Advertisement

Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 408–429 | Cite as

Majority dynamics and aggregation of information in social networks

  • Elchanan Mossel
  • Joe Neeman
  • Omer TamuzEmail author
Article

Abstract

Consider \(n\) individuals who, by popular vote, choose among \(q \ge 2\) alternatives, one of which is “better” than the others. Assume that each individual votes independently at random, and that the probability of voting for the better alternative is larger than the probability of voting for any other. It follows from the law of large numbers that a plurality vote among the \(n\) individuals would result in the correct outcome, with probability approaching one exponentially quickly as \(n \rightarrow \infty \). Our interest in this article is in a variant of the process above where, after forming their initial opinions, the voters update their decisions based on some interaction with their neighbors in a social network. Our main example is “majority dynamics”, in which each voter adopts the most popular opinion among its friends. The interaction repeats for some number of rounds and is then followed by a population-wide plurality vote. The question we tackle is that of “efficient aggregation of information”: in which cases is the better alternative chosen with probability approaching one as \(n \rightarrow \infty \)? Conversely, for which sequences of growing graphs does aggregation fail, so that the wrong alternative gets chosen with probability bounded away from zero? We construct a family of examples in which interaction prevents efficient aggregation of information, and give a condition on the social network which ensures that aggregation occurs. For the case of majority dynamics we also investigate the question of unanimity in the limit. In particular, if the voters’ social network is an expander graph, we show that if the initial population is sufficiently biased towards a particular alternative then that alternative will eventually become the unanimous preference of the entire population.

Keywords

Social networks Aggregation of information Majority dynamics  Discrete Fourier analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Miklos Racz for his careful reading of the manuscript and his suggestions. Elchanan Mossel is supported by a Sloan fellowship in Mathematics, by BSF Grant 2004105, by NSF Career Award (DMS 054829), by ONR Award N00014-07-1-0506 and by ISF Grant 1300/08. Omer Tamuz is supported by ISF Grant 1300/08. Omer Tamuz is a recipient of the Google Europe Fellowship in Social Computing, and this research is supported in part by this Google Fellowship.

References

  1. 1.
    Alon, N., & Spencer, J. (2008). The probabilistic method (Vol. 73). New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bala, V., & Goyal, S. (1998). Learning from neighbours. Review of Economic Studies, 65(3), 595–621.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bawa, M., Garcia-Molina, H., Gionis, A., & Motwani R. (2003). Estimating aggregates on a peer-to-peer network. submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berger, E. (2001). Dynamic monopolies of constant size. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, 83(2), 191–200.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Condorcet, J.-A.-N. (1785). Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix. De l’Imprimerie Royale.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    DeGroot, M. H. (1974). Reaching a consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69(345), 118–121.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Efron, B., & Stein, C. (1981). The jackknife estimate of variance. The Annals of Statistics, 9(3), 586–596.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fontes, L., Schonmann, R., & Sidoravicius, V. (2002). Stretched exponential fixation in stochastic ising models at zero temperature. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 228(3), 495–518.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friedgut, E., & Kalai, G. (1996). Every monotone graph property has a sharp threshold. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 124(10), 2993–3002.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goles, E., & Olivos, J. (1980). Periodic behaviour of generalized threshold functions. Discrete Mathematics, 30(2), 187–189.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Golub, B., & Jackson, M. (2010). Naive learning in social networks and the wisdom of crowds. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2(1), 112–149.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoory, S., Linial, N., & Wigderson, A. (2006). Expander graphs and their applications. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 43(4), 439–561.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Howard, C. (2000). Zero-temperature ising spin dynamics on the homogeneous tree of degree three. Journal of Applied Probability, 37, 736–747.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kahn, J., Kalai, G., & Linial, N. (1988). The influence of variables on boolean functions. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (pp. 68–80).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kalai, G. (2001). Social choice and threshold phenomena. Discussion Paper Series.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kalai, G. (2004). Social indeterminacy. Econometrica, 72, 1565–1581.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kalai, G., & Mossel, E. (2010). Sharp thresholds for non-boolean functions and social choice theory. Preprint.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kanoria, Y., & Montanari, A. (2009). Majority dynamics on trees and the dynamic cavity method. Arxiv, preprint arXiv:0907.0449.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kempe, D., Dobra, A., & Gehrke, J. (2003). Gossip-based computation of aggregate information. In Proceedings of the 44th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (pp. 482–491). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Margulis, G. (1977). Probabilistic characteristic of graphs with large connectivity. Problems of Information Transmission, 10, 174–179.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McDiarmid, C. (1989). On the method of bounded differences. Surveys in Combinatorics, 141(1), 148–188.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mossel, E., Sly, A., & Tamuz, O. (2012). Asymptotic learning on Bayesian social networks. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5893
  23. 23.
    Mossel, E., & Tamuz, O. (2012). Complete characterization of functions satisfying the conditions of arrows theorem. Social Choice and Welfare, 39(1), 127–140.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Russo, L. (1982). An approximate zero-one law. Probability Theory and Related Fields, 61(1), 129–139.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shah, D. (2009). Gossip algorithms. Foundations and Trends in Networking, 3(1), 1–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Talagrand, M. (1994). On Russo’s approximate zero-one law. The Annals of Probability, 22(3), 1576–1587.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UC BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Weizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations