The formation of continuous opinion dynamics based on a gambling mechanism and its sensitivity analysis

The formation of continuous opinion dynamics is investigated based on a virtual gambling mechanism where agents fight for a limited resource. We propose a model with agents holding opinions between and 1. Agents are segregated into two cliques according to the sign of their opinions. Local communication happens only when the opinion distance between corresponding agents is no larger than a pre-defined confidence threshold. Theoretical analysis regarding special cases provides a deep understanding of the roles of both the resource allocation parameter and confidence threshold in the formation of opinion dynamics. For a sparse network, the evolution of opinion dynamics is negligible in the region of low confidence threshold when the mindless agents are absent. Numerical results also imply that, in the presence of economic agents, high confidence threshold is required for apparent clustering of agents in opinion. Moreover, a consensus state is generated only when the following three conditions are satisfied simultaneously: mindless agents are absent, the resource is concentrated in one clique, and confidence threshold tends to a critical value(; , the average number of friends of individual agents). For fixed a confidence threshold and resource allocation parameter, the most chaotic steady state of the dynamics happens when the fraction of mindless agents is about 0.7. It is also demonstrated that economic agents are more likely to win at gambling, compared to mindless ones. Finally, the importance of three involved parameters in establishing the uncertainty of model response is quantified in terms of Latin hypercube sampling-based sensitivity analysis.

[1]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  The origin of bursts and heavy tails in human dynamics , 2005, Nature.

[2]  Edgardo Brigatti,et al.  Consequence of reputation in an open-ended naming game. , 2008, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[3]  Francesco Salvarani,et al.  Opinion dynamics: Kinetic modelling with mass media, application to the Scottish independence referendum , 2016 .

[4]  Bernard Derrida,et al.  Multivalley structure in Kauffman's model: analogy with spin glasses , 1986 .

[5]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Statistical mechanics of complex networks , 2001, ArXiv.

[6]  Wei Li,et al.  Opinion evolution on a BA scaling network , 2013 .

[7]  S. Redner,et al.  Voter model on heterogeneous graphs. , 2004, Physical review letters.

[8]  E. Seneta,et al.  Towards consensus: some convergence theorems on repeated averaging , 1977, Journal of Applied Probability.

[9]  Jon C. Helton,et al.  Survey of sampling-based methods for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis , 2006, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[10]  Nuno Crokidakis,et al.  Consequence of reputation in the Sznajd consensus model , 2010 .

[11]  Jan Lorenz,et al.  Continuous Opinion Dynamics under Bounded Confidence: A Survey , 2007, 0707.1762.

[12]  Gang Kou,et al.  Bounded confidence opinion dynamics with opinion leaders and environmental noises , 2016, Comput. Oper. Res..

[13]  S. Galam,et al.  Sociophysics: A new approach of sociological collective behaviour. I. mean‐behaviour description of a strike , 1982, 2211.07041.

[14]  Nuno Crokidakis,et al.  The first shall be last: selection-driven minority becomes majority , 2014, ArXiv.

[15]  M. Degroot.  Reaching a Consensus , 1974 .

[16]  S. Galam.  Contrarian deterministic effects on opinion dynamics: “the hung elections scenario” , 2003, cond-mat/0307404.

[17]  S. Fortunato,et al.  Statistical physics of social dynamics , 2007, 0710.3256.

[18]  F. Moreira,et al.  Majority-vote model on random graphs. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[19]  Celia Anteneodo,et al.  Consequences of nonconformist behaviors in a continuous opinion model , 2016, ArXiv.

[20]  W. Pedrycz,et al.  Opinion evolution influenced by informed agents , 2016 .

[21]  Guillaume Deffuant,et al.  Interacting Agents and Continuous Opinions Dynamics , 2001, cond-mat/0111494.

[22]  Celia Anteneodo,et al.  Symmetry breaking by heating in a continuous opinion model. , 2017, Physical review. E.

[23]  E. Ben-Naim.  Opinion dynamics: Rise and fall of political parties , 2004, cond-mat/0411427.

[24]  W. Weidlich,et al.  THE STATISTICAL DESCRIPTION OF POLARIZATION PHENOMENA IN SOCIETY , 1971 .

[25]  A-L Barabási,et al.  Structure and tie strengths in mobile communication networks , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[26]  S. Redner,et al.  Dynamics of majority rule in two-state interacting spin systems. , 2003, Physical review letters.

[27]  M. Nowak,et al.  Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring , 1998, Nature.

[28]  Guillaume Deffuant,et al.  Mixing beliefs among interacting agents , 2000, Adv. Complex Syst..

[29]  Nuno Crokidakis,et al.  The influence of local majority opinions on the dynamics of the Sznajd model , 2013, 1312.2550.

[30]  K. Choromanski,et al.  Scale-Free Graph with Preferential Attachment and Evolving Internal Vertex Structure , 2013 .

[31]  Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron,et al.  Opinion evolution in closed community , 2000, cond-mat/0101130.