Paper detail

Local majority dynamics on preferential attachment graphs

Suppose in a graph $G$ vertices can be either red or blue. Let $k$ be odd. At each time step, each vertex $v$ in $G$ polls $k$ random neighbours and takes the majority colour. If it doesn&#39;t have $k$ neighbours, it simply polls all of them, or all less one if the degree of $v$ is even. We study this protocol on the preferential attachment model of Albert and Barabási, which gives rise to a degree distribution that has roughly power-law $P(x) \sim \frac{1}{x^{3}}$, as well as generalisations which give exponents larger than $3$. The setting is as follows: Initially each vertex of $G$ is red independently with probability $α< \frac{1}{2}$, and is otherwise blue. We show that if $α$ is sufficiently biased away from $\frac{1}{2}$, then with high probability, consensus is reached on the initial global majority within $O(\log_d \log_d t)$ steps. Here $t$ is the number of vertices and $d \geq 5$ is the minimum of $k$ and $m$ (or $m-1$ if $m$ is even), $m$ being the number of edges each new vertex adds in the preferential attachment generative process. Additionally, our analysis reduces the required bias of $α$ for graphs of a given degree sequence studied by the first author (which includes, e.g., random regular graphs).

preprint2015arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.