We introduce a new model of competition on growing networks. This extends the preferential attachment model, with the key property that node choices evolve simultaneously with the network. When a new node joins the network, it chooses neighbours by preferential attachment, and selects its type based on the number of initial neighbours of each type. The model is analysed in detail, and in particular, we determine the possible proportions of the various types in the limit of large networks. An important qualitative feature we find is that, in contrast to many current theoretical models, often several competitors will coexist. This matches empirical observations in many real-world networks.
This research in epidemiology is relevant in a much broader context, since many dynamical processes, such as the diffusion of information and opinions, can be modeled as epidemics. Indeed, the spread of competing products has been modeled in this way as well @cite_12 @cite_28 . @cite_12 the authors study a @math '' model of competing viruses with perfect mutual immunity in a mean-field setting for fixed networks, and conclude that the winner takes all'', i.e., one virus will take over, while in @cite_28 they study what level of partial immunity allows for coexistence of the two viruses. A related model of competing first passage percolation has been studied in probability theory on various network topologies, including random regular graphs @cite_51 and scale-free networks @cite_35 ; the conclusion again is that the winner takes all. In contrast, in many current markets we observe that competing products coexist, even when they are mutually exclusive.
@cite_28 @cite_35 @cite_51 @cite_12
2171031021 2168137408 2950901863 2163595839
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. We study competing first passage percolation on graphs generated by the configuration model. At time 0, vertex 1 and vertex 2 are infected with the type 1 and the type 2 infection, respectively, and an uninfected vertex then becomes type 1 (2) infected at rate @math ( @math ) times the number of edges connecting it to a type 1 (2) infected neighbor. Our main result is that, if the degree distribution is a power-law with exponent @math , then, as the number of vertices tends to infinity and with high probability, one of the infection types will occupy all but a finite number of vertices. Furthermore, which one of the infections wins is random and both infections have a positive probability of winning regardless of the values of @math and @math . The picture is similar with multiple starting points for the infections. We consider two competing first passage percolation processes started from uniformly chosen subsets of a random regular graph on @math vertices. The processes are allowed to spread with different rates, start from vertex subsets of different sizes or at different times. We obtain tight results regarding the sizes of the vertex sets occupied by each process, showing that in the generic situation one process will occupy @math vertices, for some @math . The value of @math is calculated in terms of the relative rates of the processes, as well as the sizes of the initial vertex sets and the possible time advantage of one process. The motivation for this work comes from the study of viral marketing on social networks. The described processes can be viewed as two competing products spreading through a social network (random regular graph). Considering the processes which grow at different rates (corresponding to different attraction levels of the two products) or starting at different times (the first to market advantage) allows to model aspects of real competition. The results obtained can be interpreted as one of the two products taking the lion share of the market. We compare these results to the same process run on @math dimensional grids where we show that in the generic situation the two products will have a linear fraction of the market each. 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.