Giant Components in Random Temporal Graphs

Extracted source text · arXiv 2205.14888

\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}

\usepackage{amsmath, amssymb, amsthm}
\usepackage[mathic]{mathtools}
\usepackage{thm-restate}
\usepackage{graphicx,scalerel}

\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{libertine}
\usepackage[libertine]{newtxmath} % must load after ams packages
\usepackage[scaled=0.96]{zi4} % use Inconsolata as the typewriter font

\usepackage{a4wide, dsfont, microtype, paralist}

% Load hyperref as last package
\usepackage[ocgcolorlinks]{hyperref} % Option ocgcolorlinks makes links only colored on screen and not on printouts
% Hyperref options
% \bibliographystyle{plainurl}

\DeclareUnicodeCharacter{1EF3}{\`y}
\usepackage[backend=biber,isbn=false,url=false,doi=true,maxcitenames=3,maxbibnames=99,sortcites]{biblatex}
\setcounter{biburllcpenalty}{7000}
\setcounter{biburlucpenalty}{8000}

\bibliography{strings-long,references}

\usepackage[capitalise]{cleveref}
\crefname{algocf}{Algorithm}{Algorithms}
\Crefname{algocf}{Algorithm}{Algorithms}

\usepackage{xspace}
\usepackage[dvipsnames]{xcolor}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage{paralist}
\usepackage{soul}

\usepackage{tikz}
\usetikzlibrary{arrows, arrows.meta, calc, decorations.pathmorphing, decorations.pathreplacing, calligraphy, backgrounds, math, shapes, shapes.geometric, spy, positioning, quotes}

%% Define a new 'leo' style for the package that will use a smaller font.
\makeatletter
\def\url@leostyle{%
  \@ifundefined{selectfont}{\def\UrlFont{\sf}}{\def\UrlFont{\small\ttfamily}}}
\makeatother
%% Now actually use the newly defined style.
\urlstyle{leo}

\usepackage{todonotes}

\input{macros.tex}

\title{Giant Components in Random Temporal Graphs}
\author{
  Ruben Becker\thanks{Gran Sasso Science Institute, L'Aquila, Italy}
  \and
  Arnaud Casteigts\thanks{LaBRI, CNRS, University of Bordeaux, France}
  \and
  Pierluigi Crescenzi$^*$
  \and
  Bojana Kodric$^*$
  \and
  Malte Renken\thanks{Technical University of Berlin, Germany}
  \and
  Michael Raskin\thanks{Technical University of Munich, Germany}
  \and
  Viktor Zamaraev\thanks{University of Liverpool, United Kingdom}
}
% \author{}
\date{}

\begin{document}
% \setcounter{page}{0}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
  A temporal graph is a graph whose edges appear only at certain
  points in time. In these graphs, reachability among the nodes relies
  on paths that traverse edges in chronological order (\emph{temporal paths}).
  Unlike standard paths, temporal paths are not
  always composable, thus the reachability relation is
  \emph{not transitive} and connected components do not form equivalence
  classes.

  We investigate the evolution of connected components in 
  a simple model of random temporal graphs.
  In this model, a random temporal graph is obtained by permuting uniformly at random the edges of an
  Erdös-Rényi graph and interpreting the positions in this permutation
  as presence times. Phase transitions for several reachability properties were recently
  characterized in this model [Casteigts et al., FOCS 2021], in particular for
  one-to-one, one-to-all, and all-to-all reachability. 
  The characterization of similar transitions for the existence of giant components was left open. 

  In this paper, we develop a set of new techniques and use them to characterize the emergence of giant components in random temporal graphs. 
  Our results imply that the growth of temporal
  components departs significantly from its classical analog. In particular, the largest component transitions abruptly from
  containing almost no vertices to almost all vertices at
  $p = \log n / n$, whereas in static random graphs (directed or not), a giant component of
  intermediate size arises first, and keeps steadily growing afterwards.
  This threshold holds for both \emph{open} and
  \emph{closed} temporal components, i.e., components that respectively allow or forbid
  the use of external nodes to achieve internal reachability, a distinction arising in the absence of transitivity.
\end{abstract}
% \thispagestyle{empty}
% \pagebreak

\section{Introduction}

% Temporal graphs
Many real-world networks are dynamic. Whether these networks represent
social interactions, biological processes, or communication between
mobile devices, the interactions take place at certain points in time.
These interactions are naturally captured by temporal graphs. One of
the simplest ways to define a temporal graph is as an edge-labeled
graph $\G = (G, \lambda)$, where~$G=(V,E)$ is a standard graph
and~$\lambda: E \to 2^\mathbb{N} \setminus \{ \emptyset \}$ encodes the presence times of the
edges.
% Temporal reachability is non-transitive
Reachability in these graphs is based on paths that traverse edges in
ascending time, \textit{a.k.a.} \emph{temporal paths}. The structural
and algorithmic properties of temporal paths have been extensively
studied recently, motivated by numerous applications in the aforementioned
fields. These notions also raise a number of fundamental questions,
due to their intrinsic difference to standard paths. A first
difference is that temporal paths are inherently directed, regardless
of whether the graph itself is directed, due to the arrow of time.

% Impact of being non-transitive
Perhaps more significantly, temporal reachability is
\emph{not transitive}, i.e., the fact that node $u$ can reach node~$v$
and node~$v$ can reach node~$w$ does not imply that~$u$~can reach~$w$.
The non-composability of temporal paths is a source of complication
for structural studies as well as a source of computational hardness.
For example, deciding the size of a
maximum temporally connected component (set of vertices that can reach
each other using temporal paths) is NP-complete~\cite{BF03}. In fact,
many problems related to reachability are hard in temporal graph,
even when their classical analogs are polynomial time solvable
-- see, for instance, the seminal paper by Kempe, Kleinberg, and Kumar
on $k$-disjoint temporal paths~\cite{KKK02} and many further examples appearing in
more recent works~\cite{Akr+17, CCMP20, waiting-time, minimization,
  separators, diameter, EMMZ21}.

% Random simple temporal graphs
Recently, also the features of temporal reachability
were studied in a simple model of random temporal graphs inspired by classical
Erd{\H{o}}s–R{\'e}nyi random graphs~\cite{CasteigtsRRZ21}.
In this model, referred to as RSTGs (for random simple temporal graphs),
first, a random graph $G \sim G_{n,p}$ is drawn
according to the classical model, where $n$ is the number of
vertices and $p$ is the (independent) probability that an edge exists between any
two vertices. Then, a permutation of the edges
of $G$ is drawn uniformly at random, and the position of an edge in this permutation
is interpreted as its unique presence time.

Despite being rather basic, it was shown that
these graphs capture several interesting features of
temporal reachability.
% Temporal reachability in these graphs
In particular, the fact that temporal
reachability is neither transitive nor symmetric turns out to cause
a number of \emph{distinct} thresholds for various degrees of
reachability, whose analogs would occur simultaneously in
standard random graphs. Namely, at $p=\log n/n$, any fixed pair of
vertices can \aas reach each other; at $2\log n/n$, at least one
vertex (and in fact, any fixed vertex) can \aas reach all the others;
and at $3\log n/n$, all the vertices can \aas reach all others, \ie
the graph is temporally connected~\cite{CasteigtsRRZ21}. Further events
occur at $4\log n/n$, regarding properties that are unrelated to
the present work (namely, temporal spanners of optimal size).


% Connected components
In this work, we study the existence of \emph{giant} temporally connected components,
i.e., temporally connected components that contain most of the vertices. 
As mentioned above, at $p= \log n / n$, any fixed pair (thus, \emph{most} pairs) of vertices \aas can reach each other.
If the temporal reachability relation were transitive, this would be sufficient to guarantee 
that a giant connected component exists at this point.
However, non-transitivity prevents such implications, and 
the actual threshold was left uncharacterized in~\cite{CasteigtsRRZ21}.
In fact, the absence of transitivity leads to ambiguity in the very notion of temporally connected component.
As observed in~\cite{BF03}, two natural definitions may be considered. If the reachability between vertices in the component is allowed to be achieved via temporal paths that use vertices outside the component, then we get the notion of \emph{open} connected component (or simply connected component). On the other hand, if we require that the reachability is achieved using \emph{only} vertices in the component, then we obtain the stricter notion of \emph{closed} connected component. 
We investigate the emergence of giant connected components in RSTGs under both definitions.

%From the thresholds described above, the one that is of most interest for this work is $p= \log n / n$, where we know that any fixed
%pair (thus, \emph{most} pairs) of vertices can reach each other. If 
%temporal paths were transitive, this would be sufficient to conclude 
%that after this threshold, there exists a connected component containing most of the vertices.
%However, lack of transitivity prevents such implications, and 
%characterizing the actual threshold was left open in~\cite{CasteigtsRRZ21}.
% Furthermore, what occurs before this value is also not known.

\subsection{Contributions}
In this paper, we analyze the size
of the largest connected component in a random simple temporal graph, as $p$ increases (with $n \to \infty$).
To give some context to our result, notice that the emergence of a giant component in (static) Erd{\H{o}}s–R{\'e}nyi graphs follows a
well known pattern of events~\cite{ER60-evolution}. Below a
critical probability $p_0=1/n$, almost all the components are trees,
%(non-trees amount to only a constant number of vertices)
and no component is larger than $\bigO(\log n)$. Then, at~$p_0$, a single ``giant''
component of size $\Theta(n^{2/3})$ arises.
Then, at $p = c/n > 1/n$,
this giant component contains a constant fraction~$1-x/c$ of all vertices
(with $0 < x < 1$ being defined through $xe^{-x} = ce^{-c}$).
That fraction gradually approaches~$1$, until, at $p = \log n / n$,
the graph becomes connected \aas
In the case of directed graphs, for $p= c/n < 1/n$, a.a.s.\ all strongly connected components have size less than $3c^{-2}\log n$, and when $p= c/n > 1/n$, the graph contains a strongly connected component of size approximately
$\left(1- x/c\right)^2n$ (with $x$~as above),
and all other strongly connected components are of logarithmic size~\cite{Karp1990,frieze_karonski_2015}.
The graph becomes strongly connected at $p = \log n / n$.
In other words, the phase transition is similar in both directed and undirected graphs.

We show that the case of RSTGs is radically different. In RSTGs, the phase
transition occurs at $p=\log n / n$ and is much more abrupt, 
the size of the largest component jumping directly from~$o(n)$
to~$n-o(n)$. More precisely, if $p< \log n/n -\eps_1(n)$, then \aas,
all temporally connected components have size $o(n)$, while if
$p\ge \log n / n + \eps_2(n)$, then a.a.s., there exists a temporally
connected component of size $n-o(n)$. Here $\eps_1$ and $\eps_2$ are
functions in $o(\log n / n)$. 
This result holds for both open and closed connected components.
While in both cases the lower bound can be derived
from a theorem proved in~\cite{CasteigtsRRZ21}, the upper bounds
require refinement of the tools from~\cite{CasteigtsRRZ21}, as well as the development
of new techniques. We outline these new technical advances below.


\subsection{Overview of the Results \& Techniques}
Before explaining the main lines of our approach, observe that
reachability in RSTGs only depends on the \emph{ordering} of
presence times of the edges. An equivalent model can be defined by considering a
complete underlying graph on $n$ vertices, the edges of which are assigned presence
times chosen independently and uniformly at random from the \emph{real} unit interval
$[0,1]$. If one retains only the edges whose presence times are less
than $p$, then this model is equivalent to an RSTGs with parameters $n$ and $p$
(observe that, with probability~1, the labels are unique and all edge orderings are equiprobable). 
In this model, which we denote $\F_{n,p}$, one can now
think of $p$ as a time bound, and of the resulting temporal graph as
capturing what happens in $\F_{n,1}$ during the time interval $[0,p]$.
We now proceed with outlining the proof strategies and techniques.

\paragraph{Open Components.}
Our main result establishes that, by time $p = \log n / n + \eps$ (for an appropriate $\epsilon \in o(\log n / n)$),
there exists a temporally connected component of size $n - o(n)$. 
The strategy is as follows (see also \cref{fig:proof_scheme}). We split the time interval $[0, p]$
into three intervals $I_{1}$, $I_{2}$, and $I_{3}$ of equal duration $p / 3$, and
reveal the edges of the graph in two phases. 

In Phase 1, we reveal the edges whose
time labels are in one of the intervals $I_1$ and $I_3$. Using a result from~\cite{CasteigtsRRZ21} 
(\cref{lem: tree growth}), we can conclude that there are
$n - o(n)$ nodes (call them $X$), each of which \aas reaches at
least $\sqrt[3]{n}\log n$ vertices during $I_1$, and there are at least
$n - o(n)$ nodes (call them $Y$) that \aas is reached by at least $\sqrt[3]{n}\log n$
vertices during $I_3$.

In Phase 2, we reveal the edges appearing during the middle interval $I_2$.
We show that for every ordered pair of nodes $u,v$ in the set $Z := X \cap Y$ 
(which is our intended connected component), the set of vertices that $u$ can reach during $I_1$,
can reach during $I_2$ at least one vertex in the set of vertices that reach $v$ during $I_3$; thus
implying that $u$ can reach $v$ during $[0,p]$.
The analysis of this phase is the heart of our proof and requires new technical developments.

The first such development is a generalization of the model $\F_{n,p}$ to the model which we denote $\F_p(G)$.
This new model is parametrized by the edge probability $p$ and an arbitrary static graph $G$.
A random graph from $\F_p(G)$ is obtained by assigning to each edge of $G$ independently
and uniformly at random a time label from $[0,1]$, and then removing those edges whose time labels
exceed $p$. Note that $\F_p(K_n)$, where $K_n$ is an $n$-vertex complete graph, is exactly the
model $\F_{n,p}$.
This more general model is motivated by the need to condition, in Phase 2, on the edges that 
are revealed in Phase 1. More specifically, a random graph that we analyze in Phase 2 is
sampled from $\F_p(G)$, where $G$ is obtained from $K_n$ by removing the edges
that appeared during either $I_1$ or $I_3$.

The second technique is a generalization of the foremost tree growth analysis from~\cite{CasteigtsRRZ21},
which estimates the number of vertices that a given vertex (referred to as a \emph{source}) reaches by specific time in $\F_{n,p}$. 
In contrast to the foremost tree growth analysis, in Phase 2 we need to estimate the number of vertices a fixed \emph{set} of vertices reaches over a given time period.
This leads to the analysis of the growth of a \emph{foremost forest} from a given \emph{set of sources} in the $\F_p(G)$ model (\cref{lem: reachability}).

Finally, the third technical ingredient is to show that the set of vertices reached by $u$, during $I_1$, reaches
a set of vertices during $I_2$ that \aas intersects the set of vertices that reach $v$ during $I_3$ (\cref{theorem:general target set} and \cref{corollary: target set}), implying that $u$ reaches $v$ during $[0,p]$. A crucial fact for this result is that every
new vertex reached by a fixed set of sources (i.e., every new vertex added to the foremost forest) is
distributed almost uniformly on the vertices that are not reached yet (\cref{lem: almost uniform}).

\begin{figure}[t]
	\centering
  \resizebox{0.95\textwidth}{!}{
	 \input{proof_scheme}
  }
	\caption{General strategy for upper bounding the value of $p$ in the case of open components.
		Here, $\G_{i}$ denotes the restriction of the temporal
		graph to subinterval $I_{i}$.
		% $X$ denotes the vertices that
		% reach at least $\sqrt[3]{n}\log n$ vertices during $I_{1}$, and
		% $Y$ the vertices reached by at least $\sqrt[3]{n}\log n$
		% vertices in $I_{3}$.
		Wavy lines denote temporal paths. We
		show that any node $x\in Z$ can reach any other node
		$y\in Z$ by reaching a node $u$ in $\G_{1}$, then a node $v$ in $\G_{2}$, and
		finally $y$ in $\G_{3}$. }
	\label{fig:proof_scheme}
\end{figure}

\paragraph{Closed Components.}
We prove that, by time $p = \log n / n + \eps$, not only a connected component of size $n - o(n)$ arises, but also
a \emph{closed} connected component of the same size does appear.
In the case of open components, the main technical effort was required for the analysis of the middle interval
(Phase 2); the first and the last intervals (Phase 1) were treated using a tool from~\cite{CasteigtsRRZ21}.
In the case of closed components, the high-level strategy is similar, and the techniques developed for the open components can be reused in the middle interval. On the other hand, Phase 1 needs a more delicate analysis, which is the main technical contribution of this part.
To conduct the analysis, we split the time line $[0,p]$ into five intervals $I_j, j \in[5]$ and replace Phase 1 with two new phases called Phases 1.1 and 1.2 (see \cref{fig:closed_component_three_phases}). The intervals $I_1 \cup I_2$, $I_3$, and $I_4 \cup I_5$
split $[0,p]$ into three roughly equal parts. The lengths of $I_2,I_3,I_4$ are proportional to $\log n / n$
and each of the extreme intervals $I_1$ and $I_5$ has length $o(\log n / n)$.

In Phase 1.1, we reveal edges that appear during $I_1 \cup I_5$. As a central tool, we show that the graph contains a set of vertices $V'$ of size
$n' = n - o(n)$ such that every vertex in $V'$ reaches at least poly-logarithmically many vertices during $I_1$
and is reached by at least as many vertices during $I_5$ \emph{by temporal paths that use only vertices in $V'$}
(\cref{lm:bootstrap-reachability}). In Phases 1.2 and 2 we restrict the analysis to the graph induced by $V'$
and show that \aas $V'$ is the desired closed connected component.

In Phase 1.2, we reveal edges that appear during $I_2$ or $I_4$. 
We use the foremost forest technique developed earlier to show that,
conditioned on the edges revealed in Phase 1.1, for every vertex $v$ in $V'$ the poly-logarithmic set of
vertices reached by $v$ during $I_1$ reaches polynomially many vertices during $I_2$; similarly,
the poly-logarithmic set of vertices that reach $v$ during $I_5$ is reached by polynomially many 
vertices during $I_4$. In other words, after Phases 1.1 and 1.2, the set $V'$ contains almost all vertices
of the graph. These vertices can reach polynomially many vertices during $I_1 \cup I_2$ and can be reached by at least as many vertices during $I_4 \cup I_5$, using temporal paths that use only vertices in $V'$.

Finally, in Phase 2, we reveal edges that appear in the middle interval $I_3$ and, as in the previous case, 
apply \cref{corollary: target set} to show that, conditioned on the edges revealed in Phases 1.1 and 1.2, for every ordered pair $u,v \in V'$, the polynomial-size set
of vertices reached by $u$ during $I_1 \cup I_2$ reaches during $I_3$ at least one vertex in the polynomial-size
set of vertices that reach $v$ during $I_4 \cup I_5$, implying that $u$ reaches $v$ during $[0,p]$.

\begin{figure}
  \begin{center}
  \resizebox{0.95\textwidth}{!}{
    \input{./closed_components_phases.tex}
  }
  \end{center}
  \caption{Illustration of the three different phases in our proof for the case of closed components. Here, the length $p_1$ of $I_2$ and $I_4$ and the length $p_2$ of $I_3$ are each roughly $\frac{1}{3}\frac{\log n}{n}$.
  In Phase 1.1 we reveal edges in $I_1$ and $I_5$ and identify our target closed connected component, a set of $n'$ nodes $V'$ each of which can reach (be reached by) poly-logarithmically many vertices within $V'$ during $I_1$ ($I_5$) via temporal paths in $V'$. 
  For Phase 1.2 (consisting of intervals $I_2$ and $I_4$) we show that every vertex in $v \in V'$ reaches (is reached by) polynomially many vertices in $V'$ during $I_1 \cup I_2$ ($I_4 \cup I_5$). 
  We then show that during Phase 2 (consisting of $I_3$), for each ordered pair of vertices $u,w \in V'$, the set of vertices reached by $u$ during $I_1 \cup I_2$ can reach the set of vertices that reach $w$ during $I_4 \cup I_5$, implying that $u$ can reach $w$ during $[0,p]$.}
  \label{fig:closed_component_three_phases}
\end{figure}

\if{false}}
\vskip10ex

 intermediate nodes. The intermediate
nodes need not be the same for all nodes in $X$. Symmetrically,
during $I_3$, there are $n -o(n)$ nodes (call them
$Y$) that can be reached from at least $\sqrt[3]{n}\log n$
other nodes, these intermediate nodes being possibly different
from the intermediate nodes in $I_1$.


During $I_1$, we show that there are
$n - o(n)$ nodes (call them $X$), each of which can \aas reach at
least $\sqrt[3]{n}\log n$ intermediate nodes. The intermediate
nodes need not be the same for all nodes in $X$. Symmetrically,
during $I_3$, there are $n -o(n)$ nodes (call them
$Y$) that can be reached from at least $\sqrt[3]{n}\log n$
other nodes, these intermediate nodes being possibly different
from the intermediate nodes in $I_1$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
    \centering
    \input{proof_scheme}
    \caption{General strategy for upper bounding the value of $p$.
      Here, $\G_{i}$ denotes the restriction of the temporal
      graph to subinterval $I_{i}$.
      % $X$ denotes the vertices that
      % reach at least $\sqrt[3]{n}\log n$ vertices during $I_{1}$, and
      % $Y$ the vertices reached by at least $\sqrt[3]{n}\log n$
      % vertices in $I_{3}$.
      Wavy lines denote temporal paths. We
      show that any node $x\in Z$ can reach any other node
      $y\in Z$ by reaching a node $u$ in $\G_{1}$, then a node $v$ in $\G_{2}$, and
      finally $y$ in $\G_{3}$. }
    \label{fig:proof_scheme}
\end{figure}
Then, during $I_2$, sufficiently
many intermediate nodes from $I_1$ can reach sufficiently many intermediate nodes
from $I_3$, so that \aas, all the nodes in $X$ can reach all the nodes in $Y$ through
intermediate nodes. Since both $X$ and $Y$ have size $n - o(n)$, it follows
that the set $Z:=X\cap Y$ forms a temporally connected component, whose size
is also $n-o(n)$.
(This three-steps approach is illustrated in~\cref{fig:proof_scheme}.)

The original difficulty here is that the sets of intermediate nodes
are not unit sets, thus the foremost tree technique
from~\cite{CasteigtsRRZ21} (whether forward or backward in time)
cannot be used. We generalize this technique by studying the growth of
a \emph{foremost forest} from a \emph{set of sources} rather than a
foremost tree from a single source. The set of sources corresponds to
the nodes reachable from $x$ in $I_{1}$. While the ideas underlying these
techniques are natural, their execution is far from trivial due
to intrinsic features of the model.
In particular, in RSTGs, the edges can only appear once.
What happens at a certain time is therefore \emph{not} independent
from past and future events. This specificity creates delicate
dependencies that need to be handled. In particular, a key ingredient of
our analysis is a novel way of accounting for the fact that an edge
cannot appear in several of the above subintervals.
The architecture of our proof is summarized in
\cref{fig:reading_guide}, the reader is advised to use it as a
navigation guide throughout the paper.
\fi


\subsection{Organization}

In Section~\ref{sec:Preliminaries}, we provide all necessary definitions, we introduce the random temporal graph models used in the paper, and we prove a preliminary useful result showing an upper bound on the connectivity threshold for one of these models. In Section~\ref{sec: foremost forest algorithm}, we present the algorithm for constructing a foremost forest and prove its correctness. In Section~\ref{sec:threshold}, we prove our first main result. In particular, in Section~\ref{sec:threshold-lower}, we prove that a.a.s. there is no linear size
connected component before time $\log n/n$, while in Section~\ref{sec:threshold-upper}, we prove that there is a temporally connected
component of linear size for $p>\log n/n$. This latter result is based on the analysis of the foremost forest algorithm provided in Section~\ref{sec: foremost forest analysis}. Finally, in Section~\ref{sec:threshold-closed}, we extend our approach to the case of closed connected components, attaining the second main result of the paper.


\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:Preliminaries}

In this paper, $[k]$ denotes the set integers $\{1, \ldots, k\}$, and $[a, b]$ denotes either the discrete interval from $a$ to $b$, or the continuous interval from $a$ to $b$, the distinction being clear from the context.
All graphs are simple, i.e., without loops or multiple edges.
For a graph $G$, we denote by $V(G)$ and $E(G)$ its vertex\footnote{We use the terms \emph{vertex} and \emph{node} interchangeably.} set and edge set respectively.
We denote by $\delta(G)$ and $\Delta(G)$ the minimum and the maximum vertex degree of $G$ respectively.
As usual, $K_n$ denotes the complete $n$-vertex graph.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Temporal Graphs}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
A \emph{temporal graph} is a pair $(G, \lambda)$, where $G=(V,E)$ is a \emph{static} graph and $\lambda$ is a function
that assigns to every edge $e \in E$ a finite set of numbers, interpreted as presence times. The graph $G$
is called the \emph{underlying graph} of the temporal graph and the elements of $\lambda(e)$ are called the \emph{time labels} of $e$.
We will denote temporal graphs by calligraphic letters, e.g., by $\GGG$. Instead of $(G, \lambda)$ we will sometimes use the notation
$(V,E, \lambda)$ to denote the same temporal graph. In most cases, time labels will be elements of the real unit interval $[0,1]$.
Furthermore, in this paper, we restrict our consideration only to \emph{simple} temporal graphs, i.e., temporal graphs in which every edge $e \in E$ gets assigned exactly one time label, i.e., $|\lambda(e)| = 1$.
%
We sometimes write $V(\GGG)$ and $E(\GGG)$ for the node and edge set of a temporal graph $\GGG$ respectively.

%\paragraph{Temporal Subgraphs.}
A temporal graph $\HHH=(V_\HHH, E_\HHH, \lambda_\HHH)$ is a \emph{temporal subgraph} of a temporal graph $\GGG=(V_\GGG, E_\GGG, \lambda_\GGG)$, if $V_\HHH\subseteq V_\GGG$, $E_\HHH\subseteq E_\GGG$ and $\lambda_\HHH(e)=\lambda_\GGG(e)$ for all $e\in E_\HHH$.
For a vertex set $S \subseteq V(\G)$, we denote by $\G[S]$ a temporal subgraph of $\G$
induced by $S$.
We use $\GGG_{[a,b]}$ to denote the temporal subgraph of $\GGG$ with the same node set $V_\GGG$, the edge set $E':=\{e\in E_\GGG:\lambda_\GGG(e)\in [a,b]\}$, and the time labeling function $\lambda_\GGG|_{E'}$ which is the restriction of $\lambda_\GGG$ to $E'$.

