TY - JOUR
T1 - Graph fission in an evolving voter model
AU - Durrett, Richard
AU - Gleeson, James P.
AU - Lloyd, Alun L.
AU - Mucha, Peter J.
AU - Shi, Feng
AU - Sivakoff, David
AU - Socolar, Joshua E.S.
AU - Varghese, Chris
PY - 2012/3/6
Y1 - 2012/3/6
N2 - We consider a simplified model of a social network in which individuals have one of two opinions (called 0 and 1) and their opinions and the network connections coevolve. Edges are picked at random. If the two connected individuals hold different opinions then, with probability 1 - α, one imitates the opinion of the other; otherwise (i.e., with probability α), the link between them is broken and one of them makes a new connection to an individual chosen at random (i) from those with the same opinion or (ii) from the network as a whole. The evolution of the system stops when there are no longer any discordant edges connecting individuals with different opinions. Letting ρ be the fraction of voters holding the minority opinion after the evolution stops, we are interested in how ρ depends on α and the initial fraction u of voters with opinion 1. In case (i), there is a critical value α c which does not depend on u, with ρ ≈ u for α > α c and ρ ≈ 0 for α < α c. In case (ii), the transition point α c(u) depends on the initial density u. For α > α c(u), ρ ≈ u, but for α < α c(u),we have ρ(α,u) = ρ(α,1/2). Using simulations and approximate calculations, we explain why these two nearly identical models have such dramatically different phase transitions.
AB - We consider a simplified model of a social network in which individuals have one of two opinions (called 0 and 1) and their opinions and the network connections coevolve. Edges are picked at random. If the two connected individuals hold different opinions then, with probability 1 - α, one imitates the opinion of the other; otherwise (i.e., with probability α), the link between them is broken and one of them makes a new connection to an individual chosen at random (i) from those with the same opinion or (ii) from the network as a whole. The evolution of the system stops when there are no longer any discordant edges connecting individuals with different opinions. Letting ρ be the fraction of voters holding the minority opinion after the evolution stops, we are interested in how ρ depends on α and the initial fraction u of voters with opinion 1. In case (i), there is a critical value α c which does not depend on u, with ρ ≈ u for α > α c and ρ ≈ 0 for α < α c. In case (ii), the transition point α c(u) depends on the initial density u. For α > α c(u), ρ ≈ u, but for α < α c(u),we have ρ(α,u) = ρ(α,1/2). Using simulations and approximate calculations, we explain why these two nearly identical models have such dramatically different phase transitions.
KW - Approximate master equation
KW - Coevolutionary network
KW - Quasi-stationary distribution
KW - Wright-Fisher diffusion
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84857944650&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1073/pnas.1200709109
DO - 10.1073/pnas.1200709109
M3 - Article
C2 - 22355142
AN - SCOPUS:84857944650
SN - 0027-8424
VL - 109
SP - 3682
EP - 3687
JO - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
JF - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
IS - 10
ER -