kaufman approx}

1528: by numerical investigations of $\pt(0,x)$ calculated by the

1529: Crank--Nicholson method (see, e.g., \cite{numrecip}) using

1530: Eqs.~\eqref{eq: diffuse}--\eqref{eq: diffuse bound 1}.  We find that

1531: the high-precision numerical results are fit by the function

1532: \begin{align}

1533:   P(\ut) \approx \sqrt{\frac{2\ut}{\pi}}\exp(-\tfrac12\ut^3)

1534:            \biggl(\!1\!+\frac1{3.248\ut+4.27\ut^2+4.76\ut^3}\!\biggr)

1535: \end{align}

1536: with a relative error that is maximally 0.25\% and vanishing for large

1537: $\ut$.

1538: 

1539: By explicitly keeping track of the populations of nodes with each of

1540: the different types of Boolean logic functions as links from frozen

1541: nodes are deleted, Kaufman, Mihaljev, and Drossel~\cite{Kaufman:05}

1542: also derive results for other quantities, such as the number of links

1543: in the sub-network of unfrozen nodes.  The \EP\ formalism described

1544: above can be applied once again to investigate these additional

1545: quantities in a broader class of networks.  Detailed results for \RBN

1546: s with various degree distributions will be presented elsewhere.

1547: 

1548: \section{Summary and discussion}

1549: 

1550: Unordered binary avalanches can in some cases lead to damage on every

1551: node or almost every node of a network, a phenomenon we have dubbed

1552: {\it exhaustive percolation}.  We have studied a broad class of random

1553: networks that can exhibit \EP.  We have shown how to calculate the

1554: probability $\Pex(N)$ that complete coverage occurs (i.e that all

1555: nodes are damaged) and also derived expressions for the probability

1556: distribution $P(u)$ of the number of undamaged nodes, $u$, in the

1557: large $N$ limit when \EP\ does occur.  A logical curiosity in our

1558: approach is the fact that the calculation of $P(u)$ involves

1559: application of the $\Pex$ result to subnetworks containing candidate

1560: sets of damaged nodes.

1561: 

1562: Our primary results flow from the realization that all of the relevant

1563: information about a \UBA\ defined on a random network is contained in

1564: the damage propagation function $g(x)$ or, equivalently, the damage

1565: control function $q(x)$.  We derive scaling law exponents and exact

1566: results for the distribution of $u$ that are valid for a broad class

1567: of random networks and Boolean rule distributions in the \EP\ regime

1568: and for networks at the \EP\ critical point.  This class includes the

1569: \UBA s that determine the set of frozen nodes in \RBN s with more than

1570: two inputs per node and therefore constitute a generalization of the

1571: results on the set of unfrozen nodes in \RBN s presented in

1572: Ref.~\cite{Kaufman:05}.  Interestingly, the asymptotic behavior found

1573: in Ref.~\cite{Kaufman:05} for the distribution of $u$ at the critical

1574: point is shown to be valid for a broad class of network problems.  

1575: 

1576: For networks outside the above mentioned class but within the

1577: framework of \UBA, we find connections to previous work on

1578: Galton--Watson processes \cite{Otter:49} and random maps

1579: \cite{Harris:60}.  The central result of our investigations is

1580: displayed in Eqs.~\eqref{eq: pu(u) asympt} and~\eqref{eq: p(ut)

1581:   asympt}, which provide explicit formulas for the probability of

1582: finding $u$ undamaged nodes after an avalanche runs to completion.

1583: The out-degree distributions of the networks described by our formulas

1584: are all Poissonian, but the in-degree distributions may have different

1585: forms, including power laws, so long as the probability of having

1586: in-degree $K$ decays faster than $K^{-3}$.  The exact nature of the

1587: \EP\ transition on networks with broader in-degree distributions is an

1588: interesting issue for future research.  Further work is also needed to

1589: handle correlations between input links to different nodes, a

1590: situation that arises, for example, in random regular graphs or

1591: networks with scale free out-degree distributions.

1592: 

1593: Our original motivation for studying \EP\ arose from attempts to

1594: understand the dynamical behavior of \RBN s.  We have described one

1595: nontrivial example of how the \EP\ formalism is relevant: the

1596: calculation of the probability distribution for the number of unfrozen

1597: nodes in any \RBN\ with a rule distribution that leads to a given

1598: damage control function $q$ for the associated \UBA.  The problem of

1599: determining how many of the unfrozen nodes are actually relevant for

1600: determining the attractor structure of the \RBN\ can also be framed as

1601: an \EP\ problem, which will be addressed in a separate publication.

1602: 

1603: \section*{Acknowledgment} This work was supported by the National Science

1604: Foundation through Grant No.~PHY-0417372.

1605: 

1606: \begin{thebibliography}{38}

1607: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1608: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax

1609:   \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi

1610: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax

1611:   \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi

1612: \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax

1613:   \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi

1614: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax

1615:   \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi

1616: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi

1617: \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}

1618: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}

1619: 

1620: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kinney et~al.}(2005)\citenamefont{Kinney, Crucitti,

1621:   Albert, and Latora}}]{Kinney:05}

1622: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Kinney}},

1623:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Crucitti}},

1624:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Albert}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1625:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Latora}},

1626:   \bibinfo{journal}{Eur. Phys. J. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{46}},

1627:   \bibinfo{pages}{101} (\bibinfo{year}{2005}).

