research-article

Binary Opinion Dynamics with Stubborn Agents

Authors:

Asuman Ozdaglar,

Daron Acemoglu,

Anna ScaglioneAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC), Volume 1, Issue 4

Article No.: 19, Pages 1 - 30

https://doi.org/10.1145/2538508

Published: 01 December 2013 Publication History

Abstract

We study binary opinion dynamics in a social network with stubborn agents who influence others but do not change their opinions. We focus on a generalization of the classical voter model by introducing nodes (stubborn agents) that have a fixed state. We show that the presence of stubborn agents with opposing opinions precludes convergence to consensus; instead, opinions converge in distribution with disagreement and fluctuations. In addition to the first moment of this distribution typically studied in the literature, we study the behavior of the second moment in terms of network properties and the opinions and locations of stubborn agents. We also study the problem of optimal placement of stubborn agents where the location of a fixed number of stubborn agents is chosen to have the maximum impact on the long-run expected opinions of agents.

References

[1]

Daron Acemoglu and Asuman Ozdaglar. 2010. Opinion dynamics and learning in social networks. Dynamic Games Appl., 1--47.

[2]

Daron Acemoglu, Giacomo Como, Fabio Fagnani, and Asuman Ozdaglar. 2010a. Opinion fluctuations and disagreement in social networks. LIDS Tech. rep. 2850. MIT. LIDS.

[3]

D. Acemoglu, M. A. Dahleh, I. Lobel, and A. Ozdaglar. 2010b. Bayesian learning in social networks. Rev. Econ. Stud. 78, 4, 1201--1236.

[4]

Daron Acemoglu, Asuman Ozdaglar, and Ali Parandehgheibi. 2011. Spread of misinformation in social networks. Dynamic Games Appl. 1, 1, 3--49.

[5]

Louigi Addario-Berry and Tao Lei. 2012. The mixing time of the Newman: Watts small world. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’12). SIAM, 1661--1668. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2095116.2095247.

Digital Library

[6]

David Aldous and Jim Fill. 1994. Reversible Markov chains and random walks on graphs. http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/~aldous/RWG/book.html.

[7]

N. T. J. Bailey. 1975. The Mathematical Theory of Infectious Diseases 2nd. Ed. Hafner, New York.

[8]

Abhijit V. Banerjee. 1992. A simple model of herd behavior. Quart. J. Econ. 107, 797--817.

[9]

Frank M. Bass. 1969. A new product growth for model consumer durables. Manage. Sci. 15, 215--227.

[10]

D. D. Chinellato, M. A. M.d. Aguiar, I. R. Epstein, D. Braha, and Y. Bar-Yam. 2007. Dynamical response of networks under external perturbations: Exact results. http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4607.

[11]

Peter Clifford and Aidan Sudbury. 1973. A model for spatial conflict. Biometrika 60, 3, 581--588.

[12]

J. Theodore Cox and David Griffeath. 1986. Diffusive clustering in the two dimensional voter model. Ann. Probab. 14, 2, 347--379.

[13]

M. H. DeGroot. 1974. Reaching a consensus. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 69, 118--121.

[14]

Odo Diekmann, Richard Durrett, Karl Hadeler, Philip Maini, Hal Smith, and Rick Durrett. 1999. Stochastic spatial models. In Mathematics Inspired by Biology, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 1714, Springer, Berlin, 39--94.

[15]

Malcolm Gladwell. 2002. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Back Bay Books.

[16]

Benjamin Golub and Matthew O. Jackson. 2010. Naive learning in social networks and the wisdom of crowds. Am. Econ. J. Microecon. 2, 1, 112--49.

[17]

L. Gray. 1986. Duality for general attractive spin systems with applications in one dimension. Ann. Probab. 14, 371--396.

[18]

Richard A. Holley and Thomas M. Liggett. 1975. Ergodic theorems for weakly interacting infinite systems and the voter model. Ann. Probab. 3, 4, 643--663.

[19]

Matthew O. Jackson. 2008. Social and Economic Networks 1st. Ed. Princeton University Press.

Digital Library

[20]

J. Jacod and P. Protter. 2000. Probability Essentials. Springer.

[21]

Michael Kearns and Jinsong Tan. 2008. Biased voting and the democratic primary problem. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Internet and Network Economics (WINE’08). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 639--652.

Digital Library

[22]

David Kempe, Jon Kleinberg, and Eva Tardos. 2003. Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD’03). ACM, New York, NY, 137--146.

Digital Library

[23]

David Kempe, Jon Kleinberg, and Eva Tardos. 2005. Influential nodes in a diffusion model for social networks. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Cellogium on Automata, Languages and Programming. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3580, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1127--1138.

Digital Library

[24]

W. Kermack and A. McKendrick. 1991. Contributions to the mathematical theory of epidemics: Further studies of the problem of endemicity. Bull. Math. Bio. 53, 1, 89--118.

[25]

Jon Kleinberg. 2007. Cascading Behavior in Networks: Algorithmic and Economic Issues. Cambridge University Press. http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/agtbook-ch24.pdf.

[26]

P. L. Krapivsky. 1992. Kinetics of monomer-monomer surface catalytic reactions. Phys. Rev. A 45, 2, 1067--1072.

[27]

David A. Levin, Yuval Peres, and Elizabeth L. Wilmer. 2006. Markov Chains and Mixing Times. American Mathematical Society.

