Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: what is the most broad - ranging currently active field of applied probability ? measuring breadth by the number of different academic disciplines where it appears , it seems hard to beat a field appearing in physics , computer science and electrical engineering , economics and finance , psychology and sociology , population genetics and epidemiology and ecology . curiously , the field has no good name , though readers of _ bernoulli _ will most likely know it , under the continuing influence of liggett s 1985 book  @xcite , as _ interacting particle systems_. it turns out that mathematically similar toy models of different real - world entities have been repeatedly re - invented in the different disciplines mentioned above , and literally thousands of papers have been written since 2000 on discipline - dependent variant models intended as more realistic .    rather than attempting a brief overview of the whole field as it stands today ( on which i am certainly not an expert ) , let me take an opposite approach , imagining starting with a blank slate . i  will set out in the next section a particular conceptual setting  what sorts of things are we trying to model ?  then a particular technical setup , and then indicate what sort of mathematical results one might seek . given this manifesto , the rest of the article describes some basic models , gives pointers to the existing literature and presents a few open problems suggested by our setting . the article is based on a short course given in summer 2012 at warwick and cornell , and more extensive informal material is available at @xcite . i must emphasize that the article is intended as an introduction to the topics it mentions , not as an authoritative survey , which would require ten times the length ! in particular none of the mathematics outlined here is both new and non - straightforward , except perhaps some open problems . the particular setting we envisage is of the human social network . people meet or communicate , and explicitly or implicitly receive information from the other , and this interaction may change the `` state '' ( opinion or possessions or  ) of the individuals . now that sentence skips over many issues . `` information '' is a complicated concept  @xcite , and formalizing it as one of a set of prespecified states hardly captures the nuances of human experience . and obviously we receive information in many ways other than one - on - one interaction with other individuals . but the fact that humans do a lot of different things via interactions emphasizes the point that we are interested in a variety of different rules , a point that would be less visible if we took some real or hypothetical physical system as a prototype setting . social networks ( whose mathematical modeling and analysis long predates the facebook era ) are usually modeled as unweighted graphs  vertices are individuals , edges indicate some specified relationship . in most contexts it would be more realistic to use _ weighted _ graphs , the weight indicating strength of relationship . this is seldom done because of increased model complexity and the fact that the meaning of `` strength of relationship '' is context - dependent . but we will give it the specific meaning of `` frequency of meeting '' , formalized via the rates @xmath0 below . the story above suggests the following technical framework , in which randomness arises primarily via assumed random times of meetings . because the framework can be used outside the social network setting , i will use the impersonal word `` agent '' in what follows . consider @xmath1 _ agents _ and a nonnegative array @xmath2 , indexed by unordered pairs @xmath3 , which is irreducible ( i.e. , the graph of edges corresponding to strictly positive entries is connected ) . assume    * each unordered pair @xmath4 of agents with @xmath5 meets at the times of a rate-@xmath0 poisson process , independent for different pairs . call this collection of poisson processes the _ meeting process_. where needed we write @xmath6 for the set of agents . now introduce a set @xmath7 of states , and consider a process @xmath8 in which each agent @xmath9 is in some state @xmath10 at time @xmath11 , and the state can only change when agent @xmath9 meets some other agent @xmath12 , at which time the two agents states are updated according to some rule ( typically deterministic , but might be random ) which depends only on the pre - meeting states @xmath13 . so in the deterministic case , there is a given arbitrary function @xmath14 and when agents in states @xmath15 and @xmath16 meet their states are updated as @xmath17 we call such a process an _ fmie ( finite markov information exchange ) process _ and emphasize that a specific such process has two levels . the meeting process is determined by the meeting rate matrix @xmath2 ( which we loosely call the `` geometry '' , imagining that we tend to meet more frequently with individuals who are `` close '' in some sense ) . the information update process is determined by some rule . then the different named fmie models we shall describe ( such as the voter model ) correspond to different rules for the informational superstructure ; we regard such models as defined over arbitrary geometries . of course much of the beauty and utility of mathematics is in providing abstractions that encompass apparently different things , and as stated at the start fmie models have been used in many disciplines . let me briefly mention three that are relevant to our models later . conceptually closest is the mathematical modeling of epidemics , whose long history is indicated by the 1957 monograph  @xcite . a typical classical model like the sir ( susceptible  infected  recovered ) model corresponds to a 3-state fmie if the relevant distributions are exponential . here of course the vertices are people or animals and the edges relate to physical proximity . classical models considered homogeneously mixing populations ( i.e. , the complete graph geometry ) but there is extensive post-2000 literature on more general geometries .    a quite different context , from theoretical computer science , concerns distributed randomized algorithms . here agents are processors , communicating with nearby ( direct connections in a network ) processors , and performing computations based on data transferred . see  @xcite for the particular topic of _ gossip algorithms_.    what are called _ interacting particle systems ( ips ) _ arose historically as statistical physics models of phenomena such as magnetism , and mathematicians became interested in particular in rigorous study of phase transitions , in the setting of infinite geometries , specifically the infinite @xmath18-dimensional lattice . this literature long ago branched out to study many `` toy models '' not so directly related to any specific physical phenomenon . our development is in the same `` toy models '' spirit , and the models naturally suggested by the social networks context partly overlap and partly differ from those naturally suggested by statistical physics . in particular , the abstraction of what we are studying as `` information flow through networks '' seems more helpful than any physical visualization . a broader but less focused view of the whole `` statistical physics of social dynamics '' topic can be found in @xcite . the concept of an _ ips _ is generally discussed via example rather than explicit definition . for instance liggett  @xcite takes as examples the voter model , contact process , exclusion process , glauber dynamics for the ising model , and the potlatch process . our mathematical setup of _ fmie process _ in section  [ sec : tech ] is intended as a more precisely circumscribed class of processes to study . for instance , only the first three processes on liggett s list are fmie ( for the contact process , add an artificial agent with rate - one meetings with each other agent , to effect recovery ) . what we call the meeting process is often called the _ graphical representation _ in ips . our emphasis on a _ finite _ number of agents gives a somewhat different perspective than in classical ips , in which the finite setting was considered only occasionally , e.g. ,  @xcite . our viewpoint is by analogy with the modern literature on mixing and hitting times for finite markov chains @xcite ; study how the behavior of a model depends on the underlying geometry , where `` behavior '' means quantitative aspects of finite - time behavior . more precisely , we typically study @xmath19 limits in a family of finite - agent processes , rather than @xmath20 limits in a single infinite - agent process . the averaging process studied in section  [ sec : ave ] provides a prototype for the style of results we would like to establish for a given fmie model ; see also the discussion of possible @xmath20 limits in section  [ sec : scc ] . the fmie setup allows an arbitrary update function @xmath21 at ( [ def - f ] ) and an arbitrary `` geometry '' of meeting rates @xmath2 . one can hardly hope to say anything of substance in this generality ( we will mention various `` general principles '' but these are rather trite , once said ) . at a pragmatic level , if seeking analytic results one chooses an update function such that the fmie process can be analyzed on the complete graph ( `` mean - field '' , roughly ) geometry , otherwise it will likely be difficult to handle other geometries . and obversely , one chooses a geometry in which one can analyze the two basic processes of section  [ sec:2basic ] , otherwise it will likely be difficult to handle more complicated update rules .    from our viewpoint , much of the literature since 2000 consists of inventing and investigating a large number of increasingly elaborate update rules , while considering only a small number of `` standard geometries '' , indicated below . keep in mind that it is easy to invent and simulate models , but hard to give rigorous proofs or to relate convincingly to real - world data .      here we briefly describe four of the `` standard geometries '' on which models are often studied . recall @xmath1 is the number of agents . note that in a realistic social network there is no reason why @xmath22 , which is the rate at which agent @xmath9 meets other agents , should be constant in @xmath9 . but many simple models do have this property , in which case we may rescale time to fit a _ standardization convention _ @xmath23 as in the first two examples below .    here @xmath24 . here @xmath25 for adjacent agents @xmath26 . the next two examples involve networks modelled as _ random _ graphs . formally this adds another level of randomness , though informally we can just think of being given a typical realization . in such ( non - regular ) graphs one typically can not satisfy ( [ standardization ] ) and instead the default convention is to take rates @xmath27 for each edge @xmath28 . here one starts with the @xmath18-dimensional discrete torus ( or similar non - random graph ) and then adds random other edges in some specified way , for instance independently with probabilities proportional to @xmath29 . there are several ways ( in particular the _ configuration model _ @xcite ) to define graphs corresponding to the intuitive notion of being `` completely random '' subject to the constraint that , as @xmath19 , the distribution of vertex - degrees converges to a prescribed distribution . such models are tractable because their @xmath19 local weak limit is just a modified galton - watson tree . there is a huge `` complex networks '' literature ( see , e.g. , the monographs @xcite ) devoted to inventing and studying network models , and i will not write out a long list here . let me instead mention three other mathematically natural geometries which have _ not _ been studied as much as one might have expected ( and two more will be mentioned in section  [ sec : infinite ] ) . start with the torus @xmath30 and add rates @xmath31 for non - adjacent @xmath4 . this is a way to interpolate between the torus and the complete graph . note the distinction between this and the `` small worlds '' model , in which the rate is non - vanishing for a few random edges .    given a model whose behavior is understood on the two - dimensional lattice , one could investigate the effect of `` disorder '' by taking instead a proximity graph over a poisson process of points in the plane @xcite . this is a standard example in markov chain theory . here we discuss two fmie processes that are `` basic '' in two senses . they fit the definition of fmie process but are much simpler than ( and therefore unrepresentative of ) a typical fmie process ; yet many other fmie processes can be regarded as being built over one of these base processes , with extra structure added .    for each fmie , we give only a verbal description , which the reader can readily formalize . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ there is one token . when the agent @xmath9 holding the token meets another agent @xmath12 , the token is passed to @xmath12 . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    this can evidently be viewed as a 2-state fmie process . the natural aspect to study is @xmath32 the agent holding the token at time @xmath11 . this @xmath33 is the ( continuous - time ) markov chain with transition rates @xmath2 . we call this the _ associated _ markov chain  associated with the underlying geometry . let me digress to mention , by analogy , a nuance . a google scholar search on `` exact phrase @xmath34 galton - watson ; year @xmath34 19651969 '' returns only papers studying @xmath35 population size in generation @xmath36 of a galton - watson branching process . changing to `` year @xmath34 20052009 '' , half the papers talk about the galton - watson * tree * , which of course has more structure than the population size process  one can study cousins , for instance . analogously , the token process has more structure than the associated markov chain  one can study the time until agent @xmath9 meets someone who has previously held the token , for instance .    for finite - state markov chains , we have available both a classical general theory and a long catalog of explicit calculations in specific geometries . for our purposes , the main point is that several fmie models ( classically the voter model and the exclusion process , but also the averaging process ) have close connections with the associated markov chain , and parts of the `` standard modern theory '' @xcite of finite chains can be used in their analysis .    for readers more familiar with discrete - time chains , let me emphasize that ( because @xmath37 ) the stationary distribution of the associated chain is always uniform ; this does not assume the standardization ( [ standardization ] ) . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ initially one agent is infected . whenever an infected agent meets another agent , the other agent becomes infected . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    in classical language , this is the si epidemic with @xmath38 distributions for infection times . but again there is a nuance . suppose that on each undirected edge @xmath28 of the geometry we put a single @xmath38 r.v . @xmath39 , independent over edges , and regard @xmath39 as the length of the edge . then there is an induced distance ( @xmath34 minimum route length ) between any pair of agents . this model of random distances is what i will call the _ first passage percolation ( fpp ) _ model . note this differs from classical lattice fpp , which assumes i.i.d . variables with arbitrary distribution . here is the nuance . in the pandemic process started with agent @xmath9 , write @xmath40 for the time when agent @xmath12 is infected . in the fpp process write @xmath41 for the distance between @xmath9 and @xmath12 . from the memoryless property of the exponential , we see that @xmath42 and indeed that @xmath43 for each @xmath9 . but pandemic and fpp are different processes in that @xmath44 whereas we have only @xmath45 . ( one can fix this particular issue by re - interpreting , in fpp , the time @xmath39 as the elapsed time , after one end is infected , until the other end is infected , but this misses the overall point that the distributions of the whole arrays @xmath46 are different . ) the pandemic model is `` basic '' in a very specific sense , in that it exhibits the fastest possible spread of information in any fmie model . that is , in an arbitrary fmie process @xmath8 over a given geometry , the value of @xmath47 can only be influenced by the value of @xmath48 if @xmath49 . here of course we are exploiting the natural coupling of two arbitrary fmie processes over the same geometry , which simply uses the same realization of the meeting process . albeit obvious , one can view this as an instance of the following . it is often useful to consider the natural coupling of two fmie processes . models of real - world epidemics are of course much more elaborate . regarding our simple pandemic model , it is analogous to the markov chain in two ways :    * there is extensive literature doing calculations in specific geometries ; i show a little in section  [ sec : pandemic ] . * several other fmies can be `` built over '' the pandemic model  see section  [ sec : built_over_p ] . but it differs it that there seems no existing `` general theory '' . see a conjecture in section  [ sec : wlln ] .      in these remarks , we are envisaging the finite - state case . time - asymptotics for fixed @xmath1 are not the issue ; in most models it s easy to see what s going on . informally there are four qualitatively different possible time - asymptotic behaviors , and each of the models we treat fits readily into one of these .    * absorption in a random one ( of a small number of ) `` ordered '' configurations . [ pandemic , averaging , voter , deference ] . * absorption in a random one ( of a large number of ) `` disordered '' configurations . [ compulsive gambler ] . *    * convergence to the unique stationary distribution ( perhaps on a subset of configurations ) . [ token , interchange , fashionista ] . the elided third item is the most general possibility for a finite - state markov chain ( applied to the configurations of a fmie process ) ; there are one or more _ strongly connected components _ ( sccs ) of the directed transition graph , and the limit distribution is a mixture over the stationary distributions on each scc . while it s easy to invent artificial fmie models with this behavior , i  do nt know any `` natural '' such model . the following question is less easy that it first appears . the natural conjecture ( involving subsets of @xmath6 closed under @xmath21 , and functions whose sum is conserved by the interaction ) is false . consider the fmie process over the complete graph on @xmath1 agents ( for large @xmath1 ) defined by a deterministic update function @xmath21 as at ( [ def - f ] ) , what are the sccs of the fmie process ? as a prototype fmie model  for which one can say something quantitative about its behavior over a general geometry  we take the following . curiously , though it appears as an ingredient in more elaborate models , the only place i have seen the basic process itself is in the `` gossip algorithms '' literature  @xcite which derives a version of the `` global bound '' , proposition  [ pgcon ] . a  careful treatment of the results below is written out in @xcite  here i give a compressed version .    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ initially each agent has some ( real - valued ) amount of money . whenever two agents meet , they divide their money equally . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    it is rather obvious that the individual values @xmath10 converge as @xmath50 to the average of initial values , so what is there to say ? write @xmath51 for the initial configuration @xmath52 , that is agent @xmath9 has unit money and other agents have none , and write @xmath53 for the transition probabilities of the associated markov chain . [ l1 ] for the averaging process with initial configuration @xmath51 we have @xmath54 . more generally , from any deterministic initial configuration @xmath55 , the expectations @xmath56 evolve exactly as the dynamical system @xmath57 where @xmath58 is the generator of the associated markov chain . the key point behind this results is that we can rephrase the dynamics of the averaging process as @xmath59 in informal language , this implies that the motion of a random penny  which at a meeting of its owner agent is given to the other agent with probability @xmath60  is as the associated markov chain at half speed , that is with transition rates @xmath61 . to continue , we need to recall some background facts ( e.g. ,  @xcite , chap . 3 ) about reversible chains , here specialized to our continuous - time setting of the associated markov chain , that is with uniform stationary distribution ( @xmath37 ) . a function @xmath62 has ( with respect to the uniform distribution ) average @xmath63 , variance @xmath64 and @xmath65 norm @xmath66 defined by @xmath67 the @xmath65 norm will be used in several different ways . for a possible time-@xmath11 configuration @xmath68 of the averaging process , the quantity @xmath69 is a number , and so the quantity @xmath70 appearing in the proposition below is a random variable . the _ dirichlet form _ of the associated markov chain is @xmath71 where @xmath72 indicates summation over _ unordered _ pairs . the spectral gap of the chain , defined as the gap between eigenvalue @xmath73 and the second eigenvalue of @xmath58 , is characterized as @xmath74 the proof of the following result uses only the ingredients above and the averaging process dynamics . [ pgcon ] from an initial configuration @xmath75 with average zero , the time-@xmath11 configuration @xmath8 of the averaging process satisfies @xmath76 where @xmath77 is the spectral gap of the associated mc .    to introduce the next result , thinking heuristically of the agents who agent @xmath9 most frequently meets as the `` local '' agents for @xmath9 , it is natural to guess that the configuration of the averaging process might become `` locally smooth '' faster than the `` global smoothness '' rate implied by proposition  [ pgcon ] . in this context we may regard the dirichlet form @xmath78 as measuring the `` local smoothness '' , more accurately the local roughness , of a function @xmath79 , relative to the local structure of the particular meeting process . the next result implicitly bounds @xmath80 at finite times by giving an explicit bound for the integral over @xmath81 . note that , from the fact that the spectral gap is strictly positive , we can see directly that @xmath82 exponentially fast as @xmath20 ; proposition  [ p - smooth ] is a complementary non - asymptotic result . [ p - smooth ] for the averaging process with arbitrary initial configuration @xmath83 , @xmath84    this looks slightly magical because the identity does not depend on the particular rate matrix @xmath58 , but of course the definition of @xmath85 involves @xmath58 . the next result illustrates the following . notions of _ duality _ are one of the interesting and useful tools in classical ips , and equally so in the social dynamics models we are studying . there is a formal definition of duality in  @xcite , section  2.3 , but we find the concept easier to understand via examples . the duality between the voter model and coalescing chains ( recalled in section  [ vmdual ] ) is the simplest and most striking example . the relationship we give in proposition  [ p : adual ] for the averaging model is perhaps more representative of the general style of duality relationships . we repeat the `` random penny '' argument used in proposition  [ l1 ] . now there are two pennies , and at any meeting there are independent decisions to hold or pass each penny . analyzing how the two pennies move leads to a certain coupling ( @xcite , sec . 2.4 ) of two ( half - speed ) associated markov chains @xmath86  the motion of the two pennies is coupled because , at a meeting of their two owners , one or both may be passed . the coupled process has the following relationship with the averaging process . [ p : adual ] for the averaging model @xmath8 started from a configuration @xmath83 which is a probability distribution over agents , and for each @xmath11 , @xmath87 where @xmath86 denotes the coupled process started from random agents @xmath88 chosen independently from @xmath83 .    on a simple geometry where one can calculate @xmath89 via proposition  [ l1 ] , one could seek to use proposition  [ p : adual ] to investigate second - order properties of the averaging process , and some open problems of this type are mentioned in  @xcite . finally , parallel to proposition  [ pgcon ] which builds upon a standard @xmath65 bound for reversible markov chains is the following result @xcite , inspired by the theory surrounding log - sobolev inequalities @xcite . for a configuration @xmath90 which is a probability distribution write @xmath91 for the entropy of the configuration . consider the averaging process where the initial configuration is a probability distribution . by concavity of the function @xmath92 it is clear that in the averaging process @xmath93 can only increase , and hence @xmath94 a.s . ( recall @xmath95 is the entropy of the uniform distribution ) . [ pentropy ] for the averaging process whose initial configuration is a probability distribution @xmath83 , @xmath96 where @xmath97 is the log - sobolev constant of the associated markov chain . this model has a random update rule , most elegantly implemented via a `` directed '' convention in the meeting model : when agents @xmath4 meet , choose a ( uniform ) random direction and indicate it using an arrow @xmath98 or @xmath99 .    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ initially each agent has a different `` opinion ''  agent @xmath9 has opinion  @xmath9 . when @xmath9 and @xmath12 meet at time @xmath11 with direction @xmath98 , then agent @xmath12 adopts the current opinion of agent @xmath9 . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    this model and many variants have acquired a substantial literature in the finite setting ( as well as the classical infinite lattice setting ) so what s written here is far from complete . in the classical setting , one traditionally assumed only two different initial opinions . in our finite - agent case , it seems more natural to take the initial opinions to be all different .    for notation , write @xmath100 so @xmath101 is a random partition of @xmath6 . note that @xmath102 may be empty , or may be non - empty but not contain @xmath9 . the number of different remaining opinions can only decrease with time . ultimately the process must be absorbed in one of the @xmath1 `` everyone has same opinion '' configurations . this fits one of our section  [ sec : scc ] general possibilities for a fmie process : absorption in a random one ( of a small number of ) `` ordered '' configurations . a natural quantity of interest is this * consensus time * @xmath103      _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ initially each agent has a token  agent @xmath9 has token @xmath9 . at time @xmath11 each agent @xmath9 has a ( maybe empty ) collection ( cluster ) @xmath104 of tokens . when @xmath9 and @xmath12 meet at time @xmath11 with direction @xmath98 , then agent @xmath9 gives his tokens to agent @xmath12 ; that is , @xmath105 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    so @xmath106 is a random partition of @xmath6 . a natural quantity of interest is the * coalescence time * @xmath107 regarding each non - empty cluster as a particle , the particles move as the associated markov chain at half - speed ( rates @xmath61 ) , moving independently until two particles meet and thereby coalesce . note this factor @xmath60 in this section .    for fixed @xmath11 , @xmath108 . in particular @xmath109 .    it is important to realize that they are different as processes . for fixed @xmath9 , note that @xmath110 can only change by @xmath111 , but @xmath112 jumps to and from @xmath73 .    the proof in the classical lattice setting  @xcite ( which refers to coalescing _ random walks _ extends unchanged to our setting of general symmetric rates @xmath2 . one simply considers a realization of the ( directed ) meeting process on a fixed time interval @xmath113 $ ] , uses this to construct the coalescing chains process at time @xmath11 , then observes that reversing the direction of time and the arrows gives a construction of the voter model at time @xmath11 . almost all of the literature on the finite voter model has focussed on estimating @xmath109 in terms of the geometry , and i will show some of this work in sections  [ sec : vmcg][sec : king2 ] . but there are other questions one can ask about the finite - time behavior , to be mentioned in section  [ sec : pre - asy ] . there are two ways to analyze @xmath114 on the complete graph , both providing some bounds on other geometries . the first uses coalescing chains . one aspect of * kingman s coalescent *  @xcite is the continuous - time mc on states @xmath115 with standardized rates @xmath116 . for that chain , the mean hitting time to state @xmath117 is @xmath118 and in particular @xmath119 . now when we consider coalescing chains on the complete @xmath1-graph , the number of clusters evolves as the continuous - time mc on states @xmath120 with rates @xmath121 . so @xmath122 and in particular @xmath123    the second way is to consider the voter model directly , specifically the variant of the voter model with only 2 opinions . consider the number @xmath124 of agents with the first opinion . on the complete @xmath1-graph , @xmath124 evolves as the continuous - time mc on states @xmath125 with rates @xmath126 this process arises in classical applied probability ( e.g. , as the moran model in population genetics ) . we want to study the absorption time @xmath127 by general birth - and - death formulas , or by comparison with simple rw , @xmath128 this is maximized by @xmath129 , and @xmath130    now we can couple the original voter model ( @xmath1 different initial opinions ) with the variant with only 2 opinions , initially held by @xmath131 and @xmath132 agents . ( just randomly assign these two opinions , initially . ) from this coupling , we see @xmath133 where the fraction is the chance that two specified agents are assigned different opinions , initially . in particular , the latter with @xmath129 implies @xmath134 comparing with the correct asymptotics ( [ voter - kn ] ) , we see that although constant is not precise , the order of magnitude is correct . consider a general geometry @xmath2 , and write @xmath135 . suppose the flow rates satisfy , for some constant @xmath136 , @xmath137 the right side is normalized so that on the complete graph this holds with @xmath138 . we can repeat the analysis above  the process @xmath124 now moves at least @xmath139 times as fast as on the complete graph , and so @xmath140 this style of argument can be used for many fmie processes . bottleneck statistics give crude general bounds .    often the speed at which the asymptotic behavior sets in depends on some quantification of the connectivity of the geometry . if for some @xmath141 the quantity @xmath142 is small , it indicates a possible `` bottleneck '' subset of size @xmath141 . it is convenient to combine the family @xmath143 into a single statistic , but the appropriate way to do this is ( fmie ) model - dependent . in the voter model case above , we used @xmath144 quantities like @xmath139 are descriptive statistics of a weighted graph , often given names like `` isoperimetric constants '' , but `` bottleneck statistics '' seems a more informative name . the best known use of bottleneck statistics is cheeger s inequality ( which bounds the spectral gap of a markov chain in terms of @xmath139 ) and its generalizations using other bottleneck statistics  see @xcite for an detailed treatment . such techniques are used extensively in the theory of algorithms , where @xmath139 is called _ conductance _  see , e.g. ,  @xcite for analysis of a gossip algorithm . estimating @xmath145 is clearly related to study of the _ meeting time _ @xmath146 of two independent copies of the chain started at @xmath9 and @xmath12 , a topic that arises in other contexts . recall that on the complete graph the mean coalescence time is asymptotically twice the mean meeting time . also note that under enough symmetry ( e.g. , continuous - time random walk on the discrete torus ) the relative displacement between the two copies evolves as the same random walk run at twice the speed , and study of @xmath146 reduces to study of @xmath147 . all this suggests there is a close connection between the coalescence time and hitting times for the associated chain . the following result was conjectured long ago but only recently proved . for any chain , define a statistic @xmath148    [ t_oliveira ] there exist numerical constants @xmath149 such that , for any finite irreducible reversible markov chain , @xmath150    the proof involves intricate analysis that i will not try to outline here . if the stationary distribution @xmath151 contains exponentially rare states then the theorem is uninformative . but in our setting of fmie processes , the associated chain always has _ uniform _ stationary distribution . one can create examples of geometries in which the bound is not the correct order of magnitude , but i suspect that in any `` natural '' geometry theorem  [ t_oliveira ] does give the correct order . a different style of general result given recently in @xcite shows that on a regular graph @xmath152 where @xmath77 is the spectral gap of the associated mc . but this bound is of correct order only for expander - like graphs . return to the setting of section  [ vmdual ]  chains are associated chains run at half speed . write @xmath153 for the mean meeting time from independent uniform starts . in a sequence of chains with @xmath19 , impose a condition such as the following . for each @xmath154 @xmath155    assuming ( [ vmau ] ) , under what further conditions can one prove @xmath156    that such a result is anticipated has been folklore since 1989 , when cox  @xcite proved ( [ opkingman ] ) for the torus @xmath157^d$ ] in dimension @xmath158 . ( in that geometry , @xmath159 for @xmath160 , where @xmath161 is the mean number of visits of standard random walk on @xmath162 to the origin . ) see  @xcite for a physicist s view . one could try to prove this in two stages . * stage 1 . * for fixed @xmath141 , show that the mean time for @xmath141 initially independent uniform walkers to coalesce should be @xmath163 . * stage 2 . * show that for @xmath164 slowly , the time for the initial @xmath1 walkers to coalesce into @xmath165 clusters is @xmath166 . it is likely that stage 1 can be proved without further assumptions , as follows . from old results on mixing times  @xcite , condition ( [ vmau ] ) is enough to show that the variation distance mixing time @xmath167 . so  as a prototype use of @xmath168  by considering time intervals of length @xmath169 , for @xmath170 , the events `` a particular pair of walkers meets in the next @xmath169-interval '' are approximately independent . this makes the `` number of clusters '' process behave ( to first order ) as the kingman coalescent as the number decreases from @xmath141 to @xmath117 . this approach is implemented in  @xcite for @xmath171 , but it should hold for general geometries .    on the other hand , stage 2 requires some different assumptions to control short - time behavior . see  @xcite for a recent extensive study of this problem , and the current best results . as mentioned earlier , almost all of the literature on the finite voter model has focussed on estimating @xmath172 in terms of the geometry . but there are other aspects of finite - time behavior one might study , and we can uncover some such aspects by comparison with what we have studied in the averaging process . recall we start with all opinions different . if the proportions of agents with the various opinions are written as @xmath173 , the statistic @xmath174 is one measure of concentration versus diversity of opinion . this suggests studying @xmath175 . duality implies @xmath176 where @xmath177 is the meeting time for independent chains with uniform starts . one can study the distribution of @xmath177 in special geometries , and more generally can often apply the explicit exponential distribution approximation from  @xcite , prop . * 2 . * a corresponding `` local '' measure of concentration versus diversity is the probability that agents @xmath178 chosen with probability @xmath179 ( `` random neighbors '' ) have same opinion at time  @xmath11 . refinements of this `` clustering '' behavior have been studied in the classical two - dimensional lattice setting  @xcite . * the diversity statistic @xmath174 emphasizes large clusters ( large time ) ; the statistic @xmath180 emphasizes small clusters ( small time ) . so one could consider @xmath181 this has apparently not been studied . certain special families of geometries have @xmath19 local weak limits ( which are infinite rooted random networks ) , and aspects of fmie models on the finite geometries can often be related to the behavior of the model on the infinite geometry.=1    two familiar examples of such geometries are    for the torus @xmath30 , the @xmath182 limit is the infinite lattice @xmath162 ;    for the `` random graphs with prescribed degree distribution '' geometry , the limit is a galton - watson tree with a size - biased offspring distribution after the first generation ;    and two less familiar examples are    for the complete graph with random edge - weights , the limit is the pwit  @xcite , an infinite - degree tree where the weights on the edges at a given vertex form a rate-@xmath117 poisson process on @xmath183 ;    a more elaborate graph  @xcite built over ( iii ) , designed to have a @xmath19 local weak limit which is more complex ( not just a tree ) yet still fairly tractable . the relation between finite and infinite geometries is simplest for the `` epidemic '' ( fpp ) type models later , but also can be used for markov chain related models , starting from the following .    for a large finite - state markov chain whose behavior near a state @xmath9 can be approximated be a transient infinite - state chain , we have @xmath184 where @xmath185 is defined in terms of the approximating infinite - state chain as @xmath186 . the approximation ( an instance of the poisson clumping heristic @xcite ) comes from the finite - state mean hitting time formula ( @xcite , lemma  2.11 ) via a `` interchange of limits '' procedure which requires ad hoc justification .    in the context of the voter model , if there is a local weak limit of the finitie geometries , the local transience principle implies that the property @xmath187 is essentially equivalent to transience of the chain on the limit infinite geometry . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ initially each agent has some ( nonnegative real - valued ) amount of money . whenever two agents meet , they instantly play a fair game in which one agent acquires the combined money . in other words , if one has @xmath188 and the other has @xmath189 then the first acquires all @xmath190 with chance @xmath191 . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    note that on the complete graph geometry , this process is just an augmentation of the kingman coalescent process . on a general geometry , a configuration in which the set of agents with non - zero money forms an `` independent set '' ( no two are adjacent in the weighted graph ) is obviously an absorbing configuration , and conversely . this process has apparently not been studied . i mention it because it provides a simple example of the `` disordered '' limit behavior mentioned in section  [ sec : scc ] . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ initially each agent has a different token . when two agents meet , they exchange tokens . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    i will call this the interchange process ; the `` two type '' version is the classical exclusion process . though this model is not particularly natural in the social networks context , the result below ( which established a longstanding conjecture ) illustrates a result for which our general `` weighted graphs '' setting is the ( mathematically ) correct setting . the motion of an individual token is as the associated markov chain , so has some spectral gap @xmath192 . the whole interchange process is itself a reversible markov chain , so has a spectral gap @xmath193 which by a general `` contraction '' fact ( @xcite , sec . 4.6.1 ) satisfies @xmath194 .    for every geometry we have @xmath196 . the proof involves intricate analysis that i will not try to outline here . recall the discussion in section  [ sec : pan ] . for the purposes of this section , the pandemic process is the same as the fpp process ; we will use the language of `` infectives '' and `` time '' ( rather than `` percolation distance '' ) and write @xmath197 for the time taken for an epidemic started at @xmath9 to reach @xmath12 .    in this section , we will recall the well - understood behaviors on the lattice ( section  [ sec : fpp_torus ] ) and the complete graph ( section  [ sec : fpp_complete ] ) . each type of behavior raises questions about the extent to which similar behavior remains true in more general geometries ( sections  [ sec : wlln ] and  [ sec : fpp_other ] ) which have not been systematically studied . we quote the classical result for fpp on the infinite lattice , with brief remarks . consider the fpp process on the edges of @xmath162 with @xmath198 edge - lengths , starting from the origin . write @xmath199 for the infected set at time @xmath11 , and @xmath200 for its fattening ( replace each point by a cube of side @xmath117 ) . there is a non - random closed convex set @xmath201 such that , for each @xmath202 , @xmath203    * the key proof ingredient is the _ subadditive ergodic theorem_. * the result hold for more general iid edge - times . * @xmath204 is _ not _ the unit ball in euclidean norm . * for later use write @xmath205 for the ( @xmath18-dimensional ) `` volume '' of @xmath204 . * understanding the asymptotic variance of @xmath41 is a famous hard problem ; see , e.g. ,  @xcite . consider now the fpp process on the discrete torus @xmath30 . we use our standardization convention ( [ standardization ] ) , so that rates @xmath25 for each edge @xmath28 . the following three `` first - order '' results are immediate from the shape theorem . asymptotics are as @xmath182 for fixed @xmath18 . @xmath206 the same holds ( in @xmath207 ) for @xmath208 itself . second , the time @xmath209 until all agents are infected satisfies @xmath210 for a constant @xmath211 defined in terms of the shape of @xmath204 . third , the proportion @xmath212 of infected agents satisfies @xmath213 for a certain function @xmath214 defined in terms of the shape of @xmath204 .      having a limit `` shape '' represented by @xmath204 is very special to the lattice setting . what about the general setting of rates @xmath2 ? suppose we have a result of the kind @xmath215 then the random set @xmath216 of infectives at @xmath11 from initial @xmath9 is approximately the deterministic set @xmath217 . so , if the essence of a `` shape theorem '' is a deterministic approximation to the infected set , it is essentially just a wlln ( weak law of large numbers ) . a precise conjecture is formulated below . everything depends on @xmath1 ( not written ) and limits are as @xmath19 . the conclusion we want is @xmath218 we work in the fpp model , writing @xmath219 for the time to traverse edge @xmath220 . the obvious obstacle to the desired conclusion is that there may be a set @xmath221 ( with @xmath222 ) such that , in the random percolation path @xmath223 , the time taken to traverse the edge @xmath224 is not @xmath225 . one could conjecture this is the only obstacle ; here is a slightly weaker conjecture . [ conj-1 ] with arbitrary rates @xmath2 , if @xmath226 then ( [ conj-1 ] ) holds . it is intuitively clear ( and not hard to prove ) that condition ( [ tconc ] ) is necessary . proving the conjecture would hardly be a definitive result ( because condition ( [ tconc ] ) is not a condition directly on @xmath227 but would represent a start on understanding when the wlln holds . here we have rates @xmath228 and we start with one infective . this is a fundamental stochastic process whose basic properties have been rediscovered many times from different viewpoints , but there seems no authoritative survey . our focus is on the randomly - shifted logistic limit result , proposition  [ plogistic ] . we give an outline taken from  @xcite ( a similar treatment is in @xcite ) , though essentially the same result can be found in older genetics literature . there are two reasons for this particular focus . from this one result , we can read off many results like ( [ dgg ] ,  [ dgl ] ) , a fact which has not been appreciated in the combinatorics - inspired literature . and secondly , it plays a central role is investigating fmie processes build over pandemic , as we shall see in section  [ sec : built_over_p ] .    