Ercan Yildiz
Abstract
We study binary opinion dynamics in a social network with stubborn agents who influence others but do not change their opinions. We focus on a generalization of the classical voter model by introducing nodes (stubborn agents) that have a fixed state. We show that the presence of stubborn agents with opposing opinions precludes convergence to consensus; instead, opinions converge in distribution with disagreement and fluctuations. In addition to the first moment of this distribution typically studied in the literature, we study the behavior of the second moment in terms of network properties and the opinions and locations of stubborn agents. We also study the problem of optimal placement of stubborn agents where the location of a fixed number of stubborn agents is chosen to have the maximum impact on the long-run expected opinions of agents.
- Daron Acemoglu and Asuman Ozdaglar. 2010. Opinion dynamics and learning in social networks. Dynamic Games Appl., 1--47. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13235-010-0004-110.1007/s13235-010-0004-1.Google Scholar
- Daron Acemoglu, Giacomo Como, Fabio Fagnani, and Asuman Ozdaglar. 2010a. Opinion fluctuations and disagreement in social networks. LIDS Tech. rep. 2850. MIT. DOI:http://web.mit.edu/asuman/www/documents/disagreementsubmitted.pdf. LIDS.Google Scholar
- D. Acemoglu, M. A. Dahleh, I. Lobel, and A. Ozdaglar. 2010b. Bayesian learning in social networks. Rev. Econ. Stud. 78, 4, 1201--1236.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daron Acemoglu, Asuman Ozdaglar, and Ali Parandehgheibi. 2011. Spread of misinformation in social networks. Dynamic Games Appl. 1, 1, 3--49.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Louigi Addario-Berry and Tao Lei. 2012. The mixing time of the Newman: Watts small world. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’12). SIAM, 1661--1668. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2095116.2095247. Google ScholarDigital Library
- David Aldous and Jim Fill. 1994. Reversible Markov chains and random walks on graphs. http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/~aldous/RWG/book.html.Google Scholar
- N. T. J. Bailey. 1975. The Mathematical Theory of Infectious Diseases 2nd. Ed. Hafner, New York.Google Scholar
- Abhijit V. Banerjee. 1992. A simple model of herd behavior. Quart. J. Econ. 107, 797--817.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Frank M. Bass. 1969. A new product growth for model consumer durables. Manage. Sci. 15, 215--227.Google Scholar
- D. D. Chinellato, M. A. M.d. Aguiar, I. R. Epstein, D. Braha, and Y. Bar-Yam. 2007. Dynamical response of networks under external perturbations: Exact results. http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4607.Google Scholar
- Peter Clifford and Aidan Sudbury. 1973. A model for spatial conflict. Biometrika 60, 3, 581--588.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Theodore Cox and David Griffeath. 1986. Diffusive clustering in the two dimensional voter model. Ann. Probab. 14, 2, 347--379.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. H. DeGroot. 1974. Reaching a consensus. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 69, 118--121.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Odo Diekmann, Richard Durrett, Karl Hadeler, Philip Maini, Hal Smith, and Rick Durrett. 1999. Stochastic spatial models. In Mathematics Inspired by Biology, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 1714, Springer, Berlin, 39--94.Google Scholar
- Malcolm Gladwell. 2002. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Back Bay Books.Google Scholar
- Benjamin Golub and Matthew O. Jackson. 2010. Naive learning in social networks and the wisdom of crowds. Am. Econ. J. Microecon. 2, 1, 112--49.Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. Gray. 1986. Duality for general attractive spin systems with applications in one dimension. Ann. Probab. 14, 371--396.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Richard A. Holley and Thomas M. Liggett. 1975. Ergodic theorems for weakly interacting infinite systems and the voter model. Ann. Probab. 3, 4, 643--663.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Matthew O. Jackson. 2008. Social and Economic Networks 1st. Ed. Princeton University Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Jacod and P. Protter. 2000. Probability Essentials. Springer.Google Scholar
- Michael Kearns and Jinsong Tan. 2008. Biased voting and the democratic primary problem. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Internet and Network Economics (WINE’08). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 639--652. Google ScholarDigital Library
- David Kempe, Jon Kleinberg, and Eva Tardos. 2003. Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD’03). ACM, New York, NY, 137--146. Google ScholarDigital Library
- David Kempe, Jon Kleinberg, and Eva Tardos. 2005. Influential nodes in a diffusion model for social networks. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Cellogium on Automata, Languages and Programming. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3580, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1127--1138. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. Kermack and A. McKendrick. 1991. Contributions to the mathematical theory of epidemics: Further studies of the problem of endemicity. Bull. Math. Bio. 53, 1, 89--118.Google Scholar
- Jon Kleinberg. 2007. Cascading Behavior in Networks: Algorithmic and Economic Issues. Cambridge University Press. http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/agtbook-ch24.pdf.Google Scholar
- P. L. Krapivsky. 1992. Kinetics of monomer-monomer surface catalytic reactions. Phys. Rev. A 45, 2, 1067--1072. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.45.1067.Google ScholarCross Ref
- David A. Levin, Yuval Peres, and Elizabeth L. Wilmer. 2006. Markov Chains and Mixing Times. American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
- Thomas M. Liggett. 2005. Interacting Particle Systems. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
- Mauro Mobilia. 2003. Does a single zealot affect an infinite group of voters? Phy. Rev. Lett. 91, 2.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Mobilia, A. Petersen, and S. Redner. 2007. On the role of zealotry in the voter model. J. Stat. Mechanics: Theory Exp.Google Scholar
- J. R. Norris. 1998. Markov Chains (Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- E. Seneta. 1981. Non-negative Matrices and Markov Chains. Springer Series in Statistics.Google Scholar
- V. Sood and S. Redner. 2005. Voter model on heterogeneous graphs. Phy. Rev. Lett. 94, 17.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. N. Tsitsiklis. 1984. Problems in decentralized decision making and computation. Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Fang Wu and Bernardo A. Huberman. 2004. Social structure and opinion formation. In Computational Economics 0407002, EconWPA.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Binary Opinion Dynamics with Stubborn Agents
Recommendations
Majority Rule Based Opinion Dynamics with Biased and Stubborn Agents
SIGMETRICS '16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGMETRICS International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer ScienceIn 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, ...
Majority Rule Based Opinion Dynamics with Biased and Stubborn Agents
Performance evaluation reviewIn 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, ...
Opinion dynamics in social networks with stubborn agents: An issue-based perspective
AbstractClassic models on opinion dynamics usually focus on a group of agents forming their opinions interactively over a single issue. Yet generally agreement cannot be achieved over a single issue when agents are not completely open to ...
Comments