abstract: A review of the study of dark matter is given, starting with earliest studies and finishing with the establishment of the standard Cold Dark Matter paradigm in mid 1980-s. Particular attention is given to the collision of the classical and new paradigms concerning the matter content of the Universe. Also the amount of baryonic matter, dark matter and dark energy is discussed using modern estimates.
author: Jaan Einasto
Tartu Observatory, 61602 Tõravere, Estonia

# Introduction

Dark matter in the Universe can be described as the matter which has practically zero luminosity and its presence can be detected only by its gravity. Historically, the first modern study of the possible presence of dark matter goes back to 1915, when Öpik (1915) determined the dynamical density of matter in our Galaxy in the Solar vicinity. The same problem was investigated by Oort (1932, 1960), Kuzmin (1952a, 1955) and more recently by Bahcall (1985) and Gilmore, Wyse & Kuijken (1989). Modern data suggest that there is little evidence for the presence of a large amount of local dark matter in the Solar vicinity. If some invisible matter is there, then it should be in the form of brown dwarfs, jupiters or similar compact baryonic objects.

A different type of dark matter is found around galaxies and in clusters of galaxies. The first evidence for the presence of such global dark matter was given by Zwicky (1933) from the dynamics of galaxies in the Coma cluster. The presence of dark matter in clusters was questioned, and an alternative solution to explain large velocities of galaxies in clusters was suggested by Ambartsumian (1958) – the instability of clusters of galaxies. However, the evidence for the presence of invisible matter in systems of galaxies accumulated, first for our Local Group of galaxies (Kahn &Woltjer 1959), and thereafter for all giant galaxies (Einasto, Kaasik & Saar 1974, Ostriker, Peebles & Yahil 1974). These results were questioned by Burbidge (1975), Materne & Tammann (1976). Independent determination of rotation velocities of galaxies at large galactocentric distances (Rubin, Ford & Thonnard 1978, 1980) confirmed previous results on the presence of dark halos or coronas around galaxies. The nature of dark matter around galaxies is not clear. Initially it was assumed that it consists of hot gas (Kahn & Woltjer 1959, Einasto 1974b). Modern data favour the hypothesis that dark matter around galaxies is non-baryonic, either neutrinos or some weakly interacting massive particles, such as axions. The neutrino-dominated dark matter is called hot, since neutrinos move with very high velocities. The other type of dark matter is called cold, as particle velocities are moderate. The cosmological model with cold dark matter (CDM) was suggested by Blumenthal et al. (1984). This model is presently accepted as the standard. With the establishment of the cold dark matter concept the early period of the study of dark matter was completed.

Excellent reviews of the dark matter problem have been given by Faber & Gallagher (1979), Trimble (1987), Turner (1991) and Silk (1992), alternatives to dark matter have been discussed by Sanders (1990). In this report I describe how astronomers developed step-by-step the concept of dark matter. Such process is typical for the formation of a new paradigm in our understanding of the Universe. Particular attention is given to the work on galactic modelling which has lead us to the understanding of the structure of stellar populations and the need for a new invisible population of dark matter in galaxies. The Power-Point version of the present report is available on the web-site of Tartu Observatory, http://www.aai.ee/$\sim$einasto.

# Local Dark Matter

Ernst Öpik started his studies, being a student of the Moscow University. One of the first problems he was curious about was the absorption of light in the Galaxy and the possible presence of absorbing (invisible) matter in it. He developed a method to determine the density of matter near the Galactic plane using vertical oscillations of stars. He concluded that there is no evidence for large amounts of invisible matter near the Galactic plane (Öpik 1915).

The dynamical density of matter in the Solar vicinity was investigated again by Oort (1932), who arrived at a different answer. According to his analysis the total density exceeds the density of visible stellar populations by a factor of up to 2. This limit is often called the Oort limit. This result means that the amount of invisible matter in the Solar vicinity could be approximately equal to the amount of visible matter.

The work on galactic mass modelling in Tartu Observatory was continued by Grigori Kuzmin. He developed a new method for galactic mass modelling using ellipsoids of variable density, and applied the theory to the Andromeda galaxy (Kuzmin 1943), using the recently published rotation data by Babcock (1939). Next Kuzmin turned his attention to our own Galaxy. Here the central problem was the density of matter in the Solar vicinity. The mass density can be calculated from the Poisson equation, where the dominating term is the derivative of the gravitational potential in the vertical direction. He found that this derivative can be expressed through the ratio of dispersions of velocities and coordinates in the vertical direction, $C=\sigma_z/\zeta_z$; here $C$ is called the Kuzmin constant. Kuzmin (1952a, 1955) used data on the distribution of A and gK stars and analysed the results obtained in earlier studies by Oort (1932) and others. He obtained a weighted mean value $C=
68$ km s$^{-1}$ kpc$^{-1}$, which leads to the density estimate $\rho = 0.08$ $M_{sun}$ pc$^{-3}$, in good agreement with direct density estimates of all known stellar populations (including estimates for the mass in invisible low–mass stars and white dwarfs). Two students of Kuzmin made independent analyses, using different methods and observational data (Eelsalu 1959, Jõeveer 1972, 1974) and confirmed Kuzmin results.

The local density problem was studied again by Hill (1960) and Oort (1960); both obtained considerably higher local densities of matter, and argued that there exist large amounts of dark matter in the Galactic disk. More recently Bahcall (1984) constructed a new multicomponent model of the Galaxy and determined the density of matter in the Solar vicinity, in agreement with the Oort's (1932, 1960) results. The discrepancy between various determinations of the matter density in the Solar vicinity was not solved until recently. Modern data have confirmed the results by Kuzmin and his collaborators (Gilmore, Wyse & Kuijken 1989). Thus we came to the conclusion that *there is no evidence for the presence of large amounts of dark matter in the disk of the Galaxy*. If there is some invisible matter near the galactic plane, then it is probably baryonic (low–mass stars or jupiters), since non-baryonic matter is dissipationless and cannot form a highly flattened population. Spherical distribution of the local dark matter (in quantities suggested by Oort and Bahcall) is excluded since in this case the total mass of the dark population would be very large and would influence also the rotational velocity.

# Clusters and Groups of Galaxies

The mass discrepancy in clusters of galaxies was found by Zwicky (1933). He measured redshifts of galaxies in the Coma cluster and found that the total mass of the cluster calculated from the velocity dispersion using the virial theorem exceeds the sum of masses of visible galaxies more than tenfolds. He concluded that the cluster contains large amounts of invisible dark matter.

For some reasons the work of Zwicky escaped the attention of the astronomical community. The next step in the study of mass of systems of galaxies was made by Kahn and Woltjer (1959). They paid attention to the fact that most galaxies have positive redshifts as a result of the expansion of the Universe, only the Andromeda galaxy M31 has a negative redshift of about 120 km/s. This fact can be explained, if both galaxies, M31 and our Galaxy, form a physical system. A negative radial velocity indicates that these galaxies have already passed the apogalacticon of their relative orbit and are presently approaching each other. From the approaching velocity, mutual distance and time since passing the perigalacticon (taken equal to the present age of the Universe) the authors calculated the total mass of the double system. They found that $M_{tot} \geq 1.8 \times 10^{12}~ M_{sun}$. The conventional mass of the Galaxy and M31 is of the order of $2
\times 10^{11}~ M_{sun}$, in other words, the authors found evidence for the presence of additional mass in the Local Group of galaxies. The authors suggested that the extra mass is probably in the form of hot ionised gas; most of the paper was devoted to the analysis of the physical state of the gas. Using modern data Einasto & Lynden-Bell (1982) made a new estimate of the total mass of the Local Group, the result was $4.5 \pm 0.5 \times 10^{12} M_{sun}$ for present age of the Universe 14 Gyr. This estimate is in good agreement with new determinations of total masses of M31 and the Galaxy including their dark halos (see below).

The conventional approach for the mass determination of pairs and groups of galaxies is statistical. The method is based on the virial theorem and is almost identical to the procedure used to calculate masses of clusters of galaxies. Instead of a single pair or group a synthetic group is used consisting of a number of individual pairs or groups. These determinations yield for the mass-to-luminosity (in blue light) ratio the values $M/L_B = 1 \dots 20$ for spiral galaxy dominated pairs and $M/L_B = 5 \dots 90$ for elliptical galaxy dominated pairs (Page 1960, Burbidge & Burbidge 1961, van den Bergh 1961, Karachentsev 1976, Faber & Gallagher 1979).

The stability of clusters of galaxies was discussed in a special meeting during the IAU General Assembly (Neyman, Page & Scott 1961). Here the hypothesis of Ambartsumian on the expansion of clusters was discussed in detail. Van den Bergh (1961) drew attention to the fact that the dominating population in elliptical galaxies is the bulge consisting of old stars, indicating that cluster galaxies are old. It is very difficult to imagine how old cluster galaxies could form an instable and expanding system. These remarks did not find attention and the problem of the age and stability of clusters remained open.

# Masses of Galaxies

## Galactic Models

The classical models of spiral galaxies were constructed using rotation velocities. In contrast, the models of elliptical galaxies were found from luminosity profiles and calibrated using central velocity dispersions or motions of companion galaxies. An overview of classical methods to construct models of galaxies is given by Perek (1962).

Problems of the structure of galaxies were a major issue at the Tartu Observatory since Öpik's (1922) work on the distance of the M31, where a simple hydrostatic model of this galaxy was constructed. This work was continued by Kuzmin who developed the major principles of galactic modelling, and applied these to calculate models of M31 and the Galaxy (Kuzmin 1943, 1952b, 1953, 1956a, b). These were first models with a continuous change of the spatial density (earlier sums of ellipsoids of constant density were used). However, individual populations of galaxies were not represented in these models, in contrast to the Schmidt (1956) model of the Galaxy where different populations were included with ellipsoids of constant density. The study of kinematic and physical properties of stellar populations was made independently. For a review of the early views on the structure of galactic populations see Oort (1958), in Tartu this problem was investigated by Rootsmäe (1961).

A natural generalisation of classical and Kuzmin models was the explicit use of major stellar populations, such as the bulge, the disk, and the halo, as well as the flat population in spiral galaxies (consisting of young stars and interstellar gas). I did my PhD work on stellar kinematics in 1955 and turned thereafter my interest to galactic modelling. My goal was twofold: first, to get more accurate mass distributions in galaxies, and second, to find physical parameters of main stellar populations in both spiral and elliptical galaxies. My assumption was that similar stellar populations (say bulges) in galaxies of different morphological type should have similar physical parameters if their constituent stars have similar age and metallicity distribution. The methodical aspects of the new multicomponent models were discussed in a series of papers in Tartu Observatory Publications (in Russian with an English summary in Einasto 1969a). The spatial (or surface) density of practically all stellar populations can be expressed by a generalised exponential law (Einasto 1970b, 1974b, a similar expression has been used independently elsewhere) $$\rho(a) = \rho(0) \exp\left[-\left({a \over ka_0}\right)^{1/N}\right],$$ where $\rho (0)=hM/(4\pi\epsilon a_0^3)$ is the central density, $a=
\sqrt{R^2+z^2/\epsilon^2}$ is the semi-major axis of the isodensity ellipsoid, $a_0$ is the effective (mean) radius of the population, $h$ and $k$ are normalising constants, $M$ is the mass of the population, $\epsilon$ is the axial ratio of isodensity ellipsoids, and $N$ is a structural parameter, determining the shape of the density profile. Here we assume that isodensity ellipsoids are concentric and axially symmetric with a constant axial ratio for a given population. The case $N=4$ corresponds to the de Vaucouleurs (1953) density law for spheroidal populations (halo), $N=1$ corresponds to the classical exponential density law, and $N=1/2$ to a Gaussian density law. The practical procedure of the model construction is the following. First, using photometric data for galaxies the structural parameters $N$ of all major stellar populations are found. Next, using colorimetric and other data mass-to-luminosity ratios of populations are derived. Thereafter a preliminary mass distribution model is found and the rotation (actually circular) velocity is calculated and compared with observations. From the difference of the calculated and observed velocity corrections to model parameters are found. Initially these corrections were found using a trial-and-error procedure, later an automatic computer program was developed by our young collaborator Urmas Haud (Einasto & Haud 1989).

## Mass-to-luminosity Ratios and Models of Physical Evolution of Stellar Populations

The method was applied to the Andromeda galaxy (Einasto 1969b, 1970a, Einasto & Rümmel 1970a), and to our Galaxy (Einasto 1970b). In the case of the Andromeda galaxy the mass distribution model found from the rotational data did not agree with the data on physical properties of populations. If we accepted the rotational velocities, based mostly on radio observations (Roberts 1966), then the mass-to-luminosity ratio, $M/L$, of central stellar populations became very low, of the order of 1 in Solar units. On the other hand, the spectral data (Spinrad 1966) suggested a much higher value, $M/L
\approx 17$.

The next problem was to find internally constitent values of physical parameters of stellar populations of different age and composition. For this purpose I developed a model of physical evolution of stellar populations (Einasto 1971). When I started the modelling of physical evolution of galaxies I was not aware of similar work by Beatrice Tinsley (1968). When my work was almost finished I had the opportunity to read the PhD thesis by Beatrice. Both studies were rather similar, in some aspects my model was a bit more accurate (evolution was calculated as a continuous function of time whereas Beatrice found it for steps of 1 Gyr, also some initial parameters were different). Both models used the evolutionary tracks of stars of various composition (metallicity) and age, and the star formation rate by Salpeter (1955). I accepted a low–mass limit of star formation, $M_0 \approx 0.03~M_{sun}$, whereas Beatrice used a much lower mass limit to get higher mass-to-luminosity ratio for elliptical galaxies. My model yields a continuous sequence of population parameters (colour, spectral energy distribution, $M/L$) as a function of age. The calculated parameters of stellar populations were compared with observational data by Einasto & Kaasik (1973). The available data supported relatively high values ($M/L\approx 10 - 30$) for old metal-rich stellar populations near centres of galaxies; moderate values ($M/L\approx 3 - 10$) for disks and bulges; and low values ($M/L\approx 1 - 3$) for metal-poor halo-type populations. Modern data yield slightly lower values, due to more accurate measurements of velocity dispersions in central regions of galaxies, and more accurate input data for models.

These calculations suggest that the rotation data by Roberts (1966) are biased. To find the reason for this biasing, I analysed the velocity field obtained from the radio observations. My analysis suggested that low rotational velocities in the central regions are due to a low spatial resolution of the radio beam (Einasto & Rümmel 1970b,c). The corrected velocity field was in agreement with a higher value of $M/L$ in the central regions of M31, suggested by direct spectral data and models of physical evolution.

## Mass Discrepancy on the Periphery of Galaxies

The second problem encountered in the modelling of M31 was the rotation and density distribution on the periphery. If the rotation data were taken at face value, then it was impossible to represent the rotational velocity with the sum of gravitational attractions by known stellar populations. The local value of $M/L$ increases toward the periphery of M31 very rapidly if the mass distribution is calculated directly from the rotation velocity. All known old metal-poor halo-type stellar populations have a low $M/L \approx 1$; in contrast, on the basis of rotation data we got $M/L > 1000$ on the periphery of the galaxy, near the last point with a measured rotational velocity.

There were two possibilities to solve this controversy: to accept the presence of a new population with a very high $M/L$ (a very uncommon property for an old stellar population), or to assume that on the periphery of galaxies there exist non-circular motions. We found that the first alternative had several serious difficulties. If the hypothetical population is of stellar origin, it must be formed much earlier than conventional populations, because all known stellar populations form a continuous sequence of kinematical and physical properties (Oort 1958, Rootsmäe 1961, Einasto 1974a), and there is no place where to include this new population in this sequence. Secondly, the star formation rate is proportional to the square of the local density (Schmidt 1959, Einasto 1972), thus stars of this population should have been formed during the contraction phase of the formation of the population near its central more dense regions (where the density is largest), and later expanded to the present distance. The only source of energy for expansion is the contraction of other stellar populations. The estimated total mass of the new population exceeded the summed mass of all previously known populations. Estimates of the energy needed for the expansion demonstrated that the mass of the new population is so large that even the contraction of all other stellar populations to a zero radius would not be sufficient to expand the new population to its present size. And, finally, it is known that star formation is not an efficient process (usually in a contracting gas cloud only about 1 %  of the mass is converted to stars); thus we have a problem how to convert, in an early stage of the evolution of the Universe, a large fraction of primordial gas into this population of stars. Taking into account all these difficulties I accepted the second alternative – the presence on non-circular motions (Einasto 1969b), similar to many other astronomers (see Materne & Tammann 1976). As I soon realised, this was a wrong decision.

## Galactic Coronas

In spring 1972 I was asked to give an invited review on Galactic models at the First European Astronomy Meeting in Athens. At this time population models of galaxies had been calculated already for 5 galaxies of the Local Group and the giant elliptical galaxy M87 in the Virgo cluster. New rotation velocities suggested the presence of almost flat rotation curves on the periphery of galaxies, thus it was increasingly difficult to accept the previous concept of large non–circular motions. On the other hand, recently finished calculations of the physical evolution of stellar populations confirmed our previous view that it is extremely difficult to accept a stellar origin of the hypothetical population. My collaborator Enn Saar suggested to abandon the idea that only stellar populations exist in galaxies, to accept an idea that there may exist a population of unknown nature and origin and to look which properties it should have using available data on known stellar populations. Quickly a second set of models for galaxies was calculated, and parameters for the new dark population were found. To avoid confusion with the conventional halo population I suggested to call the new population "corona" (Einasto 1974b). The available data were insufficient to determine the outer radii and masses of coronas. Rough estimates indicated that in some galaxies the mass and radius of the corona may exceed considerably the mass and radius of all stellar populations, taken together.

To determine the parameters of galactic coronas more accurately distant test bodies are needed. After some period of thinking I realised how it is possible to check the presence of dark coronas around galaxies. If coronas are large enough, then in pairs of galaxies the companion galaxies move inside the corona, and their relative velocities can be used instead of galaxy rotation velocities to find the distribution of mass around giant galaxies. This test showed that the radii and masses of galactic coronas exceeded the radii and masses of parent galaxies by an order of magnitude! Together with A. Kaasik and E. Saar we calculated new models of galaxies including dark coronas.

In those years Soviet astronomers had the tradition to attend Caucasus Winter Schools. Our results of galactic mass modelling were reported in a Winter School in 1972. The next School was hold near the Elbrus mountain in a winter resort, in January 1974. The bottom line of my report was: *all giant galaxies have massive coronas, therefore dark matter must be the dominating component in the whole universe (at least 90 % of all matter)*. In the Winter School prominent Soviet astrophysicists as Zeldovich, Shklovsky, Novikov and others participated. In the discussion after the talk two questions dominated: What is the physical nature of the dark matter? and What is its role in the evolution of the Universe? A detailed report of this study was sent to "Nature" (Einasto, Kaasik & Saar 1974).

The need for massive halos had been already suggested by Ostriker and Peebles (1973) to stabilise galaxies against bar formation. Soon after our "Nature" paper Ostriker, Peebles and Yahil (1974) published similar results using similar arguments. They used the conventional term "halo" for the dark population apparently not realising that this population cannot be of stellar origin.

## Dark Matter Conferences 1975

The importance of dark matter for cosmological studies was evident, thus Tartu astronomers organised in January 1975 a conference in Tallinn devoted solely to dark matter. Historically this was the first conference on dark matter. This conference is not well known, so I give here the list of major talks:

Zeldovich: "Deuterium nucleosynthesis in the hot Universe and the density of matter";

Einasto: "Dynamical and morphological properties of galaxy systems";

Ozernoy: "The theory of galaxy formation";

Zasov: "The masses of spiral galaxies";

Fessenko: "Difficulties of the study of dynamics of galaxy systems";

Novikov: "The physical nature of galactic coronas";

Saar: "Properties of stellar halos";

Doroshkevich: "Problems of the origin of galaxies and galaxy systems";

Komberg: "Properties of the central regions of clusters of galaxies";

Vorontsov-Velyaminov: "New data on fragmenting galaxies".

As we see, the emphasis of the conference was on the discussion of the physical nature of dark matter and its role in the formation of galaxies. These preliminary studies demonstrated that both suggested models for coronas had difficulties. It is very difficult to explain the physical properties of the stellar corona, also no fast-moving stars as possible candidates for stellar coronas were found.

Stellar origin of dark matter in clusters was disussed by Napier & Guthrie (1974); they find that this is possible if the initial mass function of stars is strongly biased toward very low-mass stars. Thorstensen & Partridge (1974) discussed the suggestion made by Cameron & Truran (1971) that there may have been a pregalactic generation of stars (called now population III), all of them more massive than the Sun, which are now present as collapsed objects. They conclude that the total mass of this population is negligible, thus collapsed stars cannot make up the dark matter.

The gaseous corona of galaxies and clusters was discussed by Field (1972), Silk (1974), Tarter & Silk (1974) and Komberg & Novikov (1975). The general conclusion from these studies is that coronas of galaxies and clusters cannot consist of neutral gas (the intergalactic hot gas would ionise the coronal gas), but a corona consisting of ionised gas would be observable. Modern data show that part of the coronal matter in groups and clusters of galaxies consists of X-ray emitting hot gas, but the amount of this gas is not sufficient to explain flat rotation curves of galaxies.

The dark matter problem was discussed also during the Third European Astronomical Meeting in summer 1975. In contrast to the Tallinn Meeting now the major dispute was between the supporters of the dark matter concept and the older paradigm with conventional mass estimates of galaxies. The major arguments against the dark matter concept were summarised by Materne & Tammann (1976). They were as follows (see also Burbidge 1975):

-   The dark halo hypothesis is based on the assumption that companions are physical; if they are not then they do not measure the mass of the main galaxy, but characterise mean random velocities of galaxies;

-   Groups of galaxies are bound with conventional masses; the mean mass-to-luminosity ratios of groups are 4 and 30 for spiral and elliptical dominated groups, respectively;

-   The high masses of clusters may be explained by the high masses of the dominant cD galaxies; in other words – there is no extra mass in clusters;

-   Big Bang nucleosynthesis suggests a low-density Universe with the density parameter $\Omega \approx 0.05$; the smoothness of the Hubble flow also favours a low-density Universe.

It was clear that by sole discussion only the presence and nature of dark matter cannot be solved, new data and more detailed studies were needed.

## Are Pairs of Galaxies Physical?

In mid 1970s the main arguments for the presence of dark halos (coronas) of galaxies and clusters of galaxies were statistical. In particular, the masses of double galaxies were determined by statistical methods. If companion galaxies used in mass determination are not real physical companions but random interlopers, then the mean velocity dispersion reflects random velocities of field galaxies and no conclusions on the mass distribution around giant galaxies can been made.

The difficulties connected with the statistical character of our arguments were discussed already during the Caucasus Winter School. Immediately after the school we started a study of properties of companion galaxies. The main question was: are companions true members of the satellite systems, which surround giant galaxies. Soon we discovered that companion galaxies are segregated morphologically: elliptical (non–gaseous) companions lie close to the primary galaxy whereas spiral and irregular (gaseous) companions of the same luminosity have larger distances from the primary galaxy; the distance of the segregation line from the primary galaxy depends on the luminosity of the primary galaxy (Einasto et al. 1974a). This result shows, first of all, that the companions are real members of these systems – random by-fliers cannot have such properties. Second, this result demonstrated that diffuse matter can have a certain role in the evolution of galaxy systems. The role of diffuse matter in galactic coronas was discussed in detail by Chernin, Einasto & Saar (1976). Morphological properties of companion galaxies can be explained, if we assume that at least part of the corona is gaseous. On the other hand, Komberg & Novikov (1975) demonstrated that coronas cannot be fully gaseous. Thus the nature of coronas remained unclear. Also we found that dynamical and morphological properties of primary galaxies are well correlated with properties of their companions (Einasto et al.  1976c). Brighter galaxies have companions which move with larger relative velocities than companions of fainter primaries. A further evidence of the large mass of the corona of our Galaxy came from the study of the dynamics of the Magellanic Stream (Einasto et al. 1976a).

The status of the dark matter problem in galaxies was discussed during the Commission 33 Meeting of the IAU General Assembly in Grenoble, 1976. Here arguments for the presence of dark halos and its non–stellar nature were again presented by Einasto, Jõeveer & Kaasik (1976b). But there remained two problems:

-   If the massive halo (or corona) is not stellar nor gaseous, of what stuff is it made of?

-   And a more general question: in Nature everything has its purpose. If 90 % of matter is dark, then this must have some purpose. What is the purpose of dark matter?

## Additional Evidence for Dark Halos

In mid 1970s Vera Rubin and her collaborators developed new sensitive detectors to measure rotation curves of galaxies at very large galactocentric distances. Their results suggested that practically all spiral galaxies have extended flat rotation curves (Rubin, Ford & Thonnard 1978, 1980, see also a review by Rubin 1987). Now, for the first time, it was possible to determine the mass distribution in individual galaxies out to distances far superior to previous data. The internal mass of galaxies rised with distance almost linearly up to the last measured point (see Fig. 6 of Rubin et al. 1978). The concept of the presence of dark matter halos around galaxies was confirmed with a high confidence.

Another very important measurement was made by Faber et al. (1977). They measured the rotation velocity of the Sombrero galaxy, a S0 galaxy with a massive bulge and a very weak population of young stars and gas clouds just outside the main body of the bulge. Their data yielded for the bulge a mass-to-luminosity ratio $M/L=3$, thus confirming our previous estimates based on less accurate data, and calculations of the physical evolution of galaxies. Velocity dispersion measurements of high accuracy also confirmed lower values of mass-to-luminosity ratios of elliptical galaxies (Faber & Jackson 1976). These results showed that the mass-to-luminosity ratios of stellar populations in spiral and elliptical galaxies are similar for a given colour (the assumption used in our model calculations), and the ratios are much lower than accepted in most earlier studies.

More recently the masses of clusters of galaxies have been determined using the temperature of hot X-ray emission gas in clusters, and by gravitational lensing. These data are discussed in other reports during this School.

By the end of 1970s most objections against the dark matter hypothesis were rejected. In particular, luminous populations of galaxies have found to have lower mass-to-luminosity ratio than expected previously, thus the presence of extra dark matter both in galaxies and clusters has been confirmed. However, the nature of dark matter and its purpose was not yet clear. Also it was not clear how to explain the Big Bang nucleosynthesis constraint on the low density of matter, and the smoothness of the Hubble flow.

# The Nature of Dark Matter

## Neutrino-dominated Universe

Already in 1970s suggestions have been made that some sort of non-baryonic elementary particles may serve as candidates for dark matter particles. Gunn et al. (1978) considered heavy stable neutral leptons as possible candidates for dark matter particles, however in a later study Tremaine & Gunn (1979) rejected this possibility. Cowsik & McClelland (1973), Szalay & Marx (1976) and Rees (1977) noticed that neutrinos can be considered as dark matter particles; and Chernin (1981) showed that, if dark matter is non-baryonic, then this helps to explain the paradox of small temperature fluctuations of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Density perturbations of non-baryonic dark matter start growing already during the radiation-dominated era whereas the growth of baryonic matter is damped by radiation. If non-baryonic dark matter dominates dynamically, the total density perturbations can have an amplitude of the order $10^{-3}$ at the recombination epoch, which is needed for the formation of the observed structure of the Universe. This problem was discussed in a conference in Tallinn in April 1981. Here all prominent Soviet cosmologists and particle physicists participated (this conference was probably the birth of the astro–particle physics). The central problem was the nature of dark matter. In the conference banquet Zeldovich hold an enthusiastic speech: *"Observers work hard in sleepless nights to collect data; theorists interpret observations, are often in error, correct their errors and try again; and there are only very rare moments of clarification. Today it is one of such rare moments when we have a holy feeling of understanding the secrets of Nature."* Non-baryonic dark matter is needed to start structure formation early enough. This example illustrates well the attitude of theorists to new observational discoveries – the Eddington's test: *"No experimental result should be believed until confirmed by theory"* (cited after Turner 2000). Now, finally, the presence of dark matter was accepted by leading theorists.

The search of dark matter can be illustrated with the words of Sherlock Holmes *"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"* (cited by Binney & Tremaine 1987).

## Dark Matter and the Structure of the Universe

After my talk at the Caucasus Winter School Zeldovich offered me collaboration in the study of the universe. He was developing a theory of formation of galaxies (the pancake theory, Zeldovich 1970); an alternative whirl theory was suggested by Ozernoy (1971), and a third theory of hierarchical clustering by Peebles (1971). Zeldovich asked for our help in solving the question: Can we find some observational evidence which can be used to discriminate between these theories?