[28]

Thomas M. Liggett. 2005. Interacting Particle Systems. Springer, Berlin.

[29]

Mauro Mobilia. 2003. Does a single zealot affect an infinite group of voters? Phy. Rev. Lett. 91, 2.

[30]

M. Mobilia, A. Petersen, and S. Redner. 2007. On the role of zealotry in the voter model. J. Stat. Mechanics: Theory Exp.

[31]

J. R. Norris. 1998. Markov Chains (Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics). Cambridge University Press.

[32]

E. Seneta. 1981. Non-negative Matrices and Markov Chains. Springer Series in Statistics.

[33]

V. Sood and S. Redner. 2005. Voter model on heterogeneous graphs. Phy. Rev. Lett. 94, 17.

[34]

J. N. Tsitsiklis. 1984. Problems in decentralized decision making and computation. Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

[35]

Fang Wu and Bernardo A. Huberman. 2004. Social structure and opinion formation. In Computational Economics 0407002, EconWPA.

Cited By

Amir GArieli IAshkenazi-Golan GPeretz R(2025)Granular DeGroot dynamics – A model for robust naive learning in social networksJournal of Economic Theory10.1016/j.jet.2024.105952223(105952)Online publication date: Jan-2025
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2024.105952
Meylahn BMeylahn J(2024)How social reinforcement learning can lead to metastable polarisation and the voter modelPLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.031395119:12(e0313951)Online publication date: 17-Dec-2024
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313951
Chen YZaman T(2024)Shaping opinions in social networks with shadow banningPLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.029997719:3(e0299977)Online publication date: 27-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299977
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Binary Opinion Dynamics with Stubborn Agents
1. Theory of computation
  1. Design and analysis of algorithms

Recommendations

Majority Rule Based Opinion Dynamics with Biased and Stubborn Agents
SIGMETRICS '16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGMETRICS International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Science

In this paper, we investigate the impact of majority-rule based random interactions among agents in a large social network on the diffusion of opinions in the network. Opinion of each agent is assumed to be a binary variable taking values in the set {0, ...
Majority Rule Based Opinion Dynamics with Biased and Stubborn Agents
Performance evaluation review

In this paper, we investigate the impact of majority-rule based random interactions among agents in a large social network on the diffusion of opinions in the network. Opinion of each agent is assumed to be a binary variable taking values in the set {0, ...
Opinion dynamics in social networks with stubborn agents: An issue-based perspective
Abstract
Classic models on opinion dynamics usually focus on a group of agents forming their opinions interactively over a single issue. Yet generally agreement cannot be achieved over a single issue when agents are not completely open to ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation

ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation Volume 1, Issue 4

December 2013

96 pages

ISSN:2167-8375

EISSN:2167-8383

DOI:10.1145/2542174

Editors:
Vincent Conitzer
Duke University
,
Preston McAfee
Google

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2013 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 December 2013

Accepted: 01 March 2013

Revised: 01 December 2012

Received: 01 November 2011

Published in TEAC Volume 1, Issue 4

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed

Funding Sources

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

227
Total Citations
View Citations
1,488
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)148
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)11

Reflects downloads up to 13 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Amir GArieli IAshkenazi-Golan GPeretz R(2025)Granular DeGroot dynamics – A model for robust naive learning in social networksJournal of Economic Theory10.1016/j.jet.2024.105952223(105952)Online publication date: Jan-2025
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2024.105952
Meylahn BMeylahn J(2024)How social reinforcement learning can lead to metastable polarisation and the voter modelPLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.031395119:12(e0313951)Online publication date: 17-Dec-2024
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313951
Chen YZaman T(2024)Shaping opinions in social networks with shadow banningPLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.029997719:3(e0299977)Online publication date: 27-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299977
Pymar RRivera N(2024)Asymptotic behaviour of the noisy voter model density processThe Annals of Applied Probability10.1214/24-AAP207434:5Online publication date: 1-Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.1214/24-AAP2074
Dong EMarzen S(2024)Cognitive biases can move opinion dynamics from consensus to signatures of transient chaosAmerican Journal of Physics10.1119/5.022079292:10(801-808)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.1119/5.0220792
Kayaalp MBordignon VSayed A(2024)Social Opinion Formation and Decision Making Under Communication TrendsIEEE Transactions on Signal Processing10.1109/TSP.2023.334791872(506-520)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TSP.2023.3347918
Abrahamsson ODanev DLarsson E(2024)Strong Convergence of a Random Actions Model in Opinion DynamicsIEEE Transactions on Signal and Information Processing over Networks10.1109/TSIPN.2024.336137310(147-161)Online publication date: 2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSIPN.2024.3361373
Bolzern PColombo APiccardi C(2024)Manipulating Opinions in Social Networks With Community StructureIEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering10.1109/TNSE.2023.329323311:1(185-196)Online publication date: Jan-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSE.2023.3293233
Zhu LZhou XTian JLi WZhang Z(2024)Defending Against Malicious Influence Control in Online Leader-Follower Social NetworksIEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security10.1109/TIFS.2024.338324419(4809-4819)Online publication date: 29-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TIFS.2024.3383244
Min HCao JGe JLiu B(2024)A Multi-Agent System for Fine-Grained Opinion Dynamics Analysis in Online Social NetworksIEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems10.1109/TCSS.2022.321903611:1(815-828)Online publication date: Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSS.2022.3219036
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents