Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
97 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
53 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Multipolar opinion evolution in biased networks (2403.03913v2)

Published 6 Mar 2024 in eess.SY and cs.SY

Abstract: Motivated by empirical research on bias and opinion formation, we formulate a multidimensional nonlinear opinion-dynamical model where agents have individual biases, which are fixed, as well as opinions, which evolve. The dimensions represent competing options, of which each agent has a relative opinion, and are coupled through normalization of the opinion vector. This can capture, for example, an individual's relative trust in different media. In special cases including where biases are uniform across agents our model achieves consensus, but in general, behaviors are richer and capture multipolar opinion distributions. We examine general fixed points of the system, as well as special cases such as zero biases toward certain options or partitioned decision sets. Lastly, we demonstrate that our model exhibits polarization when biases are spatially correlated across the network, while, as empirical research suggests, a mixed community can mediate biases.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (17)
  1. Eurobarometer, “Standard Eurobarometer 92, media use in the European Union,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2255
  2. R. S. Nickerson, “Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises,” Rev Gen Psychol, vol. 2, no. 2, p. 175–220, June 1998.
  3. S. Mullainathan and A. Shleifer, “The market for news,” Am Econ Rev, vol. 95, no. 4, pp. 1031–1053, 2005.
  4. A. Urman, “Context matters: political polarization on Twitter from a comparative perspective,” Media Cult and Soc, vol. 42, no. 6, p. 857–879, Oct. 2019.
  5. González-Bailón. et al., “Asymmetric ideological segregation in exposure to political news on Facebook,” Science, vol. 381, no. 6656, p. 392–398, July 2023.
  6. X. Bai, M. R. Ramos, and S. T. Fiske, “As diversity increases, people paradoxically perceive social groups as more similar,” Proc Natl Acad Sci, vol. 117, no. 23, p. 12741–12749, May 2020.
  7. M. H. DeGroot, “Reaching a consensus,” J Am Stat Assoc, vol. 69, no. 345, pp. 118–121, 1974.
  8. N. E. Friedkin and E. C. Johnsen, “Social influence and opinions,” J Math Sociol, vol. 15, no. 3-4, pp. 193–206, 1990.
  9. ——, “Social influence networks and opinion change,” Adv Group Process, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1–29, 1999.
  10. A. V. Proskurnikov and R. Tempo, “A tutorial on modeling and analysis of dynamic social networks. Part I,” Annu Rev Control, vol. 43, pp. 65–79, 2017.
  11. ——, “A tutorial on modeling and analysis of dynamic social networks. Part II,” Annu Rev Control, vol. 45, pp. 166–190, 2018.
  12. G. Deffuant, D. Neau, F. Amblard, and G. Weisbuch, “Mixing beliefs among interacting agents,” Adv Complex Syst, vol. 03, no. 01n04, pp. 87–98, Jan. 2000.
  13. S. Schweighofer, D. Garcia, and F. Schweitzer, “An agent-based model of multi-dimensional opinion dynamics and opinion alignment,” Chaos, vol. 30, no. 9, 2020.
  14. S. E. Parsegov, A. V. Proskurnikov, R. Tempo, and N. E. Friedkin, “Novel multidimensional models of opinion dynamics in social networks,” IEEE Trans Autom Control, vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 2270–2285, May 2017.
  15. A. Bizyaeva, A. Franci, and N. E. Leonard, “Nonlinear opinion dynamics with tunable sensitivity,” IEEE Trans Autom Control, vol. 68, no. 3, p. 1415–1430, Mar. 2023.
  16. P. Jia, A. MirTabatabaei, N. E. Friedkin, and F. Bullo, “Opinion dynamics and the evolution of social power in influence networks,” SIAM REV, vol. 57, no. 3, p. 367–397, Jan. 2015.
  17. D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, “Collective dynamics of ’small-world’ networks,” Nature, vol. 393, no. 6684, pp. 440–442, June 1998.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (4)
  1. Luka Baković (1 paper)
  2. David Ohlin (5 papers)
  3. Giacomo Como (65 papers)
  4. Emma Tegling (31 papers)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.