1628: 

1629: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Sachtjen et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Sachtjen, Carreras,

1630:   and Lynch}}]{Sachtjen:00}

1631: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~L.} \bibnamefont{Sachtjen}},

1632:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.~A.} \bibnamefont{Carreras}},

1633:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.~E.} \bibnamefont{Lynch}},

1634:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{61}},

1635:   \bibinfo{pages}{4877} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).

1636: 

1637: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Newman}(2002)}]{Newman:02}

1638: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~E.~J.} \bibnamefont{Newman}},

1639:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{66}},

1640:   \bibinfo{pages}{016128} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).

1641: 

1642: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Cohen et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Cohen, Havlin, and

1643:   ben{-}Avraham}}]{Cohen:03}

1644: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Cohen}},

1645:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Havlin}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1646:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{ben{-}Avraham}},

1647:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{91}},

1648:   \bibinfo{pages}{247901} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).

1649: 

1650: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hethcote}(2000)}]{Hethcote:00}

1651: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~W.} \bibnamefont{Hethcote}},

1652:   \bibinfo{journal}{SIAM Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{42}},

1653:   \bibinfo{pages}{599} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).

1654: 

1655: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Pastor-Satorras and

1656:   Vespignani}(2001)}]{Pastor-Satorras:01}

1657: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Pastor-Satorras}}

1658:   \bibnamefont{and}

1659:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Vespignani}},

1660:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{86}},

1661:   \bibinfo{pages}{3200} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).

1662: 

1663: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lloyd and May}(2001)}]{Lloyd:01}

1664: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~L.} \bibnamefont{Lloyd}} \bibnamefont{and}

1665:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~M.} \bibnamefont{May}},

1666:   \bibinfo{journal}{Science} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{292}},

1667:   \bibinfo{pages}{1316} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).

1668: 

1669: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hughes et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Hughes, Marton,

1670:   Jones, Roberts, Stoughton, Armour, Bennett, Coffey, Dai, He

1671:   et~al.}}]{Hughes:00}

1672: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~R.} \bibnamefont{Hughes}},

1673:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~J.} \bibnamefont{Marton}},

1674:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~R.} \bibnamefont{Jones}},

1675:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~J.} \bibnamefont{Roberts}},

1676:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Stoughton}},

1677:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~D.} \bibnamefont{Armour}},

1678:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~A.} \bibnamefont{Bennett}},

1679:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Coffey}},

1680:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Dai}},

1681:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.~D.} \bibnamefont{He}},

1682:   \bibnamefont{et~al.}, \bibinfo{journal}{Cell} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{102}},

1683:   \bibinfo{pages}{109} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).

1684: 

1685: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{R{\"a}m{\"o} et~al.}(2006)\citenamefont{R{\"a}m{\"o},

1686:   Kesseli, and Yli-Harja}}]{Ramo:06}

1687: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{R{\"a}m{\"o}}},

1688:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Kesseli}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1689:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{Yli-Harja}}

1690:   (\bibinfo{year}{2006}), \bibinfo{note}{to appear in J.\ Theor.\ Biol.,

1691:   doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.02.011}.

1692: 

1693: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Newman}(2003)}]{Newman:03}

1694: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~E.~J.} \bibnamefont{Newman}},

1695:   \bibinfo{journal}{SIAM Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{45}},

1696:   \bibinfo{pages}{167} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).

1697: 

1698: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Callaway et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Callaway, Newman,

1699:   Strogatz, and Watts}}]{Callaway:00}

1700: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~S.} \bibnamefont{Callaway}},

1701:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~E.~J.} \bibnamefont{Newman}},

1702:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~H.} \bibnamefont{Strogatz}},

1703:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~J.} \bibnamefont{Watts}},

1704:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{85}},

1705:   \bibinfo{pages}{5468} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).

1706: 

1707: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Moreno et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Moreno, G{\'o}mez,

1708:   and Pacheco}}]{Moreno:02}

1709: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Moreno}},

1710:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~B.} \bibnamefont{G{\'o}mez}},

1711:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~F.}

1712:   \bibnamefont{Pacheco}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Europhys. Lett.}

1713:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{58}}, \bibinfo{pages}{630} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).

1714: 

1715: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Watts}(2002)}]{Watts:02}

1716: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~J.} \bibnamefont{Watts}},

1717:   \bibinfo{journal}{Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{99}},

1718:   \bibinfo{pages}{5766} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).

1719: 

1720: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Motter}(2004)}]{Motter:04}

1721: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~E.} \bibnamefont{Motter}},

1722:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{93}},

1723:   \bibinfo{pages}{098701} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).

1724: 

1725: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Crucitti et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Crucitti, Latora,

1726:   and Marchiori}}]{Crucitti:04}

1727: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Crucitti}},

1728:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Latora}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1729:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Marchiori}},

1730:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{69}},

1731:   \bibinfo{pages}{045104(R)} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).

1732: 

1733: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Watts}(1999)}]{Watts:99}

1734: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Watts}},

1735:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Small worlds: the dynamics of networks between order

1736:   and randomness}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{Princeton University Press},

1737:   \bibinfo{year}{1999}).

1738: 

1739: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kauffman}(1969)}]{Kauffman:69}

1740: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~A.} \bibnamefont{Kauffman}},

1741:   \bibinfo{journal}{J.\ Theor.\ Biol.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{22}},

1742:   \bibinfo{pages}{437} (\bibinfo{year}{1969}).

