Advertisement

Phase Transition of a Non-linear Opinion Dynamics with Noisy Interactions

(Extended Abstract)
Conference paper
  • 125 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12156)

Abstract

In several real Multi-Agent Systems (MAS), it has been observed that only weaker forms of metastable consensus are achieved, in which a large majority of agents agree on some opinion while other opinions continue to be supported by a (small) minority of agents. In this work, we take a step towards the investigation of metastable consensus for complex (non-linear) opinion dynamics by considering the famous Undecided-State dynamics in the binary setting, which is known to reach consensus exponentially faster than the Voter dynamics. We propose a simple form of uniform noise in which each message can change to another one with probability p and we prove that the persistence of a metastable consensus undergoes a phase transition for \(p=\frac{1}{6}\). In detail, below this threshold, we prove the system reaches with high probability a metastable regime where a large majority of agents keeps supporting the same opinion for polynomial time. Moreover, this opinion turns out to be the initial majority opinion, whenever the initial bias is slightly larger than its standard deviation. On the contrary, above the threshold, we show that the information about the initial majority opinion is “lost” within logarithmic time even when the initial bias is maximum. Interestingly, using a simple coupling argument, we show the equivalence between our noisy model above and the model where a subset of agents behave in a stubborn way.

References

  1. 1.
    Acemoglu, D., Como, G., Fagnani, F., Ozdaglar, A.E.: Opinion fluctuations and disagreement in social networks. Math. Oper. Res. 38(1), 1–27 (2013)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Angluin, D., Aspnes, J., Eisenstat, D.: A simple population protocol for fast robust approximate majority. Distrib. Comput. 21(2), 87–102 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Axelrod, R.: The dissemination of culture: a model with local convergence and global polarization. J. Conflict Resolut. 41(2), 203–226 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Becchetti, L., Clementi, A.E.F., Natale, E.: Consensus dynamics: an overview. SIGACT News 51(1), 58–104 (2020).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3388392.3388403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benezit, F., Thiran, P., Vetterli, M.: Interval consensus: from quantized gossip to voting. In: ICASSP 2009, pp. 3661–3664 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boczkowski, L., Korman, A., Natale, E.: Minimizing message size in stochastic communication patterns: fast self-stabilizing protocols with 3 bits. Distrib. Comput. 32, 173–191 (2018)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boczkowski, L., Natale, E., Feinerman, O., Korman, A.: Limits on reliable information flows through stochastic populations. PLoS Comput. Biol. 14(6), e1006195 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cardelli, L., Csikász-Nagy, A.: The cell cycle switch computes approximate majority. Sci. Rep. 2, 656 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clementi, A., Gualà, L., Natale, E., Pasquale, F., Scornavacca, G., Trevisan, L.: Consensus needs broadcast in noiseless models but can be exponentially easier in the presence of noise. Report, CNRS (2018)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clementi, A.E.F., Ghaffari, M., Gualà, L., Natale, E., Pasquale, F., Scornavacca, G.: A tight analysis of the parallel undecided-state dynamics with two colors. In: MFCS 2018, pp. 28:1–28:15 (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coates, A., Han, L., Kleerekoper, A.: A unified framework for opinion dynamics. In: AAMAS 2018, pp. 1079–1086 (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Condon, A., Hajiaghayi, M., Kirkpatrick, D., Maňuch, J.: Approximate majority analyses using tri-molecular chemical reaction networks. Nat. Comput. 19(1), 249–270 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11047-019-09756-4MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cooper, C., Radzik, T., Rivera, N., Shiraga, T.: Fast plurality consensus in regular expanders. In: DISC 2017. LIPIcs, vol. 91, pp. 13:1–13:16 (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cover, T.M., Thomas, J.A.: Elements of Information Theory, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cruciani, E., Natale, E., Nusser, A., Scornavacca, G.: Phase transition of the 2-choices dynamics on core-periphery networks. In: AAMAS 2018, pp. 777–785 (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cruciani, E., Natale, E., Scornavacca, G.: Distributed community detection via metastability of the 2-choices dynamics. In: AAAI 2019, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States, January 2019Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    d’Amore, F., Clementi, A., Natale, E.: Phase transition of a non-linear opinion dynamics with noisy interactions. Technical report (2020). https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02487650
  18. 18.
    Deffuant, G., Neau, D., Amblard, F., Weisbuch, G.: Mixing beliefs among interacting agents. Adv. Complex Syst. 03(01n04), 87–98 (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Doerr, B.: Probabilistic tools for the analysis of randomized optimization heuristics. CoRR abs/1801.06733 (2018)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Draief, M., Vojnovic, M.: Convergence speed of binary interval consensus. SIAM J. Control Optim. 50(3), 1087–1109 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dubhashi, D.P., Panconesi, A.: Concentration of Measure for the Analysis of Randomized Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Natale, E.: On the computational power of simple dynamics. Ph.D. thesis, Sapienza University of Rome (2017)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Feinerman, O., Haeupler, B., Korman, A.: Breathe before speaking: efficient information dissemination despite noisy, limited and anonymous communication. Distrib. Comput. 30(5), 339–355 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00446-015-0249-4MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fraigniaud, P., Natale, E.: Noisy rumor spreading and plurality consensus. Distrib. Comput. 32, 257–276 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00446-018-0335-5MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ghaffari, M., Lengler, J.: Nearly-tight analysis for 2-choice and 3-majority consensus dynamics. In: PODC 2018, pp. 305–313 (2018)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hassin, Y., Peleg, D.: Distributed probabilistic polling and applications to proportionate agreement. Inf. Comput. 171(2), 248–268 (2001)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hoory, S., Linial, N., Wigderson, W.: Expander graphs and their applications. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S) 43, 439–561 (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Korolev, V., Shevtsova, I.: On the upper bound for the absolute constant in the Berry–Esseen inequality. Theory Probab. Appl. 54, 638–658 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lin, W., Zhixin, L., Lei, G.: Robust consensus of multi-agent systems with noise. In: 2007 Chinese Control Conference, pp. 737–741, July 2007Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mertzios, G.B., Nikoletseas, S.E., Raptopoulos, C.L., Spirakis, P.G.: Determining majority in networks with local interactions and very small local memory. Distrib. Comput. 30(1), 1–16 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00446-016-0277-8MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mobilia, M., Petersen, A., Redner, S.: On the role of zealotry in the voter model. J. Stat. Mech: Theory Exp. 2007(08), P08029 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mobilia, M.: Does a single zealot affect an infinite group of voters? Phys. Rev. Lett. 91(2), 028701 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mossel, E., Tamuz, O.: Opinion exchange dynamics. Probab. Surv. 14, 155–204 (2017)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Perron, E., Vasudevan, D., Vojnović, M.: Using three states for binary consensus on complete graphs. In: IEEE INFOCOM 2009, pp. 2527–2535, April 2009Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shimizu, N., Shiraga, T.: Phase transitions of best-of-two and best-of-three on stochastic block models. In: DISC 2019, July 2019Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weisbuch, G., Deffuant, G., Amblard, F., Nadal, J.P.: Meet, discuss, and segregate! Complexity 7(3), 55–63 (2002)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yildiz, E., Ozdaglar, A., Acemoglu, D., Saberi, A., Scaglione, A.: Binary opinion dynamics with stubborn agents. ACM Trans. Econ. Comput. 1(4), 19:1–19:30 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université Côte d’Azur, Inria, CNRS, I3SSophia AntipolisFrance
  2. 2.University of Rome Tor VergataRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations