Skip to main content
Log in

Majority dynamics and aggregation of information in social networks

  • Published:
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. An automorphism of a graph \(G=(V,E)\) is a bijection \(h:V\rightarrow V\) such that \((v,u)\in E \leftrightarrow (h(v),h(u)) \in E\)

  2. A finite set of real numbers \(\{x_1,\ldots ,x_n\}\) is rationally independent if for rational \(\{a_1,\ldots ,a_n\},\,\sum _i a_ix_i=0\) implies that the \(a_i\)’s are all equal to zero.

References

  1. Alon, N., & Spencer, J. (2008). The probabilistic method (Vol. 73). New York: Wiley-Interscience.

  2. Bala, V., & Goyal, S. (1998). Learning from neighbours. Review of Economic Studies, 65(3), 595–621.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Bawa, M., Garcia-Molina, H., Gionis, A., & Motwani R. (2003). Estimating aggregates on a peer-to-peer network. submitted for publication.

  4. Berger, E. (2001). Dynamic monopolies of constant size. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, 83(2), 191–200.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  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.

  6. DeGroot, M. H. (1974). Reaching a consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69(345), 118–121.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Efron, B., & Stein, C. (1981). The jackknife estimate of variance. The Annals of Statistics, 9(3), 586–596.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Friedgut, E., & Kalai, G. (1996). Every monotone graph property has a sharp threshold. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 124(10), 2993–3002.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Goles, E., & Olivos, J. (1980). Periodic behaviour of generalized threshold functions. Discrete Mathematics, 30(2), 187–189.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  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. Hoory, S., Linial, N., & Wigderson, A. (2006). Expander graphs and their applications. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 43(4), 439–561.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Howard, C. (2000). Zero-temperature ising spin dynamics on the homogeneous tree of degree three. Journal of Applied Probability, 37, 736–747.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  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).

  15. Kalai, G. (2001). Social choice and threshold phenomena. Discussion Paper Series.

  16. Kalai, G. (2004). Social indeterminacy. Econometrica, 72, 1565–1581.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Kalai, G., & Mossel, E. (2010). Sharp thresholds for non-boolean functions and social choice theory. Preprint.

  18. Kanoria, Y., & Montanari, A. (2009). Majority dynamics on trees and the dynamic cavity method. Arxiv, preprint arXiv:0907.0449.

  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.

  20. Margulis, G. (1977). Probabilistic characteristic of graphs with large connectivity. Problems of Information Transmission, 10, 174–179.

    Google Scholar 

  21. McDiarmid, C. (1989). On the method of bounded differences. Surveys in Combinatorics, 141(1), 148–188.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Mossel, E., Sly, A., & Tamuz, O. (2012). Asymptotic learning on Bayesian social networks. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5893

  23. Mossel, E., & Tamuz, O. (2012). Complete characterization of functions satisfying the conditions of arrows theorem. Social Choice and Welfare, 39(1), 127–140.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Russo, L. (1982). An approximate zero-one law. Probability Theory and Related Fields, 61(1), 129–139.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Shah, D. (2009). Gossip algorithms. Foundations and Trends in Networking, 3(1), 1–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Talagrand, M. (1994). On Russo’s approximate zero-one law. The Annals of Probability, 22(3), 1576–1587.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Omer Tamuz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mossel, E., Neeman, J. & Tamuz, O. Majority dynamics and aggregation of information in social networks. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 28, 408–429 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-013-9230-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-013-9230-4

Keywords

Navigation