IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jnlamp/v2017y2017i1n1098169.html

Improved Finite Time in Eliminating Disagreement of Opinion Dynamics via Noise

Author

Listed:
  • Yong Ding
  • Lipo Mo

Abstract

We aim to refine the estimation of the finite stopping time when the disagreement in an opinion group is eliminated by a simple but novel noise intervened strategy. It has been proved that, by using this noise intervened control strategy, the divisive opinions would get synchronized in finite time. Moreover, the finite stopping time when resolving the disagreement has been clarified. The estimation of the finite stopping time will effectively reveal which factors and how they determine the consequence of intervention. However, the upper bound for the estimation of the integrable stopping time when noise is oriented has been quite conservative. In this paper, we investigate the finite stopping time of eliminating the disagreement by completely oriented noise and a much more precise formula for the estimation of the finite stopping time is obtained finally via direct calculation.

Suggested Citation

  • Yong Ding & Lipo Mo, 2017. "Improved Finite Time in Eliminating Disagreement of Opinion Dynamics via Noise," Advances in Mathematical Physics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2017(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jnlamp:v:2017:y:2017:i:1:n:1098169
    DOI: 10.1155/2017/1098169
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1098169
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1155/2017/1098169?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Santo Fortunato, 2004. "The Krause–Hegselmann Consensus Model With Discrete Opinions," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(07), pages 1021-1029.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. repec:plo:pcbi00:1000959 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. 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.
    2. Maria Letizia Bertotti & Marco Menale, 2024. "Opinion dynamics models describing the emergence of polarization phenomena," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 2591-2612, December.
    3. Xi Chen & Shen Zhao & Wei Li, 2019. "Opinion Dynamics Model Based on Cognitive Styles: Field-Dependence and Field-Independence," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-12, February.
    4. 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).
    5. Ding, Haixin & Xie, Li, 2024. "The applicability of positive information in negative opinion management: An attitude-laden communication perspective," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 645(C).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    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. Thomas Moore & Patrick Finley & Nancy Brodsky & Theresa Brown & Benjamin Apelberg & Bridget Ambrose & Robert Glass, 2015. "Modeling Education and Advertising with Opinion Dynamics," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 18(2), pages 1-7.
    11. George Butler & Juliette Rouchier & Gabriella Pigozzi, 2021. "Corrigendum to “Mixing Dyadic and Deliberative Opinion Dynamics in an Agent-Based Model of Group Decision-Makingâ€," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2021, pages 1-1, February.
    12. Leonie Geyer & Patrick Mellacher, 2024. "Simulating Party Competition in Dynamic Voter Distributions," Graz Economics Papers 2024-19, University of Graz, Department of Economics.
    13. Guillaume Deffuant & Ilaria Bertazzi & Sylvie Huet, 2018. "The Dark Side Of Gossips: Hints From A Simple Opinion Dynamics Model," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-20, September.
    14. 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).
    15. Saggau, Volker, 2012. "Viele Köche Verderben Den Brei – Agentenbasierte Simulationen Zum Föderalismusdurcheinander Während Der Ehec-Krise," 52nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 26-28, 2012 133052, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    16. Hannah Ãœbler & Stephan Hartmann, 2016. "Simulating Trends in Artificial Influence Networks," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 19(1), pages 1-2.
    17. Cowley, Thomas & Hutty, Timothy & Hammond, Joseph & Brown, Solomon, 2025. "Accelerating residential decarbonisation: How stakeholder decision-making and socio-economic dynamics affect multi-decadal district heating network expansion," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    18. Goehle, Geoff & Griffin, Christopher, 2024. "Dynamics of an information theoretic analog of two masses on a spring," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    19. Si, Xia-Meng & Wang, Wen-Dong & Ma, Yan, 2016. "Role of propagation thresholds in sentiment-based model of opinion evolution with information diffusion," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 451(C), pages 549-559.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    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:wly:jnlamp:v:2017:y:2017:i:1:n:1098169. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/3197 .

    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.