Advertisement

Journal of Systems Science and Complexity

, Volume 31, Issue 6, pp 1498–1509 | Cite as

Rebels Lead to the Doctrine of the Mean: A Heterogeneous DeGroot Model

  • Zhigang Cao
  • Fengliang Jiao
  • Xinglong Qu
  • Wen-Xu Wang
  • Mingmin Yang
  • Xiaoguang Yang
  • Boyu Zhang
Article
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

The DeGroot model is one of the most classical models in the field of opinion dynamics. The standard DeGroot model assumes that agents are homogeneous and update their opinions in the direction of a weighted average of their neighbors’ opinions. One natural question is whether a second type of agents could significantly change the main properties of the model. The authors address this question by introducing rebels, who update their opinions toward the opposite of their neighbors’ weighted average. The authors find that the existence of rebels remarkably affects the opinion dynamics. Under certain mild conditions, the existence of a few rebels will lead the group opinion to the golden mean, regardless of the initial opinions of the agents and the structure of the learning network. This result is completely different from that of the standard DeGroot model, where the final consensus opinion is determined by both the initial opinions and the learning topology. The study then provides new insights into understanding how heterogeneous individuals in a group reach consensus and why the golden mean is so common in human society.

Keywords

Golden mean network opinion dynamics rebel 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

A preliminary version of this paper appears in Proceedings of The 6th International Conference on Knowledge, Information and Creativity Support Systems, Beijing, 2011. The authors acknowledge the valuable suggestions and comments received from that conference.

