Suppose we have a virus or one competing idea product that propagates over a multiple profile (e.g., social) network. Can we predict what proportion of the network will actually get "infected" (e.g., spread the idea or buy the competing product), when the nodes of the network appear to have different sensitivity based on their profile? For example, if there are two profiles @math and @math in a network and the nodes of profile @math and profile @math are susceptible to a highly spreading virus with probabilities @math and @math respectively, what percentage of both profiles will actually get infected from the virus at the end? To reverse the question, what are the necessary conditions so that a predefined percentage of the network is infected? We assume that nodes of different profiles can infect one another and we prove that under realistic conditions, apart from the weak profile (great sensitivity), the stronger profile (low sensitivity) will get infected as well. First, we focus on cliques with the goal to provide exact theoretical results as well as to get some intuition as to how a virus affects such a multiple profile network. Then, we move to the theoretical analysis of arbitrary networks. We provide bounds on certain properties of the network based on the probabilities of infection of each node in it when it reaches the steady state. Finally, we provide extensive experimental results that verify our theoretical results and at the same time provide more insight on the problem.
Ecology, is another interesting application field for such propagation models. The principle of states that two species that compete for the exact same resources cannot stably coexist which resembles the aforementioned phenomenon of "winner takes all". This principle has been studied intensively using propagation models such as SIS, SIRS, Lotka-Volterra etc. but there has been no analytical solution presented so far @cite_2 , @cite_22 , @cite_21 .
@cite_21 @cite_22 @cite_2
1989315300 1993444065 2049459598
The ecological principle of competitive exclusion asserts that two species cannot indefinitely occupy the same niche [Sj. Attempts have been made to state this principle as a mathematical theorem. A standard example is due to Volterra [14]. (See Example 2.1 below.) He constructed a model of two species competing for a single resource and showed that one of the species must go extinct. Although the concept of niche is rather vague, it is generally agreed that Volterras model is an example of two species competing for the same niche and is therefore an illustration of the principle of competitive exclusion. The generalizations of Volterras model have dealt largely with the introduction of more realistic assumptions about the interactions between species. These assumptions have led to some interesting mathematical problems, many of them unsolved. The purpose of this paper is to state these problems precisely, to give proofs of the known results, and to indicate the unanswered questions. The basic object of study is an idealized ecological community consisting of a certain number of species living together in an isolated geographical area. We shall assume that the community interactions are independent of both space and time and that each species is distributed uniformly over the region. The basic variables are the population densities of each of the species. The Cyclic dominance of species has been identified as a potential mechanism to maintain biodiversity, see, e.g., B. Kerr, M. A. Riley, M. W. Feldman and B. J. M. Bohannan Nature 418, 171 (2002)] and B. Kirkup and M. A. Riley Nature 428, 412 (2004)]. Through analytical methods supported by numerical simulations, we address this issue by studying the properties of a paradigmatic non-spatial three-species stochastic system, namely, the "rock-paper-scissors" or cyclic Lotka-Volterra model. While the deterministic approach (rate equations) predicts the coexistence of the species resulting in regular (yet neutrally stable) oscillations of the population densities, we demonstrate that fluctuations arising in the system with a finite number of agents drastically alter this picture and are responsible for extinction: After long enough time, two of the three species die out. As main findings we provide analytic estimates and numerical computation of the extinction probability at a given time. We also discuss the implications of our results for a broad class of competing population systems. Experimental determinations of Drosophila population dynamics cannot be explained by the Lotka-Volterra model of interspecific competition. This paper presents other possible mathematical models of competition between species, and gives the results of experiments designed to test the validity of such models. Eight of the ten new models presented contain the Lotka-Volterra model as a special case. The experiments made to test the models are of two kinds. Type 1 experiments are continuous one- or two-species populations, which permit the estimation of the carrying capacity of each species and the numbers of the two species at the point of stable equilibrium. Type 2 experiments measure the change in numbers over a short time interval in populations started with many different initial densities of the two species. Type 2 experiments give information on the dynamics of the two-species system in the phase plane whose coordinates are the number of individuals of each species. The models accounting best for the results are models five and seven (Table II). Each of these two models contains one parameter more than the Lotka-Volterra model. Model five adds a nonlinear term of self-interaction (iN2i). Model seven has the form, dNi dt = riN Kii(Kii  Ni i  ijNj1i i). The exponential parameter  removes the restriction of the logistic theory of population growth, that each individual added to the population decrease the rate of growth of the population by a constant amount. With model seven the rate of growth of a population of a single species need not have its maximum at K2, that is when the number of individuals is half the carrying capacity of the environment.