Heterogeneous voter models.

We introduce the heterogeneous voter model (HVM), in which each agent has its own intrinsic rate to change state, reflective of the heterogeneity of real people, and the partisan voter model (PVM), in which each agent has an innate and fixed preference for one of two possible opinion states. For the HVM, the time until consensus is reached is much longer than in the classic voter model. For the PVM in the mean-field limit, a population evolves to a preference-based state, where each agent tends to be aligned with its internal preference. For finite populations, discrete fluctuations ultimately lead to consensus being reached in a time that scales exponentially with population size.

[1]  J. D. T. Oliveira,et al.  The Asymptotic Theory of Extreme Order Statistics , 1979 .

[2]  Mark S. Granovetter.  Threshold Models of Collective Behavior , 1978, American Journal of Sociology.

[3]  Y. Sinai.  The Limiting Behavior of a One-Dimensional Random Walk in a Random Medium , 1983 .

[4]  Goldhirsch,et al.  Average versus typical mean first-passage time in a random random walk. , 1988, Physical review letters.

[5]  First-passage time for random walks in random environments. , 1989 .

[6]  Murthy,et al.  Mean first-passage time of random walks on a random lattice. , 1989, Physical review. A, General physics.

[7]  J. Angus.  The Asymptotic Theory of Extreme Order Statistics , 1990 .

[8]  Krapivsky.  Kinetics of monomer-monomer surface catalytic reactions. , 1992, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[9]  A. Bray.  Theory of phase-ordering kinetics , 1994, cond-mat/9501089.

[10]  Heterogeneous catalysis on a disordered surface. , 1995, Physical review letters.

[11]  P. Krapivsky,et al.  Coarsening and persistence in the voter model. , 1996, Physical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics.

[12]  S. Galam.  Rational group decision making: A random field Ising model at T = 0 , 1997, cond-mat/9702163.

[13]  David P. Landau,et al.  Phase transitions and critical phenomena , 1989, Computing in Science & Engineering.

[14]  H. Hinrichsen,et al.  Critical coarsening without surface tension: the universality class of the voter model. , 2001, Physical review letters.

[15]  Andrew G. Glen,et al.  APPL , 2001 .

[16]  M. Mobilia.  Does a single zealot affect an infinite group of voters? , 2003, Physical review letters.

[17]  宁北芳,et al.  疟原虫var基因转换速率变化导致抗原变异[英]／Paul H, Robert P, Christodoulou Z, et al//Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A , 2005 .

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

[19]  S. Galam,et al.  The role of inflexible minorities in the breaking of democratic opinion dynamics , 2007, physics/0703021.

[20]  S. Redner,et al.  On the role of zealotry in the voter model , 2007 .

[21]  S. Redner,et al.  Voter models on heterogeneous networks. , 2007, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[22]  N. Christakis,et al.  A Model of Genetic Variation in Human Social Networks , 2010 .

[23]  Jaime E. Settle,et al.  The Heritability of Partisan Attachment , 2009 .

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

[25]  Stefan Grosskinsky Warwick,et al.  Interacting Particle Systems , 2016 .

[26]  J. Stephen Judd,et al.  Behavioral experiments on biased voting in networks , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.