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.
The majority of the presented models have studied a single epidemic in a single topology whereas in later work @cite_6 , multiple virus models are introduced. All of them require that the network is fair-play, which means that all nodes have exactly the same behavior towards the viruses. In @cite_6 , an @math model was used with two competing viruses that infect nodes of arbitrary topologies where the nodes are mutually immune. The main result is that for any topology the stronger virus (above threshold) survives and wipes out the weaker one ("winner takes all"). In later work, the condition for mutual immunity is removed and the focus is on the conditions where nodes are infected from both viruses @cite_12 . In both cases, the model used is SIS-like whereas in @cite_8 the authors provide a generalized model that includes the majority of known epidemiological models with appropriate parameter definition in discrete time. All the aforementioned models, are applied to simple networks whereas recent work @cite_20 , refers to competing viruses in a composite network and conjectures that the stronger one will prevail over the weaker. Once again, the problem is formulated by a non-linear dynamical system.
@cite_20 @cite_12 @cite_6 @cite_8
2102365618 2171031021 2163595839 2047311061
Suppose we have two competing ideas products viruses, that propagate over a social or other network. Suppose that they are strong virulent enough, so that each, if left alone, could lead to an epidemic. What will happen when both operate on the network? Earlier models assume that there is perfect competition: if a user buys product 'A' (or gets infected with virus 'X'), she will never buy product 'B' (or virus 'Y'). This is not always true: for example, a user could install and use both Firefox and Google Chrome as browsers. Similarly, one type of flu may give partial immunity against some other similar disease. In the case of full competition, it is known that 'winner takes all,' that is the weaker virus product will become extinct. In the case of no competition, both viruses survive, ignoring each other. What happens in-between these two extremes? We show that there is a phase transition: if the competition is harsher than a critical level, then 'winner takes all;' otherwise, the weaker virus survives. These are the contributions of this paper (a) the problem definition, which is novel even in epidemiology literature (b) the phase-transition result and (c) experiments on real data, illustrating the suitability of our results. How will a virus propagate in a real networkq How long does it take to disinfect a network given particular values of infection rate and virus death rateq What is the single best node to immunizeq Answering these questions is essential for devising network-wide strategies to counter viruses. In addition, viral propagation is very similar in principle to the spread of rumors, information, and fads, implying that the solutions for viral propagation would also offer insights into these other problem settings. We answer these questions by developing a nonlinear dynamical system (NLDS) that accurately models viral propagation in any arbitrary network, including real and synthesized network graphs. We propose a general epidemic threshold condition for the NLDS system: we prove that the epidemic threshold for a network is exactly the inverse of the largest eigenvalue of its adjacency matrix. Finally, we show that below the epidemic threshold, infections die out at an exponential rate. Our epidemic threshold model subsumes many known thresholds for special-case graphs (e.g., Erdos--Renyi, BA powerlaw, homogeneous). We demonstrate the predictive power of our model with extensive experiments on real and synthesized graphs, and show that our threshold condition holds for arbitrary graphs. Finally, we show how to utilize our threshold condition for practical uses: It can dictate which nodes to immunize; it can assess the effects of a throttling policy; it can help us design network topologies so that they are more resistant to viruses. Given two competing products (or memes, or viruses etc.) spreading over a given network, can we predict what will happen at the end, that is, which product will 'win', in terms of highest market share? One may naively expect that the better product (stronger virus) will just have a larger footprint, proportional to the quality ratio of the products (or strength ratio of the viruses). However, we prove the surprising result that, under realistic conditions, for any graph topology, the stronger virus completely wipes-out the weaker one, thus not merely 'winning' but 'taking it all'. In addition to the proofs, we also demonstrate our result with simulations over diverse, real graph topologies, including the social-contact graph of the city of Portland OR (about 31 million edges and 1 million nodes) and internet AS router graphs. Finally, we also provide real data about competing products from Google-Insights, like Facebook-Myspace, and we show again that they agree with our analysis. Viruses remain a significant threat to modern networked computer systems. Despite the best efforts of those who develop anti-virus systems, new viruses and new types of virus that are not dealt with by existing protection schemes appear regularly. In addition, the rate at which a virus can spread has risen dramatically with the increase in connectivity. Defenses against infections by known viruses rely at present on immunization yet, for a variety of reasons, immunization is often only effective on a subset of the nodes in a network and many nodes remain unprotected. Little is known about either the way in which a viral infection proceeds in general or the way that immunization affects the infection process. We present the results of a simulation study of the way in which virus infections propagate through certain types of network and of the effect that partial immunization has on the infection. The key result is that relatively low levels of immunization can slow an infection significantly.