1743: 

1744: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Derrida and Pomeau}(1986)}]{Derrida:86a}

1745: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Derrida}} \bibnamefont{and}

1746:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Pomeau}},

1747:   \bibinfo{journal}{Europhys.\ Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{1}},

1748:   \bibinfo{pages}{45} (\bibinfo{year}{1986}).

1749: 

1750: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bastolla and Parisi}(1997)}]{Bastolla:97}

1751: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{U.}~\bibnamefont{Bastolla}} \bibnamefont{and}

1752:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Parisi}},

1753:   \bibinfo{journal}{J.\ Theor.\ Biol.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{187}},

1754:   \bibinfo{pages}{117} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}).

1755: 

1756: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Aldana-Gonzalez

1757:   et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{Aldana-Gonzalez, Coppersmith, and

1758:   Kadanoff}}]{Aldana:03a}

1759: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Aldana-Gonzalez}},

1760:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Coppersmith}},

1761:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~P.}

1762:   \bibnamefont{Kadanoff}}, \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Boolean Dynamics with Random

1763:   Couplings{\normalfont, in} {P}erspectives and Problems in Nonlinear

1764:   Science{\normalfont, edited by E. Kaplan, J. E. Marsden and K. R.

1765:   Sreenivasan}}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{Springer}, \bibinfo{year}{2003}),

1766:   p.~\bibinfo{pages}{23}.

1767: 

1768: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Aldana and Cluzel}(2003)}]{Aldana:03b}

1769: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Aldana}} \bibnamefont{and}

1770:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Cluzel}},

1771:   \bibinfo{journal}{Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{100}},

1772:   \bibinfo{pages}{8710} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).

1773: 

1774: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Samuelsson and Troein}(2003)}]{Samuelsson:03}

1775: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Samuelsson}} \bibnamefont{and}

1776:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Troein}},

1777:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{90}},

1778:   \bibinfo{pages}{098701} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).

1779: 

1780: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kauffman et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Kauffman, Peterson,

1781:   Samuelsson, and Troein}}]{Kauffman:04}

1782: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Kauffman}},

1783:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Peterson}},

1784:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Samuelsson}},

1785:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Troein}},

1786:   \bibinfo{journal}{Proc.\ Natl.\ Acad.\ Sci.\ USA}

1787:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{101}}, \bibinfo{pages}{17102}

1788:   (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).

1789: 

1790: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Drossel}(2005)}]{Drossel:05b}

1791: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Drossel}},

1792:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.\ Rev.\ E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{72}},

1793:   \bibinfo{pages}{016110} (\bibinfo{year}{2005}).

1794: 

1795: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Socolar and Kauffman}(2003)}]{Socolar:03}

1796: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~E.~S.} \bibnamefont{Socolar}}

1797:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~A.}

1798:   \bibnamefont{Kauffman}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

1799:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{90}}, \bibinfo{pages}{068702}

1800:   (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).

1801: 

1802: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Flyvbjerg}(1988)}]{Flyvbjerg:88b}

1803: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Flyvbjerg}},

1804:   \bibinfo{journal}{J.\ Phys.\ A: Math.\ Gen.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{21}},

1805:   \bibinfo{pages}{L955} (\bibinfo{year}{1988}).

1806: 

1807: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bilke and Sjunnesson}(2002)}]{Bilke:01}

1808: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Bilke}} \bibnamefont{and}

1809:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Sjunnesson}},

1810:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys.\ Rev.\ E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{65}},

1811:   \bibinfo{pages}{016129} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).

1812: 

1813: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bastolla and Parisi}(1998)}]{Bastolla:98a}

1814: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{U.}~\bibnamefont{Bastolla}} \bibnamefont{and}

1815:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Parisi}},

1816:   \bibinfo{journal}{Physica D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{115}},

1817:   \bibinfo{pages}{203} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}).

1818: 

1819: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kaufman et~al.}(2005)\citenamefont{Kaufman, Mihaljev,

1820:   and Drossel}}]{Kaufman:05}

1821: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Kaufman}},

1822:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Mihaljev}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1823:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Drossel}},

1824:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{72}},

1825:   \bibinfo{pages}{046124} (\bibinfo{year}{2005}).

1826: 

1827: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Sahimi}(2003)}]{Sahimi:03}

1828: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Sahimi}},

1829:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Heterogenous Materials I}}

1830:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{Springer}, \bibinfo{year}{2003}).

1831: 

1832: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Harris}(1963)}]{Harris:63}

1833: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~E.} \bibnamefont{Harris}},

1834:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{The Theory of Branching Processes}}

1835:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{Springer Verlag}, \bibinfo{year}{1963}).

1836: 

1837: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Otter}(1949)}]{Otter:49}

1838: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Otter}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Ann.

1839:   Math. Stat.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{20}}, \bibinfo{pages}{206}

1840:   (\bibinfo{year}{1949}).

1841: 

1842: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Essam et~al.}(1988)\citenamefont{Essam, Guttmann, and

1843:   De'Bell}}]{Essam:88}

1844: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~W.} \bibnamefont{Essam}},

1845:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~J.} \bibnamefont{Guttmann}},

1846:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{De'Bell}},

1847:   \bibinfo{journal}{J.\ Phys.\ A: Math.\ Gen.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{21}},

1848:   \bibinfo{pages}{3815} (\bibinfo{year}{1988}).

1849: 

1850: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bollab\'as}(1985)}]{Bollabas:85}

1851: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Bollab\'as}},

1852:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Random Graphs}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{Academic Press,

1853:   London}, \bibinfo{year}{1985}).

1854: 

1855: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Press et~al.}(1992)\citenamefont{Press, Teukolsky,

1856:   Vetterling, and Flannery}}]{numrecip}

1857: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~H.} \bibnamefont{Press}},

1858:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~A.} \bibnamefont{Teukolsky}},

1859:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~T.} \bibnamefont{Vetterling}},

1860:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.~P.}

1861:   \bibnamefont{Flannery}}, \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Numerical Recipes in C, second

1862:   ed.}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{Cambridge University Press},

1863:   \bibinfo{year}{1992}).

1864: 

1865: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Harris}(1960)}]{Harris:60}

1866: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Harris}},

1867:   \bibinfo{journal}{Ann.\ Math.\ Statist.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{31}},

1868:   \bibinfo{pages}{1045} (\bibinfo{year}{1960}).

1869: 

1870: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Rubin and Sitgreaves}(1954)}]{Rubin:54}

1871: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Rubin}} \bibnamefont{and}

1872:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Sitgreaves}}

1873:   (\bibinfo{year}{1954}), \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Probability distributions

1874:    related to random transformations on a finite set.\ Tech.\ Rep.\ 19A}},

1875:   \bibinfo{note}{Applied Mathematics and Statistics Laboratory,

1876:   Stanford University}.

1877: 

1878: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Dwass}(1969)}]{Dwass:69}

1879: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Dwass}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J.

1880:   Appl. Prob.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{6}}, \bibinfo{pages}{682}

1881:   (\bibinfo{year}{1969}).

1882: 

1883: \end{thebibliography}

1884: 

1885: \appendix

1886: 

1887: \section{Calculation of the damage control function}

1888: \label{app: q calc}

1889: 

1890: Let $p_K$ denote the probability that a rule has $K$ inputs, and let

1891: $P_0(K,m)$ denote the probability that the output value is zero of a

1892: rule with $K$ inputs fed with $m$ zeros and $K-m$ ones. Then, the

1893: the damage control function is

1894: \begin{align}

1895:   q(x) =\,&\sum_{K=0}^\infty p_K\sum^K_{m=0}P_0(K,m) \binom K m

1896:   x^m(1-x)^{K-m}.

1897: \label{eq: q explicit 0}

1898: \end{align}

1899: Eq.~\eqref{eq: q explicit 0} can be written as

1900: \begin{align}

1901:   q(x) &= a_0 + a_1x + a_2x^2 + \cdots

1902: \label{eq: q explicit 1}

1903: \end{align}

1904: where

1905: \begin{align}

1906:    a_i = \sum_{K=i}^\infty\sum_{m=0}^i p_KP_0(K,m)

1907:                  (-1)^{i-m}\binom K m\binom{K-m}{i-m}.

1908: \label{eq: q expansion terms}

1909: \end{align}

1910: The expansion in Eq.~\eqref{eq: q explicit 1} is well-defined up to

1911: the first term such that the sum in Eq.~\eqref{eq: q expansion terms}

1912: is not absolute convergent. The factor $\binom K m\binom{K-m}{i-m}$

1913: scales like $K^i$ for large $K$ and $P_0(K,m)\le 1$. Hence, $a_i$ is

1914: well-defined if $\sum_{K=0}^\infty K^ip_K$ is convergent and this is

1915: true if $p_K$ decays faster than $K^{-i-1}$.

1916: 

1917: In addition, the requirement that the output of each rule in the rule

1918: distribution is 1 if all of its inputs have the value 1, yields that

1919: $a_0=0$.  Thus, the expansion

1920: \begin{align}

1921:   q(x) &= \alpha_1x - \alpha_2x^2 + \Oc(x^3),

1922: \label{eq: q-Taylor app}

1923: \end{align}

1924: is valid for all rule distributions such that $p_K$ decays faster than

1925: $K^{-4}$. In the case that $p_K$ decays slower than $K^{-4}$ but

1926: faster than $K^{-3}$, only the residue term can be affected.

1927: 

1928: \section{Probability for complete coverage}

1929: \label{app: PEP}

1930: 

1931: Here, we assume that the expansion in Eq.~\eqref{eq: q-Taylor app} is

1932: well-defined. Then, we get

1933: \begin{align}

1934:   \frac{\partial p}{\partial n_\msia}

1935:      &= \frac{c}{2\alpha_1Nn_\msia^2}\frac{\partial^2 p}{\partial c^2}

1936:                         [1+\Oc(n_\msia/N)],

1937: \label{eq: p-diffuse n c}

1938: \intertext{and}

1939:   c_{\trm{max}}(x)/N &= \frac{1}{\alpha_1} 

1940:                          + \frac{\alpha_2}{\alpha_1^2}x 

1941:                          + \Oc(x^2).

1942: \end{align}

1943: 

1944: To remove the dependence of $n_\msia$ from the leading order term of

1945: the diffusion rate in Eq.~\eqref{eq: p-diffuse n c}, we let

1946: $t=-1/n_\msia$. By also letting $y=1-\alpha_1c/N$, we rewrite

1947: Eq.~\eqref{eq: p-diffuse n c} to a form that easily can be rescaled

1948: as $N$ grows. We get

1949: \begin{align}

1950:   \frac{\partial p}{\partial t} &= \frac{1-y}{2}

1951:          \frac{\partial^2 p}{\partial y^2}[1+{\cal O}(\tfrac1{Nt})].

1952: \intertext{and}

1953:   y_{\trm{min}} &= -\frac{\alpha_2}{\alpha_1Nt}[1+\Oc(\tfrac1{Nt})],

1954: \label{eq: ymin}

1955: \end{align}

1956: where $y=y_{\trm{min}}$ is the transformed value of $c_{\trm{max}}$.

