How does homophily shape the topology of a dynamic network?

We consider a dynamic network of individuals that may hold one of two different opinions in a two-party society. As a dynamical model, agents can endlessly create and delete links to satisfy a preferred degree, and the network is shaped by homophily, a form of social interaction. Characterized by the parameter J∈[-1,1], the latter plays a role similar to Ising spins: agents create links to others of the same opinion with probability (1+J)/2 and delete them with probability (1-J)/2. Using Monte Carlo simulations and mean-field theory, we focus on the network structure in the steady state. We study the effects of J on degree distributions and the fraction of cross-party links. While the extreme cases of homophily or heterophily (J=±1) are easily understood to result in complete polarization or anti-polarization, intermediate values of J lead to interesting features of the network. Our model exhibits the intriguing feature of an "overwhelming transition" occurring when communities of different sizes are subject to sufficient heterophily: agents of the minority group are oversubscribed and their average degree greatly exceeds that of the majority group. In addition, we introduce an original measure of polarization which displays distinct advantages over the commonly used average edge homogeneity.

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

[2]  W. Marsden.  I and J , 2012 .

[3]  Dan Zeltzer.  Gender Homophily in Referral Networks: Consequences for the Medicare Physician Earnings Gap , 2020 .

[4]  Thilo Gross,et al.  Adaptive coevolutionary networks: a review , 2007, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[5]  Dafne Muntanyola-Saura,et al.  Heterophily in social groups formation: a social network analysis , 2018, Quality & Quantity.

[6]  Romualdo Pastor-Satorras,et al.  Mean-Field Analysis of the q-Voter Model on Networks , 2013, 1301.7563.

[7]  Gerardo Iñiguez,et al.  Cumulative effects of triadic closure and homophily in social networks , 2018, Science Advances.

[8]  Thomas de Quincey.  [C] , 2000, The Works of Thomas De Quincey, Vol. 1: Writings, 1799–1820.

[9]  Mauro Mobilia,et al.  Commitment Versus Persuasion in the Three-Party Constrained Voter Model , 2012, 1207.6270.

[10]  Cun-Quan Zhang,et al.  Emergence of segregation in evolving social networks , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  Asuman E. Ozdaglar,et al.  Opinion Fluctuations and Disagreement in Social Networks , 2010, Math. Oper. Res..

[12]  M. Macy,et al.  Complex Contagions and the Weakness of Long Ties1 , 2007, American Journal of Sociology.

[13]  Markus Strohmaier,et al.  Homophily influences ranking of minorities in social networks , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[14]  Mustafa Yavas,et al.  Impact of Homophily on Diffusion Dynamics Over Social Networks , 2014 .

[15]  Damon Centola.  An Experimental Study of Homophily in the Adoption of Health Behavior , 2011, Science.

[16]  R. Durrett,et al.  Graph fission in an evolving voter model , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  P. Alam.  ‘A’ , 2021, Composites Engineering: An A–Z Guide.

[18]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Evolution of Networks: From Biological Nets to the Internet and WWW , 2004 .

[19]  Cosma Rohilla Shalizi,et al.  Homophily and Contagion Are Generically Confounded in Observational Social Network Studies , 2010, Sociological methods & research.

[20]  Tsuyoshi Murata,et al.  A model of opinion and propagation structure polarization in social media , 2020 .

[21]  R. Zia,et al.  Extraordinary variability and sharp transitions in a maximally frustrated dynamic network , 2012, 1212.0576.

[22]  runden Tisch,et al.  AM , 2020, Catalysis from A to Z.

[23]  장윤희,et al.  Y. , 2003, Industrial and Labor Relations Terms.

[24]  Junling Ma,et al.  Network evolution by different rewiring schemes , 2009 .

[25]  Lada A. Adamic,et al.  Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook , 2015, Science.

[26]  M. Mobilia,et al.  Large fluctuations in anti-coordination games on scale-free graphs , 2017, 1701.02904.

[27]  Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron,et al.  Phase transition in the Sznajd model with independence , 2011, ArXiv.

[28]  Joshua B. Plotkin,et al.  Information gerrymandering and undemocratic decisions , 2019, Nature.

[29]  R. A. Blythe,et al.  Ordering in voter models on networks: exact reduction to a single-coordinate diffusion , 2010, 1006.1557.

[30]  Gorjan Alagic,et al.  #p , 2019, Quantum information & computation.

[31]  G. Caldarelli,et al.  The spreading of misinformation online , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[32]  James R. Riehl,et al.  Homophily, heterophily and the diversity of messages among decision-making individuals , 2018, Royal Society Open Science.

[33]  Ericka Stricklin-Parker,et al.  Ann , 2005 .

[34]  G. Szabó,et al.  Evolutionary games on graphs , 2006, cond-mat/0607344.

[35]  F. Heider.  The psychology of interpersonal relations , 1958 .

[36]  S. Iyengar,et al.  Affect, Not Ideology A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization , 2012 .

[37]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[38]  R. Sarpong,et al.  Bio-inspired synthesis of xishacorenes A, B, and C, and a new congener from fuscol† †Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: 10.1039/c9sc02572c , 2019, Chemical science.

[39]  Eli Pariser,et al.  The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You , 2011 .

[40]  Joshua A. Tucker,et al.  Is Online Political Communication More Than an Echo Chamber? , 2022 .

[41]  Boris Podobnik,et al.  Skill complementarity enhances heterophily in collaboration networks , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[42]  Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron,et al.  Statistical Physics Of Opinion Formation: Is it a SPOOF? , 2019, Comptes Rendus Physique.

[43]  Mark Newman,et al.  Networks: An Introduction , 2010 .

[44]  Pablo Barberá.  Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data , 2015, Political Analysis.

[45]  Kimmo Kaski,et al.  Structural transition in social networks: The role of homophily , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[46]  S. Galam.  Sociophysics: A Physicist's Modeling of Psycho-political Phenomena , 2012 .

[47]  友紀子 中川.  SoC , 2021, Journal of Japan Society for Fuzzy Theory and Intelligent Informatics.

[48]  L. Smith-Lovin,et al.  Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. , 1987 .

[49]  Garry Robins,et al.  A spatial model for social networks , 2006 .

[50]  Floriana Gargiulo,et al.  The Role of Homophily in the Emergence of Opinion Controversies , 2016, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[51]  Harry Eugene Stanley,et al.  Modeling confirmation bias and polarization , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[52]  F. Vazquez,et al.  Analytical solution of the voter model on uncorrelated networks , 2008, 0803.1686.

[53]  Marián Boguñá,et al.  Popularity versus similarity in growing networks , 2011, Nature.

[54]  B. M. Fulk.  MATH , 1992 .