Asynchronous Majority Dynamics on Binomial Random Graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study information aggregation in networks when agents interact to learn a binary state of the world. Initially each agent privately observes an independent signal which is "correct" with probability $\frac{1}{2}+δ$ for some $δ> 0$. At each round, a node is selected uniformly at random to update their public opinion to match the majority of their neighbours (breaking ties in favour of their initial private signal). Our main result shows that for sparse and connected binomial random graphs $\mathcal G(n,p)$ the process stabilizes in a "correct" consensus in $\mathcal O(n\log^2 n/\log\log n)$ steps with high probability. In fact, when $\log n/n \ll p = o(1)$ the process terminates at time $\hat T = (1+o(1))n\log n$, where $\hat T$ is the first time when all nodes have been selected at least once. However, in dense binomial random graphs with $p=Ω(1)$, there is an information cascade where the process terminates in the "incorrect" consensus with probability bounded away from zero.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".