1957: The boundary conditions are $p=0$ for $y=y_{\trm{min}}$ and $p=1$

1958: for $y=1$.

1959: 

1960: The $N$ dependence of the leading order term of the boundary condition

1961: in Eq.~\eqref{eq: ymin} can be removed by rescaling of $y$ and $t$.

1962: Typically, $\alpha_2>0$ and this is the case that we will focus on.

1963: [Note that Eq.~\eqref{eq: x0 gt} means that $\alpha_2$ must be

1964: nonnegative at the transition.] If $\alpha_2=0$, either $q(x)=x$ or

1965: $q(x)=x-\alpha_m x^m+\cdots$ with $m>2$ (apart from some pathological

1966: special cases). The first case, $q(x)=x$, is a special case that is

1967: convenient for analytic calculation, whereas the latter case require

1968: calculations analogous to the calculations for $\alpha_2>0$. We will

1969: come back to the case $q(x)=x$.

1970: 

1971: For $\alpha_2>0$, we rescale $y$ and $t$ according to

1972: \begin{align}

1973:   \yt &= \Nt^{1/3}y

1974: \intertext{and}

1975:   \tti&= \Nt^{2/3}t,

1976: \intertext{where}

1977:   \Nt &= \frac{\alpha_1}{\alpha_2}N.

1978: \label{eq: Nt}

1979: \end{align}

1980: Then,

1981: \begin{align}

1982:   \frac{\partial p}{\partial\tti} &= \frac12

1983:          \frac{\partial^2p}{\partial\yt^2}

1984:                 \bigl(1+\Nt^{-1/3}\yt\bigr)

1985:                 \bigl[1+{\cal O}\bigl(\tfrac1{\Nt^{1/3}\tti}\bigr)\bigr],

1986: \label{eq: p diff tt yt}

1987: \intertext{where}

1988:   \yt_{\trm{min}} &= \tti^{-1}

1989:                 \bigl[1+{\cal O}\bigl(\tfrac1{\Nt^{1/3}\tti}\bigr)\bigr].

1990: \end{align}

1991: 

1992: The boundary conditions are $p=0$ for $\yt_{\trm{min}}$ and $p=1$ for

1993: $y=\Nt^{1/3}$. The only plausible limit of $p$ as

1994: $t\rightarrow-\infty$ is $p=y/\Nt^{1/3}$. To get a motivation that is

1995: mathematically acceptable, one needs to relate the original integer

1996: based formulation of the problem in Eqs.\ \eqref{eq: n-update

1997: first}--\eqref{eq: n-update last}. The large $N$ behavior of

1998: Eq.~\eqref{eq: n-update last},

1999: \begin{align}

2000:   \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}U(\s,j) &= 1/n_\msia,

2001: \label{eq: a lim}

2002: \end{align}

2003: yields

2004: \begin{align}

2005:   \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\Pex(N,q;n_0,n_\msa)

2006:              &= \frac{n_\msa}{n_\msia}.

2007: \label{eq: Pex n fixed N large}

2008: \end{align}

2009: Eq.~\eqref{eq: Pex n fixed N large} can be shown via induction. The

2010: induction is initiated by

2011: \begin{align}

2012:   \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\Pex(N,q;1,0)&=0

2013: \intertext{and}

2014:   \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\Pex(N,q;0,1)&=1,

2015: \end{align}

2016: which means that Eq.~\eqref{eq: Pex n fixed N large} is true for

2017: $n_\msia=1$. To obtain the induction step, we assume that

2018: Eq.~\eqref{eq: Pex n fixed N large} is true for

2019: $n'_\msia=n_\msia-1$. Then, we get

2020: \begin{align}

2021:   \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\Pex(N,q;n'_0,n'_\msa)

2022:              &= \frac{n'_\msa}{n_\msia-1}

2023: \end{align}

2024: which leads to

2025: \begin{align}

2026:   \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\Pex(N,q;n_0,n_\msa) 

2027:              &= \frac{\langle n'_\msa\rangle}{n_\msia-1}\\

2028:              &= \frac{n_\msa + n_0/n_\msia-1}{n_\msia-1}\\

2029:              &= \frac{n_\msa}{n_\msia}

2030: \end{align}

2031: that completes the induction step. Eq.~\eqref{eq: Pex n fixed N large}

2032: means that the value of $p$ approaches a linear function of $\yt$ for

2033: $\tti=N^{2/3}/n_0$ as $N\rightarrow\infty$. Hence, the boundary

2034: condition for $t\rightarrow-\infty$ is $p=y/\Nt^{1/3}$.

2035: 

2036: Rescaling of $p$ according to

2037: \begin{align}

2038:   \pt &= \Nt^{1/3}p

2039: \end{align}

2040: gives the boundary condition

2041: \begin{align}

2042:   \lim_{t\rightarrow-\infty}\pt = \yt.

2043: \label{eq: p t neg inf}

2044: \end{align}

2045: If Eq.~\eqref{eq: p t neg inf} is extended to be valid for all

2046: non-negative $\yt$, the boundary condition at $\yt=\Nt^{1/3}$ can be

2047: dropped. In the limit of large $N$, Eq.~\eqref{eq: p diff tt yt}

2048: becomes

2049: \begin{align}

2050:   \frac{\partial\pt}{\partial\tti} &= \frac12

2051:          \frac{\partial^2\pt}{\partial\yt^2}.

