IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/phsmap/v469y2017icp71-80.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agent based simulation on the process of human flesh search—From perspective of knowledge and emotion

Author

Listed:
  • Zhu, Hou
  • Hu, Bin

Abstract

Human flesh search as a new net crowed behavior, on the one hand can help us to find some special information, on the other hand may lead to privacy leaking and offending human right. In order to study the mechanism of human flesh search, this paper proposes a simulation model based on agent-based model and complex networks. The computational experiments show some useful results. Discovered information quantity and involved personal ratio are highly correlated, and most of net citizens will take part in the human flesh search or will not take part in the human flesh search. Knowledge quantity does not influence involved personal ratio, but influences whether HFS can find out the target human. When the knowledge concentrates on hub nodes, the discovered information quantity is either perfect or almost zero. Emotion of net citizens influences both discovered information quantity and involved personal ratio. Concretely, when net citizens are calm to face the search topic, it will be hardly to find out the target; But when net citizens are agitated, the target will be found out easily.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhu, Hou & Hu, Bin, 2017. "Agent based simulation on the process of human flesh search—From perspective of knowledge and emotion," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 469(C), pages 71-80.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:phsmap:v:469:y:2017:i:c:p:71-80
    DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2016.11.085
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437116308913
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only. Journal offers the option of making the article available online on Science direct for a fee of $3,000
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.physa.2016.11.085?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Qingpeng Zhang & Fei-Yue Wang & Daniel Zeng & Tao Wang, 2012. "Understanding Crowd-Powered Search Groups: A Social Network Perspective," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(6), pages 1-16, June.
    2. Guillaume Deffuant & Frederic Amblard & Gérard Weisbuch, 2002. "How Can Extremism Prevail? a Study Based on the Relative Agreement Interaction Model," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 5(4), pages 1-1.
    3. Richard M. Burton & Børge Obel, 2011. "Computational Modeling for What-Is, What-Might-Be, and What-Should-Be Studies---And Triangulation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1195-1202, October.
    4. Crokidakis, Nuno, 2012. "Effects of mass media on opinion spreading in the Sznajd sociophysics model," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 391(4), pages 1729-1734.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. María Cecilia Gimenez & Luis Reinaudi & Ana Pamela Paz-García & Paulo Marcelo Centres & Antonio José Ramirez-Pastor, 2021. "Opinion evolution in the presence of constant propaganda: homogeneous and localized cases," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 94(1), pages 1-11, January.
    2. George Butler & Gabriella Pigozzi & Juliette Rouchier, 2019. "Mixing Dyadic and Deliberative Opinion Dynamics in an Agent-Based Model of Group Decision-Making," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-31, August.
    3. Qesmi, Redouane, 2021. "Hopf bifurcation in an opinion model with state-dependent delay," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 153(P2).
    4. Per L. Bylund, 2015. "Signifying Williamson's Contribution to the Transaction Cost Approach: An Agent-Based Simulation of Coasean Transaction Costs and Specialization," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 148-174, January.
    5. Flaminio Squazzoni, 2010. "The impact of agent-based models in the social sciences after 15 years of incursions," History of Economic Ideas, Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa - Roma, vol. 18(2), pages 197-234.
    6. Daron Acemoglu & Asuman Ozdaglar, 2011. "Opinion Dynamics and Learning in Social Networks," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 3-49, March.
    7. Tiwari, Mukesh & Yang, Xiguang & Sen, Surajit, 2021. "Modeling the nonlinear effects of opinion kinematics in elections: A simple Ising model with random field based study," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 582(C).
    8. Wander Jager & Frédéric Amblard, 2005. "Uniformity, Bipolarization and Pluriformity Captured as Generic Stylized Behavior with an Agent-Based Simulation Model of Attitude Change," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 295-303, January.
    9. Luigi Mosca & Martina Gianecchini & Diego Campagnolo, 2021. "Organizational life cycle models: a design perspective," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 10(1), pages 3-18, March.
    10. Gabbay, Michael, 2007. "The effects of nonlinear interactions and network structure in small group opinion dynamics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 378(1), pages 118-126.
    11. AskariSichani, Omid & Jalili, Mahdi, 2015. "Influence maximization of informed agents in social networks," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 254(C), pages 229-239.
    12. Thomas Feliciani & Andreas Flache & Jochem Tolsma, 2017. "How, when and where can Spatial Segregation Induce Opinion Polarization? Two Competing Models," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 20(2), pages 1-6.
    13. Robinson, Scott A. & Rai, Varun, 2015. "Determinants of spatio-temporal patterns of energy technology adoption: An agent-based modeling approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 273-284.
    14. Song, Xiao & Shi, Wen & Ma, Yaofei & Yang, Chen, 2015. "Impact of informal networks on opinion dynamics in hierarchically formal organization," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 436(C), pages 916-924.
    15. Morshedi, Mohamad Ali & Kashani, Hamed, 2022. "Assessment of vulnerability reduction policies: Integration of economic and cognitive models of decision-making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    16. Gary Mckeown & Noel Sheehy, 2006. "Mass Media and Polarisation Processes in the Bounded Confidence Model of Opinion Dynamics," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11.
    17. Hossain, Mokter & Park, Sukyung & Shahid, Subhan, 2023. "Frugal innovation for sustainable rural development," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    18. Juliette Rouchier & Emily Tanimura, 2012. "When overconfident agents slow down collective learning," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-00623966, HAL.
    19. Edmund Chattoe-Brown, 2014. "Using Agent Based Modelling to Integrate Data on Attitude Change," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 19(1), pages 159-174, February.
    20. Melatagia Yonta, Paulin & Ndoundam, René, 2009. "Opinion dynamics using majority functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 223-244, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:phsmap:v:469:y:2017:i:c:p:71-80. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/physica-a-statistical-mechpplications/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.