%\paragraph{Temporal Paths and Foremost Paths.}
A \emph{temporal $(u, v)$-path} in $\GGG=(V, E, \lambda)$ between two nodes $u,v\in V$ is a sequence $u=u_0,u_1,\ldots, u_\ell=v$ such that $e_i=\{u_{i-1}, u_i\}\in E$ for each $i\in [\ell]$,
and time labels are increasing, i.e., $\lambda(e_1)< \ldots < \lambda(e_\ell)$. We call $\lambda(e_\ell)$ the \emph{arrival time} of the path.
A temporal $(u,v)$-path is called \emph{foremost $(u, v)$-path} if it has the earliest arrival time among all temporal $(u,v)$-paths.
If there exists a temporal $(u,v)$-path, we say that $u$ can reach $v$ (every vertex reaches itself).
%
A set~$S \subseteq V$ is said to \emph{reach~$v$} if at least one of its elements reaches~$v$.
In that case, a \emph{foremost $(S, v)$-path} in $\GGG$ is a temporal $(u, v)$-path with earliest arrival time among all $u\in S$.

%\paragraph{Temporal Sources and Sinks.}
A vertex $u\in V$ is called \emph{temporal source} in $\GGG=(V, E, \lambda)$ if there exists a temporal $(u,v)$-path for each $v\in V$.
Similarly, a vertex $v\in V$ is called \emph{temporal sink} in $\GGG$ if there exists a temporal $(u,v)$-path for each $u\in V$.

%\paragraph{Temporal Connectivity and Temporally Connected Component.}
A temporal graph $\GGG=(V, E, \lambda)$ is \emph{temporally connected} if all nodes are temporal sources. We note that this also implies that all nodes are temporal sinks.
An \emph{open temporally connected component} or simply \emph{connected component} in $\GGG$ is an inclusion-wise maximal set $Z\subseteq V$
of nodes such that for every ordered pair of vertices $u,v\in Z$, there exists a temporal $(u,v)$-path in $\GGG$. We stress that such a temporal $(u,v)$-path can contain nodes from $V\setminus Z$.
If for every ordered pair $u,v\in Z$, there exists a temporal $(u,v)$-path in $\GGG[Z]$, then $Z$ is called
\emph{closed connected component}.

%We call a subset $Z\subseteq V$ of the nodes of $\GGG$ a \emph{temporally connected component} if, for every ordered pair of vertices $u,v\in Z$, there exists a temporal $(u,v)$-path in $\GGG$. We stress that such a temporal $(u,v)$-path can contain nodes from $V\setminus Z$.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Random Temporal Graph Models}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The model of \emph{random simple temporal graphs} (RSTGs) was introduced in~\cite{CasteigtsRRZ21} as a natural temporal generalization of the classical Erd{\H{o}}s–R{\'e}nyi model $G_{n,p}$ of random graphs. An $n$-vertex RSTG with the parameter $p \in [0,1]$ is obtained by first drawing a \emph{static} random Erd{\H{o}}s–R{\'e}nyi $G_{n,p}$ and then defining a temporal order on its
edges by ordering them according to a uniformly random permutation. An equivalent and technically more convenient way of defining the temporal order on the edges is to draw, for every edge $e$, independently and uniformly at random a time label
$\lambda(e)$ from the unit interval $[0,1]$. Since the event that two edges get the same time label happens with probability 0,
all edge orderings induced by such random time labels are equiprobable. Therefore, as long as the absolute values of time labels are irrelevant (which is the case for the questions studied in \cite{CasteigtsRRZ21} and in the present paper), the two models are indeed equivalent. This latter model is denoted as $\F_{n,p}$. A possible way of generating objects from $\F_{n,p}$ is to first draw a temporal graph $\G=(G, \lambda)$ from $\F_{n,1}$ (thus the underlying graph $G$ is complete), and to then
consider $\G' = (G',\lambda') = (G,\lambda)|_{[0,p]}$, i.e., the temporal graph obtained from $\G$ by removing edges
with time labels greater than $p$. Observe that $G' \sim G_{n,p}$ and each time label $\lambda(e)$ is uniformly distributed
on $[0,p]$. Hence, $\G'$ is distributed according to $\F_{n,p}$ up to multiplying all labels by a factor of $\frac{1}{p}$, which we can ignore as it neither changes the relative order of time labels nor the absolute values of time labels are of any importance to us.
For similar reasons, for any $0 \leq a \leq b \leq 1$, up to rescaling time labels, the temporal subgraph $\G|_{[a,b]}$ is distributed according to $\F_{n,q}$, where $q=b-a$.

In order to overcome some technical challenges caused by interdependence of different temporal subgraphs, we define and study a natural generalization of $\F_{n,p}$ that we describe next.
%
For an $n$-vertex graph $G$ and a real value $p\in [0,1]$, we denote by $\FFF_p(G)$ the following random temporal graph model. A random temporal graph $\GGG=(V, E, \lambda) \sim \FFF_p(G)$ is obtained by
(1) independently and uniformly sampling a time label $\lambda'(e)\in [0,1]$ for every $e\in E(G)$, and
(2) setting $V=V(G)$, $E:=\{e\in E(G):\lambda(e)\le p\}$ and $\lambda(e) = \lambda'(e)$ for every $e\in E$.
We call $G$ the \emph{base graph} of $\FFF_p(G)$.
We observe that the $\FFF_{n,p}$ model is obtained when choosing the base graph to be the complete $n$-vertex graph $K_n$.

In what follows we sometimes implicitly assume that $n=|V|$ is sufficiently large without restating this assumption. We note that some of our estimates hold only for rather large values of $n$. We did not attempt to reduce these bounds, but instead focused on achieving best possible readability.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{A Two-Hop Bound on Temporal Connectivity}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
In this section, for certain graphs $G$, we provide a simple upper bound on $p$ which guarantees that $\G \sim \F_p(G)$ is temporally connected \aas The bound will be useful later in the paper. Its proof is a straightforward generalization of the proof of a similar result for $\F_{n,p} = \F_p(K_n)$ from \cite{CasteigtsRRZ21}. Nevertheless, we present the proof as a warm up to more involved analysis of the new model $\F_p(G)$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem: two hops}
	Let $\GGG=(V, E, \lambda)\sim\FFF_{p}(G)$ be such that $p= \alpha \sqrt{\log n/n}$ and $\delta(G)\ge \beta n$ for $\alpha >0$ and $\beta >1/2$. Then an arbitrary node in $\GGG$ is a temporal source with probability at least $1 - n^{-\frac{\alpha^2(2\beta -1)}{2} + 1}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
	Let $u\in V$. For any node $w\in V\setminus \{u\}$, we define
	\[
		V_{u,w}:=\{v\in V\setminus\{u,w\}: \{u,v\}\in E(G) \text{ and } \{v,w\}\in E(G)\}
	\]
	and observe that $|V_{u,w}|\ge 2(\delta(G) -1) - (n-2)\ge (2\beta -1)n$. We now define the following events (1) $R_w$ is the event that $u$ can reach $w$, (2) for $v\in V_{u,w}$, $S_{v,w}$ is the event that $u$ can reach $w$ in exactly two hops via $v$. Then clearly, for each $v\in V_{u,w}$, $\Pr[S_{v,w}]=p^2/2$.
	We thus get
	\begin{align*}
		\Pr[\overline{R_w}]
		\le \Pr\Big[\bigcap_{v\in V_{u,w}} \overline{S_{v,w}}\Big]
		= \prod_{v\in V_{u,w}} \Pr [ \overline{S_{v,w}} ]
		\le \Big(1 - \frac{p^2}{2}\Big)^{(2\beta -1)n}
		\le e^{- \frac{p^2}{2}(2\beta -1)n}
		= n^{- \frac{\alpha^2(2\beta -1)}{2}}
	\end{align*}
	using the definition of $p$ in the last step.
	It remains to use a union bound over all  $w\in V\setminus \{u\}$ to conclude that $u$ can reach all nodes with probability at least $1 - n^{- \frac{\alpha^2(2\beta -1)}{2} + 1}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}[Two-Hop Bound]\label{cor: two hop}
	Let $p=\log n/\sqrt{n}$ and assume that $G$ is such that $\delta(G)\ge n - (\log n)^a$ for some $a\in\NN$. Then, $\GGG\sim \FFF_p(G)$ is temporally connected with probability at least $1-n^{-\frac{\log n}{4}}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
	We use \cref{lem: two hops} with $\alpha=\sqrt{\log n}$ and $\beta=4/5$. Note that $\delta(G)\ge n - (\log n)^a \ge 4n/5$ for large enough $n$. Hence, together with a union bound, we obtain that all nodes are temporal sources in $\GGG$ with probability at least
	$
		% 1 - n^{- \log n \cdot (\beta  - 1/2  - 2/\log n)}
		% \ge
		1 - n^{-\frac{1}{4} \log n}
	$.
\end{proof}

\section{The Foremost Forest Algorithm}
\label{sec: foremost forest algorithm}

The main aim of this section is to present an algorithm for constructing a foremost forest and to prove a property of this algorithm.

Foremost forests play a crucial role in the development of our main technical tool: for a fixed set of vertices $S$ and a given number $k$,
the estimation of the minimum value of $p$ such that the vertices in $S$ can together reach $k$ vertices in $\G = (V, E, \lambda) \sim  \F_p(G)$ \aas

We obtain such an estimation by examining the evolution of a foremost forest for $S$ in $\G$ via analysis of the execution of the formost forest algorithm on random temporal graphs.
To elaborate on this approach, let us consider $v \in V \setminus S$. We would like to estimate the probability that $S$ reaches $v$ in $\G$.
For this, we follow an approach similar to the one used in \cite{CasteigtsRRZ21}.
Let $\G'\sim \F_{1}(G)$ and observe that
the probability that $S$ can reach $v$ in $\G$ is equal to the probability that the temporal subgraph $\G'_{[0, p]}$ contains a temporal $(u, v)$-path $P$ for some node $u\in S$. This again is equivalent to the arrival time of $P$ in $\G'$ being at most $p$.
Therefore, the estimation of the parameter $p$ for which some node from $S$ can reach $v$ can be reduced to the estimation of the minimum arrival time of a foremost temporal path from $S$ to $v$ in $\G'\sim \F_{1}(G)$. A \emph{foremost forest for $S$ in $\G$} is a minimal temporal subgraph that preserves foremost reachabilities from $S$ to all other vertices reachable from $S$ in $\G$.
We proceed with the necessary formal definitions.
\begin{definition}\label{def: increasing temporal forest}
	Let $\GGG=(V, E, \lambda)$ be a temporal graph and let $S\subseteq V$ be a set of vertices.
	The graph $\GGG_F=(V_F, E_F, \lambda_F)$ is an \emph{increasing temporal forest for $S$}, if
	\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
		\item $\GGG_F$ is a temporal subgraph of $\GGG$,
		\item the graph $F=(V_F, E_F)$ is a forest (i.e.\ acyclic graph) with $|S|$ components,
		\item for each $s \in S$ there is a connected component~$T_s$ of~$F$ such that $s$~reaches all vertices of~$T_s$ in~$\GGG_F$.
	\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
We are now ready to define (partial) foremost forests.
\begin{definition}\label{def: foremost forest}
	Let $\GGG=(V, E, \lambda)$ be a temporal graph, let $S\subseteq V$ be a set of vertices and let $\GGG_F=(V_F, E_F, \lambda_F)$ be an increasing temporal forest for $S$.
	\begin{enumerate}
			\item Then $\GGG_F$ is a \emph{partial foremost forest for $S$}, if, for all $v\in V_F \setminus S$, the unique temporal $(S, v)$-path in $\GGG_F$ is a foremost $(S, v)$-path in $\GGG$.
			\item A partial foremost forest for $S$ is a \emph{foremost forest for $S$} if $V_F$ is exactly the set of vertices in $V$ that are reachable from $S$ in $\GGG$, i.e., $V_F=\{v\in V: \exists (u, v)\text{-temporal path in $\G$ for some }u\in S\}$.
			\item A (partial) foremost forest for $\{v\}$ is a \emph{(partial) foremost tree for $v$}.
		\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}


\paragraph{The Algorithm.}
Next, we present an algorithm that, given a temporal graph $\GGG=(V, E, \lambda)$ and a set of nodes $S\subseteq V$ constructs a foremost forest $\GGG_F$ for $S$. This algorithm is a straightforward generalization of the foremost tree algorithm from~\cite{CasteigtsRRZ21}, where the input set $S$ is assumed to be singleton.
%This algorithm is a generalization of the foremost tree algorithm of Casteigts et al~\cite{CasteigtsRRZ21} in two senses. First, the algorithm accepts a set of root notes and not simply a single node. Second, in our case the input root node(s) are not required to be temporal sources as in the case of Casteigts et al.

The idea of the algorithm similar to Prim's algorithm for minimum spanning trees in static graphs: Starting from $\GGG_F=(V_F,E_F, \lambda_F)=(S, \emptyset, \emptyset)$, which is trivially a partial foremost forest for $S$, the algorithm iteratively adds one node and one edge to $V_F$ and $E_F, \lambda_F$, respectively, until $\GGG_F$ becomes a foremost forest for $S$. The main difference to Prim's algorithm is that, in every iteration, the next edge to be added is chosen as the edge of minimum time label among all edges that extend the current increasing temporal forest. For brevity, we introduce the following notation.
We write $\GGG_F \cup e$ for adding the edge $e=\{u, v\}$ to $\GGG_F$, i.e., the result is the temporal graph $(V_F\cup\{u, v\}, E_F\cup\{e\}, \lambda_F\cup \{(e, \lambda(e))\})$.
The set of edges that extend the current partial forest can then be defined as
\begin{align*}
	\ext(\GGG_F)
	:=\{e=\{u,v\}\in E:
		u\in V_F, v\in V\setminus V_F,\text{ and } \GGG_F\cup e\text{ is an increasing temporal forest for }S
		\}.
\end{align*}
We are now ready to state the algorithm.

\medskip

\begin{algorithm}[H]
	\caption{\textsc{Foremost Forest}}
	\Input{Simple temporal graph $\GGG=(V, E, \lambda)$; set of nodes $S\subseteq V$.}
	\Output{Foremost forest for $S$.}
	\smallskip
	$k = |S| - 1$,
	$\GGG^{k}_F=(S, \emptyset, \emptyset)$\;
	\While{$\ext(\GGG^k_F)\neq \emptyset$}{
		$k := k + 1$\;
		$e_k := \argmin \{ \lambda(e) \mid e \in \ext(\GGG^{k-1}_F)\}$\;
		$\GGG^k_F := \GGG^{k-1}_F \cup e_k$\;
	}
  \Return{$\GGG^k_F$}
  \label{alg: foremost forest}
\end{algorithm}

\medskip

The next lemma shows that \cref{alg: foremost forest} is correct and the time labels of the edges added to the forest
are increasing over the iterations. The proof of the lemma is very similar to the proof of the corresponding lemma for the foremost tree algorithm
from \cite{CasteigtsRRZ21}: for the sake of completeness, we fully present it here.

% , and therefore we skip it here and instead present it in \cref{appendix1}.


\begin{restatable}{lemma}{foremostTree}{\normalfont (Foremost Forest Algorithm Correctness)}\textbf{.}
	\label{lem:foremostTree}
	Let $\GGG=(V, E, \lambda)$ be a simple temporal graph and let $S\subseteq V$ be a set of nodes. Let $k$ be the final value of $k$ in Algorithm~\ref{alg: foremost forest} and let $\GGG^k_F$ be the temporal graph output by the algorithm. Then (i) $\GGG^k_F$ is a foremost forest for $S$ in $\GGG$ and (ii) $\lambda(e_{|S|}) \leq \ldots \leq \lambda(e_{k})$.
\end{restatable}

\begin{proof}
	In order to prove (i) we first observe that clearly $\GGG_F^k$ is an increasing temporal forest for $S$. Thus, in order to show that $\GGG_F^k$ is a foremost forest for $S$, it remains to prove that,
	\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
		\item $\GGG_F^k$ is a partial foremost forest, i.e., for all $v\in V(\GGG_F^k) \setminus S$, the unique temporal $(S, v)$-path in $\GGG_F^k$ is a foremost $(S, v)$-path in $\GGG$
		\item $\GGG_F^k$ is a foremost forest, i.e., $V(\GGG_F^k)=\{v\in V: \exists (u, v)\text{-temporal path in $G$ for some }u\in S\}$.
	\end{enumerate}
	We start by showing (a) by induction, i.e., we show for $\ell\in [|S|-1, k]$ that, for all $v\in V(\GGG_F^\ell) \setminus S$, the unique temporal $(S, v)$-path in $\GGG_F^\ell$ is a foremost $(S, v)$-path in $\GGG$.
	The statement is obvious for $\ell=|S|-1$. Now, let $|S| \leq \ell \leq k$ and assume the statement holds for $\ell-1$.
	% We first show (a). If $\ell=k$, there is nothing to show. Hence, let $\ell\le k-1$, let $v$ be an arbitrary vertex in $V \setminus V(\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F)$ and let $P$ be a foremost $(S,v)$-path in $\GGG$.
	% Let $e = ab$ be the first edge of $P$ with one endpoint, say $a$, in $V(\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F)$ and the other endpoint $b$ not in $V(\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F)$.
	% Let $P'$ be the foremost $(S,a)$-path in $\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F$. By the induction hypothesis, $P'$ is a foremost $(S, a)$-path in $\GGG$, and hence
	% the arrival time of $P'$ is not more than the arrival time of the $(S,a)$-subpath of $P$. Consequently, the arrival time of $P'$ is
	% not larger than $\lambda(e)$, and therefore $\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F \cup \{ e \}$ is an increasing temporal forest for $S$, showing (a), that $\ext(\GGG^\ell_F)\neq \emptyset$.
	Let $e_\ell = \{a,b\}$ be the edge added to $\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F$ to form $\GGG^{\ell}_F$, where $a \in V(\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F)$ and $b \in V\setminus V(\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F)$.
	As $b$ is the unique node in $V(\GGG^{\ell}_F)\setminus V(\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F)$, we only need to show that the temporal
	$(S,b)$-path in $\GGG^{\ell}_F$ is a foremost $(S,b)$-path in $\GGG$.
	Suppose that it is not, and let $P$ be a foremost $(S,b)$-path in $\GGG$. Let $e'$ be the first edge of $P$ with one endpoint in $V(\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F)$ and the other endpoint not in $V(\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F)$.
	Clearly, $\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F \cup e'$ is an increasing temporal forest for $S$ and thus $e'\in \ext(\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F)$. Furthermore, since $P$ is a foremost $(S, b)$-path in $\GGG$ and the temporal $(S, b)$-path in $\GGG_F^{\ell}$ is not, the arrival time of $P$ and thus $\lambda(e')$ is strictly less than $\lambda(e_\ell)$, contradicting the minimal choice of $e_\ell$.
	In order to prove (b), first note that clearly $V(\GGG_F^k)\subseteq\{v\in V: \exists (u, v)\text{-temporal path in $G$ for some }u\in S\}$. Now, assume for contradiction that there exists a node $v\in V\setminus V(\GGG_F^k)$ such that there exists a $(u, v)$-temporal path $P$ in $\GGG$ for some $u\in S$. Similar to before let $e=\{a,b\}$ be the first edge of $P$ with one endpoint in $V(\GGG^{k}_F)$ and the other endpoint not in $V(\GGG^{k}_F)$.
	Then, clearly, $e\in \ext(\GGG_F^k)$, contradicting termination of the algorithm.

	In order to prove (ii), assume that it does not hold and let $\ell \geq 2$ be the minimum index such that
	$\lambda(e_\ell) < \lambda(e_{\ell-1})$. Again, let $e_\ell = \{a,b\}$ and assume that $a \in V(\GGG_F^{\ell - 1})$ and $b \in V\setminus V(\GGG_F^{\ell - 1})$, and	let $e_i$ be the last edge of the $(S,a)$-path in $\GGG_F^{\ell - 1}$.
	Clearly $\lambda(e_i) < \lambda(e_\ell)$ because $\GGG_F^{\ell}$ is an increasing temporal forest. Hence, $e_i \neq e_{\ell - 1}$ and we obtain that both $e_\ell$ and $e_{\ell -1}$ are in $\ext(\GGG_F^{\ell - 2})$, a contradiction to the minimum choice of $e_{\ell -1}$.
\end{proof}



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Sharp Threshold for Giant Open Connected Component}
\label{sec:threshold}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

In this section, we prove our first main result.

\begin{theorem}[Main Result 1]\label{th:main}
	The function $\frac{\log n}{n}$ is a sharp threshold for Giant Open Connected Component. More specifically, there exists a function $\varepsilon(n) \in o\mathopen{}\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right)$, such that the size of a largest open temporally connected component in $\G \in \F_{n,p}$ is
	\begin{enumerate}
			\item[(i)] $o(n)$ \aas, if $p<\frac{\log n}{n} - \varepsilon(n)$; and
			\item[(ii)] $n-o(n)$ \aas, if $p>\frac{\log n}{n} + \varepsilon(n)$.
	\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

\noindent
We prove the lower bound on the threshold (i.e.~\cref{th:main} (i)) in \cref{sec:threshold-lower}.
The proof of this bound is a straightforward consequence of a result on foremost \emph{tree} growth in $\F_p(K_n)$ from \cite{CasteigtsRRZ21}.
%
The upper bound (i.e.~\cref{th:main} (ii)) on the threshold is proved in \cref{sec:threshold-upper}. The proof is much more involved than the proof of the lower bound. While the proof uses a result from \cite{CasteigtsRRZ21}, the key part of the poof
relies on the analysis of foremost \emph{forest} growth in $\F_p(G)$, where $G$ is not necessarily a complete graph.
This analysis is one of the main technical contributions and it is postponed until \cref{sec: foremost forest analysis}.
%
In the rest of this subsection we recite relevant notation and results from \cite{CasteigtsRRZ21}.

We observe that the foremost forest algorithm (Algorithm~\ref{alg: foremost forest}) applied to a singleton set $S= \{v\}$ produces a foremost tree rooted at $v$. In this case the algorithm coincides with the foremost tree algorithm from \cite{CasteigtsRRZ21}.
To state the relevant results about the growth of a foremost tree in $\F_p(K_n)$,
we first recapitulate the corresponding notation, which we will extend in \cref{sec: foremost forest analysis} to conduct the analysis of the foremost forest algorithm in the more general model of $\F_p(G)$.