2052: \label{eq: app diffuse}

2053: \end{align}

2054: With $\pt$ is written on the form $\pt(\tti,\yt)$, the boundary

2055: conditions are

2056: \begin{align}

2057:   \pt(\tti,1/\tti) &= 0 & \trm{for }&\tti<0

2058: \label{eq: app diffuse bound 0}

2059: \intertext{and}

2060:   \lim_{\tti\rightarrow-\infty}\pt(\tti,\yt) &= \yt

2061:            & \trm{for }&\yt\ge0,

2062: \label{eq: app diffuse bound 1}

2063: \end{align}

2064: as $N\rightarrow\infty$.

2065: 

2066: The solution to Eqs.~\eqref{eq: app diffuse}--\eqref{eq: app diffuse bound 1}

2067: can be calculated numerically. By expressing the transformed variables

2068: $\tti$ and $\yt$ in terms of more fundamental quantities, we get

2069: \begin{align}

2070:   \Pex&(N,q; n_0,n_\msa) \nonumber\\  

2071:         &\approx \Nt^{-1/3}\pt\biggl[-\frac{\Nt^{2/3}}{n_\msia},

2072:                   \Nt^{1/3}\biggl(1-\frac{\alpha_1n_0}

2073:                                         {Nq(n_\msia/N)}\biggr)\biggr]

2074: \label{eq: Ploopfree rescaled}

2075: \end{align}

2076: and

2077: \begin{align}

2078:   \Pex&(N,q; N-n_\msa,n_\msa)  \nonumber\\  

2079:         &\approx \Nt^{-1/3}\pt\biggl[-\frac{\Nt^{2/3}}{N},

2080:                   \Nt^{1/3}\biggl(1-\frac{\alpha_1n_0}{Nq(1)}\biggr)\biggr]

2081: \end{align}

2082: for large $N$.

2083: 

2084: If the avalanche is initiated by letting each node start from 0 with

2085: probability $q(1)$, we get

2086: \begin{align}

2087:   \langle n_\msa^\ti\rangle &= N[1-q(1)]

2088: \intertext{and}

2089:   \sigma(n_\msa^\ti) &= \sqrt{Nq(1)[1-q(1)]}.

2090: \end{align}

2091: 

2092: Provided that $q(x)$ does not depend on $N$, $\Nt$ is fixed and the

2093: spread in $\yt$ that correspond to the initial value of $m$ will go to

2094: zero as $N\rightarrow\infty$.  Also, $\Nt^{2/3}/N$ approaches zero as

2095: $N\rightarrow\infty$.  In this case, the probability for an avalanche

2096: to yield complete coverage is given by

2097: \begin{align}

2098:   \Pex(N, q) &\approx \Nt^{-1/3}\pt[0,\Nt^{1/3}(1-\alpha_1)],

2099: \label{eq: app PexNq}

2100: \end{align}

2101: for large $N$. Only the first two arguments to $\Pex$ are kept in

2102: Eq.~\eqref{eq: app PexNq}, because the process is fully determined by $N$

2103: and $q$.

2104: 

2105: In the special case that $q(x)=x$ for all $x\in[0,1]$, Eq.~\eqref{eq:

2106: n-update last} yields $a=1/n_\msia$, which is a strong form of

2107: Eq.~\eqref{eq: a lim}. By using the same induction steps that lead

2108: from Eq.~\eqref{eq: a lim} to Eq.~\eqref{eq: Pex n fixed N large}, we

2109: conclude that

2110: \begin{align}

2111:    \Pex(N,x\mapsto x;n_0,n_\msa)

2112:              &= \frac{n_\msa}{n_\msia}.

2113: \label{eq: q-ident}

2114: \end{align}

2115: 

2116: \section{Asymptotes for sparse percolation}

2117: \label{app: SP}

2118: 

2119: Provided that the derivative of $g(x)$ is well defined at $x=0$, we

2120: let $\lambda = g'(0)$, where $g'(x)$ denotes the derivative of

2121: $g(x)$. Then,

2122: \begin{align}

2123:   \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty} g^1_{N,n}(x) &= x,

2124: \intertext{which means that}

2125:   \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty} q^1_{N,N-n}(x) &= x

2126: \intertext{and}

2127:   \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty} \PNex(n,\ell;N) &= \frac\ell n

2128: \end{align}

2129: according to Eq.~\eqref{eq: q-ident}. Thus, the large $N$ limit of

2130: Eq.~\eqref{eq: Pn1} is

2131: \begin{align}

2132:   \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\Pn(n)

2133:       &= \rho(n)\tau(n,\ell)\lambda^{n-\ell}e^{n(1-\lambda)}\frac\ell n\\

2134:       &= \frac{\ell(n\lambda)^{n-\ell}}{n(n-\ell)!}e^{-n\lambda}.

2135: \label{eq: lim Pn}

2136: \end{align}

2137: For large $N$, Eq.~\eqref{eq: lim Pn} yields

2138: \begin{align}

2139:   \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\Pn(n)

2140:      &\approx \frac \ell{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{n(1-\lambda)}\lambda^{n-\ell}n^{-3/2}.

2141: \end{align}

2142: 

2143: Due to the correspondence to well investigated branching processes,

2144: Eq.~\eqref{eq: lim Pn} is not a new result. For the special case of

2145: $\ell=1$, Eq.~\eqref{eq: lim Pn} is given explicitly in

2146: Ref.~\cite{Otter:49}, and the general form of Eq.~\eqref{eq: lim Pn}

2147: can easily be obtained by the theorem presented in

2148: Ref.~\cite{Dwass:69}.

