Advertisement

Endogenous Control of DeGroot Learning

  • Sridhar Mandyam
  • Usha Sridhar
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6984)

Abstract

The DeGroot update cycle for belief learning in social networks models beliefs as convex combinations of older beliefs using a stochastic matrix of social influence weights. In this paper, we explore a new endogenous control scenario for this type of learning, where an agent on her own initiative, adjusts her private social influence to follow another agent, say, one which receives higher attention from other agents, or one with higher beliefs. We develop an algorithm which we refer to as BLIFT, and show that this type of endogenous perturbation of social influence can lead to a ‘lifting’ or increasing of beliefs of all agents in the network. We show that the per-cycle perturbations produce improved variance contractions on the columns of the stochastic matrix of social influences, resulting in faster convergence, as well as consensus in beliefs. We also show that this may allow belief values to be increased beyond the DeGroot beliefs, which we show are the lower bounds for BLIFT. The result of application of BLIFT is illustrated with a simple synthetic example.

Keywords

DeGroot Model Belief Learning Social Networks Endogenous Control 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Acemoglu, D., Ozdaglar, A., Ali: Spread of Misinformation in Social Networks (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Acemoglu, D., Munther, D., Lobel, I., Ozdaglar, A.: Bayesian Learning in Social Networks. M.I.T, Mimeo (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bala, V., Goyal, S.: Learning from Neighbors. The Review of Economic Studies 65(3), 595–621 (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berger, R.: A Necessary and Sufficient Condition for Reaching a Consensus Using De-Groot’s Method. Journal of the American Statistical Association 76(374), 415–418 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., Welch, I.: A Theory of Fads, Fashion, Custom, and Cultural Change as Informational Cascades. Journal of Political Economy 100(51), 992–1026 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    DeGroot, M.H.: Reaching a Consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association 69(345), 118–121 (1974)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    DeMarzo, M., Vayanos, D., Zwiebel, J.: Persuasion Bias, Social Influence, and Uni-Dimensional Opinions. Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, 909–968 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eugene, S.: Non-negative matrices and Markov chains. Springer, Heidelberg (1981)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friedkin, N.E., Eugene, C.: Social Influence Networks and Opinion Change- Advances in Group Processes, vol. 16, pp.1–29 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Friedkin, N.E.: A Structural Theory of Social Influence. Cambridge University Press, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Friedkin, N., Johnsen, E.C.: Social Positions in Influence Networks. Social Networks 19, 209–222 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Friedkin, N.E., Cook, K.S.: Peer Group Influence. Sociological Methodology and Research 19, 122–143 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goyal, S.: Learning. In: Networks Handbook of Social Economics (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jackson, M.O.: Social and Economic Networks. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Medhi, J.: Stochastic Processes. New Age International Publishers (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sridhar Mandyam
    • 1
  • Usha Sridhar
    • 1
  1. 1.Ecometrix ResearchBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations