Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

SIR on locally converging dynamic random graphs

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read SIR epidemics on dynamic random graphs converge to the epidemic on their local time-marked union limit, so the course of an outbreak on a huge evolving network can be studied through a limiting marked graph or tree.

desk verdict A genuine extension of the static local-epidemic transfer to dynamic graphs, with a real but repairable gap in Lemma 5.1's proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09623 v1 pith:ZJ7E7MTV submitted 2025-01-16 math.PR

Marta Milewska , Remco van der Hofstad , Bert Zwart This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PR MSC 05C8060F0592D30
keywords dynamicrandomgraphslocalconvergencetime-markeduniongraphSIRepidemicbackwardprocesslimits
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proves that the course of an SIR epidemic on a large dynamic random graph is determined by the local, time-marked structure around a typical vertex. The main theorem states: if the dynamic graphs converge in probability in the local time-marked union sense to a limiting marked union graph with law $\mu$, then for every time $t \in [0,T]$ the epidemic proportion vector converges in probability to the root-status probabilities $s(t), i(t), r(t)$ of the same SIR dynamics on the limit. The result extends the known static-graph local limit theorem to networks whose edges switch on and off over time. A constructive point of the paper is that ordinary dynamic local convergence is not enough for epidemics because infections travel along indirect temporal connections; the stronger time-marked union convergence is introduced to capture those. If the theorem is right, simulating an epidemic on a huge evolving network can be replaced by simulating the limiting marked tree or graph.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the time-marked union graph: the graph containing every edge that was ever active during $[0,T]$, with each edge marked by the full sequence of its ON and OFF intervals. Convergence of these marked rooted graphs in probability, called local time-marked union convergence, is the hypothesis of the main theorem. On top of this object, the paper runs a backward epidemic process that assigns recovery times to vertices, transmission times to edges, and initial infection marks to vertices, then computes the infection time of the root as the minimum over all temporally feasible paths from initially infected vertices. The bridge between finite graphs and the limit is the functional $h_{t,r}$ giving the probability that the root remains uninfected by time $t$ when the epidemic is confined to the $r$-neighbourhood; the argument needs this functional to be continuous and bounded on the space of rooted time-marked union graphs.

What would settle it

Run the SIR model with per-vertex recovery times on two sequences of dynamic graphs whose rooted time-marked union balls are within metric distance $\delta$ but whose ON/OFF schedules differ near a recovery deadline, and check whether the root infection probability at time $t$ differs by an amount that does not vanish as $\delta \to 0$; a non-vanishing difference would falsify the continuity step. More directly, simulate the epidemic on a dynamic Erdős–Rényi graph and on its limiting time-marked union tree, but in the finite graph give each vertex one common recovery time while in the coupled construction assigning independent recovery times per edge; if the infection proportions differ systematically as $n$ grows, the coupling in Lemma 5.1 is invalid and the theorem's proof has a gap.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, Theorem 1.2, is that local time-marked union convergence transfers epidemic dynamics from finite dynamic random graphs to their infinite local limits. Concretely, for a sequence of dynamic graphs $(G_n^s)_{s\in[0,T]}$ whose rooted time-marked union graphs converge in probability to a limiting time-marked union graph with law $\mu$, and for an SIR epidemic with arbitrary continuous infection and recovery time distributions started from independently infected vertices with probability $\rho>0$, the proportion vector $(S_n^{(\rho)}(t), I_n^{(\rho)}(t), R_n^{(\rho)}(t))$ converges in probability to $(s(t), i(t), r(t))$, where $s(t), i(t), r(t)$ are the probabilities that the root of the limiting graph is susceptible, infected, or recovered at time $t$ under the same SIR dynamics. The proof proceeds by comparing the true epidemic with an epidemic restricted to $r$-neighbourhoods of vertices, bounding the first and second moments of the approximation error, and then passing to the limit through a continuous functional of the time-marked union graph. The paper also shows that this stronger form of convergence is genuinely needed, since edges that switch off can still transmit infection through indirect temporal paths that ordinary snapshot local convergence misses.

Load-bearing premise

The whole result rests on the assumption that tiny differences in edge activity schedules cause only tiny differences in infection probabilities; the paper's proof of this couples two epidemics by giving each edge its own recovery time, whereas the actual SIR model gives each person one common recovery time shared by all their edges, so the coupled process is not the model and the continuity proof as written is incomplete.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any dynamic random graph model that converges in the local time-marked union sense, the full SIR epidemic curve on the finite graph is approximated by the corresponding root-status probabilities on the limiting marked graph or tree.
  • The dynamic Erdős–Rényi graph converges locally in the time-marked union sense to a Poisson branching tree with mean offspring $\gamma(1+T)$ and edge marks given by an explicit joint distribution, so simulations of the epidemic can be run on that tree instead of on the $n$-vertex graph.
  • Dynamic random intersection graphs and the rewiring configuration model also admit time-marked union tree limits, making epidemic simulation on clustered dynamic networks computationally cheaper.
  • The first-moment error bound $(1-\rho)^r$ shows that larger initial infection proportions and deeper local neighbourhoods improve the quality of the local approximation, with accuracy decaying exponentially in the neighbourhood radius.
  • Simulations reported in the paper indicate that on graphs with low clustering, edge dynamics accelerate the epidemic curve compared with a static graph of the same stationary degree distribution.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension is to check whether the continuity step survives when recovery times are truly per-vertex rather than per-edge; if the gap in the coupling cannot be closed, the theorem may still hold under an extra condition such as short ON periods or rare switching.
  • The counterexample structure behind Remark 2.14 suggests that time-marked union convergence is likely necessary for any process whose evolution depends on paths that are never simultaneously present in the snapshot graph, not just SIR epidemics.
  • For edge dynamics in which each edge activates only once, such as the dynamic Erdős–Rényi model in the paper, time-marked union convergence may reduce to a simpler dynamic local convergence criterion, which would be a cheaper hypothesis to verify in applications.
  • The same proof architecture might transfer to SEIR or other monotone compartmental models, provided the per-vertex recovery-time coupling issue is resolved and the relevant status functional is continuous on the same marked space.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

  1. Claim #1: The central claim, Theorem 1.2, is that local time-marked union convergence transfers epidemic dynamics from finite dynamic random graphs to their infinite local limits. Concretely, for a sequence of dynamic graphs $(G_n^s)_{s\in[0,T]}$ whose rooted time-marked union graphs converge in probability to a limiting time-marked union graph with law $\mu$, and for an SIR epidemic with arbitrary continuo

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper develops a local approximation theory for SIR epidemics on dynamic random graphs. The main theorem (Theorem 1.2) states that if the rooted time-marked union graphs associated with a dynamic graph sequence converge locally in probability, then the empirical SIR proportions (S_n, I_n, R_n) converge in probability to the corresponding root probabilities in the limiting rooted time-marked union graph under the same SIR dynamics. The proof strategy follows Alimohammadi et al. [3]: restrict the epidemic to r-neighborhoods, control first and second moments (Propositions 3.1 and 3.2), approximate the limit by finite radii (Proposition 3.3), and transfer via a continuous bounded functional h_{t,r} of the marked union graph (Proposition 3.4, Lemma 5.1). The paper also introduces the time-marked union convergence framework, illustrates it on dynamic Erdős-Rényi, random intersection, and configuration models, and includes simulation comparisons.

Significance. If the results are correct, Theorem 1.2 provides a useful and essentially parameter-free transfer principle: dynamic epidemics on large graphs can be read off from their local limits. The paper's main conceptual contribution—identifying the insufficiency of snapshot-based dynamic local convergence and introducing local time-marked union convergence, with a counterexample—is valuable. The detailed treatment of the metric space and the backward process is a strength. The central derivation, however, currently rests on a continuity proof that couples the wrong recovery mechanism; until this is repaired, the main theorem is not established. The simulations are suggestive but do not substitute for the missing proof.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.2, Lemma 5.1] The continuity proof of h_{t,r} couples the two SIR processes by generating, for every edge e, a pair (D_e^I, D_e^R) and letting infection pass through e exactly when D_e^I ≤ D_e^R and D_e^I falls in an ON interval of e. This is not the SIR model of Section 1.2, where each vertex u has a single recovery time R_u governing all incident edges, and it is also not the backward process of Section 2.4 and Algorithm 1, which draws one R_u per vertex. Under the proposed coupling a vertex can recover at different times for different edges, which changes infection times and can create differences between the two coupled processes that the true per-vertex dynamics would not produce. Since no argument shows that the per-edge coupling is equivalent to per-vertex recovery, the claimed continuity of h_{t,r} is not proved. This is load-bearing: Proposition 3.4 applies local time-marked union convergence to this functional, and Theorem 1.2 relies on Proposition 3.4. A repair is plausible—couple R_v and R_{φ(v)} through one uniform variable per vertex and then use the same δ-close ON/OFF mark argument—but that repair is absent from the manuscript.
  2. [§4.2, Step 2e] The bound on Var_n(X'_K), and hence Proposition 3.2, rests on the assertion that marked local convergence in probability implies E_n[(P^{(G_n)}_{r,\bar s_K}(\tilde H_{[K]}) - p^{(n)}_r(\tilde H_{[K]}))^2] is small for all finite sequences of neighbourhood types. The manuscript states this as an 'analogous consequence' of [3, Appendix C.3] without proof. In the dynamic setting this is not immediate: the marks are continuous random objects, the empirical frequencies are random variables indexed by n, and one needs convergence in L^2 rather than just in probability. Since this inequality is used to control the variance of EΛ[S_{n,r}^{(ρ)}(t)|(G_s^n)] in (4.44)-(4.47), it should be proved in the present framework or replaced by a precise reference that covers the marked, converging-in-probability case.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Lemma 5.1] The lemma statement says h_{t,r} is 'bounded and continuous in t', but the proof establishes continuity of the functional on the space of rooted time-marked union graphs under the metric of Definitions 2.8-2.9; the statement should be reworded accordingly, and the domain should be the marked graph space rather than G⋆.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues: 'dominates convergence theorem' should be 'dominated convergence theorem' (Section 5.2), 'Cachy-Schwarz' should be 'Cauchy-Schwarz' (Section 4.2, Step 2e), and 'c` adl` ag' should be typeset correctly.
  3. [§2.3, Remark 2.14] The counterexample in Remark 2.14 is described only heuristically; since it motivates the paper's main conceptual choice of the stronger convergence notion, it would help to specify the graph dynamics and the limit object in a few more sentences.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Conditional transfer theorem is self-contained; self-citations support examples only, so no substantive circularity.

full rationale

Theorem 1.2 is a conditional transfer statement: it assumes local time-marked union convergence of the dynamic graph and derives convergence of the SIR epidemic proportions to the epidemic status probabilities on the limiting graph. The proof is a standard two-step argument: Propositions 3.1 and 3.2 control the difference between the full epidemic and the r-neighbourhood epidemic, Proposition 3.3 does the same on the limit, and Proposition 3.4 uses Lemma 5.1 to show that the functional h_{t,r}(G) = P_Λ(t < T^{(r)}(o) | G) is continuous and bounded under the marked-graph metric of Definitions 2.8 and 2.9. Applying local time-marked union convergence to this functional is exactly the weak-convergence characterization of the assumed convergence notion; no fitted parameter is introduced, and s(t), i(t), r(t) are defined independently from the limiting marked union graph and the backward process. The stronger convergence notion is not defined in terms of epidemic outcomes, and the paper argues for its necessity via the counterexample in Remark 2.14 rather than by assuming the conclusion. The main self-citations ([40] and [52]) supply the local convergence results for the example models (Theorems 6.3 and 6.10) and background on dynamic local convergence, but the central transfer theorem does not depend on those examples being correct. The skeptical issue about Lemma 5.1 is a proof-completeness concern: the coupling there assigns a recovery time D_e^R to every edge, while the SIR model in Section 1.2 assigns each vertex a single recovery time, so the coupled process does not literally match the model. However, this is a correctness gap, not a circularity, because the continuity claim is not derived from the theorem it supports. Overall, no load-bearing circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central theorem is conditional on the new convergence notion and on the SIR model assumptions. No free parameters are fitted to data. The examples rely on the authors' earlier convergence results [40], which are cited rather than reproved.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The sequence of dynamic random graphs converges in probability in the local time-marked union sense.
    This is the main hypothesis of Theorem 1.2. For the worked examples it is established by citing the authors' previous results [40], not reproved here.
  • domain assumption Transmission times follow a continuous distribution D_I and recovery times follow D_R, independent across vertices and edges given the graph.
    This is the SIR model from Section 1.2. Continuity of D_I is used in Lemma 5.1 to make the coupling comparison small.
  • domain assumption The epidemic does not influence the graph evolution; the dynamic graph is exogenous.
    Feedback effects such as preventive rewiring are explicitly left for future work in Section 1.6.
  • domain assumption Every vertex is initially infected independently with probability rho > 0.
    This initial condition is stated in Section 1.2 and used throughout the proofs.
  • standard math Standard facts about weak convergence on Polish spaces, the Skorokhod J1 topology, and tightness of local neighbourhood sizes hold.
    These facts are used to define dynamic local convergence and to bound neighbourhood sizes in Proposition 3.2, citing [14,42] and [3, Appendix C.3].
invented entities (1)
  • time-marked union graph and local time-marked union convergence
    purpose: Aggregates all edges ever active in [0,T] with their full ON/OFF schedules so that SIR infection times can be computed by a backward path search.
    The paper introduces this mathematical object and convergence notion. It has no empirical handle outside the paper, though it is not an unobserved physical entity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SIR on locally converging dynamic random graphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZJ7E7MTV

@misc{pith2026250109623,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SIR on locally converging dynamic random graphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZJ7E7MTV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09623}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we study the trajectory of a classic SIR epidemic on a family of dynamic random graphs of fixed size, whose set of edges continuously evolves over time. We set general infection and recovery times, and start the epidemic from a positive, yet small, proportion of vertices. We show that in such a case, the spread of an infectious disease around a typical individual can be approximated by the spread of the disease in a local neighbourhood of a uniformly chosen vertex. We formalize this by studying general dynamic random graphs that converge dynamically locally in probability and demonstrate that the epidemic on these graphs converges to the epidemic on their dynamic local limit graphs. We provide a detailed treatment of the theory of dynamic local convergence, which remains a relatively new topic in the study of random graphs. One main conclusion of our paper is that a specific form of dynamic local convergence is required for our results to hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09623 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the SIR epidemic time progression on the dynamic Erd˝os-R´enyi random graph with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the SIR epidemic time progression on static and dynamic Erd˝os-R´enyi random graphs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the SIR epidemic curve on local limits of static and dynamic random intersection graphs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Local limit of Prim's algorithm

    math.PR 2025-07 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    Running Prim's algorithm for tn+o(n) steps on a locally convergent weighted graph sequence converges in local process convergence to the expanded invasion percolation cluster of the limit graph.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [3]

    Alimohammadi, C

    Y. Alimohammadi, C. Borgs, R. van der Hofstad, and A. Saberi. Epidemic forecasting on networks: bridging local samples with global outcomes

    work page

  2. [1]

    Acemoglu, A

    D. Acemoglu, A. Makhdoumi, A. Malekian, and A. Ozdaglar. Testing, voluntary social distancing and the spread of an infection. Operations Research, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [2]

    Aldous and J

    D. Aldous and J. M. Steele. The objective method: probabilistic combinatorial optimization and local weak convergence. In Probability on discrete structures , volume 110 of Encyclopaedia Math. Sci. , pages 1–72. Springer, Berlin., 2004

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    M. Altmann. Susceptible-infected-removed epidemic models with dynamic partnerships. Journal of Mathe- matical Biology, 6(33):661–675, 1995

    work page 1995

  5. [5]

    Avena, H

    L. Avena, H. G¨ ulda¸ s, R. van der Hofstad, and F. den Hollander. Random walks on dynamic configuration models: a trichotomy. Stochastic Process. Appl., 129(9):3360–3375, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    F. Ball, T. Britton, and P. Trapman. An epidemic in a dynamic population with importation of infectives. The Annals of Applied Probability , 27(1):242–274, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Epidemics on networks with preventive rewiring

    Frank Ball and Tom Britton. Epidemics on networks with preventive rewiring. Random Structures & Algorithms, 57(4):760–805, 2020. 38

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Bartlett

    M. Bartlett. Some evolutionary stochastic processes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 2(11):211–229, 1949

    work page 1949

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    F. M. Bass. A new product growth for model consumer durables. Management Science, 5(15):215–227, 1969

    1969

  2. [10]

    Bastani, K

    H. Bastani, K. Drakopoulos, V. Gupta, I. Vlachogiannis, C. Hadjichristodoulou, P. Lagiou, G. Magiorkinis, D. Paraskevis, and S. Tsiodras. Efficient and targeted covid-19 border testing via reinforcement learning. Nature, 7883(599):108–113, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Bekker, M

    R. Bekker, M. Mandjes, P. Spreij, and N. Starreveld. Dynamic erd˝ os-r´ enyi graphs. pages 123–140, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Benjamini and O

    I. Benjamini and O. Schramm. Recurrence of distributional limits of finite planar graphs. Electron. J. Probab., 6:no. 23, 13, 2001

    2001

  5. [13]

    Bernoulli

    D. Bernoulli. Essai d’une nouvelle analyse de la mortalite causee par la petite verole. Mem. Math. Phy. Acad. Roy. Sci. Paris , 1766. (English translation entitled ‘An attempt at a new analysis of the mortality caused by smallpox and of the advantages of inoculation to prevent...

    1971

  6. [14]

    Billingsley

    P. Billingsley. Convergence of probability measures. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1999

    1999

  7. [15]

    J. R. Birge, O. Candogan, and Y Feng. Controlling epidemic spread: Reducing economic losses with targeted closures. Management Science, 5(68):3175–3195, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    S. R. Blackburn and S. Gerke. Connectivity of the uniform random intersection graph.Discrete Mathematics, 309.16:5130–5140, 2009

    2009

  9. [17]

    Bloznelis

    M. Bloznelis. Component evolution in general random intersection graphs. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 24.2:639–654, 2010

    2010

  10. [18]

    Bloznelis

    M. Bloznelis. Degree and clustering coefficient in sparse random intersection graphs. The Annals of Applied Probability, 23.3:1254–1289, 2013

    2013

  11. [19]

    Bloznelis

    M. Bloznelis. Degree-degree distribution in a power law random intersection graph with clustering. Internet Mathematics, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Bloznelis and J

    M. Bloznelis and J. Damarackas. Assortativity and clustering of sparse random intersection graphs. Elec- tronic Journal of Probability , 18(38, 24.), 2013

    2013

  13. [21]

    Bloznelis and J

    M. Bloznelis and J. Damarackas. Degree distribution of an inhomogeneous random intersection graph. Electronic Journal of Combinatorics , Paper 3, 13., 2013

    2013

  14. [22]

    Bollob´ as

    B. Bollob´ as. The evolution of random graphs. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , 286(1):257–274, 1984

    1984

  15. [23]

    Britton, D

    T. Britton, D. Juher, and J. Salda˜ na. A network epidemic model with preventive rewiring: comparative analysis of the initial phase. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology , 12(78):2427–2454, 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    Britton, E

    T. Britton, E. Pardoux, F. Ball, C. Laredo, D. Sirl, and V. C Tran.Stochastic epidemic models with inference, volume 2255 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics . Springer, 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    Coupechoux and M

    E. Coupechoux and M. Lelarge. Contagions in random networks with overlapping communities. Advances in Applied Probability, 47(4), 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    Croccolo and H

    F. Croccolo and H. E. Roman. Spreading of infections on random graphs: A percolation-type model for covid-19. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals , 139:110077, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Deijfen and W

    M. Deijfen and W. Kets. Random intersection graphs with tunable degree distribution and clustering. Probability in the engineering and informational sciences , 23:4:661–674, 2009

    2009

  20. [28]

    N. B. Dimitrov and L. A. Meyers. Mathematical approaches to infectious disease prediction and control. Risk and Optimization in an Uncertain World , pages 1–25, 2010. INFORMS. 39

    2010

  21. [29]

    Dort and E

    L. Dort and E. Jacob. Local weak limit of dynamical inhomogeneous random graphs. 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Erd˝ os and A

    P. Erd˝ os and A. R´ enyi. On the evolution of random graphs. Magyar Tud. Akad. Mat. Kutat´ o Int. K¨ ozl., 5:17–61, 1960

    1960

  23. [31]

    Eubank, H

    S. Eubank, H. Guclu, V. Anil Kumar, M. V. Marathe, A. Srinivasan, Z. Toroczkai, and N Wang. Modelling disease outbreaks in realistic urban social networks. Nature, 6988(429):180–184, 2004

    2004

  24. [32]

    J. A. Fill, E. R. Scheinerman, and K. B. Singer-Cohen. Random intersection graphs when m = ω(n): an equivalence theorem relating the evolution of the g(n, m, p) and g(n, p) models. Random Structures and Algorithms, page 156–176, 2000

    2000

  25. [33]

    Fransson and P

    C. Fransson and P. Trapman. Sir epidemics and vaccination on random graphs with clustering. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 78:2369–2398, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    E. N. Gilbert. Random graphs. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , 30(4):1141 – 1144, 1959

    1959

  27. [35]

    Godehardt and J

    E. Godehardt and J. Jaworski. Two models of random intersection graphs for classification. Exploratory Data Analysis in Empirical Research: Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Gesellschaft f´ ur Klassifikation e.V.,University of Munich,March 14–16, 2001 , page 67–...

    2001

  28. [36]

    van der Hofstad

    R. van der Hofstad. Random graphs and complex networks Volume 1 . Cambridge University Press, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    van der Hofstad

    R. van der Hofstad. Random graphs and complex networks. Volume 2. Cambridge University Press, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    van der Hofstad, J

    R. van der Hofstad, J. Komj´ athy, and V. Vadon. Random intersection graphs with communities. Adv. in Appl. Probab., 53(4):1061–1089, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    van der Hofstad, J

    R. van der Hofstad, J. Komj´ athy, and V. Vadon. Phase transition in random intersection graphs with communities. Random Structures & Algorithms , 60(3):406–461, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    van der Hofstad, M

    R. van der Hofstad, M. Milewska, and B. Zwart. Dynamic random intersection graph: dynamic local convergence and giant structure. Random Structures & Algorithms , 66(1), 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Janson, T

    S. Janson, T. Luczak, and A. Ruci´ nski.Random graphs. Wiley-Interscience, 2000

    2000

  34. [42]

    Kallenberg

    O. Kallenberg. Foundations of modern probability. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2002

    2002

  35. [43]

    Karonski, E

    M. Karonski, E. R. Scheinerman, and K. B. Singer-Cohen. On random intersection graphs: The subgraph problem. Combinatorics, Probability and Computing , 8.1 & 2:131–159, 1999

    1999

  36. [44]

    D. G. Kendall. Deterministic and stochastic epidemics in closed populations . University of California Press, 1956

    1956

  37. [45]

    W. O. Kermack and A. G. McKendrick. A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character , 772(115):700–721, 1927

    1927

  38. [46]

    R. C. Larson. Simple models of influenza progression within a heterogeneous population. Operations research, 3(55):399–412, 2007

    2007

  39. [47]

    A. A. Lashari and P. Trapman. Branching process approach for epidemics in dynamic partnership network. Journal of Mathematical Biology , 1-2(76):265–294, 2018

    2018

  40. [48]

    J. O. Lloyd-Smith, D. George, K. M. Pepin, V. E. Pitzer, J. R. Pulliam, A. P. Dobson, P. J. Hudson, and B. T. Grenfell. Epidemic dynamics at the human-animal interface. Science, 5958(316):1362–1367, 2009

    2009

  41. [49]

    Mamani, S

    H. Mamani, S. E. Chick, and D. Simchi-Levi. A game-theoretic model of international influenza vaccination coordination. Management Science, 7(59):1650–1670, 2013

    2013

  42. [50]

    Mandjes and J

    M. Mandjes and J. Wang. Estimation of on- and off-time distributions in a dynamic erd˝ os-r´ enyi random graph. 2024. 40

    2024

  43. [51]

    Manshadi, S

    V. Manshadi, S. Misra, and S. Rodilitz. Diffusion in random networks: Impact of degree distribution. Operations research, 6:1722–1741, 2020

    2020

  44. [52]

    Milewska

    M. Milewska. Mathematical insights into epidemics: from overdispersion to dynamic local convergence . PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, 2025

    2025

  45. [53]

    M. E. J. Newman. Properties of highly clustered networks. Physical Review E , 68.2:131–159, 2003

    2003

  46. [54]

    R´ ath, M

    B. R´ ath, M. Sz˝ oke, and L. Warnke. Local limit of the random degree constrained process. 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    Rosengren and P

    S. Rosengren and P. Trapman. A dynamic erd˝ os-r´ enyi graph model. 2016

    2016

  48. [56]

    R. Ross. An application of the theory of probabilities to the study of a priori pathometry.—- part i. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing papers of a mathematical and physical character, 638(92):204–230, 1916

    1916

  49. [57]

    Ross and H

    R. Ross and H. P. Hudson. An application of the theory of probabilities to the study of a priori pathometry.—- part iii. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing papers of a mathematical and physical character, 650(93):225–240, 1917

    1917

  50. [58]

    Rybarczyk

    K. Rybarczyk. Diameter, connectivity, and phase transition of the uniform random intersection graph. Discrete Mathematics, 311.17:1998–2019, 2011

    1998

  51. [59]

    K. B. Singer. Random intersection graphs. 1996. Thesis (Ph.D.)–The Johns Hopkins University. ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI

    1996

  52. [60]

    Sousi and S

    P. Sousi and S. Thomas. Cutoff for random walk on dynamical erd˝ os-r´ enyi graph. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Probabilit´ es et Statistiques, 56(4), 2020. 41

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.