Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 1 cited by

Phase transitions for contact processes on sparse random graphs via metastability and local limits

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For sparse random graphs, the fast/slow infection threshold is governed by the local limit.

desk verdict A genuinely new and mostly sound proof of the λ+ ≥ λ1 inequality for sparse locally converging graphs, resolving the second equality of the Nam–Nguyen–Sly conjecture for configuration models; the one real proof error is local and easily fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22471 v2 pith:EKA7SYZB submitted 2025-05-28 math.PR

Benedikt Jahnel , Lukas Lüchtrath , Christian Mönch This is my paper
classification math.PR MSC 60K3505C8291D30
keywords contactprocessmetastabilityfast/slowextinctionthresholdlocalweakconvergencesparserandomgraphsconfigurationmodelGalton-Watsontreesurvival
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 studies when the contact process on a growing sequence of finite sparse random graphs dies out quickly versus survives exponentially long. The authors propose metastability as the organising principle: the density of infected vertices at large times can be compared to the survival probability of the contact process on the infinite local limit. Their main theorem states that, for sparse connected graphs converging locally in probability to an extremal random graph, the fast/slow threshold is at least the survival threshold of the limit; combined with an earlier upper bound, this proves the second equality in a conjecture of Nam, Nguyen and Sly for configuration-model giant components. They also construct sparse scale-free spatial graphs where extinction, while fast relative to the exponential scale, occurs on stretched exponential time scales for every infection rate, showing that exponential is the natural separating scale in general.

What carries the argument

The key object is the metastable density $\eta_\lambda(Q) = \mathbb{E}[P^\lambda_G(\tau(o)=\infty)]$, the annealed survival probability of the contact process on the local limit, together with the density process $\rho(t)=|\xi_t|/|V_n|$. Theorems 1.3 and Proposition 1.7 show that, under local convergence in probability to an extremal limit, $\rho(t(n))$ converges in probability to $\eta_\lambda(Q)$ exactly when infection does not escape the $R$-neighbourhood of a typical root before time $t(n)$, as encoded in condition (4). The sparsity condition, uniform integrability of the degrees, enters through Lemma 2.5, which bounds the total degree of any small infected set; this lets the proof force extinction at each low-density visit of the process. Theorem 1.4 uses survival on star graphs, fed by a vertex of maximal degree in an augmented Gilbert graph with power-law radii.

What would settle it

Run the contact process from full occupancy on a configuration-model giant component with an exponentially-tailed degree distribution, at a rate $\lambda$ strictly below $\lambda_1(T)$. If for some $c>0$ the probability of surviving $e^{c|V_n|}$ does not decay to $0$, then $\lambda_+<\lambda_1(T)$, contradicting Corollary 1.6; the theorem predicts subexponential extinction for every such $\lambda$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.5: if $(G_n)$ is a sequence of connected sparse random graphs converging locally in probability to an extremal random graph $(G,o)$, then $\lambda_+((G_n)) \ge \lambda_1(G)$, where $\lambda_+$ is the fast/slow extinction threshold of the finite graphs and $\lambda_1$ is the survival/extinction threshold of the infinite limit. With the upper bound from Nam, Nguyen and Sly, this yields $\lambda_+((C_n)) = \lambda_1(T)$ for the giant components of configuration models, where $T$ is the associated unimodular Galton-Watson tree, confirming the second equality of Conjecture 1.2. The proof works by showing that above $\lambda_1$ the infection density cannot vanish on exponential time scales: absence of metastability on the exponential scale forces extinction, and sparse graphs cannot support survival beyond exponential scales.

Load-bearing premise

The proof relies on sparsity, meaning the vertex degrees are uniformly integrable under the contact-process law; if that fails, small infected sets can carry large total degree, Lemma 2.5 collapses, and the paper itself cites examples with super-exponential survival.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For configuration-model giant components with degree distribution satisfying $\sum_k k(k-2)\mu(k)>0$, the fast/slow threshold equals the survival threshold of the associated unimodular Galton-Watson tree, confirming the second equality of Conjecture 1.2.
  • For every sparse connected graph sequence converging locally in probability to an extremal limit, there is no fast extinction below the limit's survival threshold: the finite-graph threshold is at least $\lambda_1(G)$.
  • The exponential scale is a canonical separator: sparse graphs cannot exhibit survival on super-exponential time scales, and the constructed scale-free spatial graphs show that extinction slow enough to be called 'fast' can still occur on stretched exponential scales for every $\lambda>0$.
  • If condition (4) holds, the infection density at diverging times converges in probability to the annealed survival probability of the local limit, a law of large numbers for the metastable density.
  • Under sparsity, the density-based threshold $\lambda_\rho$ coincides with the extinction-time threshold $\lambda_+$, so the two definitions of the fast/slow boundary are equivalent.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The metastable-density mechanism should transfer to other monotone interacting particle systems on locally converging sparse graphs, whenever the limiting object has a well-defined survival probability that plays the role of $\eta_\lambda(Q)$.
  • The paper's star-fed construction suggests that a hierarchy of stretched-exponential time scales can be produced by varying the tail of the radius distribution; the authors note the lower bound is not optimal, so one can ask whether $\exp(\Theta(|V_n|))$ is reachable for subcritical rates in some sparse graphs.
  • The role of extremality deserves separate scrutiny: without an extremal limit, annealed and quenched survival probabilities may differ, and the equality $\lambda_+ = \lambda_1$ may fail even under sparsity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the contact process on sequences of finite sparse random graphs that converge locally in probability. It introduces a metastable density and shows (Theorem 1.3) that the asymptotic infection density at any diverging time is bounded above by the annealed survival probability of the local limit. It constructs a sparse locally converging sequence for which the extinction time is stretched exponential for every infection rate (Theorem 1.4), so fast extinction on the polynomial scale fails. The main result (Theorem 1.5) states that for sparse locally converging sequences, the fast/slow threshold λ+ is at least the survival/extinction threshold λ1 of the limit graph; combined with the upper bound of Nam–Nguyen–Sly, this yields λ+ = λ1 for configuration-model giant components (Corollary 1.6). Proposition 1.7 characterizes when the metastable density converges to the limit's survival probability, and Lemma 1.9 links tightness of extinction times to subcriticality in the limit.

Significance. If correct, Theorem 1.5 gives a general locality principle for the phase transition of the contact process and confirms the second equality in Conjecture 1.2. The metastable-density viewpoint is a useful addition to the subject, and the proof of the lower bound λ+ ≥ λ1 is essentially self-contained, relying on external work only to identify local limits and to supply the complementary upper bound. The construction in Theorem 1.4 clarifies that the exponential scale is the natural separation scale in sparse graphs. These contributions justify publication in a serious probability journal.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.4, proof of Proposition 1.7] The displayed inequality in the second half of the proof replaces the sum of indicators {ξ_v_t(n)=∅, τ_R^(n)(v)<t(n)} by #{v: τ_R^(n)(v) ≤ t(n)}, but τ_R(v) ≤ t(n) does not imply ξ_v_t(n)=∅, so the intermediate bound is invalid. The intended conclusion follows directly by applying Markov's inequality to the original sum, which yields (1/ε) P(ξ_{o_n}_t(n)=∅, τ_R^(n)(o_n)<t(n)). This is a local gap and does not affect the proof of Theorem 1.5.
  2. [Section 2.5, Eq. (13)] The exponent in the last term of (13) is correct once ε and δ are chosen so that −log(1−e^{−1}) ε + 2λδ < c, but the sentence 'Decreasing the values of ε and δ if needed' should explicitly note that Lemma 2.5 allows ε to be taken arbitrarily small as δ → 0, so the required inequality can be achieved for each fixed c > 0.
  3. [Theorem 1.4 and its proof] The proof does not explicitly verify that the constructed sequence of augmented Gilbert graphs is sparse in the sense of uniform integrability of the degree of a uniformly chosen vertex. This follows from the finite mean of the radius distribution and the local convergence, but the verification should be stated.
  4. [Section 2.5, paragraph after Eq. (13)] The claim that on the event {K ≤ T/3} the proportion of time spent in high-density states satisfies 1 − r(ε,T) ≥ 2/3 is not justified in the text. A short argument using that each low-density interval of length ℓ contains at most ℓ + O(1) of the stopping times τ_k gives the bound, but the paper should include it or cite a lemma.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues: 'distrbution' in Theorem 1.5, '/emptysetstress' and '/BD' artifacts from the LaTeX source, and 'procoess' in Section 2.1. These should be corrected in revision.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No substantive circularity: Theorem 1.5's inequality λ+ ≥ λ1 is proved in-paper from local convergence and sparsity; the sole same-author dependency [21] supports only the auxiliary Theorem 1.4 example and exhibits no reduction of any central claim.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2.2, proof of Theorem 1.4 (identification of the local limit as the augmented Boolean model of [21])]
    "It is straightforward to deduce that the local limit in probability of this model is the augmented Boolean model G , analysed in [21], which follows the same construction but with the Gilbert graph on a Poisson process on the real line as its auxiliary graph, which is mapped on Z. Particularly, [21] establishes that λ1(G ) > 0 for the limiting graph, whenever R has finite expectation."

    [21] is authored by exactly the three authors of the present paper, and it is load-bearing for the illustrative Theorem 1.4: the strict conclusion 0 = λ− < λ1(G) requires λ1(G) > 0, which is imported from [21] rather than proved here. This does not, however, constitute circularity. (a) The central claim Theorem 1.5 never invokes [21]; its proof chain runs through Theorem 1.3 (Propositions 2.3 and 2.4), Lemma 2.5, and the geometric-extinction estimate (13), all derived in-paper. (b) The upper bound in Corollary 1.6 is the external [28, Theorem 5]. (c) No equation of this paper reduces to [21] by construction, and [21]'s statement concerns a different model (augmented Boolean model on Z with finite-mean radii) under assumptions that do not include the present paper's conclusions.

full rationale

Central derivation is self-contained. Theorem 1.5 splits into λρ ≥ λ1 and λρ ≤ λ+. The first follows from Theorem 1.3, proved in-paper via Proposition 2.3 (local-convergence tightness makes vertices still infected at t(n) without having reached distance R negligible) and Proposition 2.4 (first- and second-moment convergence of Z≥R/|Vn| to η≥R, using extremality through Lemma 2.1(c), an external result of Lacker–Ramanan–Wu [22]). The second is the core: pick λ < λρ; for T = e^{c|Vn|}, the uniform-time density argument gives γn = P(K ≤ T/3) → 0, and the K > T/3 case is controlled by the strong-Markov geometric-extinction bound, whose last term in (13) vanishes after choosing δ and ε with c1ε + 2λδ < c (c1 = -log(1-e^{-1}) > 0 and c fixed); Lemma 2.5, proved in-paper from sparsity alone, bounds the total degree of small infected sets. The apparent sign concern in (13) is a parameter-choice matter, not a circularity. The invalid inequality in the converse direction of Proposition 1.7 (Markov applied to #{v : τ_R(v) ≤ t(n)} instead of #{v : ξ^v_{t(n)} = ∅, τ_R(v) < t(n)}) is a local correctness defect; Proposition 1.7 is not used in the proof of Theorem 1.5. For Corollary 1.6, the lower bound is Theorem 1.5 and the upper bound is the external [28, Theorem 5]; giant-component local convergence is [18], and the exponential-tail equivalence is [7, 20]. No parameter is fitted to a data subset and then called a prediction, and the paper honestly flags that verifying (4) for concrete graph sequences is in general hard. The only same-author citations are [21] (premise of the auxiliary Theorem 1.4 example) and [27] (remark-level chemical-distance aside); neither is defined in terms of the paper's conclusions. The inequality λ+ ≥ λ1 is therefore not equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or dimensions. Its free parameters are construction-specific constants in the counterexample and in the star survival bounds, not fitted to any real-world data. The main load-bearing assumptions are sparsity and extremality of the local limit, both clearly stated.