2149: 

2150: \section{Asymptotes for exhaustive percolation}

2151: \label{app: EP asympt}

2152: 

2153: In analogy with our investigation of \SP, we assume that $q(x)$ has a

2154: well-defined derivative at $x=0$ and let $\lambda = q'(0)$. For \EP\ to

2155: be likely in the large $N$ limit, it is required that $q(x)\leq x$ for

2156: all $x$, meaning that $\lambda\le1$. The large $N$ behavior of

2157: Eq.~\eqref{eq: Pu0} is partly explained by

2158: \begin{align}

2159:   \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty} \frac{\rho(u)\rho(N-u)}{\rho(N)}[Q(u/N)]^N

2160:      &= \rho(u)\lambda^ue^{u(1-\lambda)},

2161: \label{eq: lim EP}

2162: \end{align}

2163: but it remains to investigate the role of $\PNex(N-u,0;N)$. To this end,

2164: we consider the ratio $\PNex(N-u,0;N)/\Pex(N)$. [Here, we have dropped the

2165: argument $q$ from $\Pex(N, q)$.]

2166: 

2167: When $N\rightarrow\infty$, there are two processes that influence on

2168: this ratio: $q^1_{N,u}$ approaches $q$ and $N$ increases. The increase

2169: of $N$ makes the involved probabilities more sensitive for the

2170: shrinking differences between $q^1_{N,u}$ and $q$. Thus, there are two

2171: competing processes as $N\rightarrow\infty$.  The sensitivity with

2172: respect to $q$ is limited by the variance of the number of nodes with

2173: initial state \tsa, because this variance can be seen as a rescaling

2174: of $q$. The change in $q(x)$ by such a rescaling scales like

2175: $q(x)/\sqrt{N}$ for large $N$. If $q(x)$ has a well-defined nonzero

2176: derivative at $x=0$, the difference $q^1_{N,u}(x)-q(x)$ scales like

2177: $q(x)/N$ for large $N$. Hence, the decrease in the difference between

2178: $q^1_{N,u}$ and $q$ dominates over the increase in sensitivity,

2179: meaning that

2180: \begin{align}

2181:   \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty} \frac{\PNex(N-u,0;N)}{\Pex(N)}

2182:      &= 1.

2183: \end{align}

2184: Thus,

2185: \begin{align}

2186:   \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\Pu(u)}{\Pex(N)}

2187:      &= \rho(u)\lambda^ue^{u(1-\lambda)}\\

2188:      &= \frac{(u\lambda)^{u}}{u!}e^{-u\lambda},

2189: \label{eq: Pu1}

2190: \end{align}

2191: where $(u\lambda)^u$ should be interpreted with the convention that

2192: $0^0=1$ in order to handle the case $u = 0$ properly.

2193: 

2194: \subsection{Limit distributions for supercritical EP}

2195: \label{app: super EP}

2196: 

2197: If $0<\lambda<1$ and $x=0$ is the only solution to $q(x)=x$ in the

2198: interval $0\le x\le1$, the exponential decay of $[Q(u/N)]^N$, in

2199: Eq.~\eqref{eq: Pu0}, with increasing $u$ ensures that

2200: \begin{align}

2201:   \sum_{u=0}^\infty\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\Pu(u) &= 1

2202: \intertext{and}

2203:   \Bigl[\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\Pex(N)\Bigr]\sum_{u=0}^\infty

2204:        \frac{(u\lambda)^{u}}{u!}e^{-u\lambda} &= 1.

2205: \end{align}

2206: Thus, $\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}$ has a unique value for each

2207: $\lambda$. This value can be calculated by considering the simplest

2208: case, $q(x)=\lambda x$.  From the definition of the spreading

2209: process, we get

2210: \begin{align}

2211:   \Pex(N,x\mapsto\lambda x;n_0,n_\msa) &= \Pex(N,x\mapsto x;n_0,n_\msa).

2212: \end{align}

2213: Then, Eq.~\eqref{eq: q-ident} and averaging over initial configurations

2214: yield

2215: \begin{align}

2216:   \Pex(N,x\mapsto\lambda x) &= 1-\lambda,

2217: \end{align}

2218: which means that

2219: \begin{align}

2220:   \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\Pex(N, q) &= 1-\lambda~

2221: \end{align}

2222: for all $q$ that satisfy the above mentioned criteria. We get,

2223: \begin{align}

2224:   \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\Pu(u) 

2225:         &= (1-\lambda)\frac{(u\lambda)^{u}}{u!}e^{-u\lambda},

2226: \label{eq: P(u) asympt}

2227: \intertext{which for large $u$ means that}

2228:   \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\Pu(u) 

2229:         &\approx\frac{1-\lambda}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{u(1-\lambda)}

2230:             \lambda^uu^{-1/2}.

2231: \end{align}

2232: 

2233: \subsection{Scaling at the EP transition}

2234: \label{app: crit EP}

2235: 

2236: This section aims to derive the asymptotic distribution of $u$ for

2237: large $N$ for critical \EP\ with $\alpha_2>0$ and $\ell=0$. Define

2238: $\alpha_1^1$, $\alpha_2^1$ and $\Nt^1$ analogous to the definitions of

2239: $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$ and $\Nt$ in Eqs.~\eqref{eq: q-Taylor} and

2240: \eqref{eq: Nt}. The derivatives of $q^1(x)$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq: q1} at

2241: $x=0$ are given by

2242: \begin{align}

2243:   (q^1)'(0) &= q'(u/N)\frac{1-u/N}{1-q(u/N)}

2244: \intertext{and}

2245:   (q^1)''(0) &= q''(u/N)\frac{(1-u/N)^2}{1-q(u/N)}

2246: \end{align}

2247: and we get

2248: \begin{align}

2249:   \Nt^1 &=\Nt+\Oc(u/N)

2250: \intertext{and}

2251:   \alpha_1^1 &= \alpha_1 + (\alpha_1-1-2\alpha_2)u/N

2252:                        +\Oc(u^2/N^2).

2253: \end{align}

2254: For critical networks, with $\alpha_1=1$, we get $\Nt = N/\alpha_2$ and

2255: \begin{align}

2256:   \alpha_1^1 &= 1 - 2u/\Nt + \Oc(u^2/N^2).

2257: \end{align}

2258: Insertion into Eq.~\eqref{eq: app PexNq} yields

2259: \begin{align}

2260:   \PNex(N-u,0;N)

2261:     &\approx \Nt^{-1/3}\pt(0,2\Nt^{-2/3}u)

2262: \end{align}

2263: for $u\ll N$.

2264: 

2265: Because $Q(x)\leq1$ with equality if and only if $q(x)=x$, $\Pu$

2266: that vanishes exponentially, as $N$ goes to infinity, for any fixed

2267: $u/N$ such that $q(u/N)\ne u/N$. For a typical network with

2268: $\alpha_2>0$ at the \EP\ transition, the only solution to $q(x)=x$ is

2269: $x=0$. For such a network, the large $N$ behavior of $\Pu$ is found

2270: by expanding $Q(x)$ around $x=0$. To the leading

2271: non-vanishing order, we get

2272: \begin{align}

2273:   Q(x) &\approx \exp\biggl(-\frac{\alpha_2^2x^3}2\biggr),

2274: \end{align}

2275: which yields

2276: \begin{align}

2277:   \Pu(u) 

2278:      &\approx \rho(u)\exp\biggl(-\frac{u^3}{2\Nt^2}\biggr)

2279:        \PNex.

2280: \end{align}

2281: 

2282: Hence,

2283: \begin{align}

2284:   \Pu(u) &\approx \Nt^{-1/3}\rho(u)

2285:                 \exp\biggl(-\frac{u^3}{2\Nt^2}\biggr)

2286:                 \pt(0,2\Nt^{-2/3}u),

2287: \end{align}

2288: with asymptotic equality for large $N$. The probability density,

2289: $P(\ut)$, for the distribution of $\ut=\Nt^{-2/3}u$ as

2290: $N\rightarrow\infty$ approaches

2291: \begin{align}

2292:   P(\ut) &= \frac{\exp(-\frac12\ut^3)}{\sqrt{2\pi\ut}}

2293:                         \,\pt(0,2\ut).

2294: %\label{eq: p(ut) asympt}

2295: \end{align}\\

2296: 

2297: \section{Exact results}

2298: \label{app: exact}

2299: 

2300: A network with $g(x)=x$ is critical for all $x$. For such a network,

2301: $G(x)=1$ for all $x$ and $\PNex(n,\ell;N)=\ell/n$. Hence, Eq.~\eqref{eq: Pn1}

2302: yields

2303: \begin{align}

2304:   \Pn(n) 

2305:       &= \frac{\rho(n)\rho(N-n)}{\rho(N)}\frac{\tau(n, \ell)}

2306:                {\tau(N, \ell)}\frac\ell n\\

2307:       &= \frac\ell n\binom{N-\ell}{n-\ell}\frac{n^{n-\ell}

2308:            (N-n)^{N-n}}{N^{N-\ell}}.

2309: \label{eq: Pn ident}

2310: \end{align}

2311: For $n$ and $N$ satisfying $n\gg1$ and $N-n\gg1$, we get

2312: \begin{align}

2313:   \Pn(n) &\approx \frac \ell{\sqrt{2\pi}}\frac{\sqrt{N}}{n\sqrt{n(N-n)}}\,.

2314: \end{align}

2315: 

2316: In the special case $\ell=1$, $\Pn(n)$ is the distribution of the number

2317: of predecessors to an element in a random map. This distribution,

2318: which is consistent with eq.~\eqref{eq: Pn ident} for $\ell=1$, was

2319: obtained in Ref.\ \cite{Rubin:54} and restated in Ref.\

2320: \cite{Harris:60}.

2321: 

2322: For completeness, we provide an explicit expression for the

2323: distribution of avalanche sizes in the case that $g(x)$ is a first

2324: order polynomial. From Eq.~\eqref{eq: Pn1}, we get

2325: \begin{align}

2326:   \Pn(n)

2327:       =\,& \Pu(u) \nonumber\\  

2328:       =\,&

2329:                      \frac{n^{n-\ell}u^u}{N^{N-\ell}}\binom{N-\ell}{n-\ell}

2330:                      \biggl(g(0)+\frac\ell n\biggr)

2331:       \nonumber\\&\times

2332:                      \biggl(\frac{ug(0)+ng(1)}n\biggr)^{\!n-\ell}

2333:                      \biggl(\frac{nq(0)+uq(1)}u\biggr)^{\!u}.

2334: \label{eq: explicit Pn}              

2335: \end{align}

2336: 

2337: \end{document}

2338: 

2339: