Influence in Different Network Structures

  • Yunqi XueEmail author
  • Rohit Parikh
  • Mihai Gociu
Conference paper
Part of the Logic in Asia: Studia Logica Library book series (LIAA)


We are interested in revisable and actionable social knowledge/belief that leads to a large group action. Instead of centralized coordination, bottom-up approach is our focus. We explore multiple methods of belief revision in social networks. Such belief revision in groups represents social influence and power to some degree. Both influences from friends and from experts are explained. We define an intuitive concept of expected influence of a group. When different influence sources are suggesting conflicting actions, agents could make strategic decisions by analyzing expected influence of different subgroups. We then show some properties of expected influence in different network structures. We also simulate the strategic influence emerging in small-world networks which represents many real-world networks.


  1. Alchourrón, C., P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson. 1985. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 50 (2): 510–530 (Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  2. Arthur, B. 1994. Inductive reasoning and bounded rationality. The American Economic Review 84: 406–411 (JSTOR).Google Scholar
  3. Cassar, A. 2007. Coordination and cooperation in local, random and small world networks: Experimental evidence. Games and Economic Behavior 58 (2): 209–230 (Elsevier).Google Scholar
  4. Chwe, M. 2013. Rational ritual: Culture, coordination, and common knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. FireChat in Hong Kong: How an app tapped its way into the protests. CNN. 16 October 2014.
  6. Gintis, H. 2009. The local best response criterion: An epistemic approach to equilibrium refinement. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 71 (2): 89–97 (Elsevier).Google Scholar
  7. Harsanyi, J., and R. Selten. 1988. A general theory of equilibrium selection in games. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. List, C., and P. Pettit. 2002. Aggregating sets of judgments: An impossibility result. Economics and Philosophy 18 (1): 89–110 (Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  9. Liu, F., J. Seligman, and P. Girard. 2014. Logical dynamics of belief change in the community. Synthese 1–29.Google Scholar
  10. Parikh, R. 2011. Beth definability, interpolation and language splitting. Synthese 179 (2): 211–221 (Springer).Google Scholar
  11. Xue, Y., and R. Parikh. 2015. Strategic belief updates through influence in a community. Studies in Logic 4: 124–143.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Center, CUNYNew York CityUSA
  2. 2.SpyhceCluj-NapocaRomania

Personalised recommendations