write @xmath229 time at which @xmath131 people are infected . the observation @xmath230 is a basic starting place for analysis . for instance , the time @xmath231 until the whole population is infected is just @xmath232 , and so @xmath233    and the time @xmath234 until a random person ( amongst the @xmath235 initially uninfected ) is infected is @xmath236 this analysis can be pursued to get distributional results , but let us first look at different methods that indicate the behavior without extensive calculation . the idea is to analyze separately the _ initial phase _ when @xmath237 people are infected , and the _ pandemic phase _ when @xmath238 people are infected . the `` deterministic , continuous '' analog of our `` stochastic , discrete '' model of an epidemic is the _ logistic equation _ @xmath239 for the proportion @xmath240 of a population infected at time @xmath11 . a solution is a shift of the basic solution @xmath241 setting @xmath242 for the number of individuals infected in our stochastic process , then scaling to the proportion @xmath243 , we find @xmath244 by including variance estimates , one could prove the following formalization of the idea that , during the pandemic phase , @xmath245 behaves as @xmath240 to first order . precisely , for fixed @xmath246 and @xmath247 we have ( in probability ) @xmath248 that is , we `` start the clock '' when a proportion @xmath246 of the population is infected . this can now be reformulated more cleanly in terms of the time @xmath249 at which half the population is infected : @xmath250 for later use , consider the times at which each process equals @xmath251 , where @xmath252 slowly . we find @xmath253 which rearranges to @xmath254    now turn to the initial phase of the epidemic . on a fixed initial time interval @xmath255 $ ] , the process @xmath242 of number of infectives converges in distribution to the process @xmath256 for which the times @xmath257 satisfy @xmath258 and this is the classic _ yule process _ , for which it is well known that @xmath259 now calculate informally , for @xmath260 , @xmath261 in other words @xmath262 where @xmath263 has the gumbel distribution @xmath264 . comparing with ( [ dn7 ] ) gives ( [ gng ] ) below . [ plogistic ] for the simple epidemic process on the complete @xmath1-vertex graph , there exist random @xmath265 such that @xmath266 where @xmath21 is the logistic function and @xmath263 has gumbel distribution . one could prove this by formalizing the arguments above , but there is a more efficient though less illuminating way . the result is essentially equivalent to the assertion @xmath267 the basic observation ( [ knk ] ) allows one to write down an explicit expression for the fourier transform of the left side , and one just needs to work through the calculus to check it converges to the fourier transform of the right side . ( transform methods are of course very classical in applied probability , and their use in epidemic models goes back at least to  @xcite . )    the same transform argument ( then taking a different limit regime ) can be used to prove the following result ( e.g. ,  @xcite ) for the time @xmath268 until the entire population is infected : @xmath269 where @xmath270 are independent with gumbel distribution . while not obvious from the statement of the proposition above , it can in fact be deduced as follows . from ( [ dnun ] ) , the time @xmath271 until half the population is infected satisfies @xmath272 then symmetry ( under @xmath273 ) of the transition rates ( [ knk ] ) implies that @xmath268 is essentially distributed as the sum of two independent copies of @xmath271 . reconsider the time @xmath274 until a random person is infected . proposition  [ plogistic ] implies it has asymptotic distribution @xmath275 where @xmath276 has logistic distribution function , independent of the gumbel time - shift @xmath263 . so we expect @xmath277 now @xmath278 by symmetry ( @xmath279 ) and one can calculate ( or look up ) that @xmath280 euler s constant , so the limit theorem is consistent with the exact formula ( [ euler ] ) . the extent to which different aspects of the `` mean - field '' behavior in section  [ sec : fpp_complete ] extend to more general geometries is not well understood . for the `` random graphs with prescribed degree distributions '' ( with appropriate moments finite ) geometry , one expects to see qualitatively similar behavior ( the pandemic phase to have duration @xmath281 , centered at time @xmath282 ) , and almost precise analogs have indeed been proved  e.g. ,  @xcite , theorem  3.1(b ) gives the analog of ( [ dgl ] ) . there has been extensive subsequent work on related problems and related `` locally tree - like '' geometries , but these proofs are substantially more technical than for the complete graph . and even on the hamming cube @xmath283 the behavior of fpp is not well understood  @xcite . to think about possible `` general theory '' , let me suggest a loose analogy with the established theory of random walk on infinite graphs  @xcite . in that theory , most geometries fall into one of two categories , exemplified by @xmath162 and @xmath18-trees , according to whether @xmath284 properties involving spectral radius , isoperimetric inequalities , amenability , ( sub)linear rate of escape can then be related to this categorization . that theory formalizes a distinction ( informally , between `` finite dimensional '' and `` infinite dimensional '' ) from the random walk viewpoint . so by analogy , we have seen that the finite pandemic process behaves differently on @xmath30 and on the complete graph . can we select one specific aspect of the different behavior as a useful basis for classifying geometries ? write @xmath285 . one obvious distinction between these two geometries is that on @xmath30 the means @xmath286 vary ( depending on distance between @xmath9 and @xmath12 ) but on the complete graph , the @xmath286 are the same ( to first order ) for most pairs @xmath28 . so we can define a property ( for a sequence of weighted graphs @xmath2 ) which combines the idea of the wlln ( [ conj-1 ] ) with the idea of the @xmath286 not varying much : @xmath287 this property ( which holds for the `` random graphs with prescribed degree distribution '' geometry  @xcite ) is an attempt to formalize the notion of a geometry being `` locally infinite - dimensional '' from the fpp viewpoint . study equivalences between this property and the `` geometry '' of @xmath2 .    two brief comments . we ca nt hope to establish ( [ conj - infdim ] ) using only isoperimetric inequalities  they can only give order of magnitude .    there is a loose analogy with the cutoff phenomenon in finite markov chains  @xcite , in that we expect the property to hold in `` highly symmetric '' geometries . but that analogy is discouraging in that there is no useful general condition for cut - off . consider the geometry @xmath58 with agents @xmath171 and meeting rates    at rate @xmath117 an agent meets a uniform random neighbor ;    at rate @xmath288 an agent meets a uniform non - neighbor .    here over this range the geometry qualitatively interpolates between the complete - graph case and the nearest - neighbor lattice case . so we expect the center of the pandemic window to interpolate between orders @xmath290 and @xmath141 , and the width of the pandemic window to interpolate between orders @xmath117 and @xmath141 .    for the pandemic model over this geometry , it turns out that an analog of the `` randomly - shifted logistic limit '' holds , albeit with a different deterministic function @xmath21 in place of the logistic , and different scaling . this is rather counter - intuitive  we envisage infectives as growing patches of mold in a petri dish , one might expect the detailed geometry of overlaps to play a role . but the key qualitative property is that , during the pandemic phase , the new infectives arise from `` colonies '' started earlier in the pandemic phase , not in the initial phase . this enables us to derive the following equation for the standardized function @xmath21 describing proportion of infectives r over the pandemic window : @xmath291 see  @xcite for heuristics and  @xcite for careful treatment of a closely related model . there is a large literature modeling spread of opinions , adoption of innovations etc via social networks , and some of the models fit our fmie setting . instead of describing some standard model let me describe two new fmie models suggested by the `` social networks '' context . mathematically they are variants of pandemic , and we will see in sections  [ sec : deference][sec : fashionista ] that on the complete graph their behavior can be derived from the precise understanding of pandemic given by proposition  [ plogistic ] .      _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ the agents are labelled @xmath117 through @xmath1 , and agent @xmath9 initially has opinion @xmath9 . when two agents meet , they adopt the same opinion , the smaller of the two opinion - labels . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    clearly opinion 1 spreads as pandemic , so the `` ultimate '' behavior of deference is not a new question . we will consider the complete graph geometry , and study @xmath292 , where @xmath293 is the proportion of the population with opinion @xmath131 at time @xmath11 . we can rewrite proposition  [ plogistic ] as @xmath294 where @xmath21 is the logistic function and @xmath295 , where @xmath296 arises as the limit r.v . ( [ yule_lim ] ) associated with the yule process . the key insight is that opinions @xmath117 and @xmath297 and  and @xmath131 combined behave as one infection in pandemic , except for a different initial phase , and so the sum @xmath298 behaves as in ( [ xkf ] ) but with a different random shift @xmath299 . because the initial phase is just a collection of @xmath131 independent yule processes , we see that the sum has a representation of format ( [ xkf ] ) with @xmath300 here the @xmath301 are i.i.d . @xmath198 . so the @xmath19 limit behavior of the deference model in the complete graph geometry is , over the pandemic phase , @xmath302      the deference model envisages agents as `` slaves to authority '' . here is a conceptually opposite `` slaves to fashion '' model , whose analysis is mathematically surprisingly similar . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ at the times of a rate-@xmath77 poisson process , a new fashion originates with a uniform random agent , and is time - stamped . when two agents meet , they each adopt the latest ( most recent time - stamp ) fashion . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    it is easy to see that , for the random partition of agents into `` same fashion '' , there is a stationary distribution .    for the complete graph geometry , we can copy the analysis of the deference model . combining all the fashions appearing after a given time , these behave as one infection in pandemic ( over the pandemic window ; newly - originating fashions have negligible effect ) , hence their proportion behaves as a random time - shift of the logistic curve @xmath21 . so when we study the vector @xmath303 of proportions of agents adopting different fashions @xmath131 , we expect @xmath19 limit behavior of the form @xmath304 where @xmath305 are the points of some stationary process on @xmath306 . knowing this form for the @xmath19 asymptotics , we can again determine the distribution of @xmath307 by considering the initial stage of spread of a new fashion . it turns out that @xmath308 where @xmath309 are the times of a rate-@xmath77 poisson process on @xmath310 . the second expression makes it clear that @xmath307 is a stationary process . here is the outline argument for ( [ fash - limit ] ) . consider the recent fashions at time @xmath311 adopted by small but non - negligible proportions of the population . more precisely , consider fashions originating during the time interval @xmath312 $ ] , where @xmath313 slowly . for a fashion originating at time @xmath314 , the time-@xmath73 set of adopting agents will be a subset of the corresponding epidemic process , which we know has proportional size @xmath315 where @xmath316 has @xmath198 distribution . the times @xmath317 of origination of different fashions form by assumption a rate-@xmath77 poisson process , and after we impose i.i.d . shifts @xmath318 we note ( as an elementary property of poisson processes ) that the shifted points @xmath319 still form a rate-@xmath77 poisson process , say @xmath320 , on @xmath310 . so the sizes of small recent fashion groups ( that is letting @xmath321 ) , for which overlap between fashions becomes negligible , are approximately @xmath322 . summing over @xmath323 gives @xmath324 and we end up with the representation ( [ fash - limit ] ) .      on the torus @xmath171 the stationary distribution of fashionista is qualitatively similar to the _ dead leaves model _ @xcite and , as outlined in  @xcite , one can apply simple scaling arguments to analyze the diversity statistic @xmath325 and show @xmath326 the corresponding result on the complete graph is @xmath327 and ( [ fash - limit ] ) provides a ( complicated ) explicit expression for the right side . in particular , we can see the @xmath328 behavior is @xmath329 for constant @xmath330 .    studying @xmath331 in general geometries is an * open topic * , which opens up other questions to study about short - term behavior of pandemic . there is a huge literature attempting more realistic epidemic models , which i will not try to outline here . the fmie - type model that has been most extensively studied in the mathematical literature is the contact process ( the sis model with exponential infection times ) , studied classically on @xmath162  @xcite . a nice survey , in the style of this article , of recent rigorous work on the contact process on preferential attachment , small worlds and power - law degree geometries can be found in @xcite , and the latest technical work in  @xcite . the current form of conjecture  [ conj-1 ] emerged from conversations with jian ding . and i thank an anonymous referee for many helpful expository suggestions . research supported by nsf grant dms-07 - 04159 .
Abstract:

Answer: the style of mathematical models known to probabilists as interacting particle systems and exemplified by the voter , exclusion and contact processes have found use in many academic disciplines . in many such disciplines the underlying conceptual picture is of a social network , where individuals meet pairwise and update their `` state '' ( opinion , activity etc ) in a way depending on the two previous states . this picture motivates a precise general setup we call _ finite markov information exchange ( fmie ) processes_. we briefly describe a few less familiar models ( averaging , compulsive gambler , deference , fashionista ) suggested by the social network picture , as well as a few familiar ones .