## The Annals of Applied Probability

### Connectivity thresholds for bounded size rules

#### Abstract

In an Achlioptas process, starting with a graph that has $n$ vertices and no edge, in each round $d\ge1$ vertex pairs are chosen uniformly at random, and using some rule exactly one of them is selected and added to the evolving graph. We investigate the impact of the rule’s choice on one of the most basic properties of a graph: connectivity. In our main result we focus on the prominent class of bounded size rules, which select the edge to add according to the component sizes of its vertices, treating all sizes larger than some constant equally. For such rules we provide a fine analysis that exposes the limiting distribution and the expectation of the number of rounds until the graph gets connected, and we give a detailed picture of the dynamics of the formation of the single component from smaller components. Our results allow us to study the connectivity transition of all Achlioptas processes, in the sense that we identify a process that accelerates it as much as possible.

#### Article information

Source
Ann. Appl. Probab., Volume 26, Number 5 (2016), 3206-3250.

Dates
Revised: April 2015
First available in Project Euclid: 19 October 2016

https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.aoap/1476884316

Digital Object Identifier
doi:10.1214/16-AAP1174

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)
MR3563206

Zentralblatt MATH identifier
1352.05165

Subjects
Secondary: 60C05: Combinatorial probability

#### Citation

Einarsson, Hafsteinn; Lengler, Johannes; Mousset, Frank; Panagiotou, Konstantinos; Steger, Angelika. Connectivity thresholds for bounded size rules. Ann. Appl. Probab. 26 (2016), no. 5, 3206--3250. doi:10.1214/16-AAP1174. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.aoap/1476884316

#### References

• [1] Amir, G., Gurel-Gurevich, O., Lubetzky, E. and Singer, A. (2010). Giant components in biased graph processes. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 59 1893–1929.
• [2] Amir, G. and Lubetzky, E. (2013). On two biased graph processes. Unpublished manuscript.
• [3] Azar, Y., Broder, A. Z., Karlin, A. R. and Upfal, E. (1999). Balanced allocations. SIAM J. Comput. 29 180–200.
• [4] Bhamidi, S., Budhiraja, A. and Wang, X. (2014). The augmented multiplicative coalescent, bounded size rules and critical dynamics of random graphs. Probab. Theory Related Fields 160 733–796.
• [5] Bhamidi, S., Budhiraja, A. and Wang, X. (2014). Bounded-size rules: The barely subcritical regime. Combin. Probab. Comput. 23 505–538.
• [6] Bhamidi, S., Budhiraja, A. and Wang, X. (2015). Aggregation models with limited choice and the multiplicative coalescent. Random Structures Algorithms 46 55–116.
• [7] Billingsley, P. (1999). Convergence of Probability Measures, 2nd ed. Wiley, New York.
• [8] Bohman, T. and Frieze, A. (2001). Avoiding a giant component. Random Structures Algorithms 19 75–85.
• [9] Bohman, T. and Kravitz, D. (2006). Creating a giant component. Combin. Probab. Comput. 15 489–511.
• [10] Bollobás, B. (1984). The evolution of random graphs. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 286 257–274.
• [11] Bollobás, B. (2001). Random Graphs, 2nd ed. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics 73. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
• [12] Drmota, M., Kang, M. and Panagiotou, K. (2013). Universality results for stochastic coalescence models with restricted choice. Unpublisched manuscript.
• [13] Dubhashi, D. and Ranjan, D. (1998). Balls and bins: A study in negative dependence. Random Structures Algorithms 13 99–124.
• [14] Erdős, P. and Rényi, A. (1960). On the evolution of random graphs. Magyar Tud. Akad. Mat. Kutató Int. Közl. 5 17–61.
• [15] Gonnet, G. H. (1981). Expected length of the longest probe sequence in hash code searching. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 28 289–304.
• [16] Janson, S., Knuth, D. E., Łuczak, T. and Pittel, B. (1993). The birth of the giant component. Random Structures Algorithms 4 231–358.
• [17] Janson, S., Łuczak, T. and Rucinski, A. (2000). Random Graphs. Wiley, New York.
• [18] Janson, S. and Spencer, J. (2012). Phase transitions for modified Erdős–Rényi processes. Ark. Mat. 50 305–329.
• [19] Kang, M. and Panagiotou, K. (2014). On the connectivity threshold of Achlioptas processes. J. Comb. 5 291–304.
• [20] Krivelevich, M., Loh, P.-S. and Sudakov, B. (2009). Avoiding small subgraphs in Achlioptas processes. Random Structures Algorithms 34 165–195.
• [21] Krivelevich, M., Lubetzky, E. and Sudakov, B. (2010). Hamiltonicity thresholds in Achlioptas processes. Random Structures Algorithms 37 1–24.
• [22] Krivelevich, M. and Spöhel, R. (2012). Creating small subgraphs in Achlioptas processes with growing parameter. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 26 670–686.
• [23] Mitzenmacher, M. (2009). Some open questions related to cuckoo hashing. In Algorithms—ESA 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5757 1–10. Springer, Berlin.
• [24] Mitzenmacher, M., Richa, A. W. and Sitaraman, R. (2001). The power of two random choices: A survey of techniques and results. In Handbook of Randomized Computing. Comb. Optim. 9 255–312. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.
• [25] Mütze, T., Spöhel, R. and Thomas, H. (2011). Small subgraphs in random graphs and the power of multiple choices. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 101 237–268.
• [26] Panagiotou, K., Spöhel, R., Steger, A. and Thomas, H. (2013). Explosive percolation in Erdős–Rényi-like random graph processes. Combin. Probab. Comput. 22 133–145.
• [27] Riordan, O. and Warnke, L. (2012). Achlioptas process phase transitions are continuous. Ann. Appl. Probab. 22 1450–1464.
• [28] Riordan, O. and Warnke, L. (2016). Convergence of Achlioptas processes via differential equations with unique solutions. Combin. Probab. Comput. 25 154–171.
• [29] Sen, S. (2013). On the largest component in the subcritical regime of the Bohman–Frieze process. Preprint. Available at arXiv:1307.2041.
• [30] Spencer, J. and Wormald, N. (2007). Birth control for giants. Combinatorica 27 587–628.
• [31] Wormald, N. C. (1999). The differential equation method for random graph processes and greedy algorithms. In Lectures on Approximation and Randomized Algorithms 73–155. PWN, Warsaw.