Why continuous discussion can promote the consensus of opinions?
Tóm tắt
Why group opinions tend to be converged through continued communication, discussion and interactions? Under the framework of the social influence network model, we rigorously prove that the group consensus is almost surely within finite steps. This is a quite certain result, and reflects the real-world common phenomenon. In addition, we give a convergence time lower bound. Although our explanations are purely based on mathematic deduction, it shows that the latent social influence structure is the key factor for the persistence of disagreement and formation of opinions convergence or consensus in the real world social system.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Mark G. The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol. 1973;78:1360–80.
Burt RS. Innovation as a structural interest: Rethinking the impact of network position on innovation adoption. Soc Netw. 1980;2(4):327–55.
Newman MEJ. Complex systems: a survey. Am J Phys. 2011;79:800–10.
Stoner JA. A comparison of individual and group decision involving risk. Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1961.
Myers DG, Lamm H. The group polarization phenomenon. Psychol Bull. 1976;83(4):602.
Mackie DM. Social identification effects in group polarization. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1986;50:720–8.
Moscovici S, et al. Studies in group decision II: differences of positions differences of opinion and group polarization. Eur J. 1972;2:385–99.
Sunstein CR. The law of group polarization. University of Chicago Law School. John M. Olin Law and Economics Working Paper, 1999;91.
Friedkin NE. Choice shift and group polarization. Am Sociol Rev. 1999;64(6):856–75.
Li Z, Tang X. Group polarization: connecting, influence and balance, a simulation study based on hopfield modeling. In: PRICAI 2012: trends in artificial intelligence. Berlin: Springer; 2012; p. 710–721.
DeGroot MH. Reaching a consensus. J Am Stat Assoc. 1974;69(345):118–21.
Friedkin NE, Johnsen EC. Social influence networks and opinion change. In: Lawler EJ, Macy MW editos. Advances in Group Processes. 1999;16:1–29.
Friedkin NE. A formal theory of reflected appraisals in the evolution of power. Admin Sci Q. 2011;56(4):501–29.
French J. A formal theory of social power. Psychol Rev. 1956;63:181–94.
Latane B. The psychology of social impact. Am Psychol. 1981;36:343–56.
Jadbabaie A, Lin J, Morse AS. Coordination of groups of mobile autonomous agents using nearest neighbor rules. IEEE Trans Autom Control. 2003;48(6):988–1001.
Blondel V, Hendrickx JM, Olshevsky A, et al. Convergence in multiagent coordination, consensus, and flocking. The 44th IEEE conference on decision and control and the European control conference 2005, 2996–3000
Olfati-Saber R, Murray RM. Consensus problems in networks of agents with switching topology and time-delays. IEEE Trans Autom Control. 2004;49(9):1520–33.
Moreau L. Stability of multiagent systems with time-dependent communication links. IEEE Trans Autom Control. 2005;50(2):169–82.
Fagnani F, Zampieri S. Randomized consensus algorithms over large scale networks. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun. 2008;26(4):634–49.
Tsitsiklis JN. Problems in decentralized decision making and computation. Ph.D. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1985.
Kempe D, Dobra A, Gehrke J. Gossip-based computation of aggregate information. In: Proceedings of the 44th annual IEEE symposium on foundations of computer science, IEEE. 2003. p. 482–91.
Intanagonwiwat C, Govindan R, Estrin D. Directed diffusion: a scalable and robust communication paradigm for sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the 6th annual international conference on mobile computing and networking. ACM. 2000. p. 56–67.
Zhao J, Govindan R, Estrin D. Computing aggregates for monitoring wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the first IEEE international workshop on sensor network protocols and applications, IEEE. 2003; p. 139–48.
Xiao L, Boyd S, Lall S: A scheme for robust distributed sensor fusion based on average consensus. The 4th international symposium on information processing in sensor networks, IEEE. 2005, p. 63–70.
Dimakis AG, Sarwate AD, Wainwright MJ: Geographic gossip: efficient aggregation for sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on information processing in sensor networks. ACM. 2006, p. 69–76.
Galam S. From 2000 Bush–Gore to 2006 Italian elections: voting at fifty-fifty and the contrarian effect. Qual Quant. 2007;41(4):579–89.
Arrow KJ. Social choice and individual values. New York: Wiley; 1951.
Frasca P, Ravazzi C, Tempo R, et al. Gossips and prejudices: Ergodic randomized dynamics in social networks. arXiv:1304.2268. 2013.
Chung FRK. Spectral Graph Theory, Vol. 92. American Mathematical Society; 1997.
Ishii H, Tempo R. Distributed randomized algorithms for the PageRank computation. IEEE Trans Autom Control. 2010;55(9):1987–2002.
Golub B, Jackson MO. Naïve learning in social networks and the wisdom of crowds. Am Econ J Microecon. 2010;2(1):112–149.
Touri B, Nedic A. On ergodicity, infinite flow, and consensus in random models. IEEE Trans Autom Control. 2011;56(7):1593–605.
Bertsekas D, Tsitsiklis JN: Parallel and Distributed Computation: Numerical Methods,Prentice Hall, 1989.
Nedic A, Ozdaglar A. Distributed subgradient methods for multi-agent optimization. IEEE Trans Autom Control. 2009;54(1):48–61.
Olshevsky A, Tsitsiklis JN. Convergence speed in distributed consensus and averaging. SIAM J Control Optim. 2009;48(1):33–55.
Kemeny JG, Snell JL: Finite Markov Chains. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 1960.
Boyd S, et al. Randomized gossip algorithms. IEEE Trans Inf Theory. 2006;52(6):2508–30.