Initially we had no idea how we can help Zeldovich. But soon we remembered our previous experience in the study of galactic populations: kinematical and structural properties of populations hold the memory of their previous evolution and formation (Rootsmäe 1961, Eggen, Lynden–Bell & Sandage 1962). Random velocities of galaxies are of the order of several hundred km/s, thus during the whole lifetime of the Universe galaxies have moved from their place of origin only by about 1 $h^{-1}$ Mpc (we use in this paper the Hubble constant in the units of $H_0 = 100~h$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$). In other words – if there exist some regularities in the distribution of galaxies, these regularities must reflect the conditions in the Universe during the formation of galaxies. Actually we had already some first results: the study of companion galaxies had shown that dwarf galaxies are located almost solely around giant galaxies and form together with giant galaxies systems of galaxies. In other words – the formation of galaxies occurs in larger units, not in isolation.

Thus we had a leading idea how to solve the problem of galaxy formation: *We have to study the distribution of galaxies on larger scales*. The three-dimensional distribution of galaxies, groups and clusters of galaxies can be visualised using wedge-diagrams, invented just when we started our study. My collaborator Mihkel Jõeveer prepared relatively thin wedge diagrams in sequence, and plotted in the same diagram galaxies, as well as groups and clusters of galaxies. In these diagrams regularity was clearly seen: *isolated galaxies and galaxy systems populated identical regions, and the space between these regions was empty*. This picture was quite similar to the distribution of test particles in a numerical simulation of the evolution of the structure of the Universe prepared by Doroshkevich et al. (1980) (preliminary results of this simulation were available already in 1975). In this picture a system of high- and low-density regions was seen: high-density regions form a cellular network which surrounds large under-dense regions.

We reported our results (Jõeveer & Einasto 1978) at the IAU symposium on Large-Scale Structure of the Universe in Tallinn 1977, the first conference on this topic. The main results were: (1) galaxies, groups and clusters of galaxies are not randomly distributed but form chains, converging in superclusters; (2) the space between galaxy chains contains almost no galaxies and forms holes (voids) of diameter up to $\approx 70$ $h^{-1}$ Mpc; (3) the whole picture of the distribution of galaxies and clusters resembles cells of a honeycomb, rather close to the picture predicted by Zeldovich. The presence of holes (voids) in the distribution of galaxies was reported also by other groups: Tully & Fisher (1978), Tifft & Gregory (1978), and Tarenghi et al.  (1978) in the Local, Coma and Hercules superclusters, respectively. Theoretical interpretation of the observed cellular structure was discussed by Zeldovich (1978).

Our analysis gave strong support to the Zeldovich pancake scenario. This model was based essentially on the neutrino dominated dark matter model. However, some important differences between the model and observations were detected. First of all, there exists a rarefied population of test particles in voids absent in real data. This was the first indication for the presence of biasing in galaxy formation – there is primordial gas and dark matter in voids, but due to low-density no galaxy formation takes place here (Jõeveer, Einasto & Tago 1978, Einasto, Jõeveer & Saar 1980). The second difference lies in the structure of galaxy systems in high-density regions: in the model large-scale structures (superclusters) have rather diffuse forms, real superclusters consist of multiple intertwined filaments (Zeldovich, Einasto & Shandarin 1982, Oort 1983, see also Bond, Kofman & Pogosyan 1996).

## Cold Dark Matter

The difficulties of the neutrino-dominated model became evident in early 1980s. A new scenario was suggested by Blumenthal, Pagels & Primack (1982), Bond, Szalay & Turner (1982), and Peebles (1982); here hypothetical particles like axions, gravitinos or photinos play the role of dark matter. Numerical simulations of structure evolution for neutrino and axion-gravitino-photino-dominated universe were made and analysed by Melott et al. (1983). All quantitative characteristics (the connectivity of the structure, the multiplicity of galaxy systems, the correlation function) of this new model fit the observational data well. This model was called subsequently the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) model, in contrast to the neutrino-based Hot Dark Matter model. Presently the CDM model with some modifications is the most accepted model of the structure evolution. The properties of the Cold Dark Matter model were analysed in detail in the classical paper by Blumenthal et al. (1984). With the acceptance of the CDM model the modern period of the study of dark matter begins.

Numerical simulations made in the framework of the Cold Dark Matter Universe (with and without the cosmological $\Lambda-$term) yield the distribution of galaxies, clusters and superclusters in good agreement with observations. These studies are too numerous to be cited here. Also the evolution of the structure can be followed by comparison of results of simulations at different epochs. During the School a movie was demonstrated showing the evolution of a central region of a supercluster (the movie was prepared at the Astrophysical Institute in Potsdam). Here the growth of a rich cluster of galaxies at the center of the supercluster could be followed. The cluster had many merger events and has "eaten" all its nearby companions. During each merger event the cluster suffers a slight shift of its position. As merger galaxies come from all directions, the cluster sets more and more accurately to the center of the gravitational well of the supercluster. This explains the fact that very rich clusters have almost no residual motion in respect to the smooth Hubble flow. According to the old paradigm galaxies and clusters form by random hierarchical clustering and could have slow motions only in a very low-density universe (an argument against the presence of large amount of dark matter by Materne & Tammann 1976).

## The amount of dark matter

In early papers on dark matter the total density due to visible and dark matter was estimated to be 0.2 of the critical cosmological density (Einasto, Kaasik & Saar 1974, Ostriker, Peebles & Yahil 1974). These estimates were based on the dynamics of galaxies in groups and clusters. In subsequent years several new independent methods were suggested. A direct method is based on the distant supernova project, which yields (for a spatially flat universe) $\Omega_m = 0.28 \pm
0.05$ (Perlmutter et al. 1998, Riess 1998). Here and below density parameters are expressed in units of the critical cosmological density. Another method is based on X-ray data on clusters of galaxies, which gives the fraction of gas in clusters, $f_{gas} = \Omega_b/\Omega_m$. If compared to the density of the baryonic matter one gets the estimate of the total density, $\Omega_m = 0.31 \pm 0.05 (h/0.65)^{-1/3}$ (Mohr et al. 2000). The evolution of the cluster abundance with time also depends on the density parameter (see Bahcall et al. 1999 for a review). This method yields an estimate $\Omega_m = 0.4 \pm 0.1$ for the matter density. The formal weighted mean of these independent estimates is $\Omega_m =
0.32 \pm 0.03$. This density value is close to the value $\Omega_m =
0.3$, suggested by Ostriker & Steinhardt (1995) as a concordant model.

More recently, the density parameter has been determined from clustering in the 2-degree Field Redshift Survey (Peacock et al. 2001), and from the angular power spectrum measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation with the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) (Spergel et al. 2003). The most accurate estimates of cosmological parameters are obtained using a combined analysis of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the WMAP data (Tegmark et al. 2003). According to this study the matter density parameter is $\Omega_m =
0.30 \pm 0.04$. This method yields for the Hubble constant the value $h = 0.70 \pm 0.04$ independent of other direct methods. From the same dataset the authors get for the density of baryonic matter, $h^2
\Omega_b = 0.0232 \pm 0.0012$, which gives $\Omega_b = 0.047$ for the above value of the Hubble constant. Comparing both density estimates we get for the dark matter density $\Omega_{DM} = \Omega_m - \Omega_b
= 0.25$.

# Summary

People often ask: Who discovered dark matter? The dark matter story is a typical scientific revolution (Kuhn 1970, Tremaine 1987). As often in a paradigm shift, there is no single discovery, the new concept was developed step-by-step.

First of all, actually there are two dark matter problems – the local dark matter close to the plane of our Galaxy, and the global dark matter surrounding galaxies and clusters of galaxies. The milestones of the local dark matter problem solution are the studies by Öpik, Oort, Kuzmin, Bahcall and Gilmore. Dark matter in the Galactic disk, if present, must be baryonic (faint stars or jupiters). The amount of local dark matter is low, it depends on the boundary between luminous stars and faint invisible stars.

The story of the global dark matter also spans many decades. It began with the work by Zwicky (1933) on the Coma cluster, was continued with the study by Kahn and Woltjer (1959) on the dynamics of the Galaxy-M31 system, and statistical determinations of masses and mass-to-luminosity ratios of pairs, groups and clusters of galaxies. For some reason, these studies did not awake the attention of the astronomical community. However, the awareness of the presence of a controversy with masses of galaxies and galaxy systems slowly increased.

Further development of the dark matter concept was influenced by the East-West controversy during the Cold War (on this controversy see Fairall 1998, p. 11 - 12). The dark matter puzzle was solved in 1974 by two independent studies of masses of galaxies by Tartu and Princeton astronomers. It was suggested that all giant galaxies are surrounded by massive halos (coronas), and that dark matter is dynamically dominant in the Universe. As usual in scientific revolutions, the general awareness of a crisis comes when the most eminent scientists in the field begin to concentrate on the problem. This happened when the Princeton group, Burbidge (1975) and Materne & Tammann (1976) published their contributions pro and contra the dark matter hypothesis. In the following years experimenters devoted themselves to finding new evidence in favour of (or against) the new paradigm. The work by Rubin and collaborators on galaxy rotation curves, our work on properties of satellite systems of galaxies and the Magellanic stream, X-ray studies of clusters, as well as investigation of gravitational lensing in clusters belong to this type of studies.

The word on the crisis spread more rapidly in the East: the first dark matter conference was held in Tallinn in 1975, the first official IAU dark matter conference was held only ten years later. The first popular discussions of the problem were given in "Priroda" and "Zemlya i Vselennaya" (the Russian counterparts of "Scientific American" and "Sky & Telescope") by Einasto (1975) and Einasto, Chernin & Jõeveer (1975), and also in the respective journal in Estonian. In USA the first popular discussions were given many years later (Bok 1981, Rubin 1983). However, most experimental studies confirming the dark matter hypothesis were made by US astronomers, and the cold dark matter concept was also suggested by Western astronomers.

The new paradigm wins when its theoretical foundation is established. In the case of the dark matter this was done by Blumenthal et al. (1984) with the non-baryonic cold dark matter hypothesis. Also the need for non-baryonic dark matter was clarified: otherwise the main constituents of the universe – galaxies, clusters and filamentary superclusters – cannot form.

In the following years main attention was devoted to detailed elaboration of the concept of the cold dark matter dominated Universe. Here a central issue was the amount of dark matter. Initially opinions varied from a moderate density of the order of 0.2 critical density up to the critical density. Only a few years ago it was clarified that dark matter constitutes only 0.25 of the critical density, and the rest is mostly dark energy, characterized by the cosmological constant or the $\Omega_{\Lambda}$-term.

To conclude we can say that the story of dark matter is not over yet – we still do not know of what non-baryonic particles the dark matter is made of.


abstract: In this paper, we present an ongoing research project related to popularizing the mindset of building new digital musical instruments. We developed a physical kit and software intended to provide beginner users with the first grasp on the development process of a digital musical instrument. We expect that, by using the kit and the software, the users could experiment in a short period the various steps in developing a DMI such as physical structure, electronics, programming, mapping, and sound design. Our approach to popularizing the DMI development process is twofold: reducing the cognitive load for beginners by encapsulating technical details and lowering the costs of the kit by using simple components and open-source software. In the end, we expect that by increasing the interest of beginners in the building process of digital musical instruments, we could make the community of new interfaces for musical expression stronger.
address:

author: ;  ;
;
bibliography: nime-references.bib
title:  Controller: Popularizing Digital Musical Instruments' Development Process

# Introduction

This paper focuses on the technical details of the development process of a digital musical instrument. We believe that overcoming technical barriers by presenting them in a natural approach could open up possibilities for beginners. In sum, we hypothesize that when the technical barrier is presented as a natural step, the beginners can open their heads for new ideas.

The development of new digital musical instruments (DMIs) is an interdisciplinary process, in which each step relates to a specific mindset and requires a particular set of skills . Mechanical structure, electronics, programming, mapping, and sound design can be loosely considered the development areas of a DMI.

Due to these different mindsets and skills, developing a DMI can become a laborious process. In this sense, the designer must manage different partnerships or become a polymath to achieve the musical artifact at the end.

Following the example of Arduino , which popularized the physical computing by simplifying the access of artists and designers into electronic prototyping, we believe that more straightforward and faster ways of developing new DMIs can contribute to more beginners experimenting ideas and, therefore, engagement in the DMI community.

By understanding the process, the users can adapt the technology to their needs, intentions, and contexts of use. The more people are experimenting and testing, the higher the chances of achieving great instruments ideas.

In this paper, we present a physical kit and software to serve as an entry point to DMI development. Our approach is to reduce cognitive load by encapsulating technical details. Besides, we consider that it is essential to make the kit accessible to broadening the audience. Therefore, we propose to use accessible and straightforward components, materials and manufacturing techniques, and open-source software, in order to reduce the costs and reach more people.

# Related Projects

There is a considerable amount of hardware and software tools already available that could be used during DMI development process. Some examples are: microcontrollers environments (Arduino, Raspberry Pi, Beaglebone, Teensy), sensor kits (Infusion Systems, littlebits, makey makey), MIDI controllers (keyboard, wind controllers, percussion controllers), general-purpose programming languages (C, C++, Java), audio-oriented programming languages (CSound, SuperCollider, Chuck, Pure Data, Max/MSP), creative programming environments (Processing, openframeworks, Cinder, Scratch), applications for mappings (libmapper, iCon, OSCulator, juxion, Wekinator), and digital audio workstations (Logic Pro, Ableton Live, Pro Tools, GarageBand, Reaktor, Tassman).

Beyond those tools, there is a growing number of DMI's development toolkits aimed to reduce the technical barriers for musicians and designers . However, we believe that these toolkits still presents an in-depth approach concerning the aspects of DMI development. For instance, Bela [^1], a platform for musical interactions based on the BeagleBone board, focus on providing real-time processes and more natural ways of programming musical interactions. There is a significant number of examples that can help the users begin to develop their instruments, but they have to build their physical interface, mechanical structure, and electronics. There is no doubt that, with Bela, the users could have a profound, expressive result. However, for the popularization of DMI development, we find that it is more interesting to have an in-breadth approach.

# Our approach

Concerning the beginners, we believe that an in-breadth approach contributes to a better understanding of the DMI development process. In other words, didactically, we consider that allowing the users to experiment a small, superficial amount of each stage of DMI technical development in a short period can make them better comprehend the process and identify what aspect excites them.

We intend to embed a little portion of the DMI development process into an object so the users can have an enactive experience when using it. We believe that the feeling of making an instrument with their own hands from zero to a functional prototype in a short period with little pitfalls is a productive way of teaching the complex and arduous process of developing a DMI.

The idea is to guide the users throughout the mechanical structure with MDF plates, screws and bolts; the electronics with a Arduino Leonardo, a shield, two knobs, one LDR (light sensor), six buttons, and six LEDs; the programming with a example code in Arduino IDE; the mapping and sound design with a patch in Pure Data. Figure shows the disassembled kit.

When assembled (Figure ) and connected to the computer via USB cable, the kit becomes a MIDI controller that operates the parameters of a Pure Data patch. The buttons trigger samples and light of the LEDs. The two knobs change the time interval and the feedback amount of a delay effect. The LDR is related to the pitch parameter of an oscillator, which is gated by a dedicated button.

# Workshops

The kit and software were informally tested in three workshops. Each one had twenty participants that worked in pairs. The kits were presented disassembled, and the participants had to follow a set of instructions in a PDF illustrated with photos. The pairs were encouraged to work without waiting for guidance from the workshop facilitator, that should be called only in the occurrence of an obvious error.

In two hours, the participants had to assemble, program, and play the Controller. After that, the participants answered a questionnaire with multiple choices and open text questions. One participant mentioned that he was expecting to see, but it was not covered the possibility to have a final product, instead of a prototype: *"How the project ceases to be a prototype and becomes a final product that I can take it to the stage?"*(P09). Moreover, two participants mentioned that the most critical aspect of the workshop for them was to have an overview of the entire process: *"The \[most relevant part was\] overview of what is happening in the entire process"*(P08) and *"The step-by-step of the process"* (P06).

# Conclusions

The Controller is a simple in-breadth approach to embed the DMI technical development process into a kit and software that can be didactically experienced in a short period by beginners. The objectives are to be the entry point for popularizing the mindset of instrument making, reach a broader audience, and make DMI community stronger. The feedback of the workshop participants showed that the kit and software have the potential to inspired non-technical users to begin experimenting with DMI development. In future steps of the research, we plan to better understand the engagement of the participants on each phase of the technical development process.

[^1]: http://bela.io


abstract: The robustness of individual networks depends upon their interdependent counterparts, as initiating failures can cascade across diverse systems. Understanding the ways in which interdependent links across multilayer networks influence systemic failures is a crucial first step to develop broadly influential resilience recommendations for real-world infrastructure. However, previous studies model cascading failures via a node-to-node percolation process that assumes "strong" interdependence across layers–once a node in any layer fails, its neighbors in other layers fail immediately and completely with all links removed. This assumption is not true of real interdependent infrastructures that have design standards and emergency procedures to buffer against cascades. In this work, we propose an interdependent, multilayer network model and percolation process that matches infrastructures better than previous models by allowing some nodes to survive when their interdependent neighbors fail. We consider a node-to-link failure propagation mechanism and establish "weak" interdependence across layers via a tolerance parameter $\alpha$ which quantifies the likelihood that a node survives when one of its interdependent neighbors fails. We measure the robustness of any individual layer by the final size of its giant component. Analytical and numerical results show that weak interdependence produces a striking phenomenon: layers at different positions within the multilayer system experience distinct percolation transitions. Especially, layers with high super degree values percolate in an abrupt manner, while those with low super degree values exhibit both continuous and abrupt transitions. This novel phenomenon we call *mixed percolation transitions* has significant implications for network robustness. Previous results that do not consider cascade tolerance and layer super degree may be under- or over-estimating the vulnerability of real systems. Moreover, since $\alpha$ represents a generic measure of various risk management strategies used to buffer infrastructure assets from cascades, our model reveals how nodal protection activities influence failure dynamics in interdependent, multilayer systems.
address: $^1$ Alibaba Research Center for Complexity Sciences, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 311121, China; $^2$ School of Electrical, Computer, and Energy Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA; $^3$ School of Sustainable Engineering and Built Environment, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA; $^4$ Department of Physics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
author: Run-Ran Liu$^{1,2}$, Daniel A. Eisenberg$^3$, Thomas P. Seager$^3$, and Ying-Cheng Lai$^{2,4}$
date: 2024-10-01
title: The "weak" interdependence of infrastructure systems produces mixed percolation transitions in multilayer networks

# Introduction

The robustness of a complex networked system to survive random component failures and/or intentional attacks is a significant problem with broad implications. Robustness, i.e., the likelihood that a network remains functional after losing nodes or links, has been a topic of interest since the beginning of modern network science . In recent years, the robustness of interdependent, multilayered networked systems (sometimes referred to as networks-of-networks) has become a subject of focused study . Examples of real-world interdependent, multilayer networks are ample, with a common and important case being urban infrastructure systems  such as transportation, communication, electric power, and water supply networks. The sharing of services within and between these infrastructure systems suggests that the loss of a single service like mobility can impact the provision of others like electric power and clean water – when a node or link in one infrastructure network fails, because of dependencies across infrastructures, its neighbors in other networks can also fail . Since failures can propagate from one network to others, understanding the ways in which dependencies within and across these multilayer networks influences systemic robustness is a crucial first step to develop broadly influential resilience recommendations. The goal of this paper is to develop a model for the failure dynamics which is more realistic to interdependent infrastructure contexts than those in previous studies. To make the terminologies unambiguous, we use the multilayer network lexicon developed by Kivela *et al*.  to describe our approach.

The phenomenon of failure propagation or spreading in a multilayer network depends on the dynamical or physical processes specific to the type of node or link failures. It is difficult to develop a general, dynamics based framework to address the robustness and resilience of systems like urban infrastructure where nodes, links, and layers may represent characteristically different objects and relationships. A viable approach is then to focus on the structural properties of the multilayer network through percolation. Indeed, percolation models  have been used as a theoretical tool to quantify the robustness of networks subject to random failures  or malicious attacks , where the robustness of the network as a function of the number of damaged elements can be characterized as a phase transition. For interdependent, multilayer networks, a collapse can occur abruptly, such that the size of the mutually connected component changes to zero discontinuously upon removal of a critical fraction of nodes . This result was somewhat surprising because it is characteristically different from the continuous percolation transition that is typical of single-layer networks. The abrupt and discontinuous nature of the percolation transition is a unique manifestation of interdependent nodes linked across layers, because damage to one network can spread to others. As the fraction of the interdependent nodes among the networks is reduced, a change from a discontinuous to continuous percolation transition can occur . The way in which interdependent links are defined and generated also influences multilayer robustness properties, including coupling models based on inter-similarity , link overlap , degree correlations , clustering , degree distribution , inner-dependency , intersection among the network layers , and spatially embedded networks . Depending on the types of interactions among nodes across network layers, some interdependent networks can also produce different types of percolation transitions, such as $k$-core , weak , and redundant  percolations.

A tacit assumption in all of these percolation models is that interdependence within and across layers is "strong", which is not true of many real-world systems. A percolation model assumes strong interdependence when the loss of a node in one layer will always cause the removal of its neighbors and neighboring links across all interdependent layers, i.e., an inter-layer cascade probability of one. This assumption ignores important aspects of interdependent systems that provide buffers against cascades and protect layers from each other. For example, travel within and between cities is enabled by several interdependent modes of transportation like personal cars, buses, trains, airplanes, and ferries. When one mode becomes unavailable, e.g., the airport is shut down, this loss may increase travel demand for other modes within and between cities as people traveling on planes switch to using other means to reach their final destination. In this situation, the cascading failure processes with "strong" interdependence found in all previous models assumes that local travel via cars, buses, trains, and ferries and city-to-city travel via airports will be affected equally (removing all nodes and links). In reality, the likelihood that a failure will propagate from air travel to other modes and cities is unknown as each interdependent mode may have sufficient additional capacity to support increased demand. Thus, the failure of a node in one layer can disable a number of links in other coupled layers, but not necessarily cause the loss of all neighboring nodes and links. Assuming a node-to-node failure mechanism without any tolerance to cascades effectively ignores redundant infrastructures and adaptive practices used by transportation infrastructure providers to handle these situations. This notion of cascade tolerance influences the resilience of many real-world infrastructure systems, as electric power, water, transportation, and communication systems use a number of backup infrastructures and emergency management plans to survive losses of interdependent services. Instead of a node-to-node failure mechanism, cascade tolerance is captured by a node-to-link failure mechanism corresponding to bond percolation dynamics in percolation theory where nodes posses a probabilistic tolerance or susceptibility to nodal failures originating in a different layer. Despite the practical significance of bond percolation to understand failure dynamics in interdependent infrastructure systems , the effects of node-to-link failure propagation on the robustness of a multilayer network has not been studied.

In this paper, we apply bond percolation dynamics to multilayer networks to uncover and understand the effects of nodal susceptibility on the robustness of interdependent systems. We assume the existence of buffers between interdependent network layers, such that the failure of a node will not lead to the failures of its interdependent neighbors in another layer with certainty, but with a probability that depends on the link connectivity. We denote the assumption of possible node and link survival in percolation models as assuming "weak" interdependence. We capture weak interdependence by introducing a tolerance parameter $\alpha$ to quantify the heterogeneity of the probabilities. According to percolation theory, the robustness of a network in the whole multilayer networked system against failures can be characterized by the size of the final giant component after the process of failure propagation ends. Treating $\alpha$ as an external control parameter, we find that its tuning can lead to a series of phase transitions. In particular, multiple percolation transitions occur for relatively large values of $\alpha$, the networks in the system percolate continuously one after another according to their super degree values. However, for moderate values of $\alpha$, the phenomenon of mixed percolation transitions occurs, where networks with large super degrees in the interdependent system exhibit abrupt (first-order) percolation transitions while those with small super degree values display double transitions: one continuous (second-order) transition followed by a discontinuous (first-order) transition. For relatively small values of $\alpha$, the percolation transition points merge together, leading to simultaneous and abrupt transition for all networks in the system. We obtain these results analytically and numerically, and they provide general insights into the robustness of multilayer networks and interdependent infrastructure systems.

# Model

We consider a percolation process on a system of $M$ layers of networks $A, B, C,\cdot\cdot\cdot$, each having the same number $N$ of nodes. The networks form an interdependent, multilayer system with a possible structure shown in Fig. . A node in the system can be denoted by a pair of labels $(x, X)$, with $x (x=1,2,\cdot\cdot\cdot N)$ and $X (X=A,B,C\cdot\cdot\cdot)$ being the nodal and layer indices, respectively. Nodes within the same layer $X$ are connected with the degree distribution $p_{k}^{X}$. Nodes in different layers sharing a common nodal index are the replica nodes connected by dependency links if the underlying networks to which they belong are interdependent upon each other. That is, for every nodal label $x$, the set of $M$ replica nodes corresponding to pairs of labels $(x, X)$ can also be regarded as possessing a network structure through the dependency links. The number of interdependent networks, $q^{X}$, for network $X$ is the "super degree," where every node in $X$ has $q^{X}$ interdependent replica nodes.

A randomly connected network layer $X$ with degree distribution $p_{k}^{X}$ is essentially a set of connected components , where the nodes in the giant component are regarded as functional or viable and the remaining nodes are treated as failed or inviable. Our node-to-link failure propagation process can be described, as follows. Consider a pair of interdependent networks: $A$ and $B$. If a node $(x, A)$ in $A$ fails, each link of its replica $(x, B)$ in network $B$ will be disabled with probability $1-\alpha$. Similarly, if a node $(y, B)$ in network $B$ fails, the links of its replica $(y, A)$ in network $A$ will be cut off with the same probability. A initial failure due to isolation from the giant component in a certain network can then spread across the whole system through an iterative process. In each iteration, disconnecting certain nodes from the giant component of network $A$ will cause some nodes to be isolated from the giant component of network $B$, which in turn will induce more nodal failures in $A$. This recursive or cascading process occurs in all pairs of interdependent networks synchronously at each iteration. When no failures are possible, the whole system reaches a stable steady state.

From the perspective of a single node, the parameter $\alpha$ quantifies the tolerance to its failed interdependent replicas, which controls the impacts that a node will endure if one of its replicas fails and represents the probability that interdependent systems will be unsuccessful at preventing inter-layer cascades. From the standpoint of the whole networked system, $\alpha$ determines effectively the strength of interdependence among the networks. For $\alpha \rightarrow 1$, the interdependence between nodes is the weakest so that, practically, failures cannot spread from one network to another. The opposite limit $\alpha \rightarrow 0$ signifies the case where interdependence is the strongest. In this case, our model reduces to previous percolation models with the node-to-node failure propagation mechanisms . In our study, we use the size of the giant components $S^{X}$ for the final network layers $X$ $(X=A,B,\cdot\cdot\cdot)$ to measure the robustness of the system, as in previous works .

We consider our percolation model to be a simplified representation of urban infrastructure systems with buffers against interdependent infrastructure failures. A representative system following the general form of our model is multi-modal transportation linking multiple cities. To convert Fig.  into a transportation model, we would represent each colored node as a separate city and each layer as a different mode of transportation. Within cities, people travel via urban transportation (e.g., cars and buses) to different kinds of hub locations (e.g., coach stations, airports, and railway stations) to facilitate mode switching and interactions. One transportation layer is then linked via one kind of hubs in cities, as connecting highways, planes or railways link urban regions separated by large geographic distances. Although the current model is insufficient to consider specific travel dynamics within each city, our model provides a general form to approach the question of how dynamic buffers may lead to cascades within and across modes of transportation. In particular, the tuning of $\alpha$ from weak to strong interdependence captures situations where the hubs in different modes of travel have either an excess or a lack of capacity to handle the congestion caused by additional passengers, respectively. This model is general, such that cascade tolerance can be due to physical constraints (e.g., number of highway lanes), temporal constraints (e.g., early morning vs. rush hour traffic), and/or dynamic actions (e.g., lane shifting and emergency procedures). Thus, although simplified, robustness analysis of the multilayer system is informative to the ways in which transportation across urban regions may cascade and disconnect interdependent traffics. Moreover, the general form of our model can also capture buffers across other systems by treating layers as different infrastructures that link to transportation hubs within and across cities (e.g., electric power transmission substations).

# Theory

## General formalism

We solve our model analytically in terms of the final state after a cascading process using the standard method of generating functions . Let $R^{X}$ be the probability that a randomly chosen link in network layer $X$ belongs to the giant component, for $X\in\{A, B, C,\cdot\cdot\cdot\}$. The function $G^{X}_{0}(x)=\sum_kp_{k}^{X}x^k$ is the generating function that gives rise to the degree distribution for random nodes in layer $X$, and $G^{X}_{1}(x)=\sum_{k}p_{k}^{X}kx^{k-1}/\langle k\rangle^X$ is the generating function for the underlying branching processes of layer $X$, which generates the distribution for the number of outgoing links of randomly chosen links in layer $X$, where $\langle k\rangle^X$ is the average degree of network $X$.