free parameters (2)
  • radius distribution exponent p = p in (1, 1+ε)
    In Theorem 1.4, the tail P(R > x) = (x log^p x)^{-1} is chosen by hand with p in (1,1+ε). This parameter is tuned to make the largest radius exceed n/log^{1+ε}(n) with high probability, producing the stretched exponential extinction scale.
  • K and c_lambda in star survival bound = K = 1/c_λ
    In the proof of Theorem 1.4, the constant K is set to 1/c_λ, where c_λ comes from the star-graph survival bound [30, Lemma 2.5]. These constants affect the final probability estimates but are not fitted to data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Local convergence in probability as defined in (2) with an extremal limiting distribution Q.
    Used in Theorem 1.3, Proposition 1.7, and Theorem 1.5. Extremality is needed so that two uniformly chosen roots become asymptotically independent, yielding the second-moment limit in Proposition 2.4.
  • domain assumption Sparsity: the family {deg_{G_n}(o_n)} is uniformly integrable under Pλ.
    Crucial for Lemma 2.5 and Theorem 1.5. It ensures that a small set of vertices carries a small total degree, enabling the extinction argument via low-density times.
  • standard math Known survival/extinction results for the contact process on star graphs: E[τ] ≥ e^{2 c_λ k} [30, Lemma 2.5] and P(τ ≤ t) ≤ t/E[τ] [31, Lemma 2.13].
    Used in Theorem 1.4 to lower-bound the extinction time of the high-degree star embedded in the constructed graph.
  • standard math The companion paper [21] establishes that the augmented Gilbert graph on the real line has local limit G with λ1(G) > 0 when R has finite mean.
    Invoked in Theorem 1.4 to assert that the constructed graph sequence converges locally to a graph with a genuine phase transition. This is an external result by the same authors, not proved in this paper.
  • standard math The upper bound λ+((Gn)) ≤ λ1(T) for configuration models from [28, Theorem 5].
    Used in Corollary 1.6 to obtain equality with λ1(T). The present paper proves the reverse inequality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase transitions for contact processes on sparse random graphs via metastability and local limits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EKA7SYZB

@misc{pith2026250522471,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase transitions for contact processes on sparse random graphs via metastability and local limits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EKA7SYZB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22471}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a new perspective on the asymptotic regimes of fast and slow extinction in the contact process on locally converging sequences of sparse finite graphs. We characterise the phase boundary by the existence of a metastable density, which makes the study of the phase transition particularly amenable to local-convergence techniques. We use this approach to derive general conditions for the coincidence of the critical threshold with the survival/extinction threshold in the local limit. We further argue that the correct time scale to separate fast extinction from slow extinction in sparse graphs is, in general, the exponential scale, by showing that fast extinction may occur on stretched exponential time scales in sparse scale-free spatial networks. Together with {the results of} Nam, Nguyen and Sly (Trans.\ Am.\ Math.\ Soc.\ 375, 2022), our methods can be applied to deduce that the fast/slow threshold in sparse configuration models coincides with the survival/extinction threshold on the limiting Galton-Watson tree.

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Oriented bond-site percolation in random environment and contact processes with periodic recovery

    math.PR 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    For oriented bond-site percolation with columnar stretches, a (1+ε)-moment condition on stretches suffices for a percolation phase transition, yielding survival of contact processes with periodic recovery.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [21]

    Jahnel, L

    B. Jahnel, L. Lüchtrath, and C. Mönch. Phase transitions for contact processes on one-dimensional net works. 2025. arXiv: 2501.16858 [math.PR]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Processes on unimodular random networks

    D. Aldous and R. Lyons. “Processes on unimodular random networks ”.Electron. J. Probab.12.54 (2007), pages 1454–1508. /D.sc/O.sc/I.sc: 10.1214/EJP.v12-463. Extended and corrected version available athttps://rdlyons.pages.iu.edu/pdf/urn.pdf

    doi:10.1214/ejp.v12-463 2007

  3. [2]

    Barnier, P

    A. Barnier, P . Hoscheit, M. Salvi, and E. Vergu. The contact process on Scale-Free Percolation . 2025. arXiv: 2505 . 10582 [math.PR]

    work page 2025

  4. [3]

    Unimodular random t rees

    I. Benjamini, R. Lyons, and O. Schramm. “Unimodular random t rees”. Ergod. Theory Dyn. Syst. 35.2 (2015), pages 359–

    work page 2015

  5. [4]

    On the spr ead of viruses on the internet

    N. Berger, C. Borgs, J. T . Chayes, and A. Saberi. “On the spr ead of viruses on the internet”. In:Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. ACM, New York, 2005, pages 301–310. 16

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Exponential decay for sub critical contact and percolation processes

    C. Bezuidenhout and G. Grimmett. “Exponential decay for sub critical contact and percolation processes”. Ann. Probab. 19.3 (1991), pages 984–1009. /D.sc/O.sc/I.sc: 10.1214/aop/1176990332

    arXiv 1991

  7. [7]

    Survival and ex tinction of epidemics on random graphs with general degree

    S. Bhamidi, D. Nam, O. Nguyen, and A. Sly. “Survival and ex tinction of epidemics on random graphs with general degree”. Ann. Probab. 49.1 (2021), pages 244–286. /D.sc/O.sc/I.sc: 10.1214/20-AOP1451

    doi:10.1214/20-aop1451 2021

  8. [8]

    Super-exponential extinction time of the contact process on random geometric graphs

    V . H. Can. “Super-exponential extinction time of the contact process on random geometric graphs”. Combin. Probab. Comput. 27.2 (2018), pages 162–185. /D.sc/O.sc/I.sc: 10.1017/S0963548317000372

    work page doi:10.1017/s0963548317000372 2018

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Met astable behavior of stochastic dynamics: a pathwise approach

    M. Cassandro, A. Galves, E. Olivieri, and M. E. Vares. “Met astable behavior of stochastic dynamics: a pathwise approach”. J. Statist. Phys. 35.5 (1984), pages 603–634. /D.sc/O.sc/I.sc: 10.1007/BF01010826

    1984 doi

  2. [10]

    Contact processes in several dimensions

    R. Durrett and D. Griffeath. “Contact processes in several dimensions”.Z. Wahrsch. Verw. Gebiete59.4 (1982), pages 535–

    1982

  3. [12]

    The contact process on a finit e set. II

    R. Durrett and R. H. Schonmann. “The contact process on a finit e set. II”.Ann. Probab.16.4 (1988), pages 1570–1583./D.sc/O.sc/I.sc: 10.1214/aop/1176991584

    1988

  4. [13]

    R. Durrett. Contact processes with quenched disorder onZd and on Erdos-Renyi graphs. 2024. arXiv:2403.18592 [math.PR]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Ergodic theorems for graph interactions

    D. Griffeath. “Ergodic theorems for graph interactions”. Adv. Appl. Probab.7 (1975), pages 179–194./D.sc/O.sc/I.sc: 10.2307/1425859

    1975 doi

  6. [15]

    The basic contact processes

    D. Griffeath. “The basic contact processes”. Stochastic Process. Appl.11.2 (1981), pages 151–185./D.sc/O.sc/I.sc: 10.1016/0304-4149(81)90002-8

    1981 doi

  7. [16]

    The binary contact path process

    D. Griffeath. “The binary contact path process”. Ann. Probab.11.3 (1983), pages 692–705./D.sc/O.sc/I.sc: 10.1214/aop/1176993514

    1983

  8. [17]

    Contact interactions on a lattice

    T . E. Harris. “Contact interactions on a lattice”. Ann. Probab. 2 (1974), pages 969–988. /D.sc/O.sc/I.sc: 10.1214/aop/1176996493

    1974

  9. [18]

    van der Hofstad

    R. van der Hofstad. The giant in random graphs is almost local. 2023. arXiv: 2103.11733 [math.PR]

    2023

  10. [19]

    van der Hofstad

    R. van der Hofstad. Random Graphs and Complex Networks, Vol. 2. Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Math- ematics, Vol. 54. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2024. /D.sc/O.sc/I.sc: 10.1017/9781316795552

    2024 doi

  11. [20]

    The contact process on random graph s and Galton Watson trees

    X. Huang and R. Durrett. “The contact process on random graph s and Galton Watson trees”. ALEA Lat. Am. J. Probab. Math. Stat. 17.1 (2020), pages 159–182. /D.sc/O.sc/I.sc: 10.30757/alea.v17-07

    2020 doi

  12. [22]

    Local weak convergence f or sparse networks of interacting processes

    D. Lacker, K. Ramanan, and R. Wu. “Local weak convergence f or sparse networks of interacting processes”. Ann. Appl. Probab. 33.2 (2023), pages 643–688. /D.sc/O.sc/I.sc: 10.1214/22-aap1830

    2023 doi

  13. [23]

    Contact processes on random regular gra phs

    S. Lalley and W . Su. “Contact processes on random regular gra phs”.Ann. Appl. Probab.27.4 (2017), pages 2061–2097./D.sc/O.sc/I.sc: 10.1214/16-AAP1249

    2017 doi

  14. [24]

    T . M. Liggett. Stochastic Interacting Systems: Contact, Voter and Exclusion Processes. Volume 324. Grundlehren der mathe- matischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999./D.sc/O.sc/I.sc: 10.1007/978-3-662-03990-8

    1999 doi

  15. [25]

    T . M. Liggett. Interacting Particle Systems. Classics in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2005./D.sc/O.sc/I.sc: 10.1007/b138374

    2005 doi

  16. [26]

    The contact process on random hyperbolic graphs: metastability and critical exponents

    A. Linker, D. Mitsche, B. Schapira, and D. Valesin. “The contact process on random hyperbolic graphs: metastability and critical exponents”.Ann. Probab. 49.3 (2021), pages 1480–1514. /D.sc/O.sc/I.sc: 10.1214/20-aop1489

    2021 doi

  17. [27]

    Lüchtrath

    L. Lüchtrath. All spatial random graphs with weak long-range effects have chemical d istance comparable to Euclidean distance. 2024. arXiv: 2412.12796 [math.PR]

    2024

  18. [28]

    Critical value asymptotic s for the contact process on random graphs

    D. Nam, O. Nguyen, and A. Sly. “Critical value asymptotic s for the contact process on random graphs”.Trans. Amer . Math. Soc. 375.6 (2022), pages 3899–3967. /D.sc/O.sc/I.sc: 10.1090/tran/8399

    2022 doi

  19. [29]

    Subcritical epidemics on random gra phs

    O. Nguyen and A. Sly. “Subcritical epidemics on random gra phs”. Adv. Math. 462 (2025), Paper No. 110102, 57. /D.sc/O.sc/I.sc: 10.1016/j.aim.2024.110102

    2025

  20. [30]

    Extinction time for the contac t process on general graphs

    B. Schapira and D. Valesin. “Extinction time for the contac t process on general graphs”. Probab. Theory Related Fields 169.3 (2017), pages 871–899. /D.sc/O.sc/I.sc: 10.1007/s00440-016-0742-0

    2017 doi

  21. [31]

    The contact process on random graphs

    D. Valesin. “The contact process on random graphs”. In: Ensaios Mat., volume 40. Soc. Brasil. Mat., Rio de Janeiro, 2024, pages 1–115. /D.sc/O.sc/I.sc: 10.21711/217504322024/em401. 17

    2024 doi

  22. [373]

    /D.sc/O.sc/I.sc: 10.1017/etds.2013.56

    2013 doi

  23. [552]

    /D.sc/O.sc/I.sc: 10.1007/BF00532808

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.