Effect of initial concentration and spatial heterogeneity of active agent distribution on opinion dy

We analyze the effect of spatial heterogeneity in the initial spin distribution on spin dynamics in a three-state square lattice divided into spatial cells (districts). In the spirit of the statistical mechanics of social impact, we introduce a dominant influence rule (DIR), according to which, in a single update step, a chosen node adopts the state determined by the influence of its discussion group formed by the node itself and its neighbors within one or more coordination spheres. In contrast to models based on some form of majority rule (MR), a system governed by the DIR is easily trapped in a stable non-consensus state, if all nodes of the discussion group have the same weight of influence. To ensure that a consensus in the DIR system is necessarily reached, we need to put a stochastic process in the update rule. Further, the stochastic DIR model is used as a starting point for understanding the effect of spatial heterogeneity of active agent (non-zero spin) distribution on the exit probabilities. Initially, the positive and negative spins (active agents) are assigned to some nodes with non-uniform spatial distributions; while the rest of the nodes remain in the state with spin zero (uncommitted voters). By varying the relative means and skewness of the initial spin distributions, we observe critical behaviors of exit probabilities in finite size systems. The critical exponents are obtained by Monte Carlo simulations. The results of numerical simulations are discussed in the context of social dynamics.

[1]  P. Clifford,et al.  A model for spatial conflict , 1973 .

[2]  Kei-ichi Tainaka,et al.  Indirect effect in cyclic voter models , 1995 .

[3]  M. San Miguel,et al.  Neighborhood models of minority opinion spreading , 2004, cond-mat/0403339.

[4]  S Redner,et al.  Majority rule dynamics in finite dimensions. , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[5]  Tao Zhou,et al.  Effects of social diversity on the emergence of global consensus in opinion dynamics. , 2009, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[6]  N. L. Johnson,et al.  Continuous Univariate Distributions. , 1995 .

[7]  Attila Szolnoki,et al.  Three-state cyclic voter model extended with Potts energy. , 2002, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[8]  S Redner,et al.  Majority versus minority dynamics: phase transition in an interacting two-state spin system. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[9]  Sergey N. Dorogovtsev,et al.  Critical phenomena in complex networks , 2007, ArXiv.

[10]  M. Newman,et al.  Nonequilibrium phase transition in the coevolution of networks and opinions. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[11]  Serge Galam,et al.  The dynamics of minority opinions in democratic debate , 2004 .

[12]  Daniele Vilone,et al.  Solution of voter model dynamics on annealed small-world networks. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[13]  Santo Fortunato.  The Sznajd Consensus Model with Continuous Opinions , 2005 .

[14]  B. Söderberg.  General formalism for inhomogeneous random graphs. , 2002, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[15]  D. Stauffer,et al.  Election results and the Sznajd model on Barabasi network , 2001, cond-mat/0111147.

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

[17]  Zhi-Xi Wu,et al.  Majority-vote model on hyperbolic lattices. , 2009, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[18]  R. Lambiotte,et al.  Majority model on a network with communities. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

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

[20]  M. A. Muñoz,et al.  Nonlinear q-voter model. , 2009, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[21]  S. Galam,et al.  Killer geometries in competing species dynamics , 2002, cond-mat/0204173.

[22]  B. Latané,et al.  Statistical mechanics of social impact. , 1992, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[23]  S. Redner,et al.  Consensus formation in multi-state majority and plurality models , 2005 .

[24]  Macartan Humphreys,et al.  Spatial Models, Cognitive Metrics, and Majority Rule Equilibria , 2009, British Journal of Political Science.

[25]  Serge Galam,et al.  SOCIOPHYSICS: A REVIEW OF GALAM MODELS , 2008, 0803.1800.

[26]  F. Moreira,et al.  Small-world effects in the majority-vote model. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[27]  MAJORITY-VOTE MODEL ON (3, 4, 6, 4) AND (34, 6) ARCHIMEDEAN LATTICES , 2006 .

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

[29]  In-mook Kim,et al.  Critical behavior of the majority voter model is independent of transition rates. , 2007, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[30]  S. Galam.  Heterogeneous beliefs, segregation, and extremism in the making of public opinions. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[31]  Jari Saramäki,et al.  Dynamics of latent voters. , 2008, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[32]  S. Galam.  Application of statistical physics to politics , 1999, cond-mat/0004306.

[33]  Oswaldo Morales Matamoros,et al.  Análisis fractal de elecciones federales1991-2003 , 2006 .

[34]  L. Peliti,et al.  Opinion dynamics in a three-choice system , 2005, cond-mat/0504254.

[35]  R. Holley,et al.  Ergodic Theorems for Weakly Interacting Infinite Systems and the Voter Model , 1975 .

[36]  S. Redner,et al.  Heterogeneous voter models. , 2010, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[37]  Joseph L. Klesner.  The 2006 Mexican Elections: Manifestation of a Divided Society? , 2007, PS: Political Science & Politics.

[38]  Graham Gudgin,et al.  Electoral bias and the distribution of party voters , 1974 .

[39]  Yuzhong Qu,et al.  The strength of the minority , 2008 .

[40]  S. Redner,et al.  Dynamics of vacillating voters , 2007, 0710.0914.

[41]  H. J. Herrmann,et al.  OPINION FORMATION ON A DETERMINISTIC PSEUDO-FRACTAL NETWORK , 2004 .

[42]  Shlomo Havlin,et al.  Dynamic opinion model and invasion percolation. , 2009, Physical review letters.

[43]  V. Latora,et al.  Complex networks: Structure and dynamics , 2006 .

[44]  S. Fortunato.  UNIVERSALITY OF THE THRESHOLD FOR COMPLETE CONSENSUS FOR THE OPINION DYNAMICS OF DEFFUANT et al , 2004, cond-mat/0406054.

[45]  Paulin Melatagia Yonta,et al.  Opinion dynamics using majority functions , 2009, Math. Soc. Sci..

[46]  Alexander S Balankin.  Dynamic scaling approach to study time series fluctuations. , 2007, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

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

[48]  A. O. Sousa,et al.  Majority-vote on directed Erdős–Rényi random graphs , 2008, 0801.4250.

[49]  G. Ódor.  Universality classes in nonequilibrium lattice systems , 2002, cond-mat/0205644.

[50]  Dietrich Stauffer.  Percolation And Galam Theory Of Minority Opinion Spreading , 2002 .

[51]  Rainer Hegselmann,et al.  Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence: models, analysis and simulation , 2002, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[52]  André L.M. Vilela,et al.  Majority-vote model with different agents , 2009 .

[53]  Nazareno G F Medeiros,et al.  Domain motion in the voter model with noise. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[54]  Kei-ichi Tainaka,et al.  Paradoxical effect in a three-candidate voter model , 1993 .

[55]  Constantino Tsallis,et al.  A majority-rule model : real-space renormalization-group solution and finite size scaling , 1982 .

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

[57]  AGH-UST,et al.  Majority-vote model on (3,4,6,4) and (3^4,6) Archimedean lattices , 2006, cond-mat/0602563.

[58]  Andrzej Pękalski,et al.  Model of opinion forming and voting , 2008 .

[59]  T. Liggett.  Interacting Particle Systems , 1985 .

[60]  V. Latora,et al.  VECTOR OPINION DYNAMICS IN A BOUNDED CONFIDENCE CONSENSUS MODEL , 2005, physics/0504017.

[61]  Fei Ding,et al.  An evolutionary game theory model of binary opinion formation , 2010 .

[62]  Luciano da Fontoura Costa,et al.  Spread of opinions and proportional voting. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[63]  Wooseop Kwak,et al.  Existence of an upper critical dimension in the majority voter model. , 2008, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[64]  A. D. de Souza,et al.  Continuous majority-vote model. , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[65]  S Redner,et al.  Freezing in Ising ferromagnets. , 2002, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

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

[67]  S. Redner,et al.  Dynamics of non-conservative voters , 2007, 0712.0364.

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

[69]  A. Arenas,et al.  Models of social networks based on social distance attachment. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[70]  Steven Callander,et al.  Majority rule when voters like to win , 2008, Games Econ. Behav..