Let $\GGG\sim\FFF_1(K_n)$ and let $v$ be a vertex in $\GGG$. The edges of the foremost
tree for $v$ computed by the algorithm are denoted as $e^v_{1},\ldots, e^v_{n-1}$ and
formally can be defined as follows. Let $\GGG_F^{0, v} :=(\{v\}, \emptyset, \emptyset)$. Then for every $k\in [n - 1]$
\begin{equation*}
	\begin{split}
		E^v_k 	&:= V(\GGG_F^{k - 1, v}) \times \big( V \setminus V(\GGG_F^{k - 1, v}) \big),\\
		e^v_{k}	&:= \arg\min \{ \lambda(e) ~|~ e \in E^v_k \text{ and } \GGG_F^{k - 1, v} \cup \{e \} \text{ is an increasing temporal forest with $1$ component} \}, \\
		\GGG_F^{k, v} 	&:= \GGG_F^{k - 1, v} \cup \{ e^v_{k} \}.
	\end{split}
\end{equation*}

\noindent
Next, let
$Y^v_{0} := 0$ and $Y^v_k := \lambda(e^v_{k})$ for $k\in [n - 1]$.
By definition, for $k\in [n - 1]$, the random variable $Y^v_k$ is the earliest time when the foremost tree for $v$ contains exactly $k$ edges, or equivalently the earliest time by which $v$ can reach $k + 1$ vertices (itself included).
For $k\in [n - 1]$, let $X^v_k$ be a random variable equal to $Y^v_k - Y^v_{k-1}$,
i.e., to the \emph{waiting time} between the edges $e^v_{k-1}$ and $e^v_k$. Clearly, we have
$
Y^v_k = \sum_{i=1}^k X^v_i
$
for every $k \in [n - 1]$.
In addition, it is convenient to consider the \emph{truncated} versions of these variables.
For $k\in [n - 1]$, let
\[
\capped{X}^v_k := \min \{ X^S_k, c_k \} \quad\text{ and }\quad
\capped{Y}^v_k := \sum_{i=1}^{k} \capped{X}^v_i, \quad \text{ where } \quad
c_{k} := \frac{2 \log{(\min\{ k, n-k\})} + \log \log{n}}{k(n-k)}.
\]

With this notation at hand, we are now ready to state the technical results from \cite{CasteigtsRRZ21} that we are going to use later on.
\begin{theorem}[Theorem~4.8~\cite{CasteigtsRRZ21}]\label{thm: casteigts}
	With probability at least $1-2n^{-\sqrt{\log n}}$, for every vertex $v$ and $k\in[n-1]$, we have
	\[
	\left| \widehat{Y}_k^v - \sum_{i=1}^k \frac{1}{i(n-i)+1}\right|\le \frac{2 (\log n)^{0.8}}{n} .
	\]
\end{theorem}


\begin{lemma}[Lemma 4.12~\cite{CasteigtsRRZ21}]\label{lem: tree growth}
	For every function $z = z(n)$ with $0 \leq z(n) \leq 1$, and every $y > 0$ there is $n_0$ such that for all $n \geq n_0$
	a fixed vertex $v$ in $\G \sim \F_{p}(K_n)$
	can reach (resp.\ be reached by)
	\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
		\item \emph{at least} $\ceil*{\frac{n^z}{(\log n)^y}}$
		vertices with probability at least $1 - \frac{5}{\log{n}}$, if $p \geq z\frac{\log n}{n} + \frac{3(\log n)^{0.8}}{n}$;

		\item \emph{at most} $\ceil*{\frac{n^z}{(\log n)^y}}$
		vertices with probability at least $1 - \frac{5}{\log{n}}$, if $p \leq z\frac{\log n}{n} - \frac{3(\log n)^{0.8}}{n}$.
	\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Lower Bound on the Threshold}
\label{sec:threshold-lower}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Our goal in this section is to prove the following theorem that states that a.a.s.\ there is no linear size component before time~$\log n / n$.
\begin{theorem}[Lower Bound]\label{thm: lower bound}
    Let $\GGG \sim \FFF_{p}(K_n)$ with $p<\frac{\log n}{n} - \frac{3 (\log n)^{0.8}}{n}$. Then, for any constant $c\in (0,1)$, the graph $\GGG$ does not contain a temporally connected component of size at least $c\cdot n$ with probability at least $1-2n^{-\sqrt{\log n}}$.
\end{theorem}
The proof more or less immediately follows from the previously stated results of Casteigts et al~~\cite{CasteigtsRRZ21}. We first note the following technicality which can be shown by an easy calculation similar to~\cref{cl: favsum} below, and which also follows from Lemma 4.7 in the paper by Casteigts et al~\cite{CasteigtsRRZ21}: For every constant $c\in (0, 1)$,
\begin{align*}
    \Big|
        \sum_{i=1}^{\lceil c\cdot n \rceil} \frac{1}{i(n-i) + 1}
        - \frac{\log n}{n}
   \Big|
   \in \bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{1}{n}\right).
\end{align*}

This allows us to prove the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor: cn}
  Let $c\in (0, 1)$ be a constant. With probability at least $1-2n^{-\sqrt{\log n}}$, for every vertex $v$, it holds that
  \[
    \left| \widehat{Y}_{\lceil c\cdot n \rceil}^v - \frac{\log n}{n}\right| \le \frac{3(\log n)^{0.8}}{n}.
  \]
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
    Using \cref{thm: casteigts} with $k=\lceil c\cdot n \rceil$ and the observation above,
    we conclude that, with probability at least $1-2n^{-\sqrt{\log n}}$, for every $v$ and for sufficiently large $n$, it holds that
    \begin{align*}
	    \left| \widehat{Y}_{\lceil c\cdot n \rceil}^v - \frac{\log n}{n}\right|
	    &=\left| \widehat{Y}_{\lceil c\cdot n \rceil}^v - \sum_{i=1}^{\lceil c\cdot n \rceil} \frac{1}{i(n-i)+1} + \sum_{i=1}^{\lceil c\cdot n \rceil} \frac{1}{i(n-i)+1}
	    % - \sum_{i=1}^{c\cdot n} \frac{1}{i(n-i)} + \sum_{i=1}^{c\cdot n} \frac{1}{i(n-i)}
	    - \frac{\log n}{n} \right|\\
	    &\le \left| \widehat{Y}_{\lceil c\cdot n \rceil}^v - \sum_{i=1}^{\lceil c\cdot n \rceil} \frac{1}{i(n-i)+1}\right|
	    % +\left|\sum_{i=1}^{c\cdot n} \frac{1}{i(n-i)+1} - \sum_{i=1}^{c\cdot n} \frac{1}{i(n-i)} \right|
	    + \left| \sum_{i=1}^{\lceil c\cdot n \rceil}\frac{1}{i(n-i) + 1} - \frac{\log n}{n} \right| \\
	    &\le\frac{2 (\log n)^{0.8}}{n}
	    % + \frac{(\log n)^{0.8}}{n}
	    + \bigO\mathopen{}\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)
	    \le \frac{3 (\log n)^{0.8}}{n}.\qedhere
    \end{align*}
\end{proof}
The corollary above together with the definition of the truncated variables is already enough to show that no node can reach a constant fraction of nodes before $\log n / n$. We are thus ready to prove~\cref{thm: lower bound}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of~\cref{thm: lower bound}]
    By definition of the truncated variables, as $\widehat{Y}_{k}^v\leq Y_{k}^v$ for every $k\in [n-1]$, it holds also that $\widehat{Y}_{c\cdot n}^v\leq Y_{\lceil c\cdot n \rceil}^v$.
    Using \cref{cor: cn}, with probability at least $1-2n^{-\sqrt{\log n}}$, for every vertex $v$, it holds that
    \[
        Y_{\lceil c\cdot n \rceil}^v
        \geq \widehat{Y}_{\lceil c\cdot n \rceil}^v
        \geq\frac{\log n}{n}-\frac{3(\log n)^{0.8}}{n}.
    \]
    Hence, with probability at least $1-2n^{-\sqrt{\log n}}$,
    no vertex can reach $\lceil c\cdot n \rceil$ nodes
    in $\GGG$ when $p<\frac{\log n}{n}-\frac{3(\log n)^{0.8}}{n}$ and, thus, cannot be in a temporally connected component of size at least $c\cdot n$. Hence, there is no temporally connected component of size at least $c\cdot n $ in $\GGG$.
\end{proof}


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Upper Bound on the Threshold}
\label{sec:threshold-upper}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
In this section our goal is to prove the following theorem that says that there is a temporally connected component of linear size for $p>\log n / n$.
%
Throughout this section we denote $\eps(n):=\frac{1}{\log\log n}$.


\begin{theorem}[Upper Bound]\label{thm: upper bound}
	Let $\GGG \sim \FFF_{p}(K_n)$ with $p\ge (1+\eps(n))\cdot \frac{\log n}{n}$. Then, the graph $\GGG$ contains a temporally connected component of size $n-o(n)$ a.a.s.
\end{theorem}
Let $p=(1+\eps(n))\cdot \frac{\log n}{n}$ and $\GGG \sim \FFF_{p}(K_n)$.
We will prove~\cref{thm: upper bound} only for this value of $p$ as
it will then clearly follow for any larger value.
Our strategy is to split the interval $[0, p]$ into three sub-intervals $[p_0,p_1]$, $[p_1,p_2]$, $[p_2,p_3]$, where $p_i:=\frac{i}{3}(1+\eps(n))\frac{\log n}{n}$ for $i\in[0, 3]$.
We now first deduce the following corollary about the connectivity of the subgraphs $\GGG_{[p_i, p_{i+1}]}$ for $i\in [0, 2]$ of $\GGG$ from~\cref{lem: tree growth}.

%\MaR{We don't need to establish upper bounds on $X$, $Y$. Keep them anyway?}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor: reach thirds}
  For $i\in [0, 2]$, the number of vertices \emph{reached by} (resp. \emph{reaching}) a fixed vertex in
  $\GGG_{[p_i,p_{i+1}]}$ lies within $[n^{1/3}\log n, n^{1/3 + \eps(n)}]$ with probability at least $1 - \frac{10}{\log n}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
    % \begin{enumerate}
    %     \item
				We show the statement for $\GGG_{[0, p_1]}$, the other statements follow analogously via shifting the edge labels.
        We start with the lower bound. We apply~\cref{lem: tree growth}~(i) with $z(n)=\frac{1}{3} + \frac{2}{\eps(n)\log n}$ and $y=1$. We get that for large enough $n$ a fixed vertex in $\GGG\sim\FFF_{p}(K_n)$ can reach (resp. be reached by) at least
        \[
            \ceil*{\frac{n^z}{(\log n)^y}}
						\ge \frac{n^{\frac{1}{3} + \frac{2\log \log n}{\log n}}}{\log n}
            % = \frac{n^{\frac{1}{3}}\cdot n^{\frac{2\log \log n}{\log n}}}{\log n}
            = n^{\frac{1}{3}} \log n
        \]
        nodes with probability at least $1-\frac{5}{\log n}$, if $p\ge p'(n)$, where $p'(n):=z \frac{\log n}{n} + 3 \frac{(\log n)^{0.8}}{n}$. Observe that
        \[
            p_1 \cdot n
            % = \frac{1}{3}\Big(1+\frac{1}{\log\log n}\Big)\log n
            = \frac{1}{3}\cdot \log n + \frac{\eps(n)}{3} \cdot \log n
        % \]
        % and
        % \[
            % p'(n) \cdot n
            % = z \log n + 3\log(n)^{0.8}
            % = \Big(\frac{1}{3} + \frac{2\log \log n}{\log n}\Big) \cdot \log n + 3(\log n)^{0.8}
            \ge \frac{1}{3}\cdot \log n + \frac{2}{\eps(n)} + 3(\log n)^{0.8}
						= p'(n) \cdot n
        \]
				for sufficiently large $n$.
        % Hence, for a suitable choice of $n_0''$, the inequality $p_1(n)\ge  p'(n)$ holds for all $n\ge n_0''$.

				In order to prove the upper bound, we apply~\cref{lem: tree growth}~(ii) with $z(n)=\frac{1}{3} + \eps(n)$ and $y=1$. We get that for large enough $n$ a fixed vertex in $\GGG\sim\FFF_{p}(K_n)$ can reach (resp. be reached by) at most
        \[
            \ceil*{\frac{n^z}{(\log n)^y}}
						\le \frac{n^{\frac{1}{3} + \eps(n)}}{\log n} + 1
						\le n^{\frac{1}{3} + \eps(n)}
            % = \frac{n^{\frac{1}{3}}\cdot n^{\frac{2\log \log n}{\log n}}}{\log n}
            % = n^{\frac{1}{3}} \log n
        \]
        nodes with probability at least $1-\frac{5}{\log n}$, if $p\le p'(n)$, where $p'(n):=z \frac{\log n}{n} - 3 \frac{(\log n)^{0.8}}{n}$. Observe that
        \[
            p_1 \cdot n
            % = \frac{1}{3}\Big(1+\frac{1}{\log\log n}\Big)\log n
            = \Big(\frac{1}{3} + \eps(n)\Big) \cdot \log n - \frac{2\eps(n)}{3} \cdot\log n
        % \]
        % and
        % \[
            % p'(n) \cdot n
            % = z \log n + 3\log(n)^{0.8}
            % = \Big(\frac{1}{3} + \frac{2\log \log n}{\log n}\Big) \cdot \log n + 3(\log n)^{0.8}
            \le \Big(\frac{1}{3} + \eps(n)\Big)\cdot  \log n - 3(\log n)^{0.8}
						= p'(n) \cdot n
        \]
				for sufficiently large $n$.

				We conclude by union bound that the cardinality of the set of vertices that a fixed vertex reaches (resp. is reached by) in $\GGG_{[0, p_1]}$ is in the wanted interval with probability at least $1-\frac{10}{\log n}$.
    %     \item We show the statement for $\GGG_{[0, p_2]}$, the other statements then follows analogously via shifting edge labels.
    %     We apply Lemma 4.12~(i) from~\cite{CasteigtsRRZ20} with $z(n)=\frac{2}{3} + \frac{3\log \log n}{\log n}$ and $y=1$. We get that there exists $n_0'$ such that for all $n\ge n_0'$ it holds that a fixed vertex $\GGG\sim\FFF_{n,p}$ can reach at least
    %     \[
    %         \frac{n^z}{(\log n)^y}
    %         = \frac{n^{\frac{2}{3} + \frac{3\log \log n}{\log n}}}{\log n}
    %         = \frac{n^{\frac{2}{3}}\cdot n^{\frac{3\log \log n}{\log n}}}{\log n}
    %         = n^{\frac{2}{3}} \log^2 n
    %     \]
    %     nodes with probability at least $1-\frac{5}{\log n}$, if $p\ge p'(n)$, where $p'(n):=z \frac{\log n}{n} + 3 \frac{(\log n)^{0.8}}{n}$. Hence, it remains to show that there exists $n_0''$ such that $p_2(n)\ge  p'(n)$ for all $n\ge n_0''$. Clearly,
    %     \[
    %         p_2(n) \cdot n
    %         = \frac{2}{3}\Big(1+\frac{1}{\log\log n}\Big)\log n
    %         = \frac{2\log n}{3} + \frac{2\log n}{3\log\log n}
    %     \]
    %     and
    %     \[
    %         p'(n) \cdot n
    %         % = z \log n + 3\log(n)^{0.8}
    %         = \Big(\frac{2}{3} + \frac{3\log \log n}{\log n}\Big) \cdot \log n + 3(\log n)^{0.8}
    %         = \frac{2\log n}{3} + 3\log \log n + 3(\log n)^{0.8}.
    %     \]
    %     Hence, for a suitable choice of $n_0''$, the inequality $p_2(n)\ge  p'(n)$ holds for all $n\ge n_0''$. The statement now follows for all $n\ge n_0$, where $n_0:=\max\{n_0', n_0''\}$. The ``can be reached'' statement follows by symmetry.\qedhere
    % \end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
Using Markov's inequality we can obtain that, a.a.s., almost all nodes can reach (resp. be reached by) the above number of nodes.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma: almost everyone reaches many}
    % \begin{enumerate}
    %     \item
				Let $i\in \{0, 1, 2\}$. The number of vertices that can reach (resp. be reached by) at least $n^{1/3}\log n$ and at most $n^{1/3 + \eps(n)}$ vertices in $\GGG_{[p_i, p_{i+1}]}$ is at least $n - \frac{n}{\log \log n}$ with probability at least $1 - \frac{10 \log \log n}{\log n}$.
    %     \item Let $i\in \{0, 1\}$. The number of vertices that can reach (be reached by) at least $n^{2/3}\log^2 n$ vertices in $\GGG_{[p_i, p_{i+2}]}$ is at least $n - \frac{n}{\log \log n}$ with probability at least $1 - \frac{5 \log \log n}{\log n}$.
    % \end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
    % \begin{enumerate}
    %     \item
				Let $\bar X$ denote the number of nodes in $\GGG_{[p_i, p_{i+1}]}$ that can reach (resp. be reached by) less than $n^{1/3}\log n$ or more than $n^{1/3 + \eps(n)}$ vertices in $\GGG_{[p_i, p_{i+1}]}$. Then $\E[\bar X] \le 10n /\log n$ by~\cref{cor: reach thirds}. Using Markov's inequality
        $
            \Pr\Big[\bar X \geq \frac{n}{\log\log n}\Big]
            \le \frac{10 \log \log n}{\log n}.
        $
    %     \item Let $\bar X$ denote the number of nodes in $\GGG_{[p_i, p_{i+1}]}$ that reach (are reached by) less than $n^{2/3}\log^2 n$ vertices in $\GGG_{[p_i, p_{i+2}]}$. Then $\E[\bar X] \le 5n /\log n$ by~\cref{cor: reach thirds} and by Markov's inequality
    %     \[
    %         \Pr\Big[\bar X>\frac{n}{\log\log n}\Big]
    %         \le \frac{5 \log \log n}{\log n}.\qedhere
    %     \]
    % \end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
We now denote by $X$ the set of nodes that can reach at least $n^{1/3}\log n$ and at most $n^{1/3 + \eps(n)}$ vertices in $\GGG_{[0, p_{1}]}$ and by $Y$ the set of nodes that are reached by at least $n^{1/3}\log n$ and at most $n^{1/3 + \eps(n)}$ vertices in $\GGG_{[p_2, p_{3}]}$. Furthermore, we denote by $Z=X\cap Y$ their intersection.
According to~\cref{lemma: almost everyone reaches many}, it holds that $|Z|\ge n - \frac{2n}{\log \log n}$ with probability at least $1 - \frac{20 \log \log n}{\log n}$.
The hardest part of our proof is to now show that, for a fixed ordered pair $x,y\in Z$, the probability that there is a temporal path from $x$ to $y$ is so large that we can take a union bound over all ordered pairs. To this end, let $A(x)$ be the set of nodes that $x$ can reach in $\GGG_{[0,p_1]}$ and let $B(y)$ be the set of nodes that can reach $y$ in $\GGG_{[p_2, p_3]}$. Furthermore, for $x\in X$, let
\[
    A'(x):=\{v\in V: \exists a\in A(x) \text{ s.t.\ }a \text{ reaches } v \text{ in }\GGG_{[p_1, p_2]}\}
\]
be the set of nodes that $x$ can reach in $\GGG_{[0, p_2]}$.
Notice that $x$ reaches $y$ if and only if $A'(x)$ intersects $B(y)$.

Let $G'' = (V, E'')$ with
$E'' = \{e \in \binom{V}{2} \mid \lambda(e) \in [0, p_1] \cup [p_2, p_3]\}$
be the graph containing all edges appearing in $\GGG_{[0, p_1]}$ or $\GGG_{[p_2, p_3]}$,
and let $G' = (V, E')$ with $E' = \binom{V}{2} \setminus E''$ contain all other edges.
Then we observe that the distribution of the set $A'(x)$ conditioned on the information about the edges appearing in $\GGG_{[0,p_1]}$ and $\GGG_{[p_2, p_3]}$ is identical to the node set of a foremost forest grown from $S:=A(x)$ in $\HHH\sim \FFF_{p'}(G')$,
where $p'=\frac{1}{3}(1+\eps(n))\frac{\log n}{n}$.
Furthermore, $G''$ is distributed as an Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi graph $G'' \sim G_{n, p}$ with $p:=\frac{2}{3}(1+\eps(n))\frac{\log n}{n}$.
From a standard result regarding the maximum degree in $G_{n,p}$ we can thus conclude the following fact.
\begin{observation}\label{obs: min degree}
	It holds that $\Delta(G'')\le 4\log n$ a.a.s.\ and, thus, $\delta(G')\ge n - (\log n)^2$ a.a.s.
\end{observation}
\begin{proof}
	Recall that $G''$ is distributed according to $G_{n, p}$ with $p:=\frac{2}{3}(1+\eps(n))\frac{\log n}{n}$. Following~\cite[Corollary 3.13]{Bollobas11}, with $m=1$ and $\omega(n)=\log n$, we have that a.a.s.\
	\[
			\Delta(G'') \leq pn + \sqrt{2pn\log n} + \log n \sqrt{\frac{pn}{\log n}}
			\le \log n + \sqrt{2 (\log n)^2} + \log n
			\le 4 \log n.
	\]
	The observation about the minimum degree now follows immediately for sufficiently large $n$.
\end{proof}
Thus, in order to lower bound the probability that $A'(x)$ intersects $B(y)$, we can use the following corollary of~\cref{theorem:general target set},
which we will state and prove in~\cref{sec: foremost forest analysis}.
\begin{restatable}{corollary-rst}{targetset}\label{corollary: target set}
  Let
  \begin{compactitem}
    \item $G$ be a graph of minimum degree $\delta(G)\ge n - (\log n)^a$ for some $a\in\NN$,
    \item let $S$ and $T$ be two sets of nodes in $G$, each of cardinality at least $n^{1/3}\log n$, and
    \item let $\GGG\sim \FFF_{p}(G)$ with $p\ge \frac{1}{3}(1+\eps(n))\frac{\log n}{n}$.
  \end{compactitem}
  Then, the foremost forest algorithm from $S$ on $\GGG$ reaches $T$ with probability at least $1-3n^{-\log\log n}$.
\end{restatable}
\begin{proof}
	Set $s := \abs{S}$, $t := \abs{T}$.
	Without loss of generality, we may assume $s \leq n^{1/3 + \eps(n)}$.
	Note that for large enough $n$ it holds that
	\begin{align*}
		p
    &\ge \frac{1}{3}\Big(1+\frac{1}{\log \log n}\Big)\frac{\log n}{n}\\
    &\ge \frac{\frac{1}{3}\log n + 4 \log \log n}{n}\\
    &= \frac{\frac{2}{3}\log n + 2 \log \log n - \frac{1}{3}\log n - \log \log n}{n} + \frac{3\log \log n}{n}\\
    &\ge \frac{z\log n - \log s}{n} + \frac{3\log \log n}{n},
	\end{align*}
  for $z = \frac{2}{3} + \frac{2\log\log n}{\log n}$.
  From \cref{theorem:general target set} it then follows that the the foremost forest algorithm from $S$ reaches $T$ with probability at least
  \begin{align*}
    1 - 2 n^{-\log \log n} - e^{-\frac{t}{2n}(n^z - s)}
    % &= 1 - 2 n^{-\log \log n} - e^{-\frac{tn^z}{2n} + \frac{ts}{2n}}\\
    % &\ge 1 - 2 n^{-\log \log n} - e^{-\frac{(\log n)^3}{2} + \frac{ts}{2n}}\\
    &\ge 1 - 2 n^{-\log \log n} - e^{-\frac{n^{1/3}\log n}{2n}(n^{2/3}(\log n)^2 - n^{1/3 + \eps(n))})}\\
    % &= 1 - 2 n^{-\log \log n} - e^{-\frac{(\log n)^3}{2} + \frac{n^{2/3 + \eps(n)}\log n}{2n}}\\
    &\ge 1 - 2 n^{-\log \log n} - e^{-\frac{(\log n)^3}{4}}
    \ge 1 -3 n^{-\log \log n},
  \end{align*}
  completing the proof.
\end{proof}



% \begin{lemma}
%     The set $Z$ is a connected component of size at least $n - \frac{2n}{\log \log n}$ with probability at least $1 - n^2 abc - \frac{20 \log \log n}{\log n}$.
% \end{lemma}
Using the above stated corollary, we can finally prove our first main result.
\begin{proof}[Proof of~\cref{thm: upper bound}]
	Let $p= (1+\eps(n))\cdot \frac{\log n}{n}$ and $\GGG \sim \FFF_{p}(K_n)$. As above, let $X$ be the nodes that can reach between $n^{1/3}\log n$ and $n^{1/3 + \eps(n)}$ vertices in $\GGG_{[0, p_{1}]}$ and let $Y$ be the nodes that are reached by between $n^{1/3}\log n$ and $n^{1/3 + \eps(n)}$ vertices in $\GGG_{[p_2, p_{3}]}$.
	Furthermore, let $Z=X\cap Y$ be their intersection and recall that $|Z|\ge n - \frac{2n}{\log \log n}$ with probability at least $1 - \frac{20 \log \log n}{\log n}$ according to~\cref{lemma: almost everyone reaches many}.
	Now, conditioned on the information about the edges appearing in $\GGG_{[0,p_1]}$ and $\GGG_{[p_2, p_3]}$, let $G'=(V, E')$ be the static graph with the same node set as $\GGG$ and the edge set $E'=\{e\in \binom{V}{2}:\lambda(e)\notin [p_0, p_1]\cup [p_2, p_3]\}$, where $\lambda$ is the time label function of $\GGG$.
	Note that according to~\cref{obs: min degree} the minimum degree in $G'$ a.a.s.\ is at least $n - (\log n)^2$.
	Now, let $x,y\in Z$ be a fixed ordered pair of vertices.
	Applying~\cref{corollary: target set} to $\HHH\sim\FFF_{\frac{p}{3}}(G')$ with $S=A(x)$, $a=2$, and $T=B(y)$, we can conclude that $A'(x)\cap B(y)\neq \emptyset$ with probability at least $1 - 3n^{-\log\log n}$, and, thus, $x$ reaches $y$ with at least that probability.
	Hence, after a union bound over all ordered pairs, we get that all nodes in $Z$ reach each other with probability at least $1 - 3n^{-\log\log n + 2}$. Therefore, $\GGG$ has a temporally connected component of size at least $n - \frac{2n}{\log\log n} = n - o(n)$ a.a.s.
	\end{proof}


\begin{figure}[t]
    \centering
    \input{reading_guide}
    \caption{Overview of the proof of~\cref{theorem:general target set}.}
    \label{fig:reading_guide}
\end{figure}

\section{Analysis of Foremost Forest Growth}
\label{sec: foremost forest analysis}
In this section, we analyze the Foremost Forest algorithm on a graph $\GGG\sim\FFF_1(G)$, where the base graph $G$ is such that $\delta(G)\ge n-(\log n)^a$ for some constant $a\in \NN$. In particular, the goal of the section is to prove~\cref{theorem:general target set} (see ~\cref{fig:reading_guide} for an overview of the proof). 
To this aim, we first want to estimate the time by which a typical foremost forest grown from a set $S$ of $s$ roots in $\GGG$ acquires a given number of vertices.
In this section, we globally assume that $s\ge (\log n)^b$ for some constant $b\ge a + 1$.
Sometimes we will need to assume stronger lower bounds on $b$, but this will then be explicitly stated.

We will consider the execution of the algorithm as a random process that reveals the edges of the resulting foremost forest one by one in the order in which they are added.
We restrict ourselves to running the algorithm until the set of sources $S$ reaches $n-s$ vertices in total.
In addition to the number of vertices that the foremost forest reaches by a given time, we will also analyze the distribution of the vertices that the forest acquires.

\paragraph{Random Variables $X^S_k$ and $Y^S_k$.}
We use similar notation as in \cite{CasteigtsRRZ21} that is recapped in~\cref{sec: foremost forest algorithm}.
We denote the edges computed by the algorithm by $e^S_{s},\ldots, e^S_{n-s-1}$.
Note that for the purpose of more coherent notation, we start the numbering of the edges computed by the algorithm from $s$ (rather than from $1$).
We then define random variables
\[
	Y^S_{s-1} := 0 \text{ and }
	Y^S_k := \lambda(e^S_{k})\text{ for $k\in [s, n-s-1]$},
\]
where, extending the notation of \cref{alg: foremost forest} by a superscript denoting the input set $S$, we set $\GGG_F^{s-1, S} := (S, \emptyset, \emptyset)$
and, for every $k\in [s, n-s-1]$,
\begin{equation*}
	\begin{split}
		E^S_k 	&:= V(\GGG_F^{k-1, S}) \times \big( V \setminus V(\GGG_F^{k-1, S}) \big)\\
		e^S_{k}	&:= \arg\min \{ \lambda(e) ~|~ e \in E^S_k \text{ and } \GGG_F^{s-1, S} \cup \{e \} \text{ is an increasing temporal forest for }S \}, \\
		\GGG_F^{k, S} 	&:= \GGG_F^{k-1, S} \cup \{ e^S_{k} \}.
	\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Note that by definition, for $k\in [s, n-s-1]$, $Y^S_k$ is the earliest time when the foremost forest for $S$ contains exactly $k-s+1$ edges, or equivalently the earliest time by which $S$ reaches $k+1$ vertices (vertices of $S$ included).
%
For $k\in [s, n-s-1]$, let $X^S_k$ be a random variable equal to $Y^S_k - Y^S_{k-1}$,
i.e., to the \emph{waiting time} between the edges $e^S_{k-1}$ and $e^S_k$. Clearly, we have
\[
	Y^S_k = \sum_{i=s}^k X^S_i
\]
for every $k \in [s, n-s-1]$.