For simplicity, we consider the case where the $M$ network layers within the multilayer system have an identical degree distribution: $p_{k}^{X}=p_{k}$. We thus write $G^{X}_{0}(x)\equiv G_{0}(x)$, $G^{X}_{1}(x)\equiv G_{1}(x)$, and $\langle k\rangle^X\equiv z$ to simplify the notations. Assuming that the network of $M$ network layers has no loop, we aim to obtain the equation governing the probability $S^{X}$ that a random node in a given layer $X$ belongs to the giant component - the viable probability for this node. Suppose the node has $t$ failed replicas. Each link of this node is preserved with the probability $\alpha^{t}R^{X}$. The viable probability for this node is then $1-\sum_{k}p_k(1-\alpha^{t}R^{X})^{k}$. Let $f^{X}(t)$ be the probability distribution for the number of failed $t$ replicas of a random node in network layer $X$. We get the probability $S^{X}$ in terms of the generating function $G_0$ as $$\label{eq:S0}
S^{X}=\sum_{t=0}^{q^{X}}[1-G_{0}(1-\alpha^{t}R^{X})]f^{X}(t).$$ From the probability distribution $f^{X}(t)$, we can also derive the equation for $R^{X}$ based on the branching process in network $X$. Following a randomly chosen link in layer $X$, we arrive at a node $(x,X)$ of degree $k$, where $k$ follows the distribution $kp_k/z$. With $t$ failed replicas, each link of the node $(x,X)$ is preserved with the probability $\alpha^{t}R^{X}$. The probability that node $(x,X)$ has at least one outgoing link to the giant component is $1-(1-\alpha^{t}R^{X})^{k-1}$, which is also the probability that a randomly chosen link can lead to the giant component. Using the probability distribution $f^{X}(t)$ for a random node in layer $X$, we have $$\label{eq:R0}
R^{X}=\sum_{t=0}^{q^{X}}\alpha^{t}[1-G_{1}(1-\alpha^{t}R^{X})]f^{X}(t).$$ To solve equations () and (), we need the probability distribution function $f^{X}(t)$. We obtain a solution based on the level-by-level calculating process with respect to a hierarchical structure , as illustrated in Fig. . In particular, network layer $X$ is assigned to the top level, whose nearest neighbors constitute the $2$nd level, and the neighbors of the nearest neighbors belong to the $3$rd level, and so on. This way, for a given layer $Z$ with a super degree $q^{Z}$, it has $q^{Z}$ neighbors in the lower level if it is at the top level. Otherwise it has $q^{Z}-1$ neighbors in the lower level.

We first calculate the viable probabilities for the nodes in the bottom-level layers. For a random node in such a network layer $Z$, it has no lower-level replicas. The probability distribution function $f^{Z}(t)$ for the number of failed replicas of a random node is given by $$\label{cases}
f^{Z}(t)=\cases{1& if t=0,\\
0&otherwise.\\} \label{eq:f0}$$ The viable probability $S^{Z}$ for a random node in network $Z$ is $$\label{eq:S}
S^{Z}=\sum_{t=0}^{q^{Z}-1}[1-G_{0}(1-\alpha^{t}R^{Z})]f^{Z}(t),$$ where $q^{Z}-1$ is the number of neighboring networks in the lower level of network $Z$.

After calculating the viable probabilities for the nodes in all bottom-level network layers, we can get the probability distribution $f^{Y}(t)$ for a random node in a higher level network layer $Y$. Substituting $f^{Y}(t)$ into Eq. (), we can get the the viable probability $S^{Y}$. Repeating this process level by level, we can get the probability distribution function $f^{X}(t)$ for the top level.

## Star-like multilayer networks

To be concrete, we consider a star-like interdependent system of four network layers, as shown in Fig. (a), where layer $B$ is the hub and the other three layers $A, C, D$ are peripheral networks (on the same footing). We thus have $R^{A}=R^{C}=R^{D}=R$ but $R^{B}=R'\ne R$. We first calculate the viable probability $S^{B}$ for a randomly chosen node in the hub layer $B$. The viable probability for a node in one of the peripheral (bottom-level) network layers is $1-G_0(1-R)$, and the probability distribution $f^{B}(t)$ for a random node in $B$ to have $t$ failed replicas is binomial: $f^{B}(t)=C_{3}^{t}G_{0}^{t}(1-R)[1-G_{0}(1-R)]^{3-t}$. From Eq. (), we obtain the probability for a random node in layer $B$ to belong to its giant component: $$\label{eq:S1}
S^{B}=\sum_{t=0}^{3}C_{3}^{t}[1-G_{0}(1-\alpha^{t}R')]G_{0}^{t}(1-R)[1-G_{0}(1-R)]^{3-t}.$$ Next, we calculate the viable probability for a random node in network $A$, which depends the state of its replica in layer $B$. If the replica is viable, we have $t = 0$; Otherwise $t = 1$. According to the updating process in Fig. , the viable probability of a node in layer $B$ is determined by the number $t$ of its failed replicas in the other two peripheral network layers (excluding layer $A$), which is $$f^{A}(0)=\sum_{t=0}^{2}C_{2}^{t}[1-G_{0}(1-\alpha^{t}R')]G_{0}^{t}(1-R)
[1-G_{0}(1-R)]^{2-t}.$$ The inviable probability for a random node in $B$ is thus given by $f^{A}(1)=1-f^{A}(0)$. From Eq. (), we obtain the viable probability for a random node in layer $A$ as $$\label{eq:S2}
S^{A}=[1-G_{0}(1-R)]f^{A}(0)+[1-G_{0}(1-\alpha R)]f^{A}(1).$$ The same equation holds for $S^{C}$ and $S^{D}$.

To solve Eqs. () and () requires the equations for the quantities $R$ and $R'$, which we get through the branching process in network layers $A$ and $B$, respectively. In particular, for the probability distribution function $f^{B}(t)$, we arrive at a self consistency equation in terms of the generating functions: $$\label{eq:R1}
R'=\sum_{t=0}^{3}C_{3}^{t}\alpha^{t}[1-G_{1}(1-\alpha^{t}R')]
G_{0}^{t}(1-R)[1-G_{0}(1-R)]^{3-t}.$$ Similarly, the self consistency equation for $R$ is $$\label{eq:R2}
R=[1-G_{1}(1-R)]f^{A}(0)+\alpha[1-G_{1}(1-\alpha R)]f^{A}(1).$$ It is not feasible to get closed-form expressions for $R'$ and $R$ from Eqs. () and (). We thus resort to numerical solutions. For a given degree distribution $p_{k}$ and a fixed value of the tolerance parameter $\alpha$, we plot the curves for Eqs. () and () on the $(R-R')$ plane, where the coordinates for the top crossing point give the solutions. Substituting the values of $R'$ and $R$ into Eqs. () and (), we can get the sizes of the giant components $S^{A}$ and $S^{B}$.

Figure  shows, for random networks with a Poisson distribution  $p_k=e^{-z}z^k/k!$, graphical solutions of $R$ and $R'$ for different values of $\alpha$ and $z$. For $\alpha=0.9$, there is a trivial solution at the point $(R=0,R'=0)$ for $z=1.2$, indicating that the hub and the peripheral network layers are completely fragmented. For $z=1.3$, a nontrivial value of $R$ arises but $R'$ remains to be zero, suggesting a continuous phase transition for $R$. Increasing $z$ to $1.5$, we observe that $R'$ also becomes nontrivial which changes growth rate for $R$. These results imply that, for $\alpha = 0.9$, the peripheral network layers percolate firstly, and then the hub percolates as $z$ is increased, leading to double phase transitions for the peripheral network layers. For $\alpha=0.7$, the phenomenon of mixed percolation transitions occur, where the peripheral network layers percolate in a continuous manner, as shown in Fig. (e), but the hub percolates in a discontinuous fashion, as demonstrated by the tangent point shown in Fig. (f). Specifically, for $z < 2.2348$, the solutions for $(R,R')$ are given by the crossing point of the curves with the $R$-axis. However, for $z \approx 2.2348$, their solutions are given by the tangent point $(0.5367,0.3403)$, giving rise to a discontinuous change in both $R$ and $R'$. For $\alpha=0.6$, we find that the crossing point for solutions of $R$ and $R'$ change abruptly from $(0,0)$ to the tangent point $(0.5874,0.4253)$, indicating also a discontinuous percolation transition.

The sizes $S^A$, $S^B$, $S^C$, and $S^D$ of the giant components for the four network layers in the star system versus the average degree $z$ are shown in Fig. . (See Sec.  for an explanation of the numerical methods.) For $\alpha = 0.9$, as $z$ is increased from the value of one, all four layers exhibit a continuous percolation transition, where the peripheral layers (layers A, C, and D) percolate first at the critical point $z_{c1} \approx 1.2345$ \[Fig. (a)\], followed by the hub network (layer B) at the critical point $z_{c2} \approx 1.4872$, as shown in Fig. (b). We see that, while the curves of $S^A$, $S^C$, and $S^D$ versus $z$ are continuous, they exhibit a discontinuity in their derivative at both $z_{c1}$ and $z_{c2}$. In this sense we say that the peripheral network layers exhibit double percolation transitions. Note that, in the whole range of $z$ values considered, the hub layer exhibits only a single percolation transition - continuous (or second order) for relatively large values of $\alpha$ but discontinuous (of first order) for smaller $\alpha$ values. The feature of double percolation transitions for the peripheral network layers persists for $\alpha = 0.8$ and $\alpha = 0.7$. Remarkably, for these two values of $\alpha$, the two percolation transitions for the peripheral networks are characteristically different: the first one is continuous while the second is discontinuous. In contrast, the transition for the hub network layer is discontinuous. Thus, from the standpoint of the whole interdependent, multilayer system, for these values of $\alpha$, both continuous and discontinuous percolation transitions exist, leading to the phenomenon of mixed percolation transitions. For $\alpha=0.6$, the hub and peripheral layers percolate discontinuously at the same point. These results indicate a richer variety of percolation transition scenarios than revealed in previous studies for multilayer systems with strong interdependence (i.e., $\alpha = 1$  ).

A practical implication is that the tolerance parameter can be exploited for modulating or controlling the characteristics of the percolation transition. In particular, for relatively small values of $\alpha$ (e.g., $\alpha = 0.6$), the percolation transitions are abrupt and discontinuous - the defining characteristic of first-order phase transitions. In this case, the interdependent system will collapse suddenly as a system parameter is changed in response to random nodal failures or intentional attacks. The system is thus not resilient. To improve the resilience of the system, a larger value of $\alpha$ can be chosen (e.g., $\alpha = 0.9$). In this case, the percolation transitions in the interdependent networks are continuous - signature of second-order phase transitions. While the whole system still collapses, the manner by which the collapse occurs is benign as compared with that of first-order phase transitions.

## Tree-like multilayer networks

We consider a tree-like interdependent system of five random network layers, labeled as $A,B,C,D$ and $E$ respectively, as shown in Fig. (b), and obtain theoretical solutions for the sizes of the giant components and for the nodal viable probabilities for all the layers. Figure  shows the theoretical and numerical solutions of the sizes of giant components $S^{A}, S^{B}, S^{C}, S^{D}$ and $S^{E}$ versus the average degree $z$ (see Sec.  for an explanation of the numerical methods). For $\alpha=0.9$, we find that the peripheral layers $A,C,E$ percolate first, followed by the sub-center layer $D$. The size of the giant component of $D$'s nearest neighboring layer $E$ is then increased, leading to a continuous phase transition for $S^{E}$. The central network layer $B$ percolates last, giving rise to a distinct continuous transition for its nearest neighboring networks $A,C,D$. As $\alpha$ is decreased, the hub network percolates discontinuously, at which the giant components of layers $A, C, E$ and $D$ increase abruptly in size, giving rise to the phenomenon of mixed percolation transitions, as can be seen from the curves for $\alpha=0.8$. For $\alpha = 0.7$, the percolation transition points for some network layers with large super degrees begin to merge but the phenomenon of mixed percolation transitions persists. As $\alpha$ is decreased further, a first-order phase transition occurs at which all layers percolate at the same point in a discontinuous manner, as indicated by the curves for $\alpha=0.6$.

These transition phenomena suggest that the super degree of a layer in the multilayer system plays a critical role in its percolation transition. In particular, the peripheral network layers with the lowest super degree percolate first, followed by the layers with a moderate value of the super degree, and finally by the layers with the highest super degree. When a layer with a larger super degree percolates continuously, it will increase the giant component sizes of its neighboring network layers that have already percolated, leading to multiple percolation transitions. In contrast, if a layer with a larger super degree percolates discontinuously, it will lead to a sudden and discontinuous increase in the sizes of the giant components of all network layers that have already percolated, leading to mixed percolation transitions. These results indicates that the percolation type of the hub layers plays a critical role in the robustness of the whole system. In particular, if the hub layer percolates continuously, at the transition point the sizes of the giant components of the nearest network layers are continuous but their derivatives are discontinuous. However, if the hub layer percolates discontinuously, an abrupt and discontinuous increase in the giant component sizes of the neighboring network layers can occur.

# Direct simulation results

To verify the phenomena of mixed and multiple percolation transitions directly, we perform bond percolation $20$ times using the Newman-Ziff algorithm  and measure the average relative size of the viable component of each network layer. As shown in Figs.  and , the percolation transitions and the behaviors of the giant components as predicted theoretically agree well with the numerical results.

Figures (a) and (b) show, for the star-like and tree-like interdependent systems, respectively, the percolation transition points $z_{c}$ versus $\alpha$ for each layer in the multilayer system, which are obtained by the graphical solution as illustrated in Fig. . An alternative way to identify the transition points is to examine the fluctuations in the size of the giant component which, for a finite system, tend to be relatively large at the transition . From Fig. (a), we see that the phase diagram for the star-like system can be divided into three different regions by the two critical points denoted as $\alpha_{c}^{I}$ and $\alpha_{c}^{II}$. For $\alpha\in[\alpha_{c}^{II}, 1]$, both the hub layer $B$ and the peripheral layers $A, C, D$ percolate in a continuous manner (second-order phase transition) but at different transition points. For $\alpha_{c}^{I} \le \alpha < \alpha_{c}^{II}$, the peripheral layers first percolate in a continuous fashion, and then the hub layer percolates discontinuously (first-order phase transition), leading to mixed percolation transitions. For $\alpha\in[0,\alpha_{c}^{I})$, all network layers percolate discontinuously at the same transition point. Similarly, for the tree-like system, Fig. (b) indicates a division of the $\alpha$ interval into four subregions determined by the critical points $\alpha_{c}^{I}$, $\alpha_{c}^{II}$ and $\alpha_{c}^{III}$. For $\alpha\in(\alpha_{c}^{III},1]$, all layers percolate continuously: the peripheral network layers $A,C,E$ percolate first at the same transition point, followed by the percolation of the sub-central layer $D$ and finally by the central layer $B$. For $\alpha\in(\alpha_{c}^{II},\alpha_{c}^{III}]$, the phenomenon of mixed percolation transitions arises. That is, the percolation transition for the central layer $B$ is discontinuous and those for network layers $A,C,D,E$ remain to be continuous. For $\alpha_{c}^{I}< \alpha\le \alpha_{c}^{II}$, the phenomenon of mixed percolation transitions persists. The sub-central layer $D$ and the central layer $B$ percolate simultaneously at a common transition point, and the peripheral layers $A,C,E$ still percolate at the same point in a continuous manner. For $0 \le \alpha \le \alpha_{c}^{I}$, all network layers percolate discontinuously at the same transition point.

# Discussion

The results of this paper demonstrate that the pervasive assumption of "strong" interdependence in percolation models is limiting our understanding of the robustness of multilayer systems. When tuning the interdependence between networks via a cascade tolerance mechanism, the surprising phenomenon of mixed percolation transitions occurs: network layers with large super degrees percolate discontinuously while those with small super degrees percolate continuously. That is, multilayer networks with weak interdependence across layers, represented by moderate values of the tolerance parameter, experience both second-order and first-order percolation transitions. This result is unlike those in any study that assumes either strong or no interdependence between network layers, where all network layers experience either simultaneous and abrupt percolation or continuous percolation, respectively. These previous models imply that catastrophic cascades were either inevitable or impossible, yet our results demonstrate that both the strength of interdependence and layer position play a critical role in the functioning of interdependent systems. In cases where the connectivity of the central layer is critical to the functioning of the interdependent system, sufficient tolerance must be included to prevent sudden, system-wide failures. This result implies that studies that do not consider interdependence may underestimate the amount tolerance needed to ensure cascades do not occur. On the other hand, where layers with high super degree only serve as bridges to critical periphery layers, far less tolerance is needed to maintain interdependent function. Likewise, studies that assume strong interdependence may be underestimating the likelihood that the system will survive. In both cases, the under- and over-estimation of multilayer network robustness may produce unwanted cascading dynamics if used to study and design real networks.

Since cascade tolerance provides a generic metric for the physical, temporal, and dynamic buffers found in real infrastructure to prevent losses across interdependent systems, the results of this paper have broad implications for infrastructure design. Infrastructure design often uses risk analysis to give the individual assets that comprise large-scale infrastructure systems tolerances to known failure modes. For example, individual assets have an oversized capacity to handle sudden shifts in service flows, have uninterruptible power supplies to ensure asset functioning during blackouts, and can be built a certain number of feet above the ground to prevent flooding. Despite significant work protecting individual assets in infrastructure systems, there is far less understanding how risk adverse practices in a single facility may impact the robustness of an entire infrastructure system or interdependent, multilayered system. The tolerance parameter introduced in our model is generic to capture the probability that these risk adverse practices influence percolation dynamics in a wide variety of infrastructure systems. Although previous models would indicate that interdependent systems could experience more sudden, global cascades, mixed percolation transitions may be an indicator of an even more precarious situation. With buffers that appear sufficient within a single network layer, a central layer with high super degree can still experience sudden, catastrophic failures that inhibits functionality of the multilayer network. This situation is common in disaster situations, where individual assets and entire infrastructure systems may survive the initial failure event, but remain unusable because interdependent systems that they require to function did not. The values of $\alpha$ that generate mixed percolation transitions in our model provide a heuristic measure of when these interdependent failures may occur that is characteristically different from other percolation models. Thus, our results suggest that developing a metric for buffering capacity and identifying the super degree relationships among infrastructure systems may reveal a disconnect between local, risk adverse practices, and global, interdependent vulnerability.

Although mixed percolation transitions have important implications for future percolation models and infrastructure design, we do concede that our current model is too simplified to represent many real-world systems. Percolation dynamics provide an important, generic method for considering the interactions within multilayer networks. However, the dynamics that occur within real-world systems are not captured in this model, suggesting that our assumptions for tolerance and cascading dynamics remain unrealistic. For example, modeling the failure dynamics in a multi-modal transportation network like the one discussed above (see Section 2) requires detailed information regarding the infrastructure located within each city and models for how people choose between different transportation modes. The current percolation model assumes that the loss of an airport in a periphery layer affects losses in interdependent layers equally, when real travel information may show greater heterogeneity in congestion and failures. Future work should focus on linking discipline-specific infrastructure models that capture these dynamics with measures of cascade tolerance across network layers to produce more realistic percolation transitions.

RRL was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 61773148, 61403114 and 61673150, and by the Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. LQ14F030009. DAE, TPS, and YCL were supported by NSF under Grant No. 1441352. DAE was also supported by NSF Grant No. 1311230 the Defense Threat Reduction Agency Grant No. DTRA-18681. YCL would also like to acknowledge support from the Vannevar Bush Faculty Fellowship program sponsored by the Basic Research Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and funded by the Office of Naval Research through Grant No. N00014-16-1-2828.

# References