IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jas/jasssj/2014-124-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal Opinion Control: The Campaign Problem

Author

Listed:
  • Rainer Hegselmann
  • Stefan König
  • Sascha Kurz
  • Christoph Niemann
  • Jörg Rambau

Abstract

Opinion dynamics is nowadays a very common field of research. In this article we formulate and then study a novel, namely strategic perspective on such dynamics: There are the usual 'normal' agents that update their opinions, for instance according the well-known bounded con dence mechanism. But, additionally, there is at least one strategic agent. That agent uses opinions as freely selectable strategies to get control on the dynamics: The strategic agent of our benchmark problem tries, during a campaign of a certain length, to influence the ongoing dynamics among normal agents with strategically placed opinions (one per period) in such a way, that, by the end of the campaign, as much as possible normals end up with opinions in a certain interval of the opinion space. Structurally, such a problem is an optimal control problem. That type of problem is ubiquitous. Resorting to advanced and partly non-standard methods for computing optimal controls, we solve some instances of the campaign problem. But even for a very small number of normal agents, just one strategic agent, and a ten-period campaign length, the problem turns out to be extremely dicult. Explicitly we discuss moral and political concerns that immediately arise, if someone starts to analyze the possibilities of an optimal opinion control.

Suggested Citation

  • Rainer Hegselmann & Stefan König & Sascha Kurz & Christoph Niemann & Jörg Rambau, 2015. "Optimal Opinion Control: The Campaign Problem," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 18(3), pages 1-18.
  • Handle: RePEc:jas:jasssj:2014-124-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.jasss.org/18/3/18/18.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jan Lorenz, 2007. "Continuous Opinion Dynamics Under Bounded Confidence: A Survey," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(12), pages 1819-1838.
    2. F. A. Rodrigues & L. Da F. Costa, 2005. "Surviving Opinions In Sznajd Models On Complex Networks," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1785-1792.
    3. Santo Fortunato, 2005. "The Sznajd Consensus Model With Continuous Opinions," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(01), pages 17-24.
    4. Jan Lorenz & Diemo Urbig, 2007. "About The Power To Enforce And Prevent Consensus By Manipulating Communication Rules," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 10(02), pages 251-269.
    5. Krzysztof Malarz, 2006. "Truth Seekers In Opinion Dynamics Models," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(10), pages 1521-1524.
    6. Stauffer, Dietrich & Sahimi, Muhammad, 2006. "Discrete simulation of the dynamics of spread of extreme opinions in a society," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 364(C), pages 537-543.
    7. Santo Fortunato & Vito Latora & Alessandro Pluchino & Andrea Rapisarda, 2005. "Vector Opinion Dynamics In A Bounded Confidence Consensus Model," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(10), pages 1535-1551.
    8. Dietrich Stauffer, 2002. "The Sznajd Model Of Consensus Building With Limited Persuasion," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(03), pages 315-317.
    9. Jan Lorenz, 2006. "Consensus Strikes Back in the Hegselmann-Krause Model of Continuous Opinion Dynamics Under Bounded Confidence," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 9(1), pages 1-8.
    10. Rainer Hegselmann & Ulrich Krause, 2002. "Opinion Dynamics and Bounded Confidence Models, Analysis and Simulation," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 5(3), pages 1-2.
    11. Daron Acemoglu & Asuman Ozdaglar, 2011. "Opinion Dynamics and Learning in Social Networks," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 3-49, March.
    12. J. Gareth Polhill & Luis R. Izquierdo & Nicholas M. Gotts, 2004. "The Ghost in the Model (and Other Effects of Floating Point Arithmetic)," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 8(1), pages 1-5.
    13. Miguel Pineda & Raúl Toral & Emilio Hernández-García, 2013. "The noisy Hegselmann-Krause model for opinion dynamics," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 86(12), pages 1-10, December.
    14. Rainer Hegselmann & Ulrich Krause, 2006. "Truth and Cognitive Division of Labour: First Steps Towards a Computer Aided Social Epistemology," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 9(3), pages 1-10.
    15. Lorenz, Jan, 2005. "A stabilization theorem for dynamics of continuous opinions," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 355(1), pages 217-223.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Toby Pilditch & Jens Koed Madsen, 2021. "Targeting Your Preferences: Modelling Micro-Targeting for an Increasingly Diverse Electorate," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 24(1), pages 1-5.
    2. Mathias, Jean-Denis & Huet, Sylvie & Deffuant, Guillaume, 2017. "An energy-like indicator to assess opinion resilience," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 473(C), pages 501-510.
    3. Hoferer, Moritz & Böttcher, Lucas & Herrmann, Hans J. & Gersbach, Hans, 2020. "The impact of technologies in political campaigns," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 538(C).
    4. Vineeth S. Varma & Samson Lasaulce & Julien Mounthanyvong & Irinel-Constantin Morarescu, 2020. "Allocating marketing resources over social networks: A long-term analysis," Papers 2011.09268, arXiv.org.
    5. Markus Brede, 2019. "How Does Active Participation Affect Consensus: Adaptive Network Model of Opinion Dynamics and Influence Maximizing Rewiring," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-16, June.
    6. Vineeth S. Varma & Irinel-Constantin Morarescu & Samson Lasaulce & Samuel Martin, 2020. "Marketing resource allocation in duopolies over social networks," Papers 2011.08553, arXiv.org.

    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. Liu, Qipeng & Wang, Xiaofan, 2013. "Social learning with bounded confidence and heterogeneous agents," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 392(10), pages 2368-2374.
    2. Christos Mavridis & Nikolas Tsakas, 2021. "Social Capital, Communication Channels and Opinion Formation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 635-678, May.
    3. Mehrdad Agha Mohammad Ali Kermani & Reza Ghesmati & Masoud Jalayer, 2018. "Opinion-Aware Influence Maximization: How To Maximize A Favorite Opinion In A Social Network?," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-27, September.
    4. G Jordan Maclay & Moody Ahmad, 2021. "An agent based force vector model of social influence that predicts strong polarization in a connected world," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-42, November.
    5. Petter Törnberg & Claes Andersson & Kristian Lindgren & Sven Banisch, 2021. "Modeling the emergence of affective polarization in the social media society," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-17, October.
    6. Glass, Catherine A. & Glass, David H., 2021. "Opinion dynamics of social learning with a conflicting source," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 563(C).
    7. Fu, Guiyuan & Zhang, Weidong & Li, Zhijun, 2015. "Opinion dynamics of modified Hegselmann–Krause model in a group-based population with heterogeneous bounded confidence," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 419(C), pages 558-565.
    8. Buechel, Berno & Hellmann, Tim & Klößner, Stefan, 2015. "Opinion dynamics and wisdom under conformity," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 240-257.
    9. Andreas Koulouris & Ioannis Katerelos & Theodore Tsekeris, 2013. "Multi-Equilibria Regulation Agent-Based Model of Opinion Dynamics in Social Networks," Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems - scientific journal, Croatian Interdisciplinary Society Provider Homepage: http://indecs.eu, vol. 11(1), pages 51-70.
    10. Antonio Parravano & Ascensión Andina-Díaz & Miguel A Meléndez-Jiménez, 2016. "Bounded Confidence under Preferential Flip: A Coupled Dynamics of Structural Balance and Opinions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-23, October.
    11. Agnieszka Kowalska-Styczeń & Krzysztof Malarz, 2020. "Noise induced unanimity and disorder in opinion formation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-22, July.
    12. Michel Grabisch & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2020. "A Survey on Nonstrategic Models of Opinion Dynamics," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-29, December.
    13. Michel Grabisch & Antoine Mandel & Agnieszka Rusinowska & Emily Tanimura, 2015. "Strategic influence in social networks," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-01158168, HAL.
    14. Shane T. Mueller & Yin-Yin Sarah Tan, 2018. "Cognitive perspectives on opinion dynamics: the role of knowledge in consensus formation, opinion divergence, and group polarization," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 15-48, January.
    15. Akylai Taalaibekova, 2018. "Opinion formation in social networks," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 28(2), pages 85-108.
    16. Phillip Monin & Richard Bookstaber, 2017. "Information Flows, the Accuracy of Opinions, and Crashes in a Dynamic Network," Staff Discussion Papers 17-01, Office of Financial Research, US Department of the Treasury.
    17. Muhammad Umar B. Niazi & A. Bülent Özgüler, 2021. "A Differential Game Model of Opinion Dynamics: Accord and Discord as Nash Equilibria," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 137-160, March.
    18. Hou, Jian & Li, Wenshan & Jiang, Mingyue, 2021. "Opinion dynamics in modified expressed and private model with bounded confidence," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 574(C).
    19. Li-Xin Wang, 2016. "Modeling Stock Price Dynamics with Fuzzy Opinion Networks," Papers 1602.06213, arXiv.org.
    20. Jalili, Mahdi, 2013. "Social power and opinion formation in complex networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 392(4), pages 959-966.

    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:jas:jasssj:2014-124-3. 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: Francesco Renzini (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.