IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/chsofr/v203y2026ics096007792501656x.html

Nonlinear polarization modeling via dual-threshold diffusion–evolution dynamics

Author

Listed:
  • Chen, Jianing
  • Bao, Peng

Abstract

For decades, researchers have sought to understand how human opinions evolve. In today’s fragmented social-media landscape, the creation and diffusion of public opinion shift instantaneously, increasing the risk of global polarization. Existing models usually focus on a single psychological mechanism and therefore struggle to link individual cognition with macro-level evolution. We propose an opinion-evolution dynamics framework that couples diffusion models with evolutionary algorithms and is driven by a dual-threshold social-cognition mechanism. In the diffusion stage the framework continuously generates diverse opinions and, guided by a consensus-fitness function, highlights mainstream high-value views; in the denoising stage evolutionary selection preserves the fittest opinions and injects controllable perturbations to break information bubbles. Experiments on four classical network topologies reveal nonlinear polarization patterns. This paper uncovers the complex dynamics of opinion evolution, deepens understanding of how social cognition and network structure shape opinion dynamics, and provides a broader perspective for managing and guiding the evolution of public sentiment.

Suggested Citation

  • Chen, Jianing & Bao, Peng, 2026. "Nonlinear polarization modeling via dual-threshold diffusion–evolution dynamics," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:chsofr:v:203:y:2026:i:c:s096007792501656x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.chaos.2025.117643
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096007792501656X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.chaos.2025.117643?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Borges, Henrique M. & Vasconcelos, Vítor V. & Pinheiro, Flávio L., 2024. "How social rewiring preferences bridge polarized communities," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    2. repec:nas:journl:v:115:y:2018:p:9216-9221 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Griffin, John D. & Kiewiet de Jonge, Chad & Velasco-Guachalla, Vania Ximena, 2021. "Deprivation in the Midst of Plenty: Citizen Polarization and Political Protest," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 1080-1096, July.
    4. repec:plo:pone00:0078433 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. 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.
    6. Guillaume Deffuant & David Neau & Frederic Amblard & Gérard Weisbuch, 2000. "Mixing beliefs among interacting agents," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(01n04), pages 87-98.
    7. Daron Acemoglu & Asuman Ozdaglar, 2011. "Opinion Dynamics and Learning in Social Networks," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 3-49, March.
    8. Max Falkenberg & Alessandro Galeazzi & Maddalena Torricelli & Niccolò Di Marco & Francesca Larosa & Madalina Sas & Amin Mekacher & Warren Pearce & Fabiana Zollo & Walter Quattrociocchi & Andrea Baronc, 2022. "Growing polarization around climate change on social media," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 12(12), pages 1114-1121, December.
    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. 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.
    2. Shyam Gouri Suresh & Scott Jeffrey, 2017. "The Consequences of Social Pressures on Partisan Opinion Dynamics," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 43(2), pages 242-259, March.
    3. Fang, Aili, 2021. "The influence of communication structure on opinion dynamics in social networks with multiple true states," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 406(C).
    4. Daniele Giachini & Leonardo Ciambezi & Verdiana Del Rosso & Fabrizio Fornari & Valentina Pansanella & Lilit Popoyan & Alina S^irbu, 2025. "Navigating the Lobbying Landscape: Insights from Opinion Dynamics Models," Papers 2507.13767, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2026.
    5. Eger, Steffen, 2016. "Opinion dynamics and wisdom under out-group discrimination," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 97-107.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Christian Ganser & Marc Keuschnigg, 2018. "Social Influence Strengthens Crowd Wisdom Under Voting," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-23, September.
    9. 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.
    10. Huang, Changwei & Dai, Qionglin & Han, Wenchen & Feng, Yuee & Cheng, Hongyan & Li, Haihong, 2018. "Effects of heterogeneous convergence rate on consensus in opinion dynamics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 499(C), pages 428-435.
    11. Catherine A. Glass & David H. Glass, 2021. "Social Influence of Competing Groups and Leaders in Opinion Dynamics," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 58(3), pages 799-823, October.
    12. Mitja Steinbacher & Matjaž Steinbacher & Clemens Knoppe, 2024. "Opinion Dynamics with Preference Matching: How the Desire to Meet Facilitates Opinion Exchange," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 64(2), pages 735-768, August.
    13. Maciel, Marcelo V. & Martins, André C.R., 2020. "Ideologically motivated biases in a multiple issues opinion model," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 553(C).
    14. 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).
    15. Cui, Peng-Bi, 2023. "Exploring the foundation of social diversity and coherence with a novel attraction–repulsion model framework," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 618(C).
    16. 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.
    17. Rusinowska, Agnieszka & Taalaibekova, Akylai, 2019. "Opinion formation and targeting when persuaders have extreme and centrist opinions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 9-27.
    18. Shang, Lihui & Zhao, Mingming & Ai, Jun & Su, Zhan, 2021. "Opinion evolution in the Sznajd model on interdependent chains," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 565(C).
    19. Lu, Xi & Mo, Hongming & Deng, Yong, 2015. "An evidential opinion dynamics model based on heterogeneous social influential power," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 98-107.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:chsofr:v:203:y:2026:i:c:s096007792501656x. 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: Thayer, Thomas R. (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/chaos-solitons-and-fractals .

    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.