We note that our assumption on the minimum degree of the base graph $G$ implies the following inequalities on the size of $|E^S_k|$, $k\in [s, n-s-1]$:
\[
    k \cdot (n - k)
    \ge |E^S_k|
    \ge k \cdot (n-k-\log^a n)
    = (1-\delta_k)\cdot k \cdot (n - k).
\]
where $\delta_k:=\frac{(\log n)^a}{n-k}$. Note that $\delta_k \leq \frac{(\log n)^a}{s+1} \leq \frac{(\log n)^a}{(\log n)^b+1} < 1$. We define $r_k\in [0,\delta_k]$ as the value for which $|E^S_k| = (1-r_k)\cdot k\cdot (n-k)$.

\paragraph{Truncated Random Variables.}
We introduce the following \emph{truncated} versions of our main random variables $X^S_{s}, \ldots, X^S_{n-s-1}$ and $Y^S_{s}, \ldots, Y^S_{n-s-1}$,
which will be more convenient to bound later.
For $k\in [s, n-s-1]$, let
\[
	\capped{X}^S_k := \min \{ X^S_k, c_k \} \quad\text{ and }\quad
	\capped{Y}^S_k := \sum_{i=s}^{k} \capped{X}^S_i, \quad \text{ where } \quad
	c_{k} := \frac{2 \log{(\min\{ k, n-k\})} + \log \log{n}}{k(n-k) \cdot s^{-1/3}}.
\]
We stress that the definition of $c_k$ (and thus $\capped{X}^S_k$ and $\capped{X}^S_k$) here extends the definition of $c_k$ of Casteigts et al, see~\cref{sec: foremost forest algorithm}, by the additional factor of $s^{1/3}$ (that equals 1 in the case of a single source).
The values of $c_k$ are chosen in such a way that on the one hand the sum of their squares is sufficiently small,
and on the other hand they are large enough to guarantee that the truncated variables coincide
with their original versions a.a.s. This is formalized in the following two lemmata.
\begin{lemma}[Bound on $\sum c_i$]\label{lm:ck_bound}
		It holds that
		\[
			\sum_{i=s}^{n-s-1} c_i^2 \leq \frac{64 (\log \log{n})^2(\log s)^2}{n^2s^{1/3}}.
		\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
	We get
	\begin{equation*}
		\begin{split}
			\sum_{i=s}^{n-s-1} c_i^2
			& = \sum_{i=s}^{n-s-1}\frac{\big(2 \log{(\min\{i, n- i\})} + \log \log{n}\big)^2}{(i\cdot (n- i))^2s^{-2/3}}
			\\ &\leq \sum_{i=s}^{n-s-1}\frac{\big(2 \log{(\min\{i, n- i\})} \cdot \log \log{n}\big)^2}{(i\cdot (n- i))^2s^{-2/3}}
			\\ &\leq \frac{4 (\log\log{n})^2}{s^{-2/3}} \Bigg( \sum_{i=s}^{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor}
			\frac{(\log i )^2}{ i^2\cdot (n/2)^2}
			+ \sum_{i=\lfloor n/2 \rfloor+1}^{n-s-1} \frac{(\log(n- i))^2}{(n/2)^2(n- i)^2} \Bigg)
			\\ &\leq \frac{32 (\log \log{n})^2}{n^2s^{-2/3}} \sum_{i=s}^{\infty}\frac{(\log{i})^2}{i^2}
			\\ &\leq \frac{32 (\log \log{n})^2}{n^2s^{-2/3}} \int_{x=s-1}^{\infty}\frac{(\log{x})^2}{x^2}dx
			\\ &= \frac{32 (\log \log{n})^2}{n^2s^{-2/3}}\frac{(\log(s-1))^2 + 2 \log(s-1) + 2}{s - 1}
			\\ &\leq \frac{64 (\log \log{n})^2 (\log s)^2}{n^2s^{1/3}},
		\end{split}
	\end{equation*}
	assuming that $n$ and thus $s$ is sufficiently large.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}[$\hat X^S_k\approx X^S_k$]
	\label{lm:capped_eq_uncapped}
	With probability at least $1 - 1/(\log{n})^{s^{1/3}}$ the equality $\capped{X}^S_k=X^S_k$ holds for every $k\in [s, n-s-1]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
	We observe that
	\begin{equation}\label{eq:prob_capped_uncapped}
	\begin{split}
		\prob \big[ \capped{X}^S_k \neq X^S_k \big]
		&= \prob \big[X^S_k > c_k \big]
		\leq (1 - c_k)^{\abs{E_k^S}}
		\leq (1 - c_k)^{k (n-k) \cdot(1-\delta_k)}
		\leq e^{-k (n-k) \cdot(1-\delta_k) \cdot c_{k}}
		\\&= \big(e^{-\log((\min\{ k, n-k\})^2 \log{n})}\big)^{s^{1/3}\cdot(1-\delta_k)}
		\le \big((\min\{ k, n-k\})^2 \log{n}\big)^{-s^{1/3}/2},
	\end{split}
	\end{equation}
	where we used that $\delta_k=(\log n)^a/(n-k)\le (\log n)^a/(s+1)\le (\log n)^{a-b}\le 1/2$, since $k\le n - s - 1$ and $b\ge a + 1$.
	Therefore
	\begin{align*}
			\sum_{k=s}^{n-s-1}
			\prob \big[\capped{X}^S_k \neq X^S_k \big] & \leq
			\sum_{k=s}^{n-s-1} \big((\min\{ k, n-k\})^2 \log{n}\big)^{-s^{1/3}/2}
			\\ &= \frac{1}{(\log{n})^{s^{1/3}/2}} \left( \sum_{k=s}^{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor} \frac{1}{k^{s^{1/3}}} +
			\sum_{k=\lfloor n/2 \rfloor+1}^{n-s-1} \frac{1}{(n- k)^{s^{1/3}}} \right)
			\\ &\leq \frac{2}{(\log{n})^{s^{1/3}/2}} \sum_{k=s}^{\infty}\frac{1}{k^{s^{1/3}}}
			\\ &\leq \frac{2}{(\log{n})^{s^{1/3}/2}} \int_{s-1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{x^{s^{1/3}}}dx
			\\ &= \frac{2}{(\log{n})^{s^{1/3}/2}} \frac{1}{(s^{1/3} - 1)\cdot (s-1)^{s^{1/3}-1}}
			\\ &\le \frac{2}{(\log{n})^{s^{1/3}/2}} \frac{1}{(s^{1/3} - 1)^{s^{1/3}}}
			\\ &\le \frac{1}{(\log{n})^{s^{1/3}/2} \cdot s^{s^{1/3}/4}},
	\end{align*}
	using that $n$ and thus $s$ is sufficiently large. It remains to use that $s\ge (\log n)^b$ and $b\ge a + 1 \ge 2$ to obtain the bound of $1/(\log n)^{s^{1/3}}$.
\end{proof}

\paragraph{Expected Waiting Times.}
We will now estimate the expected time between the moments of
exposing two consecutive edges of the foremost forest.
More specifically, we will bound the expected values of $X_k^S$ and $\capped{X}^S_k$
given the information revealed by the process in the first $k-1$ steps.
For every $k \in [s, n-s-1]$, let $\A^S_k$ be the $\sigma$-algebra generated
by the information revealed in the first $k$ iterations of the algorithm with sources $S$, i.e., by the knowledge of the first
$k$ edges $e^S_{s}, e^S_{s+1}, \ldots, e^S_{s + k - 1}$ and their time labels $Y^S_s, Y^S_{s+1}, \ldots, Y^S_{s+k-1}$.
Let also $\A^S_{s-1}$ be the trivial $\sigma$-algebra.
\begin{proposition}[{Bound on $\expect[X_k^{S}\mid\A_{k-1}^{S}]$}]\label{lem:ExpOfXk}
	For a set of vertices $S$ and every $k\in[s, n - s - 1]$ we have
	\begin{flalign*}
		 \text{(i)}&& \frac{1-Y_{k-1}^{S}}{k(n-k) + 1}  &\leq  \expect[X_k^{S} \mid \A_{k-1}^{S}]  \leq  \frac{1}{k(n-k)(1-\delta_k) + 1};&
		 \\ \text{(ii)}&&  \left( 1 - \frac{1}{(\log n)^{s^{1/3}}} \right) \cdot \frac{1-Y_{k-1}^{S}}{k(n-k) + 1}
		 &\leq \expect[\capped{X}_k^{S} \mid \A_{k-1}^{S}]
		 \leq \frac{1}{k(n-k)(1-\delta_k) + 1}.
	\end{flalign*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
	For every $k\in [s, n - s + 1]$ we define the function $\w_k^{S}: E_k^{S} \rightarrow [0,1]$ as
	\[
	\w^S_k(e) =
	\begin{cases}
		\lambda(e) - Y_{k-1}^{S}, & \quad \lambda(e) \geq Y_{k-1}^{S}\\
		\lambda(e) - Y_{k-1}^{S} + 1, & \quad \lambda(e) < Y_{k-1}^{S}.
	\end{cases}
	\]
	Notice that for any two edges $e,f \in E_k^{S}$ such that $\lambda(f) < Y_{k-1}^{S} \leq \lambda(e)$
	we have $\w_k^{S}(e) < \w_k^{S}(f)$. This together with the fact that the edge labels of $e_s^S,\ldots, e_{s+k+1}^S$ are increasing (see~\cref{lem:foremostTree}~(ii)) implies that $e_k^{S}$ is exactly
	the edge on which the minimum of $w_k^{S}$ is attained, that is,
	\begin{equation}\label{eq:ek_is_argmin}
		e_k^{S}
		= \arg\min \{\w_k^{S}(e) \mid e \in E_k^{S} \},
	\end{equation}
	and therefore, for every $k \in [s, n-s - 1]$,
	\begin{equation}\label{eq:Xk}
		X_k^{S}
		= \min\{w_k^{S}(e) \mid e \in E_k^{S}\}.
	\end{equation}
	Observe that upon exposure of edge $e_k^{S}$, we reveal some information about the time labels of the other edges in $E_k^{S}$.
	More precisely, we learn that these time labels are not contained in the interval $[Y_{k-1}^{S}, Y_k^{S}]$.
	Thus, if we inductively define the admissible range of $\lambda(e)$, $e \in E_k^{S}$, as
	\[
    	I_k^{S}(e) :=
    	\begin{cases}
    		I_{k-1}^{S}(e) \setminus [Y_{k-2}^{S}, Y_{k-1}^{S}], & \quad e \in E_k^{S} \cap E_{k-1}^{S}\\
    		[0,1], & \quad e \in E_k^{S} \setminus E_{k-1}^{S}
	\end{cases}
	\]
	then $\lambda(e)$ conditioned on $\A_{k-1}^{S}$ is uniformly distributed on $I_k^{S}(e)$.
	Let $\ell = \ell(e)$ be the unique index with $e \in E_\ell^{S} \setminus E_{\ell-1}^{S}$, i.e., the first iteration at which $e$ could have been added.
	Then we have $I_k^{S}(e) = [0,1] \setminus [Y_{\ell-1}^{S} , Y_{k-1}^{S}]$.
	It follows that $w_k^{S}(e)$ is uniformly distributed on its admissible range
	\[
		J_k^{S}(e) := \mathopen[ 0, Y_{\ell-1}^{S} - Y_{k-1}^{S} + 1 \mathclose]
	\]
	and clearly
    \begin{equation}\label{eq:inclusion}
		\mathopen[ 0, 1 - Y_{k-1}^{S} \mathclose] \subseteq J_k^{S}(e) \subseteq [0, 1] \,.
	\end{equation}

	Note that $X_k^{S}$ is a minimum of $k(n-k)(1-r_k)$ independent random variables $w_k^{S}(e), e \in E_k^{S}$,
	where for every edge $e \in E_k^{S}$ the value $w_k^{S}(e)$ is distributed uniformly on its own
	admissible range $J_k^{S}(e)$. Recall also that $r_k\in[0,\delta_k]$.
	Let $X_k'$ be the minimum of $k(n-k)(1-r_k)$ independent random variables distributed uniformly on
	$\left[0, 1-Y_{k-1}^{S} \right]$, and $X_k''$ be the minimum of $k(n-k)(1-r_k)$ independent
	random variables distributed uniformly on $[0, 1]$.
	%
	Then, the inclusion \eqref{eq:inclusion} implies
	\[
		\prob[X_k' \geq t] \leq \prob[X_k^{S} \geq t \mid A_{k-1}^{S}] \leq \prob[X_k'' \geq t],
    \]
	where $A_{k-1}^{S}$ is the event that specific
	edges $e^S_{s}, e^S_{s + 1}, \ldots, e^S_{s + k - 2}$ with time labels $Y^S_{s}, Y^S_{s+1}, \ldots, Y^S_{s + k - 2}$ are revealed in the
	first $k-1$ steps of the process. Therefore, by integrating and noting that
	the expected value of the minimum of $m$ independent variables distributed uniformly on $[0,a]$ is equal to $\frac{a}{m+1}$,
	we obtain
	\begin{equation}
		\begin{split}
			\frac{1-Y_{k-1}^{S}}{k(n-k) + 1}
			\leq
			\frac{1-Y_{k-1}^{S}}{k(n-k)(1-r_k) + 1}
			&=
			\expect[ X_k']
			\\&\leq
			\expect[ X_k^{S} \mid \A^v_{k-1}]
			\\&\leq
			\expect[ X_k'']
			=
			\frac{1}{k(n-k)(1-r_k) + 1}
			\leq
			\frac{1}{k(n-k)(1-\delta_k) + 1}.
		\end{split}
	\end{equation}

	To prove the second part of the lemma we first note that by definition $\capped{X}_k^{S} \leq X_k^{S}$, and hence
	\[
		\expect[ \capped{X}_k^{S} \mid \A_{k-1}^{S} ]
		\leq
		\expect[ X_k^{S} \mid \A_{k-1}^{S} ]
		\leq
		\frac{1}{k(n-k)(1-\delta_k) + 1}.
	\]
    Therefore, it remains to show the lower bound on $\expect[ \capped{X}_k^{S} \mid \A_{k-1}^{S} ]$. For convenience, let us denote $M_k := k(n-k)(1-r_k)$.
	Then, we have
	\begin{equation*}
	\begin{split}
		\expect[ \capped{X}_k^{S} \mid \A_{k-1}^{S} ]
		&=
		\int_{0}^{\infty} \prob[\capped{X}_k^{S} \geq t \mid A_{k-1}^{S}] \dd t
		=
		\int_{0}^{c_k} \prob[\capped{X}_k^{S} \geq t \mid A_{k-1}^{S}] \dd t
		\\ &=
		\int_{0}^{c_k} \prob[X_k^{S} \geq t \mid A_{k-1}^{S}] \dd t
		\geq
		\int_{0}^{c_k} \prob[X_k' \geq t] \dd t
		\\ &=
		\int_{0}^{c_k} \left( 1 - \frac{t}{1 - Y_{k-1}^{S}} \right)^{M_k} \dd t
		\\ &=
		\frac{(1 - Y_{k-1}^{S}) + (c_k - (1 - Y_{k-1}^{S})) \left( 1 - \frac{c_k}{1 - Y_{k-1}^{S}} \right)^{M_k}}{M_k + 1}
		\\ & \geq
		\frac{(1 - Y_{k-1}^{S}) - (1 - Y_{k-1}^{S}) ( 1 - c_k )^{M_k}}{M_k + 1}
		\\ & =
		\frac{(1 - Y_{k-1}^{S}) \left( 1 - ( 1 - c_k )^{M_k} \right)}{M_k + 1},
	\end{split}
	\end{equation*}
    and the desired bound follows from the fact that
   $(1 - c_k)^{ k(n- k)(1-r_k)}  \leq (\log n)^{-s^{1/3}}$ following an analogous computation as in~\cref{eq:prob_capped_uncapped} and using that $\min\{k, n-k\}\ge s\ge \log n$.
\end{proof}


\begin{corollary}[{Final Bound on $\expect[X_k^{S}\mid\A_{k-1}^{S}]$}]\label{cor:ExpOfcappedXk}
	For a set of nodes $S$ of cardinality $s\ge (\log n)^b$ with $b\ge 3$, with probability at least $1-n^{-\log n /4}$, for every $k\in [s, n-s-1]$, it holds that
	\begin{flalign*}
		\text{(i)} && 	\left( 1 - \frac{\log{n}}{\sqrt{n}} \right) \cdot \frac{1}{k(n-k) + 1}  &\leq  \expect[X_k^{S} \mid \A_{k-1}^{S}]  \leq  \frac{1}{k(n-k)(1-\delta_k) + 1};&
		\\ \text{(ii)}  && \left( 1 - \frac{2\log n}{\sqrt{n}} \right) \cdot \frac{1}{k(n-k) + 1}  &\leq  \expect[\capped{X}_k^{S} \mid \A_{k-1}^{S}]  \leq  \frac{1}{k(n-k)(1-\delta_k) + 1}.
	\end{flalign*}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
	Note first that according to~\cref{lem:ExpOfXk}, it remains to show the lower bounds.
  Recall that by \cref{cor: two hop}, $\GGG\sim \F_{\log n/\sqrt{n}}(G)$ is temporally connected with probability at least $1-n^{-\log n /4}$, in which case the bound $Y^S_k \leq Y^S_{n-s-1} \leq \log{n}/\sqrt{n}$ holds for every $S$ and $k\in [s, n-s-1]$. This together with~\cref{lem:ExpOfXk} implies the lower bound in (i).

  The lower bound in (ii) follows from the same bound on $Y^S_k$ and the fact that $1/(\log n)^{s^{1/3}}\le 1/n^{\log \log n} \le \log n /\sqrt{n}$.
\end{proof}

\paragraph{Deviation from Expectation.}
Next, we will bound the deviation of the truncated time when the foremost forest acquires $k$ edges from the expected value of accumulated truncated waiting times between the consecutive edges in the sequence of the first $k$ edges of the forest.
For this we require the following standard inequality by Azuma.
\begin{theorem}[Azuma's inequality~\cite{Azuma67}]\label{the:Azuma}
	Let $Z_0, Z_1, \ldots, Z_n$ be a martingale with respect to a filtration
	   $\{\emptyset, \Omega\} = \A_0 \subset \A_1 \subset \ldots \subset \A_{n}$, and
	    let $c_1, c_2, \ldots, c_n$ be non-negative numbers such that
    	$
    		\sum_{i=1}^{n} \prob \left[ \abs{Z_i - Z_{i-1}} \geq c_i \right] = 0.
    	$
	Then
	\[
  	\prob\bigl[ \abs{Z_n - Z_{0}} \geq \mu \bigr] \leq 2 \exp\left(\frac{-\mu^2}{2\sum_{i=1}^n c_i^2}\right).
	\]
\end{theorem}

\begin{lemma}[Concentration of $\hat{Y}^S_k$]
	\label{lm:YCapConcentrate}
	For a fixed set of vertices $S$ of cardinality $s\ge (\log n)^{b}$ with $b\ge 13$, with probability at least $1 - n^{-\log n}$ the inequality
	\[
		\left| \capped{Y}_k^{S} - \sum_{i=s}^k \expect \left[ \capped{X}_i^{S} \mid \A_{i-1}^{S} \right] \right| < \frac{\log\log n}{n}
	\]
	holds for all $k\in [s, n-s-1]$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
	Let us fix $k\in [s, n - s - 1]$
	and define a martingale $Z^S_{s-1}, Z^S_{s}, \ldots, Z^S_{k}$ with $Z^S_{s-1}:= 0$ and
	\[
		Z_t^{S} := \capped{Y}_t^{S} - \sum_{i=s}^t \expect [ \capped{X}_i^{S} \mid \A_{i-1}^{S} ]
			   = \sum_{i=s}^t \capped{X}_i^{S} - \sum_{i=s}^t \expect[\capped{X}_i^{S} \mid \A_{i-1}^{S}],
	\]
	for $t \in [s, k]$.

	Since $0 \leq \capped{X}_i^{S} \leq c_i$, we have
	$0 \leq \expect[\capped{X}_i^{S} \mid \A_{i-1}^{S}] \leq c_i$,
	and therefore
	\[
	\prob\left[\abs*{Z_{i}^{S}-Z_{i-1}^{S}}>c_i \right]
	=
	\prob\left[ \abs*{\capped{X}_i^{S} - E[\capped{X}_i^{S} \mid\A_{i-1}^{S}]} >c_i\right]
	= 0
	\]
	holds for every $i\in [s, k]$.
	Furthermore, by \cref{lm:ck_bound}
	\[
		\sum_{i=s}^{k} c_i^2
		\leq
		\sum_{i=s}^{n-s-1} c_i^2
		\leq
		\frac{64 (\log \log{n})^2 (\log s)^2}{n^2s^{1/3}},
	\]
	and hence applying Azuma's inequality (\cref{the:Azuma}), we obtain that for sufficiently large $n$
	\begin{equation*}
		\begin{split}
			\prob \left[ |Z^S_k|\geq\frac{\log \log n}{n} \right]
			&\leq
			2\exp\left(
			\frac{-(\log \log n)^2}{n^2} \cdot
			\frac{1}{2\sum_{i=1}^{k}c_k^2}
			\right)
			\\ &\leq
			2\exp\left(
			\frac{-(\log \log n)^2}{n^2} \cdot
			\frac{n^2 s^{1/3}}{128 (\log \log{n})^2 (\log s)^2}
			\right)
			\\ &=
			2\exp\left(
			\frac{-s^{1/3}}{128 (\log s)^2}
			\right)
			\\ &\leq
			2\exp\left(\frac{-(\log n)^{b/3 - 2}}{128}\right)
			\\ &\leq
			n^{-\log n - 1},
		\end{split}
	\end{equation*}
	using that $b\ge 13$.
	The latter inequality together with the union bound over all $k\in [s, n-s-1]$ imply the desired result.
\end{proof}

\paragraph{Deviation from $\sum_{i= s}^k \frac{1}{i(n-i) + 1}$.}
The following technical inequality will be useful in the rest of the section.
\begin{lemma}[Bound on $\sum \frac{1}{i(n-i) + 1}$]
\label{cl: favsum}
	For $k \in[s, n - 1]$, it holds that
	\begin{align*}
		&\frac{\log k - \log  s + \log (n -  s + 1) - \log(n - k)}{n} - \frac{3}{n}
		\\&\qquad \leq \sum_{i= s}^k \frac{1}{i(n-i) + 1} \leq \sum_{i= s}^k \frac{1}{i(n-i)}
		\\&\qquad \qquad\leq \frac{\log k - \log  s + \log (n -  s + 1) - \log(n - k)}{n} + \frac{3}{n}.
	\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
	We have that
	\begin{align*}
		\sum_{i= s}^k \frac{1}{i(n-i) + 1}
		&\leq \sum_{i=1}^k \frac{1}{i(n-i)}
		\\ &= \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i= s}^k \left( \frac{1}{i} + \frac{1}{n-i} \right)
		\\ &= \frac{1}{n} \left(\sum_{i=1}^{k} \frac{1}{i} - \sum_{i=1}^{ s - 1} \frac{1}{i} + \sum_{i=1}^{n -  s} \frac{1}{i} - \sum_{i=1}^{n-k-1} \frac{1}{i}\right)
		\\ &\leq \frac{\log k + 1 - \log  s + \log (n- s) + 1 - \log(n - k)}{n}
		\\ &\leq \frac{\log k - \log  s + \log (n -  s + 1) - \log(n - k)}{n} + \frac{3}{n}
		% \\ &\leq \frac{\log k - \log  s + \log (n -  s + 1) - \log(n - k)}{n} + \frac{2}{n} + \frac{2}{\log n} \cdot \left(\frac{2 \log n}{n} + \frac{2}{n}\right)
		% \\ &\leq \frac{\log k - \log  s + \log (n -  s + 1) - \log(n - k)}{n} + \frac{7}{n}
		\intertext{as well as}
		\sum_{i= s}^k \frac{1}{i(n-i) + 1}
		&\geq  \sum_{i= s}^k \frac{1}{i(n+1-i)}
		\\&= \frac{1}{n+1}  \sum_{i= s}^k \left( \frac{1}{i} + \frac{1}{n+1-i} \right)
		\\ &= \frac{1}{n+1} \left( \sum_{i=1}^{k} \frac{1}{i} - \sum_{i=1}^{ s - 1} \frac{1}{i} + \sum_{i=1}^{n + 1 -  s} \frac{1}{i} - \sum_{i=1}^{n - k} \frac{1}{i} \right)
		\\ &\geq \frac{\log k - (\log  s + 1) + \log (n- s+1) - (\log(n-k) + 1)}{n+1}
		\\ &= \frac{\log k - \log  s + \log (n -  s + 1) - \log(n-k)}{n} \cdot\left(1 - \frac{1}{n+1}\right) - \frac{2}{n + 1}
		\\ &\geq \frac{\log k - \log  s + \log (n -  s + 1) - \log(n - k)}{n} - \frac{3}{n}.\qedhere
	\end{align*}
\end{proof}

% Now we are ready to prove the main results of this section.
\begin{proposition}[Deviation of $Y^S_k$ from $\sum \frac{1}{i(n-i) + 1}$]\label{th:YConc}
	For a set of vertices $S$ of cardinality $ s\ge (\log n)^b$, where $b\ge 13$,
	with probability at least $1 - 2n^{-\log \log n}$,
	for every $k\in [ s, n- s-1]$, we have
	\[
	\left| Y_k^{S} - \sum_{i=s}^k \frac{1}{i(n-i) + 1} \right|
	< \frac{2\log\log n}{n}.
	\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
  We will first prove that, with probability at least $1 - 2n^{-\log n/4}$, for a fixed set $S$ of $s$ vertices, for all $k\in [ s, n- s-1]$,
	\begin{align}\label{eq: trunc}
			\left| \capped{Y}_k^{S} - \sum_{i=s}^k \frac{1}{i(n-i) + 1} \right| < \frac{2\log\log n}{n}.
	\end{align}
  From there it will be straightforward to reach the statement of the proposition.

  We note that, for $i\in [s, k]$, we have that $\delta_i = \frac{(\log n)^a}{n - i} \le \frac{(\log n)^a}{s} \le \frac{1}{\log n}$ using that $b\ge a + 1$. Hence,
  $1/(1-\delta_i) \le  1 + 2/\log n$ and thus
  \[
    \frac{1}{i(n-i)(1-\delta_i) + 1}
    % \le \frac{1}{i(n-i)(1-\delta_i) + (1-\delta_i)}
    \le \Big(1 + \frac{2}{\log n}\Big) \cdot \frac{1}{i(n-i)+ 1}.
  \]
	By \cref{cor:ExpOfcappedXk}~(ii), with probability at least $1-n^{-\log n/4}$,
	for every set of vertices $S$ with $ s\ge (\log n)^{b}$, where $b\ge 3$ and every $k\in[s, n -  s - 1]$ we thus have
	\begin{equation}\label{eq:diffYhatExpHarmonic}
		\left|\sum_{i= s}^k \expect[\capped{X}^S_i \mid \A^S_{i-1}] - \sum_{i= s}^k \frac{1}{i(n-i) + 1} \right|
    \le \max
      \left\{
        \frac{2\log n}{\sqrt{n}}, \frac{2}{\log n}
      \right\}
    \cdot \sum_{i= s}^k \frac{1}{i(n-i) + 1}
	\end{equation}
	If $s\ge (\log n)^b$ with $b\ge 13$, we have by \cref{lm:YCapConcentrate} that with probability at least $1 - n^{-\log n}$,
	for every $k\in [ s, n- s-1]$,
	\begin{equation}\label{eq:Yhat}
		  \left|\capped{Y}^S_k - \sum_{i= s}^k \expect[\capped{X}^S_i \mid \A^S_{i-1}] \right|
      \leq \frac{\log\log n}{n}.
	\end{equation}
	Hence, \eqref{eq:diffYhatExpHarmonic} and \eqref{eq:Yhat} together yield that, with probability at least $1 - 2n^{-\log n/4}$, for every $k\in [ s, n- s-1]$,
	\begin{align*}
    \left| \capped{Y}_k^{S} - \sum_{i=s}^k \frac{1}{i(n-i) + 1} \right|
    &\le \left|\capped{Y}^S_k - \sum_{i= s}^k \expect[\capped{X}^S_i \mid \A^S_{i-1}] \right|
      + \left|\sum_{i= s}^k \expect[\capped{X}^S_i \mid \A^S_{i-1}] - \sum_{i= s}^k \frac{1}{i(n-i) + 1} \right|
    \\&\le
		\frac{\log\log n}{n} + \frac{2}{\log n} \cdot \sum_{i= s}^k \frac{1}{i(n-i) + 1}.
	\end{align*}
  Applying \cref{cl: favsum} and assuming that $n$ is sufficiently large enough, we get
	\begin{align*}
		\frac{2}{\log n} \cdot \sum_{i= s}^k \frac{1}{i(n-i) + 1}
		\leq
		\frac{2}{\log n} \cdot
		\left(
      \frac{2 \log n}{n} + \frac{3}{n}
		\right)
		 % \leq \frac{6\log^2 n}{n^{3/2}}
		 \leq\frac{\log\log n}{n}
	\end{align*}
  and this completes the proof of~\eqref{eq: trunc}.

  Now by~\cref{lm:capped_eq_uncapped} and the assumption on $b$, and thus on $s$, it holds that the truncated and non-truncated random variables coincide with probability at least $1-n^{-\log \log n}$. Using that $2n^{-\log n/4}\le n^{-\log\log n}$ concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
The latter statement together with \cref{cl: favsum} immediately implies the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}[Final Deviation of $Y^S_k$]\label{th:YConcEasy}
	For a set of vertices $S$ of cardinality $ s\ge(\log n)^b$ with $b\ge 13$, with probability at least $1 - 2n^{-\log\log n}$, for every $k\in[ s, n- s-1]$ we have
	\[
	\abs*{Y_k^S - \frac{\log k - \log  s + \log (n -  s + 1) - \log(n - k)}{n}} < \frac{2\log\log n + 3}{n}.
	\]
\end{corollary}

\paragraph{Time to Reach $n^z$ Nodes.}
Finally, we use \cref{th:YConcEasy} to prove the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}[Foremost Forest Growth]\label{lem: reachability}
  Let
    \begin{compactitem}
      \item $S$ be a set of nodes of cardinality $s\in [(\log n)^{13}, n/2]$,
      \item let $z=z(n)$ be a function with $\varepsilon\le z(n)\le 1 - \varepsilon$ for some constant $\varepsilon\in (0, 1)$ such that $d:=\ceil*{n^z} \leq n-s$,
      \item let $\GGG\sim \FFF_{p}(G)$ with $p\ge \frac{z\log n -\log s}{n} +\frac{3\log\log n}{n}$.
  \end{compactitem}
    Then the foremost forest algorithm from $S$ on $\GGG$ reaches at least $d$ vertices with probability at least $1 - 2n^{-\log \log n}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
	% By choosing $n_0$ large enough, we may assume $1 \leq d \leq {n- s}$.
	Clearly it suffices to consider the case $d > s$.
	To prove the lemma, it suffices to show that, with probability at least $1 - 2n^{-\log\log n}$, we have
	\[
    	\left| Y^S_{d-1} - \frac{z\log n - \log s}{n} \right|
    	<
    	\frac{3\log \log n}{n}.
	\]
	Let
	\begin{align*}
		L \coloneqq{}& \log (d -1) - \log s + \log (n -  s + 1) - \log(n - d + 1).
 	\end{align*}
	Then, for sufficiently large $n$,
	\begin{align*}
		L\le{}& \log (n -  s + 1) - \log s + \log\left( n^z \right) - \log\left(n-n^z\right)
		\\ \le{}& \log n - \log s + \log\left( n^z \right) - \log\left(n-n^z\right)
		\\ ={}& z \log n  - \log s - \log\left(1-n^{z-1}\right)
		\\ \leq{}& z \log n  - \log s + \log\left(1+\frac{n^{-\eps}}{1 - n^{-\eps}}\right)
		\\ \le{}& z \log n  - \log s + \frac{n^{-\eps}}{1 - n^{-\eps}}
		\\ \le{}& z \log n - \log  s + 1.
	\end{align*}
	Similarly, for sufficiently large $n$, and using that $s\le n/2$,
	\begin{align*}
		L\ge{}& \log\left(n^z - 1\right) - \log s + \log \left(\frac{n}{2}\right) - \log n
		\\ ={}& z \log n  - \log  s + \log\left(1-n^{-z}\right) - \log 2
		\\ \ge {}& z \log n  - \log  s + \log\left(1-n^{-\eps}\right)- \log 2
		\\ \ge {}& z \log n  - \log  s - 2\log 2
		\\ \ge{}& z \log n - \log  s - 2,
	\end{align*}
	where in the third step we used $z\ge \eps$.
	Then we conclude by \cref{th:YConcEasy} that with probability at least $1 - 2n^{-\log\log n}$
	\begin{align*}
		\abs*{ Y^S_{d-1} - \frac{{z\log n - \log s}}{n}}
		&\leq
		\abs*{ Y^S_{d-1}- \frac{L}{n} }
		+
		\abs*{ \frac{L}{n} - \frac{z\log n - \log s}{n} }
		\\ &\leq
		\frac{2\log\log n + 3}{n} + \frac{2}{n}
		\le
		\frac{3\log \log n}{n}
	\end{align*}
	holds.
\end{proof}

% \begin{corollary}\label{cor:reach_after_length_1/3}
%     Let $S$ be a  set of $s \geq n^{1/3}\log n$ many vertices in $\G \sim \F_{p}(G)$ and let $d:=\ceil*{n^{2/3}(\log n)^2}$.
%     Then, the set $S$
% 		can reach at least $d$ vertices (including vertices from $S$ itself) with probability at least $1 - 2n^{-\log \log n}$, if $p \ge \frac{\frac{1}{3}\log n + 4 \log \log n}{n}$.
% \end{corollary}
% \BK{Note to self: check the bound on $p$ here. We want to apply it to an interval of length $\frac{1}{3}(1+\frac{1}{\log \log n})\frac{\log n}{n}$, which is greater than what is asked for above when $n\ge 1.15235\times 10^{194}$.}

% \begin{proof}
%     We may assume without loss of generality that $s \leq n/2$. Thus, for sufficiently large~$n$, we have $d \leq n/2 \leq n-s$.
%     Let $z=\frac{2}{3} + \frac{2\log \log n}{\log n}$ and observe that then $d:=\ceil*{n^{2/3}(\log n)^2} =\ceil*{n^z}$. Hence according to \cref{lem: reachability}, the set $S$ can reach at least $d$ vertices with probability at least
%     $
%         1 -  2n^{-\log \log n}
%     $
%     if
%     \begin{align*}
%         p
%         &\geq p_0:=\frac{z\log n - \log s}{n} + \frac{3\log \log n}{n}.
%         % \\&=\frac{2/3\log n + 3 \log \log n - 1/3\log n - \log \log n}{n} + \frac{5\log \log n}{n}
%         % \\&=\frac{1/3\log n + 7 \log \log n}{n}.
%     \end{align*}
%     Note that
%     \begin{align*}
%         p_0
%         &\le \frac{\frac{2}{3}\log n + 2 \log \log n - \frac{1}{3}\log n - \log \log n}{n} + \frac{3\log \log n}{n}
%         =\frac{\frac{1}{3}\log n + 4 \log \log n}{n}.\qedhere
%     \end{align*}
% \end{proof}

\paragraph{Distribution of New Vertices.}
For $k\in [s, n-s -1]$, we call the node $u\in e_k^S\setminus \GGG_F^{k-1,S}$ the \emph{$k$-added vertex}, as it is added when the set $S$ together with the newly added vertices has size $k$.
Recall that $\A_{k-1}^S$ refers to the knowledge of the edges of $\GGG_F^{k-1,S}$, including their time labels.
In the next lemma we show that the $k$-added vertex is distributed almost uniformly on $V\setminus V(\GGG_F^{k-1,S})$.
\begin{lemma}[$k$-Added Vertex Distribution]\label{lem: almost uniform}
 	Let $ k \in [s, n-s-1]$ and $\gamma = \gamma(n) := 3\left(\frac{\log n}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{(\log n)^a}{s}\right)$. It holds that
	\[
		\sup_{u \in V\setminus V(\GGG_F^{k-1,S})} \abs*{ \prob \left[ u \in e_k^S \mid \A_{k-1}^S \right] - \frac{1}{n-k}} \leq \frac{\gamma}{n-k}.
	\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
	Assume that $Y_{n-s-1}^S \leq \frac{\log n}{\sqrt{n}}=:\gamma_1$, which happens with probability at least $1-n^{-\frac{\log{n}}{4}} =: 1 - \gamma_2$ by \cref{cor: two hop}.
	Recall that for each $k \in [s, n-s-1]$ we have
	\[
		e^S_k = \arg\min \{ \w^S_k(e) \mid e \in E^S_k \},
	\]
	where the variable $\w^S_k(e)$ is uniformly distributed on $J_k^S(e)$,
	which, by \eqref{eq:inclusion} and the previous argument, is an interval of the form $[0, w_e]$ with $1-\gamma_1\le w_e \le 1$.
	For each edge~$e \in E_k^S$, the probability $p_e$ of the event $e = e_S^v$ is inversely proportional to the length $w_e$ of $J_k^S(e)$. This is indeed so, because all the intervals start at $0$ and the shorter the interval $J_k^S(e)$ is (since the variable  $\w^S_k(e)$ is uniformly distributed on $J_k^S(e)$), greater is the probability of the event $e=e_k^S= \arg\min \{ \w^S_k(e) \mid e \in E^S_k \}$. It thus follows that
	\[
		\max_{e\in E^S_k} p_e
		= \frac{C}{\min_{e\in E^S_k} w_e}
		\le \frac{C}{1-\gamma_1}
		\le \frac{1}{1-\gamma_1} \cdot \frac{C}{\max_{e\in E^S_k} w_e}
		= \frac{\min_{e\in E^S_k} p_e}{1-\gamma_1},
	\]
	where $C$ is some positive constant. As $\min_{e\in E^S_k} p_e \le 1/|E^S_k| \le \max_{e\in E^S_k} p_e$ and using that $|E^S_k|\in[(1-\delta_k)k (n-k),\, k(n-k)]$, it then also follows that
	\begin{align}\label{eq:pebound}
		(1-\gamma_1)\cdot \frac{1}{k (n-k)}
		\le (1-\gamma_1)\cdot \frac{1}{|E^S_k|}
		\le p_e
		\le \frac{1}{1-\gamma_1}\cdot \frac{1}{|E^S_k|}
		\le \frac{1}{1-\gamma_1}\cdot \frac{1}{(1-\delta_k)\cdot k(n-k)}
	\end{align}
	holds for all $e\in E^S_k$. We now recall that each vertex $v$ has at most $(\log n)^a$ non-neighbors in the base graph $G$ and thus each vertex $u\in V\setminus V(\GGG_F^{k-1,S})$ has $n_u$ neighbors in $V(\GGG_F^{k-1,S})$, where
	\begin{align}\label{eq:nubound}
		k
		\ge n_u
		\ge k - (\log n)^a
		\ge k \cdot \Big(1 - \frac{(\log n)^a}{s}\Big)
		% \ge k \cdot \big(1 - (\log n)^{a-b}\big)
		% \ge k \cdot \Big(1 - \frac{1}{\log n}\Big)
		=: k \cdot (1-\gamma_3).
	\end{align}
	As
	$
		\prob[u\in e_k^S \mid \A_{k-1}^S, Y_{n-s-1}^S \leq \gamma_1]
		= \sum_{e\in E\cap (V(\GGG_F^{k-1,S}\times \{u\}))} p_e
	$,
	by combining \eqref{eq:pebound} and \eqref{eq:nubound}, we obtain
	\[
		(1-\gamma_1)(1-\gamma_3)\cdot \frac{1}{n-k}
		\le \prob[u\in e_k^S \mid \A_{k-1}^S, Y_{n-s-1}^S \leq \gamma_1]
		\le \frac{1}{(1-\gamma_1)(1-\delta_k)}\cdot \frac{1}{n-k}
	\]
	and thus
	\[
		(1-\gamma_2)(1-\gamma_1)(1-\gamma_3)\cdot \frac{1}{n-k}
		\le \prob[u\in e_k^S \mid \A_{k-1}^S ]
		\le \frac{1}{(1-\gamma_1)(1-\delta_k)}\cdot \frac{1}{n-k} + \gamma_2.
	\]
	Notice now that
	\begin{align}\label{eq:uniformdown}
		(1-\gamma_2)(1-\gamma_1)(1-\gamma_3)\cdot \frac{1}{n-k}
		\ge (1 - 3(\gamma_1 + \gamma_3))\cdot \frac{1}{n-k}
		= (1 - \gamma)\cdot \frac{1}{n-k},
	\end{align}
	using that the definition of $\gamma$ is such that $\gamma = 3(\gamma_1+\gamma_3)$.
	On the other hand $\delta_k= \frac{(\log n)^a}{n - k}\le \frac{(\log n)^a}{s}=\gamma_3$ and thus
	\begin{align}\label{eq:uniformup}
		\begin{split}
			\frac{1}{(1-\gamma_1)(1-\delta_k)}\cdot \frac{1}{n-k} + \gamma_2
			&= \left(\frac{1}{(1-\gamma_1)(1-\delta_k)} + \gamma_2 (n-k)\right) \cdot \frac{1}{n-k}
			\\ &\le \left(\frac{1}{1-\gamma_1-\gamma_3} + \gamma_2 n\right) \cdot \frac{1}{n-k}
			\\ &\le \left(1 + 2(\gamma_1+\gamma_3) + \gamma_2 n\right) \cdot \frac{1}{n-k}
			\\ &\le \left(1 + 3(\gamma_1+\gamma_3)\right) \cdot \frac{1}{n-k}
			\\ &= (1 + \gamma) \cdot \frac{1}{n-k}.
		\end{split}
	\end{align}
	Now, \eqref{eq:uniformdown} and \eqref{eq:uniformup} together show the claim.
\end{proof}

\paragraph{Target Set Version of Foremost Forest Growth.}
Using the above observation that the $k$'th new vertex is almost uniformly distributed among the non-reached vertices, we are now ready to prove a result lower bounding the probability that the Foremost Forest algorithm started from a set $S$ hits a fixed set $T$ of large enough size.

\begin{theorem}[Foremost Forest Target Set Reachability]\label{theorem:general target set}
  Let
  \begin{compactitem}
    \item $G$ be a graph of minimum degree $\delta(G)\ge n - (\log n)^a$ for some $a\in\NN$,
    \item let $S$ and $T$ be two sets of nodes in $G$ of cardinalities $s\in [(\log n)^{13}, n/2]$ and $t$, respectively,
    \item let $z=z(n)$ be a function with $\varepsilon\le z(n)\le 1 - \varepsilon$ for some constant $\varepsilon\in (0, 1)$, and
    \item let $\GGG\sim \FFF_{p}(G)$ with $p\ge \frac{z\log n -\log s}{n} +\frac{3\log\log n}{n}$.
  \end{compactitem}
  Then the foremost forest algorithm from $S$ on $\GGG$ reaches
  % \begin{compactenum}[(i)]
  %   \item at least $n^z$ vertices with probability at least $1 - 2n^{-\log \log n}$,
    % \item
  $T$ with probability at least $1-2n^{-\log\log n} - e^{-\frac{t}{2n}(n^z-s)}$.
  % \end{compactenum}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
  For $k\in [s, n - s - 1]$, let $P_k$ denote the event that the $k$-added vertex does not belong to $T$ and let $Q_k:=\bigcap_{i=s}^k P_i$ denote the event that all new vertices up to the $k$-added one do not belong to $T$.
  By~\cref{lem: almost uniform}, the $k$-added vertex is distributed almost uniformly on the vertices not reached yet.
  Thus, for $i\in [s, k]$, the probability that the $i$-added vertex belongs to $T$ conditioned on the events that the previous ones did not is $\Pr[\overline{P_i} \mid Q_{i-1}]\ge \frac{t\cdot(1-\gamma(n))}{n - i}\ge \frac{t}{2n}$ using the facts that $n-i\le n$ and $\gamma=\gamma(n)\le 1/2$ for $n$ large enough (see~\cref{lem: almost uniform} for the definition of $\gamma$).
  Hence, we get
  \begin{align*}
    \Pr[Q_k]
    = \prod_{i=s}^k \Pr[P_i \mid Q_{i-1}]
    % \le \left(1 - \frac{(1-\gamma) \cdot t}{n - i}\right)^{k - s}
    \le \left(1-\frac{t}{2n}\right)^{k - s}
  \end{align*}
  Let us now define $A$ as the event that
  % in the interval $[p_1,p_2]$ which is of length $\frac{1}{3}\left(1+\frac{1}{\log \log n}\right)\frac{\log n}{n}$,
  $S$ can reach at least $d=\lceil n^z\rceil$ vertices. Using~\cref{lem: reachability} we obtain that $A$ occurs with probability at least $1-2n^{-\log \log n}$.
  Then, the probability that none of the new vertices belongs to $T$ conditioned on $A$ is
  \begin{align*}
    \Pr[Q_k \mid A]
    &\le \left(1-\frac{t}{2n}\right)^{n^z-s}
    \le \exp\left(-\frac{t}{2n}\left(n^z-s\right)\right).
  \end{align*}
  In total we get $\Pr[Q_k]\le \Pr[Q_k\mid A] + \Pr[\overline A]\le 2n^{-\log\log n} + e^{-\frac{t}{2n}(n^z-s)}$, completing the proof.
\end{proof}

% Now, it is simple to arrive at the following corollary, which we use to prove our main result.

% \targetset
%
% \begin{lemma}
% 	The foremost forest algorithm with input $S$ of cardinality $s$ such that $n^{1/3}\log n\le s\le n^{1/3 + 1/(\log \log n)}$, reaches in $\GGG_{[p_1,p_2]}$ a fixed set of vertices $T\subseteq V\setminus S$ of cardinality $t\ge n^{1/3}\log n$ with probability of at least $1-x$.
% \end{lemma}





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Sharp Threshold for Giant Closed Connected Component}
\label{sec:threshold-closed}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

In this section we prove that $\frac{\log n}{n}$ is also a sharp threshold for the existence of a giant \emph{closed} connected component.

\begin{theorem}[Main Result 2]
	\label{thm:closed-component}
	The function $\frac{\log n}{n}$ is a sharp threshold for Giant Closed Connected Component.
	More precisely, there exists a function $\eps(n) \in o\pfrac{\log n}{n}$,
	such that the size of a largest closed temporally connected component in~$\G \sim \F_{n,p}$ is
	\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
		\item $o(n)$ a.a.s., if $p < \frac{\log n}{n} - \eps(n)$; and
		\item $n-o(n)$ a.a.s., if $p > \frac{\log n}{n} + \eps(n)$.
	\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
The lower bound of \cref{thm:closed-component} is obviously a trivial consequence of the lower bound in~\cref{th:main}.
Thus, it remains to prove the upper bound.
For this, we will be able to reuse the majority of the work done for open connected components.
In particular, we start from our strategy of splitting the time into three intervals. 
Furthermore, we do not need to make any changes to our approach in the middle one, which previously required the most effort.
However, we now need to do additional work in the first and last interval, subdividing each of them further into two subintervals.
Recall that in the proof of \cref{thm: upper bound}, we only required that $n-o(n)$~vertices can all reach (resp.\ be reached by) at least $n^{1/3} \log n$~vertices within each of the three intervals.
Now, we will need to prove that there exists a set~$V'$ of $n-o(n)$~vertices,
such that every vertex in this set can reach (resp.\ be reached by) at least $n^{1/3}\log n$~vertices \emph{via temporal paths that use only vertices in~$V'$}.
Our main tool is the following lemma.



\begin{restatable}{lemma}{bootstrapReachability}
	\label{lm:bootstrap-reachability}
	Let $C \geq 3$, $\frac{1}{2}<\gamma<\alpha<1$, and let
	$\G \sim \F_{n,p}$, where~$p = 2C^2 \frac{(\log n)^\alpha}{n}$.
	Then \aas $\G$ contains a set~$V'$ of $n-o(n)$~vertices,
	such that, denoting $\G' := \G[V']$, every vertex in $V'$ 
	reaches at least $(\log n)^{(C-3)\gamma}$~vertices in $\G'_{[0,p/2]}$ and
	is reached by at least the same number of vertices in $\G'_{[p/2,p]}$.
	
	%	the temporal subgraph $\GGG[V']$ every vertex reaches at least $(\log n)^{(C-3)\gamma}$~vertices during the first half of the time, and is reached by at least the same number during the second half.
\end{restatable}

In the rest of this section we prove \cref{thm:closed-component} using the above lemma, which we then prove in \cref{sec:ERparatition,sec:ProofBootstrap}.


\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{thm:closed-component}]
	Let $\gamma=0.7$, $\alpha=0.9$, $C = 30$,
	and let $n'(n) \in n-o(n)$ be the size of the vertex set guaranteed by \cref{lm:bootstrap-reachability}.
	Set $\eps_1 := C^2 \frac{(\log n)^\alpha}{n} \in o\pfrac{\log n}{n}$,
	$\eps_2 := 4\frac{\log \log n'}{\log n'} \in o(1)$, and
	$\eps_3 := \frac{1}{3\log \log n} \in o(1)$.
	Set also $p_1 := \left(\frac{1}{3} + \eps_2\right) \frac{\log n'}{n'}$ and 
	$p_2 := \left(\frac{1}{3} + \eps_3\right) \frac{\log n'}{n'}$.
	Finally, define 
	$$
	p := 2\eps_1 + 2p_1 + p_2,
	$$
	which is equal to $\frac{\log n}{n} + \eps$ for some $\eps \in o\pfrac{\log n}{n}$.
	
	%and let
	%$\eps_4 = \eps_4(n) := \eps_3(n)+1-\frac{n' \log n}{n \log n'} \in o(1)$.
	%$\eps_3 = \eps_3(n') \in o(1)$ be given by~\cref{corollary: target set}.
	%Then we define $\eps := 2\eps_1 + (2\eps_2 + \eps_4)\frac{\log n'}{n'} \in o\pfrac{\log n}{n}$.
	
	Let $\G \sim \F_{n,p}$. We split $[0,p]$
	into a total of five intervals $I_i$, $i \in [5]$. The first and the last interval are short and each has length $\eps_1$, i.e., $I_1 = [0, \eps_1]$ and $I_5 = [p-\eps_1, p]$. The three middle intervals are long
	and have lengths $p_1, p_2$, and $p_1$, respectively, i.e., $I_2=[\eps_1, \eps_1 + p_1]$,
	$I_3 = [\eps_1 + p_1, \eps_1 + p_1 + p_2]$, $I_4 = [p - (\eps_1 + p_1), p-\eps_1]$.
	We will reveal the edges of the graph in three phases (Phase 1.1, Phase, 1.2, and Phase 2), as was graphically summarized in \cref{fig:closed_component_three_phases} in the introduction, and in each phase we condition on the edges revealed in the previous phases. In Phase 1.1 we reveal edges in the intervals $I_1$ and
	$I_5$ and apply \cref{lm:bootstrap-reachability} to identify a large set of nodes $V'$, each of which can reach poly-logarithmically many vertices in $V'$ during the first interval and can be reached by poly-logarithmically many vertices in $V'$ during the last interval via temporal paths that use only nodes from $V'$. In the subsequent phases we restrict our attention to the subgraph induced by $V'$, which is the target giant closed connected component.
	In Phase 1.2, we reveal edges appearing in the intervals $I_2$ and $I_4$. Because in 
	Phase 1.1 \aas we revealed poly-logarithmic number of edges for every vertex, we can use \cref{lem: reachability} to argue that for every vertex $v \in V'$ the poly-logarithmic set of vertices reached by $v$ during $I_1$ can reach polynomially many vertices during $I_2$. Similarly, during $I_4$ polynomially many
	vertices can reach the poly-logarithmic set of vertices that reach $v$ during $I_5$. The main outcome of this phase is that every vertex in $v \in V'$ reaches polynomially many vertices in $V'$ during $I_1 \cup I_2$ and is reached by at least as many vertices in $I_4 \cup I_5$. 
	Finally, in Phase 2, because in the previous phases \aas at most poly-logarithmically many
	edges were revealed for every vertex, we can apply \cref{corollary: target set} to prove that for each ordered pair of vertices $u,w \in V'$ the set of vertices reached by $u$ during $I_1 \cup I_2$ can reach during $I_3$ the set of vertices that reach $w$ during $I_4 \cup I_5$, implying that $u$ can reach $w$ during $[0,p]$. We now proceed with the formal details.
		
	
	%	Similarly to~\cref{obs: min degree}, we have that $\Delta(G) \leq 4 \log n$ \aas, so we will assume this bound.
	%	We will work by splitting $[0,p]$ into five intervals, where the first and last intervals have length~$\eps_1$ each (short intervals),
	%	while the other three have lengths $p_1, p_2$, and $p_1$, respectively (long intervals).
	%	The first two intervals will ensure that each vertex reaches sufficiently many others,
	%	while the last two intervals symmetrically allow each vertex to be reached by sufficiently many others.
	%	The middle interval then provides the connections in between, exactly as in the proof of \cref{thm: upper bound}.
	
	\paragraph{Phase 1.1.} Let $\G_1$ be the temporal subgraph of $\G$ formed by the edges with time labels in the intervals $I_1 \cup I_5$. Note that, up to shifting the time labels in the interval $I_5$ by
	$p - 2\eps_1$, $\G_1$ is distributed according to $\F_{n, 2\eps_1}$.
	Thus, by \cref{lm:bootstrap-reachability}, \aas there is a set $V' \subseteq V(\G)$ containing
	$n'$ vertices such that, denoting $\G' := \G[V']$, every vertex $v \in V'$ 
	reaches a set $R_1(v)$ of at least $(\log n)^{(C-3)\gamma}$~vertices in $\G'_{I_1}$ and
	is reached by a set $R_1'(v)$ of at least $(\log n)^{(C-3)\gamma}$~vertices in $\G'_{I_5}$.
	
	\paragraph{Phase 1.2.} Let $G_1$ be the underlying graph of $\G_1$. 
	Since $G_1$ is distributed as an \ER{} graph $G_{n,\,2\eps_1}$,
	similarly to \cref{obs: min degree}, we have that $\Delta(G_1) < 4 \log n$ a.a.s.
	Hence, in the graph $G_2' = \left(V', {V' \choose 2} \setminus E(G_1) \right)$ the minimum degree is at least $n' - 4 \log n \geq n' - (\log n')^2$.
	Observe that, up to shifting time labels, $\G'_{I_2} \sim \F_{p_1}(G_2')$ when conditioning on the knowledge about all edges seen in $I_1 \cup I_5$.
	%
	Therefore, since $\abs{R_1(v)} \geq (\log n')^{13}$ for every vertex $v \in V'$, by applying
	\cref{lem: reachability} to $\G'_{I_2}$ and $R_1(v)$ 
	(with parameter $z = 1/3 + \frac{\log \log n'}{\log n'}$), we conclude that
	the vertices in $R_1(v)$ reach in $\G'_{I_2}$ at least $r := {(n')}^{\frac{1}{3} + \frac{\log\log n'}{\log n'}} = (n')^{1/3} \log n'$ vertices with probability at least $1-2(n')^{-\log\log n'}$.
	By the union bound, we have that with probability at least $1-2(n')^{1-\log\log n'} \in 1-o(1)$, every vertex $v \in V'$ can reach in $\G'_{I_1 \cup I_2}$ a set $R_2(v)$ of at least $r$ vertices.
	Symmetrically, with probability at least $1-2(n')^{1-\log\log n'} \in 1-o(1)$, every vertex $v \in V'$ is reached in $\G'_{I_4 \cup I_5}$ by a set~$R_2'(v)$ of at least $r$ vertices.
	
	\paragraph{Phase 2.} Let $G_3'$ be the static graph defined by the vertex set $V'$ and all edges appearing in $\G'_{I_1 \cup I_2}$ and $\G'_{I_4 \cup I_5}$. As in Phase 1.2, we can argue that the maximum degree of $G_3'$ is at most $4 \log n'$ \aas, and therefore the minimum degree of the graph $G_4' = \left(V', {V' \choose 2} \setminus E(G_3') \right)$ 
	is at least $n' - (\log n')^2$. Hence, up to shifting time labels, $\G'_{I_3}$ is distributed according to $\F_{p_2}(G_4')$ when conditioned on the knowledge of all edges revealed in $I_1 \cup I_2 \cup I_4 \cup I_5$.
	%
	Thus, by \cref{corollary: target set}, a given set of at least $(n')^{1/3} \log n'$ vertices in $\G'_{I_3}$ can reach another given set of at least as many vertices with probability at least $1-3(n')^{-\log\log n'}$. Applying this to all ordered pairs of sets $(R_2(v), R'_2(w))$, $v, w \in V'$ and
	using the union bound, we conclude that
	the probability that all these pairs of sets reach each other in $\G'_{I_3}$ is at least $1-3(n')^{2-\log\log n'} \in 1-o(1)$.
	
	Putting all together, we conclude that \aas in $\G' = \G[V']$ any vertex reaches every other vertex.
	Thus, $V'$ is, as desired, a giant closed connected component.
\end{proof}



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Proof of \cref{lm:bootstrap-reachability}}
\label{sec:ProofBootstrap}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
In what follows we will make repeated use of Chernoff bounds. For better readability, we summarize the different versions that we use in the following lemma. See, e.g., Theorems~4.4 and 4.5 in the book by Mitzenmacher and Upfal~\cite{MitzenmacherU17} for a proof.
\begin{lemma}[Chernoff bounds]\label{lem: chernoff}
  Let $X_1,\ldots, X_T$ be independent random variables taking values in $\{0,1\}$, let $X$ denote their sum, and let $\mu=\E[X]$. Then, the following hold:
  \begin{enumerate}[(i)]
    \item\label{chernoff 1} 
    For any $\delta>0$,
    \[
      \Pr[X\ge (1+\delta) \mu] 
      \le \Big( \frac{e^\delta}{(1+\delta)^{1+\delta}} \Big)^\mu
      \le \exp\Big(-\frac{\mu \delta^2}{2+\delta}\Big).
    \]
    \item\label{chernoff 2}
    For any $R\ge 6\mu$,
    \[
      \Pr[X\ge R] \le 2^{-R}.
    \]
    \item\label{chernoff 3}
    For any $0<\delta<1$,
    \[
      \Pr[X\le (1-\delta) \mu] \le \exp\Big(-\frac{\mu \delta^2}{2}\Big).
    \]
  \end{enumerate} 
\end{lemma}

We proceed with an informal description of the proof strategy.

Recall, that we would like to show that for any fixed integer $C \geq 3$ and constants $\frac{1}{2}<\gamma<\alpha<1$, a random temporal graph
$\G \sim \F_{n,p}$ with $p = 2C^2 \frac{(\log n)^\alpha}{n}$
\aas contains a set $V'$ of $n-o(n)$ vertices with the property that
in $\G' := \G[V']$ every vertex
reaches at least $(\log n)^{(C-3)\gamma}$ vertices during $[0,p/2]$ and
is reached by at least the same number of vertices during $[p/2,p]$.
To this end, we fix a random \emph{balanced} partition $V_1 \cup V_2 \cup \ldots \cup V_C$
of the vertex set $V$ of $\G$ into $C$ parts ('balanced' means that each part has size either $\lceil n/C \rceil$ or $\lfloor n / C \rfloor$); this partition is independent of $\G$. 
We also split the time interval $[0,p]$ into $D := 2C$ 
equal subintervals $I_i$, $i \in [D]$, where $I_i := [(i-1)p/D,\; ip/D]$. 

We will identify subsets $V_i' \subseteq V_i$ such that $|V_i \setminus V_i'| \in o(n)$ 
and for every vertex $v \in V_i'$ we will construct a reachability
tree rooted at $v$ with the desired number of vertices.
Such a tree will have a special structure. Namely,
(i) the $k$-th level of the tree will be entirely in $V_{i+k}'$ 
(for convenience, indices are taken modulo $C$, i.e., $V_{C+1} = V_1$, etc.); and (ii) the time labels of the edges connecting the tree vertices at level $k-1$ with the tree vertices at level $k$ will belong to the $k$-th time interval $I_k$. 
This construction will use the first $C$ time intervals. The last $C$ time intervals will be used in a similar way
to construct reachability trees witnessing that every vertex in $V' := \cup_{i \in [C]} V_i'$ is reachable by the desired number of vertices in $V'$. The argument for the later is the same up to going backward in time, so we provide details only for the first half of the time intervals.

In order to implement the above strategy, we will analyze the structure of the underlying graphs 
of the temporal graphs $\G_{I_i}$, $i \in [D]$ over our fixed balanced vertex partition. Notice that the underlying graph of $\G_{I_i}$ is the graph whose edges are exactly the edges of $\G$ with time labels in $I_i$. Furthermore, each such underlying graph is an \ER{} graph $G_{n,p/D}$. 
The two main technical statements that we need about these underlying graphs and their interaction
with the partition are as follows.

\begin{restatable}{lemma}{multiEpochExpectedNeighbours}
	\label{lm:multi-epoch-expected-neighbours}
	Let $G_1, G_2, \ldots, G_D \sim G_{n, \frac{p}{D}}$ be $D$, not necessarily independent, \ER{}
	graphs. Then \aas there exist subsets $V_i' \subseteq V_i$, $i \in [C]$, such that for every $i \in [C]$
	\begin{itemize}
		\item $|V_i\setminus V_i'|\in o(n)$, and
		\item in every $G_j$, $j \in [D]$, every vertex in~$V_i'$ has at least $(\log n)^\gamma$ neighbours in $V'_{i+1}$.
	\end{itemize}
\end{restatable}


\begin{restatable}{lemma}{fewCollisions}
	\label{lm:few-collisions}
	Let $U$ and $W$ be any two fixed parts of the partition $\{ V_i \}_{i \in [C]}$.
	Let $G \sim G_{n, \frac{p}{D}}$ and let $A \subseteq U$ be a set of size 
	at most $(\log n)^{C\gamma}$, chosen independently from the edges of $G$ between $U$ and $W$.
	Then, with probability at least $1-o(1/n)$, in graph $G$ no vertex in $W$ has three neighbors in $A$
	and at most one vertex has two neighbors in $A$.
\end{restatable}


Using these tools, we now prove \cref{lm:bootstrap-reachability}. The proofs of the above two lemmas are provided later on in this subsection.

\bootstrapReachability*
\begin{proof}
	Let $G_i$ be the underlying graph of $\G_{I_i}$, $i \in [D]$. Then all these underlying graphs 
	are distributed according to $G_{n,p/D}$ and, thus, by~\cref{lm:multi-epoch-expected-neighbours} \aas there are subsets $V'_i \subseteq V_i$, $i \in [C]$ satisfying the properties stated in the same lemma.
	
	%	By~\cref{lm:multi-epoch-expected-neighbours}
	%	there are \aas subsets $V'_i$ of the sectors such that their 
	%	total size is $n-o(n)$ and in \emph{each} period 
	%	and for each~$i$,
	%	every vertex in~$V'_i$ has at least $(\log n)^\gamma$
	%	neighbours in~$V'_{i+1}$.
	
	Consider some $v\in V'_i$, and let $\ell \in [C]$.
	A temporal path in $\G$ starting at~$v$ is a \emph{clocked path from $v$ of length $\ell$}
	if for every~$j \in [\ell]$ the~$j$-th edge of the path 
	connects a vertex in $V'_{i+j-1}$ with a vertex in $V'_{i+j}$,
	and its time label belongs to $I_j$ (i.e., the edge belongs to $G_j$).
	We will prove that \aas clocked paths from $v$ of length at most $C$ reach at least 
	$(\log n)^{(C-3)\gamma}$ vertices.
	
	Assume this is not the case.
	Then we will show by induction that clocked paths from $v$ of length $j \in [C]$ reach at least $(\log n)^{(j-1)\gamma} +1$ vertices in $V'_{i+j}$, leading to a contradiction as the clocked paths from $v$ of length at most $C-2$ would suffice to reach the desired number of vertices.
	
	The base case where $j=1$ is immediate, since in $G_1$ vertex $v$~has at least $(\log n)^\gamma \geq 2$~neighbors in~$V'_{i+1}$.
	%
	For the induction step, let $A'\subseteq V'_{i+j}$ be the set of vertices reached by~$v$ via clocked paths of length~$j$.
	By the induction hypothesis, $\abs{A'} \geq (\log n)^{(j-1)\gamma}+1$.
	In graph $G_{j+1}$, each of the vertices of~$A'$ has at least $(\log n)^\gamma$~edges to $V'_{i+j+1}$,
	and each of these edges then completes a clocked path from $v$ of length~$j+1$.
	If there were no collisions (i.e., multiple edges leading to the same vertex in~$V'_{i+j+1}$),
	then $v$~would thus reach $(\log n)^{j\gamma}+(\log n)^\gamma$ 
	vertices in~$V'_{i+j+1}$, which is more than enough. It remains to bound the number of collisions.
	
	Ideally, we would like to apply \cref{lm:few-collisions} to~$A'$.
	However, in the proof of \cref{lm:multi-epoch-expected-neighbours}, the set $V'_{i+j}$ (and thus~$A'$) was selected based on the edges of the graphs $G_s$, $s \in [D]$, between $V_{i+j}$ and~$V_{i+j+1}$, thus violating the independence assumption of \cref{lm:few-collisions}.
	To remedy this, let $B' \subseteq V_{i+j-1}'$ contain all vertices reached from~$v$ via clocked paths of length~$j-1$ and let $A \subseteq V_{i+j}$ contain all those vertices that are connected to~$B'$ in~$G_j$.
	Then clearly $A \cap V'_{i+j} = A'$, and the choice of~$A$ is now independent of the edges between $V_{i+j}$ and~$V_{i+j+1}$ in any of the graphs $G_s$, $s \in [D]$.
	By our assumption above, $\abs{B'} < (\log n)^{(C-3)\gamma}$.
	Thus, $\expect[\abs{A}] < (\log n)^{(C-3)\gamma + \alpha} + 1 \leq (\log n)^{(C-1)\gamma}$.
  By a Chernoff bound (Lemma~\ref{lem: chernoff}~\emph{(\ref{chernoff 2})}) and using $(\log n)^{C\gamma} > 6\expect[\abs{A}]$, we have
	\[
	\prob\left[\abs{A} > (\log n)^{C \gamma}\right] < 2^{-(\log n)^{C \gamma}} \in o(1/n).
	\]
	Thus, with probability $1-o(1/n)$, we may apply \cref{lm:few-collisions} to $A$ and $G_{j+1}$ to conclude that in $G_{j+1}$ there is at most one collision between all edges leading from~$A$ to~$V_{i+j+1}$.
	Since $A' \subseteq A$ and $V'_{i+j+1} \subseteq V_{i+j+1}$, the same then holds for the edges from~$A'$ to~$V'_{i+j+1}$.
	In other words, $A'$~has at least $(\log n)^{j\gamma}+(\log n)^\gamma -1 \geq (\log n)^{j\gamma} +1$ neighbors in $V'_{i+j+1}$ in graph $G_{j+1}$, and thus the induction step succeeds with probability $1-o(1/n)$.
	
	By the union bound, this argument holds simultaneously for all~$j \in [C]$ and every possible choice of~$v \in V'$ a.a.s.
	This concludes the proof that \aas in $\GGG[V']$ every vertex reaches at least $(\log n)^{C-3}\gamma$~vertices during the first~$C$~time intervals, i.e., during $[0,p/2]$.
	The second part of the claim is proven analogously, now going backward in time but still in the same direction through the parts of the partition.
\end{proof}



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\paragraph{Properties of \ER{} Graphs over Balanced Partitions.}
\label{sec:ERparatition}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

The purpose of what follows is to prove \cref{lm:multi-epoch-expected-neighbours} and \cref{lm:few-collisions}. 
We start with some auxiliary statements.
Recall that $C \geq 3$, $\frac{1}{2}<\gamma<\alpha<1$, $p = 2C^2 \frac{(\log n)^\alpha}{n}$, and $D = 2C$. Let $\beta$ be such that $\gamma<\beta<\alpha$, and
let $U$ and $W$ be two arbitrary but fixed parts of the balanced partition $\{ V_i \}_{i \in [C]}$.

\begin{lemma}
	\label{lm:few-sleepers}
	In $G \sim G_{n, \frac{p}{D}}$ \aas
	at most $n \exp\left(-(\log n)^\alpha/12\right)$ vertices in $U$ have fewer than $(\log n)^\beta$ neighbours in $W$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
	For any vertex~$u \in U$, its number~$\partial(u)$ of neighbours in~$W$
	is the sum of $|W|$ indicator variables.
	Thus, 
	$\expect[\partial(u)] = |W| \frac{p}{D}\geq
	\left\lfloor\frac{n}{C}\right\rfloor C \frac{(\log n)^\alpha}{n} 
	>\frac{1}{2}(\log n)^\alpha$.
	Using a Chernoff bound (Lemma~\ref{lem: chernoff}~\emph{(\ref{chernoff 3})}),
	\begin{align*}
		\prob[\partial(u) < (\log n)^\beta]
		&< \exp \left( - \frac{\expect[\partial(u)]}{2} \left(1-\frac{(\log n)^\beta}{\expect[\partial(u)]}\right)^2 \right)
		< \exp \left( - \frac{\expect[\partial(u)]}{3}\right)
		< \exp \left( - \frac{(\log n)^\alpha}{6} \right).
	\end{align*}
	
	As the edges to~$W$ for different $u \in U$ are independent,
	we can further apply a Chernoff bound to estimate the number of vertices with fewer than $(\log n)^\beta$ neighbours.
	For this purpose, let $S=\{u \in U \mid  \partial(u) < (\log n)^\beta\}$.
	Then $\E[\abs{S}]<\left\lceil \frac{n}{C} \right\rceil \cdot \exp \left( - \frac{(\log n)^\alpha}{6}\right)$, and
	by denoting $\delta := \frac{n \exp \left( - \frac{(\log n)^\alpha}{12} \right)}{\E[\abs{S}]}-1 \in \omega(1)$,
	using a Chernoff bound (Lemma~\ref{lem: chernoff}~\emph{(\ref{chernoff 1})}) gives 
	\begin{align*}
		\prob\left[\abs{S}>n\cdot \exp \left( - \frac{(\log n)^\alpha}{12}\right) \right]
		&=
		\prob[\abs{S}>(1+\delta)\E[\abs{S}]]
		\\&<
		\exp\left(-\frac{\delta^2 \E[\abs{S}]}{2+ \delta}\right)
		<
		\exp\left(-\frac{(1+\delta) \E[\abs{S}]}{2}\right)
		\\ &=
		\exp\left(-\frac{n\exp \left(- \frac{(\log n)^\alpha}{12} \right)}{2}\right)
		\in o\left( \exp\left(-\sqrt{n}\right)\right),
	\end{align*}
	which implies the lemma.
\end{proof}


\begin{lemma}
	\label{lm:no-removal-impact}
	Let $G \sim G_{n, \frac{p}{D}}$ and let $S \subseteq W$ be a set of at most
	$Dn \exp\left(-(\log n)^\alpha/12\right)$ vertices
	chosen independently from the edges between $U$ and $W$.
	Then \aas no vertex in $U$ has more than $\frac{1}{2}(\log n)^\beta$ neighbours in~$S$. 
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
	Let $u \in U$ and let $\sigma(u)$ denote the number of neighbours of~$u$ in~$S$.
	Observe that $\sigma(u)$~is a sum of $\abs{S}$~independent indicator variables.
	We have that
	$
	\expect[\sigma(u)] = \frac{p}{D}\abs{S} 
	< 2C^2 (\log n)^\alpha \exp\left(-(\log n)^\alpha/12\right).
	$
	Let us fix a positive constant $h$ such that 
	$\mu := \expect[\sigma(u)] < \exp\left(-4h(\log n)^\alpha\right)$,
	and let $\delta := \frac{(\log n)^\beta}{2\mu}-1 \in \omega(1)$.
	Then using a Chernoff bound (Lemma~\ref{lem: chernoff}~\emph{(\ref{chernoff 1})}), we derive:
	\begin{align*}
		\prob[\sigma(u) > (\log n)^\beta/2] = 	\prob[\sigma(u) > (1+\delta)\mu]
		&<
		\left( 
		\frac{e^{\delta}}{(1+\delta)^{1+\delta}}
		\right)^\mu
		\\&<
		\left( 
		\frac{e^{1+\delta}}{(1+\delta)^{1+\delta}}
		\right)^\mu
		\\ &=
		\frac{
			\exp\left( (\log n)^\beta/2 \right)
		}{
			\left(\frac{(\log n)^\beta}{2 \mu} \right)^{(\log n)^\beta/2}
		}
		\\ &<
		\frac{
			\exp\left( (\log n)^\beta/2 \right)
		}{
			\left( (\log n)^{\beta}/2 \cdot \exp \left( {4h(\log n)^\alpha}\right)  \right)^{(\log n)^\beta /2}
		}
		\\&<
		\frac{
			\exp\left( (\log n)^\beta/2 \right)
		}{
			\left(  \exp \left( {4h(\log n)^\alpha}\right)  \right)^{(\log n)^\beta /2}
		}
		\\ &=
		\exp\left( \frac{(\log n)^\beta}{2} \right)
		\exp \left( - {2h(\log n)^{\alpha +\beta}} \right)
		\\ &=
		\exp \left(
		\frac{(\log n)^\beta}{2}
		- {2h(\log n)^{\alpha+\beta}}
		\right)
		\\ &<
		\exp \left(- {h(\log n)^{\alpha + \beta}} \right)
		\in o\left(\frac{1}{n}\right).
	\end{align*}
	Applying the union bound over all~$\bigO(n)$~vertices $u \in U$ concludes the proof.
\end{proof}



\begin{corollary}
	\label{lm:no-removal-cascade}
	Let $G \sim G_{n, \frac{p}{D}}$ and let $S \subseteq W$ be a set of at most
	$Dn \exp\left(-(\log n)^\alpha/12\right)$ vertices
	chosen independently from the edges between $U$ and $W$.
	Then \aas every vertex in~$U$ with at least $(\log n)^\beta$ neighbours in~$W$
	has at least $(\log n)^\gamma$ neighbors in $W \setminus S$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
	A vertex with at least $(\log n)^\beta$ neighbours in~$W$
	but fewer than $(\log n)^\gamma$ neighbours in~$W \setminus S$
	must have more than $(\log n)^\beta - (\log n)^\gamma > \frac{1}{2}(\log n)^\beta$ neighbours in~$S$.
	By~\cref{lm:no-removal-impact},
	there are \aas no such vertices.
\end{proof}

We are now ready to prove the following lemma.

\multiEpochExpectedNeighbours*
\begin{proof}
	For every $i \in [C]$, let $B_i \subseteq V_i$ contains those vertices that have fewer than $(\log n)^\beta$ neighbours in~$V_{i+1}$ in \emph{at least one} of the $D$ graphs $G_1, G_2, \ldots, G_D$. Set $V'_i:=V_i\setminus B_i$.
	
	By~\cref{lm:few-sleepers}, \aas
	each $B_i$ has size at most $D n \exp\left(-(\log n)^\alpha/12\right)  \in o(n)$.
	The choice of $B_{i+1}$ is independent of edges between $V_{i}$ and $V_{i+1}$,
	hence we can apply \cref{lm:no-removal-cascade} and the union bound
	over all $D$ graphs to obtain
	that \aas in each graph every vertex in $V'_i$ has at least
	$(\log n)^\gamma$ neighbours in $V'_{i+1} = V_{i+1} \setminus B_{i+1}$.
\end{proof}

For the proof of \cref{lm:few-collisions}, it will be convenient to have the following claim at hand.

\begin{claim}
	\label{lm:binomial-bound}
	Let $X \sim \operatorname{Bin}(N, q)$ for some~$N \in \NN$ and $2Nq \leq 1$.
	Then 
	\[
	\prob[X \geq k] \leq  2 (Nq)^k .
	\]
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
	\begin{align*}
		\prob[X \geq k] &= \sum_{i=k}^N \binom{N}{i} q^i (1-q)^{N-i}
		\leq \sum_{i=k}^N \binom{N}{i} q^i
		\leq \sum_{i=k}^N (Nq)^i
		= (Nq)^k \sum_{i=0}^{N-k} (Nq)^i
		\\ &\leq (Nq)^k \frac{1}{1-Nq}
		\leq 2(Nq)^k \,.\qedhere
	\end{align*}
\end{proof}


\fewCollisions*
\begin{proof}
	By \cref{lm:binomial-bound}, the probability that any fixed vertex in $W$ has three or more neighbors in~$A$ is at most
	\[
	2 \left((\log n)^{C \gamma} \frac{p}{D}\right)^3
	=
	2\left(\frac{C (\log n)^{C \gamma + \alpha}}{n}\right)^3
	\in o(1/n^2).
	\]
	%
	Thus, by the union bound, the probability that any vertex in~$W$ has three or more neighbors in $A$ is in $o(1/n)$.
	
	Similarly, the probability that any fixed vertex in~$W$ has two or more neighbors in~$A$ is at most
	\[
	2 \left((\log n)^{C \gamma}\frac{p}{D}\right)^2.
	\]
	Applying \cref{lm:binomial-bound} again gives that the probability of having two or more vertices in~$W$ that each have two or more neighbors in~$A$ is at most
	\[
	2\left(|W| \cdot 2\left((\log n)^{C \gamma} \frac{p}{D}\right)^2\right)^2 \leq
	2\left(2 \ceil*{\frac{n}{C}} \left((\log n)^{C \gamma} \frac{p}{D}\right)^2\right)^2
	= 8 \ceil*{\frac{n}{C}}^2 \left((\log n)^{C\gamma} \frac{p}{D}\right)^4 
	\in o(1/n)\,. \qedhere
	\]
\end{proof}

% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% \section{Conclusions}
% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% In this paper, we have analysed the size of the largest connected component in the $\F_{n,p}$ random temporal graph model. From a result point of view, our main contribution has been to prove that
% % , differently from a previous result concerning the phase transition of the full reachability property,
% the phase transition of the appearance of a giant (\textit{open} or \textit{closed}) connected component is radically different from the analog in standard random graphs. Indeed, in temporal graphs, the size of the largest component jumps from $o(n)$ to $n-o(n)$ at $\log n/n$. In order to prove our result, the total time interval was split into three time intervals of equal length and we had to deal with three main difficulties (in the case of closed connected components, we had to do some additional technical work in the first and the last interval): computing a foremost forest instead of a foremost tree, handling cross-time-interval dependencies, and working with uniform enough distribution of reachable vertices in order to say that two sets of size $o(n)$ still intersect a.a.s. when the product of the sizes is sufficiently larger than $n$. From a technical point of view, the solutions to the last two problems are the main contributions of the paper.

\printbibliography

% \appendix

% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% \section{Proof of \cref{lem:foremostTree}}\label{appendix1}
% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% \foremostTree*
% \begin{proof}
% 	In order to prove (i) we first observe that clearly $\GGG_F^k$ is an increasing temporal forest for $S$. Thus, in order to show that $\GGG_F^k$ is a foremost forest for $S$, it remains to prove that,
% 	\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
% 		\item $\GGG_F^k$ is a partial foremost forest, i.e., for all $v\in V(\GGG_F^k) \setminus S$, the unique temporal $(S, v)$-path in $\GGG_F^k$ is a foremost $(S, v)$-path in $\GGG$
% 		\item $\GGG_F^k$ is a foremost forest, i.e., $V(\GGG_F^k)=\{v\in V: \exists (u, v)\text{-temporal path in $G$ for some }u\in S\}$.
% 	\end{enumerate}
% 	We start by showing (a) by induction, i.e., we show for $\ell\in [|S|-1, k]$ that, for all $v\in V(\GGG_F^\ell) \setminus S$, the unique temporal $(S, v)$-path in $\GGG_F^\ell$ is a foremost $(S, v)$-path in $\GGG$.
% 	The statement is obvious for $\ell=|S|-1$. Now, let $|S| \leq \ell \leq k$ and assume the statement holds for $\ell-1$.
% 	% We first show (a). If $\ell=k$, there is nothing to show. Hence, let $\ell\le k-1$, let $v$ be an arbitrary vertex in $V \setminus V(\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F)$ and let $P$ be a foremost $(S,v)$-path in $\GGG$.
% 	% Let $e = ab$ be the first edge of $P$ with one endpoint, say $a$, in $V(\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F)$ and the other endpoint $b$ not in $V(\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F)$.
% 	% Let $P'$ be the foremost $(S,a)$-path in $\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F$. By the induction hypothesis, $P'$ is a foremost $(S, a)$-path in $\GGG$, and hence
% 	% the arrival time of $P'$ is not more than the arrival time of the $(S,a)$-subpath of $P$. Consequently, the arrival time of $P'$ is
% 	% not larger than $\lambda(e)$, and therefore $\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F \cup \{ e \}$ is an increasing temporal forest for $S$, showing (a), that $\ext(\GGG^\ell_F)\neq \emptyset$.
% 	Let $e_\ell = \{a,b\}$ be the edge added to $\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F$ to form $\GGG^{\ell}_F$, where $a \in V(\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F)$ and $b \in V\setminus V(\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F)$.
% 	As $b$ is the unique node in $V(\GGG^{\ell}_F)\setminus V(\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F)$, we only need to show that the temporal
% 	$(S,b)$-path in $\GGG^{\ell}_F$ is a foremost $(S,b)$-path in $\GGG$.
% 	Suppose that it is not, and let $P$ be a foremost $(S,b)$-path in $\GGG$. Let $e'$ be the first edge of $P$ with one endpoint in $V(\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F)$ and the other endpoint not in $V(\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F)$.
% 	Clearly, $\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F \cup e'$ is an increasing temporal forest for $S$ and thus $e'\in \ext(\GGG^{\ell - 1}_F)$. Furthermore, since $P$ is a foremost $(S, b)$-path in $\GGG$ and the temporal $(S, b)$-path in $\GGG_F^{\ell}$ is not, the arrival time of $P$ and thus $\lambda(e')$ is strictly less than $\lambda(e_\ell)$, contradicting the minimal choice of $e_\ell$.
% 	In order to prove (b), first note that clearly $V(\GGG_F^k)\subseteq\{v\in V: \exists (u, v)\text{-temporal path in $G$ for some }u\in S\}$. Now, assume for contradiction that there exists a node $v\in V\setminus V(\GGG_F^k)$ such that there exists a $(u, v)$-temporal path $P$ in $\GGG$ for some $u\in S$. Similar to before let $e=\{a,b\}$ be the first edge of $P$ with one endpoint in $V(\GGG^{k}_F)$ and the other endpoint not in $V(\GGG^{k}_F)$.
% 	Then, clearly, $e\in \ext(\GGG_F^k)$, contradicting termination of the algorithm.

% 	In order to prove (ii), assume that it does not hold and let $\ell \geq 2$ be the minimum index such that
% 	$\lambda(e_\ell) < \lambda(e_{\ell-1})$. Again, let $e_\ell = \{a,b\}$ and assume that $a \in V(\GGG_F^{\ell - 1})$ and $b \in V\setminus V(\GGG_F^{\ell - 1})$, and	let $e_i$ be the last edge of the $(S,a)$-path in $\GGG_F^{\ell - 1}$.
% 	Clearly $\lambda(e_i) < \lambda(e_\ell)$ because $\GGG_F^{\ell}$ is an increasing temporal forest. Hence, $e_i \neq e_{\ell - 1}$ and we obtain that both $e_\ell$ and $e_{\ell -1}$ are in $\ext(\GGG_F^{\ell - 2})$, a contradiction to the minimum choice of $e_{\ell -1}$.
% \end{proof}

\end{document}

%!TEX root = ./write_up.tex
% \newcommand{\RB}[1]{{\small\textcolor{blue}{RB: #1}}}

% math functions
\DeclareMathOperator{\sign}{sign}
\DeclareMathOperator{\diag}{diag}
\DeclareMathOperator{\diam}{diam}
\DeclareMathOperator{\opt}{opt}
\DeclareMathOperator{\poly}{poly}
\DeclareMathOperator{\polylog}{polylog}
\DeclareMathOperator{\rad}{rad}
\DeclareMathOperator{\vol}{vol}
\DeclareMathOperator{\E}{\mathbb{E}}
% \DeclareMathOperator{\Exp}{Exp}

\newcommand{\Seq}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}

\let\epsilon\varepsilon
\let\eps\varepsilon

% mathds
\newcommand{\ones}{\mathds{1}}

% numbers
\newcommand{\NN}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}
\newcommand{\NNzero}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}_{0}}}
\newcommand{\ZZ}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}
\newcommand{\QQ}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}}
\newcommand{\RR}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}
\newcommand{\CC}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}
\newcommand{\FF}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}}

%mathcals
\newcommand{\UUU}{\mathcal{U}}
\newcommand{\VVV}{\mathcal{V}}
\newcommand{\TTT}{\mathcal{T}}
\newcommand{\FFF}{\mathcal{F}}
\newcommand{\CCC}{\mathcal{C}}
\newcommand{\KKK}{\mathcal{K}}
\newcommand{\GGG}{\mathcal{G}}
\newcommand{\HHH}{\mathcal{H}}

% tikz
\usepackage{tikz}
\usetikzlibrary{decorations.pathreplacing}
\usetikzlibrary{plotmarks}
\usetikzlibrary{positioning,automata,arrows}
\usetikzlibrary{shapes.geometric}
\usetikzlibrary{decorations.markings}
\usetikzlibrary{positioning, shapes, arrows}
\definecolor{lightgray}{rgb}{0.83, 0.83, 0.83}


\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]

\newtheorem{conjecture}{Conjecture}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
\newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{problem}[theorem]{Problem}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}
\newtheorem{observation}[theorem]{Observation}

\newtheorem{theorem-rst}[theorem]{Theorem}
\newtheorem{corollary-rst}[theorem]{Corollary}

% algorithm2e
\usepackage[linesnumbered,ruled,vlined,boxed]{algorithm2e}
\newlength{\commentWidth}
\setlength{\commentWidth}{7cm}
\newcommand{\atcp}[1]{\tcp*[r]{\makebox[\commentWidth]{\textit{#1}\hfill}}}
\let\oldnl\nl
\newcommand{\nonl}{\renewcommand{\nl}{\let\nl\oldnl}}
\DontPrintSemicolon
\SetKwInOut{Input}{Input}\SetKwInOut{Output}{Output}


\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{claim}{Claim}
\newtheorem*{claim*}{Claim}

\newcommand{\A}{\mathcal A}
\newcommand{\G}{\mathcal G}
\newcommand{\Hh}{\mathcal H}
\newcommand{\F}{\mathcal F}
\newcommand{\T}{\mathcal T}
\newcommand{\Pp}{\mathcal P}
\newcommand{\bigO}{O} % mathcal version not really used by the complexity community
\newcommand{\prob}{\mathbb{P}}
\renewcommand{\Pr}{\prob}
\newcommand{\expect}{\mathbb{E}}
\newcommand{\variance}{\mathbb{D}}
\newcommand{\w}{w}
\newcommand{\ie}{i.e.,\xspace}
% \newcommand{\gen}[1]{\color{blue} #1 \color{black}}
% \newcommand{\mgen}[1]{\textcolor{blue}{#1}}
% \newcommand{\forb}[1]{\color{OrangeRed} #1 \color{black}}
% \newcommand{\mforb}[1]{\textcolor{OrangeRed}{#1}}
% \usepackage{ulem}
% \newcommand{\msout}[1]{\text{\sout{\ensuremath{#1}}}}

%

\newcommand{\capped}[1]{\hstretch{2}{\hat{\hstretch{.5}{#1}}}}
\newcommand{\aas}{a.a.s.\@\xspace}

\newcommand{\lnnf}{\frac{\log n}{n}}
\newcommand{\lnnl}{(\log n)/{n}}

\DeclarePairedDelimiter{\abs}{\lvert}{\rvert}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{arg\,min}
\DeclareMathOperator{\dd}{d\!} %
\DeclarePairedDelimiter\ceil{\lceil}{\rceil}
\DeclarePairedDelimiter\floor{\lfloor}{\rfloor}

\newcommand{\pfrac}[2]{{\left(\frac{#1}{#2}\right)}}

\DeclareMathOperator{\ext}{ext}

\newcommand{\ANY}{\texttt{ANY}}
\newcommand{\CO}{\texttt{CO}}

\newcommand\restrict[1]{\raisebox{-.5ex}{$|$}_{#1}}

\newcommand{\ER}{Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi}

\newcommand{\AC}[1]{\textcolor{violet}{{\footnotesize #1}}\marginpar{\raggedright\tiny \textcolor{violet}{Arnaud}}}
\newcommand{\BK}[1]{\textcolor{cyan}{{\footnotesize #1}}\marginpar{\raggedright\tiny \textcolor{cyan}{Bojana}}}
\newcommand{\MaR}[1]{\textcolor{blue}{{\footnotesize #1}}\marginpar{\raggedright\tiny \textcolor{blue}{Malte}}}
\newcommand{\MiR}[1]{\textcolor{red}{{\footnotesize #1}}\marginpar{\raggedright\tiny \textcolor{red}{Michael}}}
\newcommand{\PC}[1]{\textcolor{magenta}{{\footnotesize #1}}\marginpar{\raggedright\tiny \textcolor{magenta}{Pierluigi}}}
\newcommand{\RB}[1]{\textcolor{teal}{{\footnotesize #1}}\marginpar{\raggedright\tiny \textcolor{teal}{Ruben}}}
\newcommand{\VZ}[1]{\textcolor{orange}{{\footnotesize #1}}\marginpar{\raggedright\tiny \textcolor{orange}{Viktor}}}

%!TEX root = ./write_up.tex
\begin{tikzpicture}[x=1.8cm,y=2cm,scale=0.3, every node/.style={scale=0.3}]
\tikzset{
	mylabel/.style={scale=3},
	path/.style={decorate,decoration={snake,amplitude=1mm, segment length=15pt,pre length=2pt, post length=2pt},->,>=stealth'},
	mycloud/.style={thick,cloud, cloud puffs=25, cloud ignores aspect, minimum width=12cm, minimum height=16cm, draw},
	mybox/.style={minimum width=6cm,shape=rectangle,draw=black,line width=0.5mm},
}
\draw[line width=0.5mm] (-5,1)-- (25,1); %Axis
\draw[line width=0.5mm] (-5, 0.8) -- (-5, 1.2) node[mylabel] (a) at (-5, 1.6) {$0$};
\draw[line width=0.5mm] (25, 0.8) -- (25, 1.2) node[mylabel] (a) at (24, 1.6) {$p=\frac{\log n}{n} + \eps$};
\draw[line width=0.5mm] (5, 0.8) -- (5, 1.2) node[mylabel] (a) at (5, 1.6) {$\frac{p}{3}$};
\draw[line width=0.5mm] (15, 0.8) -- (15, 1.2) node[mylabel] (a) at (15, 1.6) {$\frac{2p}{3}$};

\node[mylabel, color=red] (p1) at (-6.25, 0.6) {Phase 1};
\draw[line width=1mm, color=red] (-5, 0.6) -- (5, 0.6) node[mylabel, below, midway] {$I_1$};
\draw[line width=1mm, color=red] (15, 0.6) -- (25, 0.6) node[mylabel, below, midway] {$I_3$};
\node[mylabel, color=blue] (p1) at (-6.25, 0.1) {Phase 2};
\draw[line width=1mm, color=blue] (5, 0.1) -- (15, 0.1) node[mylabel, below, midway] {$I_2$};

\begin{scope}[yshift=1.5cm]
  % \node[mylabel] at (0,-1) {$I_{1}=\left[0,\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{\log n}{n}+\epsilon\right)\right]$};
  \node[mycloud] (cloud) at (0, -6) {};
  \node[mybox, minimum height=6cm,fill=gray!20] (Zbox) at (0, -6.85) {};
  \draw[dashed] (-1.5, -7.2) -- (1.5, -7.2);
  \node[minimum width=4cm,shape=circle,draw=black,line width=0.5mm,fill=gray!20] (udisk) at (0,-3.5) {};
  \node[minimum size=0.1cm,fill=black, label={[mylabel]left:$x$}] (x) at (0,-6) {};
  \draw (x) -- (udisk.south west);
  \draw (x) -- (udisk.south east);
  \node[minimum size=0.1cm,fill=black, label={[mylabel]above:$u$}] (u) at (udisk) {};
  \draw[path] (x) -- (u);
  \node[mylabel] at (0,-6.6) {$Z=X\cap Y$};
  % \node[mybox, minimum height=6cm, anchor=north] at (Zbox.north) {};
  \node[mylabel] at (0,-7.75) {$X-Y$};
  \node[mylabel] at (0,-9.25) {$\G_{1}$};

  \draw[dashed] (5,-11) -- (5,0);

  % \node[mylabel] at (10,-1) {$I_{2}=\left[\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{\log n}{n}+\epsilon\right),\frac{2}{3}\left(\frac{\log n}{n}+\epsilon\right)\right]$};
  \node[mycloud] (cloud) at (10, -6) {};
  \node[minimum width=4cm,shape=circle,draw=black,line width=0.5mm,fill=gray!20] (udisk) at (10,-3.5) {};
  \node[minimum size=0.1cm,fill=black, label={[mylabel]above:$u$}] (u) at (udisk) {};
  \node[mylabel] at (8,-6) {$\G_{2}$};
  \node[minimum width=4cm,shape=circle,draw=black,line width=0.5mm,fill=gray!20] (vdisk) at (10,-8.5) {};
  \node[minimum size=0.1cm,fill=black, label={[mylabel]below:$v$}] (v) at (vdisk) {};
  \draw[path] (u) -- (v);

  \draw[dashed] (15,-11) -- (15,0);

  % \node[mylabel] at (20,-1) {$I_{3}=\left[\frac{2}{3}\left(\frac{\log n}{n}+\epsilon\right),\frac{\log n}{n}+\epsilon\right]$};
  \node[mycloud] (cloud) at (20, -6) {};
  \node[mylabel] at (20,-2.75) {$\G_{3}$};
  \node[mybox, minimum height=6cm,fill=gray!20] (Zbox) at (20, -5.5) {};
  \draw[dashed] (18.5, -5) -- (21.5, -5);
  \node[mylabel] at (20,-5.8) {$Z=X\cap Y$};
  % \node[mybox, minimum height=6cm, anchor=south] at (Zbox.south) {};
  \node[mylabel] at (20,-4.5) {$Y-X$};
  \node[minimum size=0.1cm,fill=black, label={[mylabel]right:$y$}] (y) at (20,-6.6) {};
  \node[minimum width=4cm,shape=circle,draw=black,line width=0.5mm,fill=gray!20] (vdisk) at (20,-8.5) {};
  \node[minimum size=0.1cm,fill=black, label={[mylabel]below:$v$}] (v) at (vdisk) {};
  \draw (y) -- (vdisk.north west);
  \draw (y) -- (vdisk.north east);
  \draw[path] (v) -- (y);
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}

%!TEX root = ./write_up.tex
\begin{tikzpicture}[x=1.8cm,y=2cm,scale=0.3, every node/.style={scale=0.3}]
  \tikzset{mylabel/.style={scale=1.3}}
  
  \draw[line width=0.2mm] (0,0)-- (11,0); %Axis
  \draw[line width=0.2mm] (0,0.1) -- (0,-0.1) node[mylabel] (a) at (0,0.3) {$0$};
  \draw[line width=0.2mm] (0.5,0.1) -- (0.5,-0.1) node[mylabel] (a) at (1.0,0.3) {$\eps_1= o\big(\frac{\log n}{n}\big)$};
  \draw[line width=0.2mm] (3.75,0.1) -- (3.75,-0.1) node[mylabel] (a) at (3.75,0.3) {$p_1 + \eps_1$};
  \draw[line width=0.2mm] (7.25,0.1) -- (7.25,-0.1) node[mylabel] (a) at (7.25,0.3) {$p - (p_1 + \eps_1)$};
  \draw[line width=0.2mm] (10.5,0.1) -- (10.5,-0.1) node[mylabel] (a) at (10.3, 0.3) {$p - \eps_1$};
  \draw[line width=0.2mm] (11,0.1) -- (11,-0.1) node[mylabel] (a) at (11.5, 0.3) {$p=\frac{\log n}{n} + \eps %=2\eps_1 + 2p_1 + p_2
  $};
  
  \draw[line width=0.5mm, color=pink] (0,-0.21) -- (0.5,-0.21) node[mylabel, below, midway] {$I_1$};
  \draw[line width=0.5mm, color=pink] (10.5,-0.21) -- (11,-0.21) node[mylabel, below, midway] {$I_5$};
  \node[mylabel, color=pink] (p1) at (-0.7,-0.21) {Phase 1.1};
  % \draw [decorate, decoration = {brace, amplitude=3pt}, line width=0.5mm] (0,0.7) --  (0.5,0.7) node[mylabel, above, xshift=-0.575cm] {$\eps_1= o(\frac{\log n}{n})%\frac{C^2(\log n)^\alpha}{n}
  % $};
  % \draw [decorate, decoration = {brace, amplitude=3pt}, line width=0.5mm] (10.5,0.7) --  (11,0.7) node[mylabel, above, xshift=-0.3cm] {$\eps_1$};
  
  \draw[line width=0.5mm, color=red] (0.5,-0.42) -- (3.75,-0.42) node[mylabel, below, midway] {$I_2$};
  \draw[line width=0.5mm, color=red] (7.25,-0.42) -- (10.5,-0.42) node[mylabel, below, midway] {$I_4$};
  \node[mylabel, color=red] (p1) at (-0.7,-0.42) {Phase 1.2};
  % \draw [red, decorate, decoration = {brace, amplitude=3pt}, line width=0.5mm] (0.5,0.7) --  (3.75,0.7) node[mylabel, above, xshift=-1.95cm] {$p_1 \approx \frac{1}{3} \frac{\log n'}{n'}
  % % =(\frac{1}{3} + \eps_2)\frac{\log n'}{n'}
  % $};
  % \draw [red, decorate, decoration = {brace, amplitude=3pt}, line width=0.5mm] (7.25,0.7) --  (10.5,0.7) node[mylabel, above, xshift=-2.1cm] {$p_1$};
  
  \draw[line width=0.5mm, color=blue] (3.75,-0.63) -- (7.25,-0.63) node[mylabel, below, midway] {$I_3$};
  \node[mylabel, color=blue] (p1) at (-0.8,-0.63) {Phase 2};
  % \draw [blue, decorate, decoration = {brace, amplitude=3pt}, line width=0.5mm] (3.75,0.7) --  (7.25,0.7) node[mylabel, above, xshift=-1.75cm] {$p_2 \approx \frac{1}{3} \frac{\log n'}{n'}
  % % =(\frac{1}{3} + \eps_3)\frac{\log n'}{n'}
  % $};
  
  \draw[dotted, line width=0.15mm] (0,0) -- (0, -0.21);
  \draw[dotted, line width=0.15mm] (11,0) -- (11, -0.21);
  \draw[dotted, line width=0.15mm] (0.5,0) -- (0.5, -0.42);
  \draw[dotted, line width=0.15mm] (10.5,0) -- (10.5, -0.42);
  \draw[dotted, line width=0.15mm] (3.75,0) -- (3.75, -0.63);
  \draw[dotted, line width=0.15mm] (7.25,0) -- (7.25, -0.63);
\end{tikzpicture}

\tikzstyle{result} = [rectangle,draw,minimum height=1cm,minimum width=2cm]
\begin{tikzpicture}[x=0.25cm,y=0.25cm,scale=0.75, every node/.style={scale=0.75}]
\node[result,text width=7cm] (L3-3) at (0,5) {\textbf{Lemma 3.3}\\Correctness of foremost forest algorithm};

\node[result,text width=8.5cm] (C2-2) at (40,10) {\textbf{Lemma 2.1} and \textbf{Corollary 2.2}\\Two-hop bound on temporal connectivity};

\node[result,text width=10cm] (P5-3) at (40,0) {\textbf{Proposition 5.3} and \textbf{Corollary 5.4}\\Bounds on expected waiting time $X^{S}_{k}$ between the moments of exposing two consecutive edges of the foremost forest};

\node[result,text width=8.5cm] (L5-2) at (0,-4) {\textbf{Lemma 5.2}\\Approximation of $X^{S}_{k}$ through its truncated version};

\node[result,text width=10cm] (P5-8) at (40,-10) {\textbf{Proposition 5.8} and \textbf{Corollary 5.9}\\Estimate of the number of exposed edges of the foremost forest};

\node[result,text width=8cm] (L5-6) at (0,-10) {\textbf{Lemma 5.6}\\Concentration of the number of exposed edges of the foremost forest};

\node[result,text width=3.5cm] (T5-5) at (-10.5,-20) {\textbf{Theorem 5.5}\\Azuma inequality};

\node[result,text width=4.5cm] (L5-1) at (7.5,-20) {\textbf{Lemma 5.1}\\Bound on $\sum\frac{2 \log{(\min\{ k, n-k\})} + \log \log{n}}{k(n-k)}$};

\node[result,text width=4.5cm] (L5-7) at (30,-18) {\textbf{Lemma 5.7}\\Bound on $\sum \frac{1}{i(n-i) + 1}$};

\node[result,text width=5cm] (L5-10) at (50,-25) {\textbf{Lemma 5.10}\\Growth of foremost forest};

\node[result,text width=5cm] (L5-11) at (55,-30) {\textbf{Lemma 5.11}\\Distribution of added vertex};

\node[result,text width=6.5cm] (T5-12) at (19.5,-30) {\textbf{Theorem 5.12}\\Foremost forest target set reachability};

\draw[->,very thick] (L3-3.east) -| (P5-3.north);
\draw[->,very thick] (C2-2.south) -- (P5-3.north);
\draw[->,very thick] (P5-3.south) -- (P5-8.north);
\draw[->,very thick] (L5-2.east) -| (P5-8.north);
\draw[->,very thick] (L5-6.east) -- (P5-8.west);
\draw[->,very thick] (T5-5.north) -- ([xshift=-2.6cm]L5-6.south);
\draw[->,very thick] (L5-1.north) -- ([xshift=1.875cm]L5-6.south);
\draw[->,very thick] (L5-7.north) -- ([xshift=-2.5cm]P5-8.south);
\draw[->,very thick] ([xshift=2.5cm]P5-8.south) -- (L5-10.north);
\draw[->,very thick] (C2-2.east) -| ([xshift=1.75cm]L5-11.north);
\draw[->,very thick] (L5-11.west) -- (T5-12.east);
\draw[->,very thick] (L5-10.west) -| (T5-12.north);
\end{tikzpicture}

% $ biblatex auxiliary file $
% $ biblatex bbl format version 2.9 $
% Do not modify the above lines!
%
% This is an auxiliary file used by the 'biblatex' package.
% This file may safely be deleted. It will be recreated by
% biber as required.
%
\begingroup
\makeatletter
\@ifundefined{ver@biblatex.sty}
  {\@latex@error
     {Missing 'biblatex' package}
     {The bibliography requires the 'biblatex' package.}
      \aftergroup\endinput}
  {}
\endgroup


\refsection{0}
  \datalist[entry]{nty/global//global/global}
    \entry{Akr+17}{article}{}
      \name{author}{4}{}{%
        {{hash=c45eee8a3668945f0f2b4faae5c42815}{%
           family={Akrida},
           familyi={A\bibinitperiod},
           given={Eleni\bibnamedelima C.},
           giveni={E\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim C\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=015a2db9ac17096c8e8b6f9c70a1052c}{%
           family={Gasieniec},
           familyi={G\bibinitperiod},
           given={Leszek},
           giveni={L\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=ea0db3187ed004bcf00f9aee02b299ff}{%
           family={Mertzios},
           familyi={M\bibinitperiod},
           given={George\bibnamedelima B.},
           giveni={G\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim B\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=5f788140a929003fe95a43605d5f4a1c}{%
           family={Spirakis},
           familyi={S\bibinitperiod},
           given={Paul\bibnamedelima G.},
           giveni={P\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim G\bibinitperiod}}}%
      }
      \strng{namehash}{efe93c0cfaddf4c181cacbbd24df320c}
      \strng{fullhash}{e1f61efa6568822528f1e6d94441a469}
      \strng{bibnamehash}{e1f61efa6568822528f1e6d94441a469}
      \strng{authorbibnamehash}{e1f61efa6568822528f1e6d94441a469}
      \strng{authornamehash}{efe93c0cfaddf4c181cacbbd24df320c}
      \strng{authorfullhash}{e1f61efa6568822528f1e6d94441a469}
      \field{sortinit}{A}
      \field{sortinithash}{d77c7cdd82ff690d4c3ef13216f92f0b}
      \field{labelnamesource}{author}
      \field{labeltitlesource}{title}
      \field{journaltitle}{Theory of Computing Systems}
      \field{number}{3}
      \field{title}{The complexity of optimal design of temporally connected graphs}
      \field{volume}{61}
      \field{year}{2017}
      \field{pages}{907\bibrangedash 944}
      \range{pages}{38}
      \verb{doi}
      \verb 10.1007/s00224-017-9757-x
      \endverb
    \endentry
    \entry{Azuma67}{article}{}
      \name{author}{1}{}{%
        {{hash=04b192d661f1bc3dcdfc5e7f1a520501}{%
           family={Azuma},
           familyi={A\bibinitperiod},
           given={Kazuoki},
           giveni={K\bibinitperiod}}}%
      }
      \strng{namehash}{04b192d661f1bc3dcdfc5e7f1a520501}
      \strng{fullhash}{04b192d661f1bc3dcdfc5e7f1a520501}
      \strng{bibnamehash}{04b192d661f1bc3dcdfc5e7f1a520501}
      \strng{authorbibnamehash}{04b192d661f1bc3dcdfc5e7f1a520501}
      \strng{authornamehash}{04b192d661f1bc3dcdfc5e7f1a520501}
      \strng{authorfullhash}{04b192d661f1bc3dcdfc5e7f1a520501}
      \field{sortinit}{A}
      \field{sortinithash}{d77c7cdd82ff690d4c3ef13216f92f0b}
      \field{labelnamesource}{author}
      \field{labeltitlesource}{title}
      \field{journaltitle}{Tohoku Mathematical Journal}
      \field{number}{3}
      \field{title}{Weighted sums of certain dependent random variables}
      \field{volume}{19}
      \field{year}{1967}
      \field{pages}{357\bibrangedash 367}
      \range{pages}{11}
      \verb{doi}
      \verb 10.2748/tmj/1178243286
      \endverb
    \endentry
    \entry{BF03}{inproceedings}{}
      \name{author}{2}{}{%
        {{hash=b47997908e06b7fb432afb54d6878d98}{%
           family={Bhadra},
           familyi={B\bibinitperiod},
           given={Sandeep},
           giveni={S\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=9ca1a1ad58f641aeb197a65d1fcd7b70}{%
           family={Ferreira},
           familyi={F\bibinitperiod},
           given={Afonso},
           giveni={A\bibinitperiod}}}%
      }
      \strng{namehash}{c39fc0bd936355d84adaf753647c94b3}
      \strng{fullhash}{c39fc0bd936355d84adaf753647c94b3}
      \strng{bibnamehash}{c39fc0bd936355d84adaf753647c94b3}
      \strng{authorbibnamehash}{c39fc0bd936355d84adaf753647c94b3}
      \strng{authornamehash}{c39fc0bd936355d84adaf753647c94b3}
      \strng{authorfullhash}{c39fc0bd936355d84adaf753647c94b3}
      \field{sortinit}{B}
      \field{sortinithash}{276475738cc058478c1677046f857703}
      \field{labelnamesource}{author}
      \field{labeltitlesource}{title}
      \field{booktitle}{Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Ad-Hoc Networks and Wireless (ADHOC-NOW)}
      \field{title}{Complexity of connected components in evolving graphs and the computation of multicast trees in dynamic networks}
      \field{year}{2003}
      \field{pages}{259\bibrangedash 270}
      \range{pages}{12}
      \verb{doi}
      \verb 10.1007/978-3-540-39611-6_23
      \endverb
    \endentry
    \entry{Bollobas11}{book}{}
      \name{author}{1}{}{%
        {{hash=69f9382e4d6c45c5bdfeffe9417b250b}{%
           family={Bollob{á}s},
           familyi={B\bibinitperiod},
           given={B{é}la},
           giveni={B\bibinitperiod}}}%
      }
      \list{publisher}{1}{%
        {Cambridge University Press}%
      }
      \strng{namehash}{69f9382e4d6c45c5bdfeffe9417b250b}
      \strng{fullhash}{69f9382e4d6c45c5bdfeffe9417b250b}
      \strng{bibnamehash}{69f9382e4d6c45c5bdfeffe9417b250b}
      \strng{authorbibnamehash}{69f9382e4d6c45c5bdfeffe9417b250b}
      \strng{authornamehash}{69f9382e4d6c45c5bdfeffe9417b250b}
      \strng{authorfullhash}{69f9382e4d6c45c5bdfeffe9417b250b}
      \field{sortinit}{B}
      \field{sortinithash}{276475738cc058478c1677046f857703}
      \field{labelnamesource}{author}
      \field{labeltitlesource}{title}
      \field{edition}{2}
      \field{title}{Random Graphs}
      \field{year}{2001}
      \verb{doi}
      \verb 10.1017/CBO9780511814068
      \endverb
    \endentry
    \entry{waiting-time}{article}{}
      \name{author}{4}{}{%
        {{hash=9444740900ea5b3eeca6618252aa5208}{%
           family={Casteigts},
           familyi={C\bibinitperiod},
           given={Arnaud},
           giveni={A\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=70d66cc0006faa8f2ce60243688ffb35}{%
           family={Himmel},
           familyi={H\bibinitperiod},
           given={Anne{-}Sophie},
           giveni={A\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=b3e0eb62f8fd9b668c96259cc703f5ed}{%
           family={Molter},
           familyi={M\bibinitperiod},
           given={Hendrik},
           giveni={H\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=e7af55c311588171433a32c2d971bb0e}{%
           family={Zschoche},
           familyi={Z\bibinitperiod},
           given={Philipp},
           giveni={P\bibinitperiod}}}%
      }
      \strng{namehash}{142a1990a186a6be05a3c2df184a82ab}
      \strng{fullhash}{70fcc8acea3b0f36575f96379660547f}
      \strng{bibnamehash}{70fcc8acea3b0f36575f96379660547f}
      \strng{authorbibnamehash}{70fcc8acea3b0f36575f96379660547f}
      \strng{authornamehash}{142a1990a186a6be05a3c2df184a82ab}
      \strng{authorfullhash}{70fcc8acea3b0f36575f96379660547f}
      \field{sortinit}{C}
      \field{sortinithash}{963e9d84a3da2344e8833203de5aed05}
      \field{labelnamesource}{author}
      \field{labeltitlesource}{title}
      \field{journaltitle}{Algorithmica}
      \field{number}{9}
      \field{title}{Finding Temporal Paths Under Waiting Time Constraints}
      \field{volume}{83}
      \field{year}{2021}
      \field{pages}{2754\bibrangedash 2802}
      \range{pages}{49}
      \verb{doi}
      \verb 10.1007/s00453-021-00831-w
      \endverb
    \endentry
    \entry{CasteigtsRRZ21}{inproceedings}{}
      \name{author}{4}{}{%
        {{hash=9444740900ea5b3eeca6618252aa5208}{%
           family={Casteigts},
           familyi={C\bibinitperiod},
           given={Arnaud},
           giveni={A\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=f490399cc98d96978089ed56efee0814}{%
           family={Raskin},
           familyi={R\bibinitperiod},
           given={Michael},
           giveni={M\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=49a2d5858d0f4c6ce66110b48298bd48}{%
           family={Renken},
           familyi={R\bibinitperiod},
           given={Malte},
           giveni={M\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=7b13b24b6bf32348f40b19afc80d35af}{%
           family={Zamaraev},
           familyi={Z\bibinitperiod},
           given={Viktor},
           giveni={V\bibinitperiod}}}%
      }
      \strng{namehash}{142a1990a186a6be05a3c2df184a82ab}
      \strng{fullhash}{c188bef486ebf5347209080253628465}
      \strng{bibnamehash}{c188bef486ebf5347209080253628465}
      \strng{authorbibnamehash}{c188bef486ebf5347209080253628465}
      \strng{authornamehash}{142a1990a186a6be05a3c2df184a82ab}
      \strng{authorfullhash}{c188bef486ebf5347209080253628465}
      \field{sortinit}{C}
      \field{sortinithash}{963e9d84a3da2344e8833203de5aed05}
      \field{labelnamesource}{author}
      \field{labeltitlesource}{title}
      \field{booktitle}{62nd {IEEE} Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, {FOCS} 2021, Denver, CO, USA, February 7-10, 2022}
      \field{eprintclass}{cs.DM}
      \field{eprinttype}{arXiv}
      \field{title}{Sharp Thresholds in Random Simple Temporal Graphs}
      \field{year}{2021}
      \field{pages}{319\bibrangedash 326}
      \range{pages}{8}
      \verb{doi}
      \verb 10.1109/FOCS52979.2021.00040
      \endverb
      \verb{eprint}
      \verb 2011.03738
      \endverb
    \endentry
    \entry{CCMP20}{inproceedings}{}
      \name{author}{4}{}{%
        {{hash=6e3986437253cfac0e7f803742af2902}{%
           family={Conte},
           familyi={C\bibinitperiod},
           given={Alessio},
           giveni={A\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=24b611db6ccecd8c9f138bfb5dd34488}{%
           family={Crescenzi},
           familyi={C\bibinitperiod},
           given={Pierluigi},
           giveni={P\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=6a6ff6686c877c38d3980fbc11a3f019}{%
           family={Marino},
           familyi={M\bibinitperiod},
           given={Andrea},
           giveni={A\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=aaa5dcf1ee9872457c4c3a8cfd6fee75}{%
           family={Punzi},
           familyi={P\bibinitperiod},
           given={Giulia},
           giveni={G\bibinitperiod}}}%
      }
      \strng{namehash}{0c7e6bcf39e4a250656181ff3f701ee3}
      \strng{fullhash}{aa74c3b5cbcb93babd9ff03b440867c6}
      \strng{bibnamehash}{aa74c3b5cbcb93babd9ff03b440867c6}
      \strng{authorbibnamehash}{aa74c3b5cbcb93babd9ff03b440867c6}
      \strng{authornamehash}{0c7e6bcf39e4a250656181ff3f701ee3}
      \strng{authorfullhash}{aa74c3b5cbcb93babd9ff03b440867c6}
      \field{sortinit}{C}
      \field{sortinithash}{963e9d84a3da2344e8833203de5aed05}
      \field{labelnamesource}{author}
      \field{labeltitlesource}{title}
      \field{booktitle}{Proceedings of the 45th International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS)}
      \field{title}{Enumeration of {s-d} Separators in {DAGs} with Application to Reliability Analysis in Temporal Graphs}
      \field{year}{2020}
      \field{pages}{25:1\bibrangedash 25:14}
      \range{pages}{-1}
      \verb{doi}
      \verb 10.4230/LIPIcs.MFCS.2020.25
      \endverb
      \verb{urlraw}
      \verb https://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2020/12693
      \endverb
      \verb{url}
      \verb https://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2020/12693
      \endverb
    \endentry
    \entry{EMMZ21}{article}{}
      \name{author}{4}{}{%
        {{hash=9fa325f6320da286e9f755f275d19345}{%
           family={Enright},
           familyi={E\bibinitperiod},
           given={Jessica},
           giveni={J\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=75a11c77fbe968fa11bdfe81ab6bdd0d}{%
           family={Meeks},
           familyi={M\bibinitperiod},
           given={Kitty},
           giveni={K\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=ea0db3187ed004bcf00f9aee02b299ff}{%
           family={Mertzios},
           familyi={M\bibinitperiod},
           given={George\bibnamedelima B.},
           giveni={G\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim B\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=7b13b24b6bf32348f40b19afc80d35af}{%
           family={Zamaraev},
           familyi={Z\bibinitperiod},
           given={Viktor},
           giveni={V\bibinitperiod}}}%
      }
      \strng{namehash}{89fced136d6edbade40674faa2e39f3f}
      \strng{fullhash}{942a74c081fc70a37a0978f10faa9ecc}
      \strng{bibnamehash}{942a74c081fc70a37a0978f10faa9ecc}
      \strng{authorbibnamehash}{942a74c081fc70a37a0978f10faa9ecc}
      \strng{authornamehash}{89fced136d6edbade40674faa2e39f3f}
      \strng{authorfullhash}{942a74c081fc70a37a0978f10faa9ecc}
      \field{sortinit}{E}
      \field{sortinithash}{f615fb9c6fba11c6f962fb3fd599810e}
      \field{labelnamesource}{author}
      \field{labeltitlesource}{title}
      \field{journaltitle}{Journal of Computer and System Sciences}
      \field{title}{Deleting edges to restrict the size of an epidemic in temporal networks}
      \field{volume}{119}
      \field{year}{2021}
      \field{pages}{60\bibrangedash 77}
      \range{pages}{18}
      \verb{doi}
      \verb 10.1016/j.jcss.2021.01.007
      \endverb
    \endentry
    \entry{minimization}{article}{}
      \name{author}{3}{}{%
        {{hash=9fa325f6320da286e9f755f275d19345}{%
           family={Enright},
           familyi={E\bibinitperiod},
           given={Jessica},
           giveni={J\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=75a11c77fbe968fa11bdfe81ab6bdd0d}{%
           family={Meeks},
           familyi={M\bibinitperiod},
           given={Kitty},
           giveni={K\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=d7dc74fa5ba75c29cd0a082aa7c27342}{%
           family={Skerman},
           familyi={S\bibinitperiod},
           given={Fiona},
           giveni={F\bibinitperiod}}}%
      }
      \strng{namehash}{030a7920c9f0c846fcf662b897628f25}
      \strng{fullhash}{030a7920c9f0c846fcf662b897628f25}
      \strng{bibnamehash}{030a7920c9f0c846fcf662b897628f25}
      \strng{authorbibnamehash}{030a7920c9f0c846fcf662b897628f25}
      \strng{authornamehash}{030a7920c9f0c846fcf662b897628f25}
      \strng{authorfullhash}{030a7920c9f0c846fcf662b897628f25}
      \field{sortinit}{E}
      \field{sortinithash}{f615fb9c6fba11c6f962fb3fd599810e}
      \field{labelnamesource}{author}
      \field{labeltitlesource}{title}
      \field{journaltitle}{Journal of Computer and System Sciences}
      \field{title}{Assigning times to minimise reachability in temporal graphs}
      \field{volume}{115}
      \field{year}{2021}
      \field{pages}{169\bibrangedash 186}
      \range{pages}{18}
      \verb{doi}
      \verb 10.1016/j.jcss.2020.08.001
      \endverb
    \endentry
    \entry{ER60-evolution}{article}{}
      \name{author}{2}{}{%
        {{hash=6bdf16ead0815d7b7b3548f89f0f1355}{%
           family={Erdős},
           familyi={E\bibinitperiod},
           given={Paul},
           giveni={P\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=d1fe4e3577456830636963a58be0aabd}{%
           family={Rényi},
           familyi={R\bibinitperiod},
           given={Alfréd},
           giveni={A\bibinitperiod}}}%
      }
      \strng{namehash}{97a933f3856d267f220b0c9a1cf91245}
      \strng{fullhash}{97a933f3856d267f220b0c9a1cf91245}
      \strng{bibnamehash}{97a933f3856d267f220b0c9a1cf91245}
      \strng{authorbibnamehash}{97a933f3856d267f220b0c9a1cf91245}
      \strng{authornamehash}{97a933f3856d267f220b0c9a1cf91245}
      \strng{authorfullhash}{97a933f3856d267f220b0c9a1cf91245}
      \field{sortinit}{E}
      \field{sortinithash}{f615fb9c6fba11c6f962fb3fd599810e}
      \field{labelnamesource}{author}
      \field{labeltitlesource}{title}
      \field{journaltitle}{A Magyar Tudományos Akadémia. Matematikai Kutató Intézetének Közleményei}
      \field{title}{On the evolution of random graphs}
      \field{volume}{5}
      \field{year}{1960}
      \field{pages}{17\bibrangedash 61}
      \range{pages}{45}
    \endentry
    \entry{separators}{article}{}
      \name{author}{5}{}{%
        {{hash=b5502f7cfd8573532eed7bbd820f7c71}{%
           family={Fluschnik},
           familyi={F\bibinitperiod},
           given={Till},
           giveni={T\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=b3e0eb62f8fd9b668c96259cc703f5ed}{%
           family={Molter},
           familyi={M\bibinitperiod},
           given={Hendrik},
           giveni={H\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=50c195d43c7f81644af5ba4232786faf}{%
           family={Niedermeier},
           familyi={N\bibinitperiod},
           given={Rolf},
           giveni={R\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=49a2d5858d0f4c6ce66110b48298bd48}{%
           family={Renken},
           familyi={R\bibinitperiod},
           given={Malte},
           giveni={M\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=e7af55c311588171433a32c2d971bb0e}{%
           family={Zschoche},
           familyi={Z\bibinitperiod},
           given={Philipp},
           giveni={P\bibinitperiod}}}%
      }
      \strng{namehash}{e7e7364b08a53c2f50224daa9b61e96d}
      \strng{fullhash}{76312811ef156743ddea327cf9d358f3}
      \strng{bibnamehash}{76312811ef156743ddea327cf9d358f3}
      \strng{authorbibnamehash}{76312811ef156743ddea327cf9d358f3}
      \strng{authornamehash}{e7e7364b08a53c2f50224daa9b61e96d}
      \strng{authorfullhash}{76312811ef156743ddea327cf9d358f3}
      \field{sortinit}{F}
      \field{sortinithash}{669c706c6f1fbf3b5a83d26f1d9e9e72}
      \field{labelnamesource}{author}
      \field{labeltitlesource}{title}
      \field{eprinttype}{arXiv}
      \field{journaltitle}{Theoretical Computer Science}
      \field{title}{Temporal graph classes: A view through temporal separators}
      \field{volume}{806}
      \field{year}{2020}
      \field{pages}{197\bibrangedash 218}
      \range{pages}{22}
      \verb{doi}
      \verb 10.1016/j.tcs.2019.03.031
      \endverb
      \verb{eprint}
      \verb 1803.00882
      \endverb
    \endentry
    \entry{frieze_karonski_2015}{book}{}
      \name{author}{2}{}{%
        {{hash=cd6e0c0e1fc09ebd7397805403881ead}{%
           family={Frieze},
           familyi={F\bibinitperiod},
           given={Alan},
           giveni={A\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=eb5009ed04c804c9c401ade7f1e58468}{%
           family={Karo{ń}ski},
           familyi={K\bibinitperiod},
           given={Micha{ł}},
           giveni={M\bibinitperiod}}}%
      }
      \list{publisher}{1}{%
        {Cambridge University Press}%
      }
      \strng{namehash}{fcf7b7a3efef14946e96b746770dc458}
      \strng{fullhash}{fcf7b7a3efef14946e96b746770dc458}
      \strng{bibnamehash}{fcf7b7a3efef14946e96b746770dc458}
      \strng{authorbibnamehash}{fcf7b7a3efef14946e96b746770dc458}
      \strng{authornamehash}{fcf7b7a3efef14946e96b746770dc458}
      \strng{authorfullhash}{fcf7b7a3efef14946e96b746770dc458}
      \field{sortinit}{F}
      \field{sortinithash}{669c706c6f1fbf3b5a83d26f1d9e9e72}
      \field{labelnamesource}{author}
      \field{labeltitlesource}{title}
      \field{title}{Introduction to Random Graphs}
      \field{year}{2015}
      \verb{doi}
      \verb 10.1017/CBO9781316339831
      \endverb
    \endentry
    \entry{diameter}{inproceedings}{}
      \name{author}{2}{}{%
        {{hash=5de785b398be12e8632c15dbf7e7dbc9}{%
           family={Godard},
           familyi={G\bibinitperiod},
           given={Emmanuel},
           giveni={E\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=021f337cec17672a7307b194960ad42a}{%
           family={Mazauric},
           familyi={M\bibinitperiod},
           given={Dorian},
           giveni={D\bibinitperiod}}}%
      }
      \strng{namehash}{53c029538efee7a02f8341cba8d55557}
      \strng{fullhash}{53c029538efee7a02f8341cba8d55557}
      \strng{bibnamehash}{53c029538efee7a02f8341cba8d55557}
      \strng{authorbibnamehash}{53c029538efee7a02f8341cba8d55557}
      \strng{authornamehash}{53c029538efee7a02f8341cba8d55557}
      \strng{authorfullhash}{53c029538efee7a02f8341cba8d55557}
      \field{sortinit}{G}
      \field{sortinithash}{5e8d2bf9d38de41b1528bd307546008f}
      \field{labelnamesource}{author}
      \field{labeltitlesource}{title}
      \field{booktitle}{Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Algorithms and Experiments for Sensor Systems, Wireless Networks and Distributed Robotics (ALGOSENSORS)}
      \field{title}{Computing the dynamic diameter of non-deterministic dynamic networks is hard}
      \field{year}{2014}
      \field{pages}{88\bibrangedash 102}
      \range{pages}{15}
      \verb{doi}
      \verb 10.1007/978-3-662-46018-4_6
      \endverb
    \endentry
    \entry{Karp1990}{article}{}
      \name{author}{1}{}{%
        {{hash=5d77d3cf25d2ee3ce64732bb77de0b0f}{%
           family={Karp},
           familyi={K\bibinitperiod},
           given={Richard\bibnamedelima M.},
           giveni={R\bibinitperiod\bibinitdelim M\bibinitperiod}}}%
      }
      \strng{namehash}{5d77d3cf25d2ee3ce64732bb77de0b0f}
      \strng{fullhash}{5d77d3cf25d2ee3ce64732bb77de0b0f}
      \strng{bibnamehash}{5d77d3cf25d2ee3ce64732bb77de0b0f}
      \strng{authorbibnamehash}{5d77d3cf25d2ee3ce64732bb77de0b0f}
      \strng{authornamehash}{5d77d3cf25d2ee3ce64732bb77de0b0f}
      \strng{authorfullhash}{5d77d3cf25d2ee3ce64732bb77de0b0f}
      \field{sortinit}{K}
      \field{sortinithash}{9fd838a31ba64d981e8f44562bd33f89}
      \field{labelnamesource}{author}
      \field{labeltitlesource}{title}
      \field{journaltitle}{Random Structures \& Algorithms}
      \field{number}{1}
      \field{title}{The transitive closure of a random digraph}
      \field{volume}{1}
      \field{year}{1990}
      \field{pages}{73\bibrangedash 93}
      \range{pages}{21}
      \verb{doi}
      \verb 10.1002/rsa.3240010106
      \endverb
    \endentry
    \entry{KKK02}{article}{}
      \name{author}{3}{}{%
        {{hash=548c8439009be7e3768757c6ff4fc6d3}{%
           family={Kempe},
           familyi={K\bibinitperiod},
           given={David},
           giveni={D\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=e405ae3c720db1b0e447ff5b601b968f}{%
           family={Kleinberg},
           familyi={K\bibinitperiod},
           given={Jon},
           giveni={J\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=d6e7552c865637927e1649455d2326f4}{%
           family={Kumar},
           familyi={K\bibinitperiod},
           given={Amit},
           giveni={A\bibinitperiod}}}%
      }
      \strng{namehash}{2c4ddea3d8f53e33464c3ded5f5fb23f}
      \strng{fullhash}{2c4ddea3d8f53e33464c3ded5f5fb23f}
      \strng{bibnamehash}{2c4ddea3d8f53e33464c3ded5f5fb23f}
      \strng{authorbibnamehash}{2c4ddea3d8f53e33464c3ded5f5fb23f}
      \strng{authornamehash}{2c4ddea3d8f53e33464c3ded5f5fb23f}
      \strng{authorfullhash}{2c4ddea3d8f53e33464c3ded5f5fb23f}
      \field{sortinit}{K}
      \field{sortinithash}{9fd838a31ba64d981e8f44562bd33f89}
      \field{labelnamesource}{author}
      \field{labeltitlesource}{title}
      \field{journaltitle}{Journal of Computer and System Sciences}
      \field{number}{4}
      \field{title}{Connectivity and Inference Problems for Temporal Networks}
      \field{volume}{64}
      \field{year}{2002}
      \field{pages}{820\bibrangedash 842}
      \range{pages}{23}
      \verb{doi}
      \verb 10.1006/jcss.2002.1829
      \endverb
    \endentry
    \entry{MitzenmacherU17}{book}{}
      \name{author}{2}{}{%
        {{hash=4dbcb1c7060726deee27d97b4bf31321}{%
           family={Mitzenmacher},
           familyi={M\bibinitperiod},
           given={Michael},
           giveni={M\bibinitperiod}}}%
        {{hash=bb283362dabfd7d804c298b157e8cb43}{%
           family={Upfal},
           familyi={U\bibinitperiod},
           given={Eli},
           giveni={E\bibinitperiod}}}%
      }
      \list{location}{1}{%
        {USA}%
      }
      \list{publisher}{1}{%
        {Cambridge University Press}%
      }
      \strng{namehash}{f291aba097fea1ebb12ca21bc1eafbb8}
      \strng{fullhash}{f291aba097fea1ebb12ca21bc1eafbb8}
      \strng{bibnamehash}{f291aba097fea1ebb12ca21bc1eafbb8}
      \strng{authorbibnamehash}{f291aba097fea1ebb12ca21bc1eafbb8}
      \strng{authornamehash}{f291aba097fea1ebb12ca21bc1eafbb8}
      \strng{authorfullhash}{f291aba097fea1ebb12ca21bc1eafbb8}
      \field{sortinit}{M}
      \field{sortinithash}{cfd219b90152c06204fab207bc6c7cab}
      \field{labelnamesource}{author}
      \field{labeltitlesource}{title}
      \field{edition}{2nd}
      \field{isbn}{110715488X}
      \field{title}{Probability and Computing: Randomization and Probabilistic Techniques in Algorithms and Data Analysis}
      \field{year}{2017}
    \endentry
  \enddatalist
\endrefsection
\endinput