MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2419141001 · doi:10.1145/2896377.2901488

Majority Rule Based Opinion Dynamics with Biased and Stubborn Agents

2016· article· en· W2419141001 on OpenAlexaff
Arpan Mukhopadhyay, Ravi R. Mazumdar, R. Roy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLogarithmSet (abstract data type)Field (mathematics)Mathematical economicsEconometricsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we investigate the impact of majority-rule based random interactions among agents in a large social network on the diffusion of opinions in the network. Opinion of each agent is assumed to be a binary variable taking values in the set {0, 1}. Interactions among agents are modeled using the majority rule, where each agent updates its opinion at random instants by adopting the 'majority' opinion among a group of randomly sampled agents. We investigate two scenarios that respectively incorporate `bias' of the agents towards a specific opinion and stubbornness of some of the agents in the majority rule dynamics. For the first scenario, where all the agents are assumed to be 'biased' towards one of the opinions, it is shown that the agents reach a consensus on the preferred opinion (with high probability) only if the initial fraction of agents having the preferred opinion is above a certain threshold. Furthermore, the mean time taken to reach the consensus is shown to be logarithmic in the network size. In the second scenario, where the presence of 'stubborn' agents, who never update their opinions, is assumed, we characterize the equilibrium distribution of opinions of the non-stubborn agents using mean field techniques. The mean field limit is shown to have multiple stable equilibrium points which leads to a phenomenon known as metastability.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceFrench-language works237,207