References

  1. [1]
    DeGroot M H, Reaching a consensus, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1974, 69: 118–121.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Lorenz J, Continuous opinion dynamics under bounded confidence: A survey, International Journal of Modern Physics C, 2007, 18(12): 1819–1838.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Jackson M O, Social and Economic Networks, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2008.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Castellano C, Fortunato S, and Loreto V, Statistical physics of social dynamics, Reviews of Modern Physics, 2009, 81(2): 591–646.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Jia P, MirTabatabaei A, Friedkin N E, et al., Opinion dynamics and the evolution of social power in influence networks, SIAM Review, 2015, 57(3): 367–397.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Zhang J and Chen G, Convergence rate of the asymmetric Deffuant-Weisbuch dynamics, Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 2015, 28(4): 773–787.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Acemoglu D and Ozdaglar A, Opinion dynamics and learning in social networks, Dynamic Games and Applications, 2011, 1(1): 3–49.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Liu Q and Wang X, Opinion dynamics with similarity-based random neighbors, Scientific Reports, 2013, 3: 2968.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Zhao J, Liu Q, and Wang X, Competitive dynamics on complex networks, Scientific Reports, 2014, 4: 5858.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Sobel J, Economists’ models of learning, Journal of Economic Theory, 2000, 94(2): 241–261.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Golub B and Jackson M O, Naive learning in social networks and the wisdom of crowds, American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2010, 2(1): 112–149.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Cao Z, Gao H, Qu X, et al., Fashion, cooperation, and social interactions, PloS ONE, 2013, 8: e49441.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Cao Z, Qin C, Yang X, et al., A heterogeneous network game perspective of fashion cycle, Available at SSRN 2260025, 2013.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Cao Z and Yang X, The fashion game: Network extension of matching pennies, Theoretical Computer Science, 2014, 540: 169–181.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Krugman P, Ricardo’s Difficult Idea, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Dong Y, Li C, Tao Y, et al., Evolution of conformity in social dilemmas, PLoS ONE, 2015, 10: e0137435.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Szolnoki A and Perc M, Conformity enhances network reciprocity in evolutionary social dilemmas, Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 2015, 12: 20141299.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Szolnoki A and Perc M, Leaders should not be conformists in evolutionary social dilemmas, Scientific Reports, 2016, 6: 23633.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Han H, Qiang C, Wang C, et al., Soft-control for collective opinion of weighted DeGroot model, Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 2017, 30(3): 550–567.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Acemoglu D, Como G, Fagnani F, and Ozdaglar A, Opinion fluctuations and disagreement in social networks, Mathematics of Operations Research, 2013, 38(1): 1–27.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Yildiz E, Ozdaglar A, Acemoglu D, et al., Binary opinion dynamics with stubborn agents, ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation, 2013, 1(4): 1–30.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Ghaderi J and Srikant R, Opinion dynamics in social networks with stubborn agents: Equilibrium and convergence rate, Automatica, 2014, 50(12): 3209–3215.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Mobilia M, Nonlinear q-voter model with inflexible zealots, Physical Review E, 2015, 92(1): 012803.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Ruan Z, Iniguez G, Karsai M, et al., Kinetics of social contagion, Physical Review Letters, 2015, 115(21): 218702.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Waagen A, Verma G, Chan K, et al., Effect of zealotry in high-dimensional opinion dynamics models, Physical Review E, 2015, 91(2): 022811.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Colaiori F and Castellano C, Consensus versus persistence of disagreement in opinion formation: The role of zealots, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2016, 2016(3): 033401.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Altafini C, Consensus problems on networks with antagonistic interactions, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2013, 58(4): 935–946.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Altafini C and Lini G, Predictable dynamics of opinion forming for networks with antagonistic interactions, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2015, 60(2): 342–357.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Li Y, Chen W, Wang Y, et al., Voter model on signed social networks, Internet Mathematics, 2015, 11(2): 93–133.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Meng Z, Shi G, and Johansson K H, Multiagent systems with compasses, SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 2015, 53(5): 3057–3080.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Eger S, Opinion dynamics and wisdom under out-group discrimination, Mathematical Social Sciences, 2016, 80: 97–107.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Meng Z, Shi G, Johansson K H, et al., Behaviors of networks with antagonistic interactions and switching topologies, Automatica, 2016, 73: 110–116.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    Proskurnikov A V, Matveev A S, and Cao M, Opinion dynamics in social networks with hostile camps: Consensus vs. polarization, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2016, 61(6): 1524–1536.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    Shi G, Proutiere A, Johansson M, et al., The evolution of beliefs over signed social networks, Operations Research, 2016, 64(3): 585–604.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    Galam S, Contrarian deterministic effects on opinion dynamics: “The hung elections scenario”, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 2004, 333: 453–460.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    Galam S and Jacobs F, The role of inflexible minorities in the breaking of democratic opinion dynamics, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 2007, 381: 366–376.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Galam S, Sociophysics: A review of galam models, International Journal of Modern Physics C, 2008, 19(3): 409–440.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    Hong H and Strogatz S H, Conformists and contrarians in a kuramoto model with identical natural frequencies, Physical Review E, 2011, 84(4): 046202.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    Hong H and Strogatz S H, Kuramoto model of coupled oscillators with positive and negative coupling parameters: An example of conformist and contrarian oscillators, Physical Review Letters, 2011, 106(5): 054102.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    Bagnoli F and Rechtman R, Bifurcations in models of a society of reasonable contrarians and conformists, Physical Review E, 2015, 92(4): 042913.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    Holme P and Jo H H, Collective decision making with a mix of majority and minority seekers, Physical Review E, 2016, 93(5): 052308.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    Dandekar P, Goel A, and Lee D T, Biased assimilation, homophily, and the dynamics of polarization, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2013, 110(15): 5791–5796.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. [43]
    Zhang B, Cao Z, Qin C Z, et al., Fashion and homophily, Available at SSRN 2250898, 2013.Google Scholar
  44. [44]
    Bindel D, Kleinberg J, and Oren S, How bad is forming your own opinion?, Games and Economic Behavior, 2015, 92: 248–265.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. [45]
    Jadbabaie A, Molavi P, Sandroni A, et al., Non-bayesian social learning, Games and Economic Behavior, 2012, 76(1): 210–225.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. [46]
    Brualdi R A and Cvetkovic D, A combinatorial Approach to Matrix Theory and Its Applications, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2009.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. [47]
    DeMarzo P M, Vayanos D, and Zwiebel J, Persuasion bias, social influence, and uni-dimensional opinions, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2003, 118(3): 909–968.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. [48]
    Meyer C D, Matrix Analysis and Applied Linear Algebra, SIAM, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Systems Science, Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhigang Cao
    • 1
  • Fengliang Jiao
    • 2
  • Xinglong Qu
    • 3
  • Wen-Xu Wang
    • 4
  • Mingmin Yang
    • 5
  • Xiaoguang Yang
    • 5
  • Boyu Zhang
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Economics, School of Economics and ManagementBeijing Jiaotong UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Department of Information EngineeringWeifang Business Vocational CollegeZhuchengChina
  3. 3.The Research Center of Information Technology & Economic and Social DevelopmentHangzhou Dianzi UniversityHangzhouChina
  4. 4.School of Systems ScienceBeijing Normal UniversityBeijingChina
  5. 5.MADIS, Academy of Mathematics and Systems ScienceChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  6. 6.Laboratory of Mathematics and Complex Systems, Ministry of Education, School of Mathematical SciencesBeijing Normal UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations