Abstract
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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 3682-3687 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America |
| Volume | 109 |
| Issue number | 10 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 6 Mar 2012 |
Keywords
- Approximate master equation
- Coevolutionary network
- Quasi-stationary distribution
- Wright-Fisher diffusion
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Graph fission in an evolving voter model'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver