simple models of teens, diplomats, religious cults and more
Post on 01-Oct-2021
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
Simple models of teens, diplomats,religious cults and more
Petter Holme
KTH, CSC, Computational Biology
January 12, 2008, Is There a Physics of Society?, SFI
http://www.csc.kth.se/∼pholme/
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
outline
simple mechanistic models of the micro- to macro-transition innetworked social systems (toy models), of:
group formation w Andreas Gronlundyouth subcultures w Andreas Gronlundco-evolution of networks and opinions w Mark Newmanagents maximizing centrality & minimizing degree wGourab Ghoshal
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
outline
simple mechanistic models of the micro- to macro-transition innetworked social systems (toy models), of:
group formation w Andreas Gronlundyouth subcultures w Andreas Gronlundco-evolution of networks and opinions w Mark Newmanagents maximizing centrality & minimizing degree wGourab Ghoshal
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
outline
simple mechanistic models of the micro- to macro-transition innetworked social systems (toy models), of:
group formation w Andreas Gronlundyouth subcultures w Andreas Gronlundco-evolution of networks and opinions w Mark Newmanagents maximizing centrality & minimizing degree wGourab Ghoshal
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
outline
simple mechanistic models of the micro- to macro-transition innetworked social systems (toy models), of:
group formation w Andreas Gronlundyouth subcultures w Andreas Gronlundco-evolution of networks and opinions w Mark Newmanagents maximizing centrality & minimizing degree wGourab Ghoshal
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
outline
simple mechanistic models of the micro- to macro-transition innetworked social systems (toy models), of:
group formation w Andreas Gronlundyouth subcultures w Andreas Gronlundco-evolution of networks and opinions w Mark Newmanagents maximizing centrality & minimizing degree wGourab Ghoshal
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the object system
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the object system
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the object system
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
motivation
macro phenomena: subcultures & other distinct socialgroups in social networksmicro process: search for personal identityidea: modify the “seceder model” [Dittrich et al., Phys.Rev. Lett. 84 (2000), 3205–3208] to a network model
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
motivation
macro phenomena: subcultures & other distinct socialgroups in social networksmicro process: search for personal identityidea: modify the “seceder model” [Dittrich et al., Phys.Rev. Lett. 84 (2000), 3205–3208] to a network model
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
motivation
macro phenomena: subcultures & other distinct socialgroups in social networksmicro process: search for personal identityidea: modify the “seceder model” [Dittrich et al., Phys.Rev. Lett. 84 (2000), 3205–3208] to a network model
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
motivation
macro phenomena: subcultures & other distinct socialgroups in social networksmicro process: search for personal identityidea: modify the “seceder model” [Dittrich et al., Phys.Rev. Lett. 84 (2000), 3205–3208] to a network model
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the seceder model
N individuals with a real number s(i) representing thetraits of iSelect three individuals i1, i2 and i3 randomly.Pick the one of these i whose s-value is furthest from theaverage [s(i1) + s(i2) + s(i3)]/3.Replace the s-value of a random agent j with s(i) + η,where η is a random number from the normal distributionN(0, 1).
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the seceder model
N individuals with a real number s(i) representing thetraits of iSelect three individuals i1, i2 and i3 randomly.Pick the one of these i whose s-value is furthest from theaverage [s(i1) + s(i2) + s(i3)]/3.Replace the s-value of a random agent j with s(i) + η,where η is a random number from the normal distributionN(0, 1).
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the seceder model
N individuals with a real number s(i) representing thetraits of iSelect three individuals i1, i2 and i3 randomly.Pick the one of these i whose s-value is furthest from theaverage [s(i1) + s(i2) + s(i3)]/3.Replace the s-value of a random agent j with s(i) + η,where η is a random number from the normal distributionN(0, 1).
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the seceder model
N individuals with a real number s(i) representing thetraits of iSelect three individuals i1, i2 and i3 randomly.Pick the one of these i whose s-value is furthest from theaverage [s(i1) + s(i2) + s(i3)]/3.Replace the s-value of a random agent j with s(i) + η,where η is a random number from the normal distributionN(0, 1).
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the seceder model
N individuals with a real number s(i) representing thetraits of iSelect three individuals i1, i2 and i3 randomly.Pick the one of these i whose s-value is furthest from theaverage [s(i1) + s(i2) + s(i3)]/3.Replace the s-value of a random agent j with s(i) + η,where η is a random number from the normal distributionN(0, 1).
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
time evolution
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the networked seceder model
Select three random (but distinct) vertices i1, i2 and i3.Pick the one of these with highest eccentricity i (or, if thegraph is disconnected, the member of the smallest groupwith highest eccentricity).Pick another random vertex j in V \ {i}. Rewire as many ofj’s edges as possible to i.Go through all j’s edges once more and, with a probabilityp, rewire these to random others.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the networked seceder model
Select three random (but distinct) vertices i1, i2 and i3.Pick the one of these with highest eccentricity i (or, if thegraph is disconnected, the member of the smallest groupwith highest eccentricity).Pick another random vertex j in V \ {i}. Rewire as many ofj’s edges as possible to i.Go through all j’s edges once more and, with a probabilityp, rewire these to random others.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the networked seceder model
Select three random (but distinct) vertices i1, i2 and i3.Pick the one of these with highest eccentricity i (or, if thegraph is disconnected, the member of the smallest groupwith highest eccentricity).Pick another random vertex j in V \ {i}. Rewire as many ofj’s edges as possible to i.Go through all j’s edges once more and, with a probabilityp, rewire these to random others.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the networked seceder model
Select three random (but distinct) vertices i1, i2 and i3.Pick the one of these with highest eccentricity i (or, if thegraph is disconnected, the member of the smallest groupwith highest eccentricity).Pick another random vertex j in V \ {i}. Rewire as many ofj’s edges as possible to i.Go through all j’s edges once more and, with a probabilityp, rewire these to random others.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the networked seceder model
Select three random (but distinct) vertices i1, i2 and i3.Pick the one of these with highest eccentricity i (or, if thegraph is disconnected, the member of the smallest groupwith highest eccentricity).Pick another random vertex j in V \ {i}. Rewire as many ofj’s edges as possible to i.Go through all j’s edges once more and, with a probabilityp, rewire these to random others.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
sketch
i1i2 i1
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
sketch
j i
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
sketch
i
j
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
sketch
j
i
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
output: example network
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
output: time evolution
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
t
0.4
0.6Q
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
output: parameter dependence
Q
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1p
Q0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
N
original
randomized
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
summary
Gronlund & Holme, Phys. Rev. E 70, 036108 (2004)group formation (the desired qualitative behavior) occursturned an agent-based model of group formation into anetwork-evolution modelthe original model was simplified, by omitting the explicittrait variable
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
summary
Gronlund & Holme, Phys. Rev. E 70, 036108 (2004)group formation (the desired qualitative behavior) occursturned an agent-based model of group formation into anetwork-evolution modelthe original model was simplified, by omitting the explicittrait variable
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
summary
Gronlund & Holme, Phys. Rev. E 70, 036108 (2004)group formation (the desired qualitative behavior) occursturned an agent-based model of group formation into anetwork-evolution modelthe original model was simplified, by omitting the explicittrait variable
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
summary
Gronlund & Holme, Phys. Rev. E 70, 036108 (2004)group formation (the desired qualitative behavior) occursturned an agent-based model of group formation into anetwork-evolution modelthe original model was simplified, by omitting the explicittrait variable
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the idea
to start with documented principles and derive a model forthe dynamics of youth subculturesturn these observations into a mechanistic model
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the idea
to start with documented principles and derive a model forthe dynamics of youth subculturesturn these observations into a mechanistic model
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
sources
S. Thornton. Club Cultures: Music, Media and SubculturalCapital. Polity Press, Cambridge UK, 1995.E. H. Erikson. Identity: Youth and crisis. Norton, NewYork, 1968.J. J. Conger. Adolescence and Youth: PsychologicalDevelopment in a Changing World. Harper & Row, NewYork, 1973.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
sources
S. Thornton. Club Cultures: Music, Media and SubculturalCapital. Polity Press, Cambridge UK, 1995.E. H. Erikson. Identity: Youth and crisis. Norton, NewYork, 1968.J. J. Conger. Adolescence and Youth: PsychologicalDevelopment in a Changing World. Harper & Row, NewYork, 1973.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
sources
S. Thornton. Club Cultures: Music, Media and SubculturalCapital. Polity Press, Cambridge UK, 1995.E. H. Erikson. Identity: Youth and crisis. Norton, NewYork, 1968.J. J. Conger. Adolescence and Youth: PsychologicalDevelopment in a Changing World. Harper & Row, NewYork, 1973.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
precepts
an adolescent belongs to one subculture at a timethreshold behavior: if the fraction of friends that haveadopted a certain subculture is big enough then anadolescent will adopt that subculture toothe attractiveness of a subculture decreases with its agethere is a certain resistance to changing subculturesthe dynamics of the underlying social network is negligible
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
precepts
an adolescent belongs to one subculture at a timethreshold behavior: if the fraction of friends that haveadopted a certain subculture is big enough then anadolescent will adopt that subculture toothe attractiveness of a subculture decreases with its agethere is a certain resistance to changing subculturesthe dynamics of the underlying social network is negligible
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
precepts
an adolescent belongs to one subculture at a timethreshold behavior: if the fraction of friends that haveadopted a certain subculture is big enough then anadolescent will adopt that subculture toothe attractiveness of a subculture decreases with its agethere is a certain resistance to changing subculturesthe dynamics of the underlying social network is negligible
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
precepts
an adolescent belongs to one subculture at a timethreshold behavior: if the fraction of friends that haveadopted a certain subculture is big enough then anadolescent will adopt that subculture toothe attractiveness of a subculture decreases with its agethere is a certain resistance to changing subculturesthe dynamics of the underlying social network is negligible
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
precepts
an adolescent belongs to one subculture at a timethreshold behavior: if the fraction of friends that haveadopted a certain subculture is big enough then anadolescent will adopt that subculture toothe attractiveness of a subculture decreases with its agethere is a certain resistance to changing subculturesthe dynamics of the underlying social network is negligible
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
model definition: attractiveness
attractiveness
sc(t , i) =kki
ni(c)t(c) − t(ci)
t − t(ci)
where t(c) is the age of ck = 2M/N is the average degreeki is the degree of ini(c), the number of neighbors of i with the identity c
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
model definition: iterations
For every vertex i (chosen sequentially) calculate thescore sc(t , i) of all subcultures c.Go through the vertex set sequentially once again. If thescore is higher than a threshold T for some identity c, theni change its identity to c. If more than one subculture hasa score above the threshold then the individual adopts thesubculture with the highest score.With a probability R a new identity is assigned to a vertex.(On average, NR fads are introduced per time step.)
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
model definition: iterations
For every vertex i (chosen sequentially) calculate thescore sc(t , i) of all subcultures c.Go through the vertex set sequentially once again. If thescore is higher than a threshold T for some identity c, theni change its identity to c. If more than one subculture hasa score above the threshold then the individual adopts thesubculture with the highest score.With a probability R a new identity is assigned to a vertex.(On average, NR fads are introduced per time step.)
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
model definition: iterations
For every vertex i (chosen sequentially) calculate thescore sc(t , i) of all subcultures c.Go through the vertex set sequentially once again. If thescore is higher than a threshold T for some identity c, theni change its identity to c. If more than one subculture hasa score above the threshold then the individual adopts thesubculture with the highest score.With a probability R a new identity is assigned to a vertex.(On average, NR fads are introduced per time step.)
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
output: time evolution
0
100
200
300
400
0 100 200 300simulation time, t
sizeofsubculture,S
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
output: parameter dependence
100
103
10−510−410−30.01
0.1
1
100101
(b)
p(S m
ax)
maximal size of subculture, Smax
1000
0.1
0.2
20 40 60 80
(d)p(t dur)
duration of subculture, tdur
0
0.1
0.2
20 40 60 80
T = 0.00.50.81.0
(c)
0.3
p(t dur)
duration of subculture, tdur
103
10−510−4
0.01
0.1
1
100101
10−3
(a)p(S m
ax)
maximal size of subculture, Smax
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
summary
Holme & Gronlund, Journal of Artificial Societies andSocial Simulation 8, 3 (2005).broad distributions of sizes an durations of subcultures (inagreement with some qualitative statements)
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
summary
Holme & Gronlund, Journal of Artificial Societies andSocial Simulation 8, 3 (2005).broad distributions of sizes an durations of subcultures (inagreement with some qualitative statements)
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the object system
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the object system
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the object system
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the idea
P. Holme & M. E. J. Newman, Phys. Rev. E 74, 056108 (2006).
Opinions spread over social networks.People with the same opinion are likely to becomeacquainted.We try to combine these points into a simple model ofsimultaneous opinion spreading and network evolution.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the idea
P. Holme & M. E. J. Newman, Phys. Rev. E 74, 056108 (2006).
Opinions spread over social networks.People with the same opinion are likely to becomeacquainted.We try to combine these points into a simple model ofsimultaneous opinion spreading and network evolution.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the idea
P. Holme & M. E. J. Newman, Phys. Rev. E 74, 056108 (2006).
Opinions spread over social networks.People with the same opinion are likely to becomeacquainted.We try to combine these points into a simple model ofsimultaneous opinion spreading and network evolution.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the idea
P. Holme & M. E. J. Newman, Phys. Rev. E 74, 056108 (2006).
Opinions spread over social networks.People with the same opinion are likely to becomeacquainted.We try to combine these points into a simple model ofsimultaneous opinion spreading and network evolution.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the voter model
Clifford & Sudbury, Biometrika 60, 581 (1973).Holley & Liggett, Ann. Probab. 3, 643 (1975).
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the voter model
choose one vertex randomly
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the voter model
copy the opinion of a random neighbor
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the voter model
and so on . . .
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the voter model
and so on . . .
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the voter model
and so on . . .
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the voter model
and so on . . .
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
acquaintance dynamics: precepts
People of similar interests are likely to get acquainted.The number of edges is constant.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
acquaintance dynamics: precepts
People of similar interests are likely to get acquainted.The number of edges is constant.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
acquaintance dynamics: precepts
People of similar interests are likely to get acquainted.The number of edges is constant.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
acquaintance dynamics
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
acquaintance dynamics
choose one vertex randomly
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
acquaintance dynamics
rewire an edge to a vertex w same opinion
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
acquaintance dynamics
and so on . . .
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
acquaintance dynamics
and so on . . .
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
acquaintance dynamics
and so on . . .
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
acquaintance dynamics
and so on . . .
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
model definition
1 Start with a random network of N vertices M = kN/2edges and G = N/γ randomly assigned opinions.
2 Pick a vertex i at random.3 With a probability φ make an acquaintance formation step
from i.4 . . . otherwise make a voter model step from i.5 If there are edges leading between vertices of different
opinions—iterate from step 2.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
model definition
1 Start with a random network of N vertices M = kN/2edges and G = N/γ randomly assigned opinions.
2 Pick a vertex i at random.3 With a probability φ make an acquaintance formation step
from i.4 . . . otherwise make a voter model step from i.5 If there are edges leading between vertices of different
opinions—iterate from step 2.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
model definition
1 Start with a random network of N vertices M = kN/2edges and G = N/γ randomly assigned opinions.
2 Pick a vertex i at random.3 With a probability φ make an acquaintance formation step
from i.4 . . . otherwise make a voter model step from i.5 If there are edges leading between vertices of different
opinions—iterate from step 2.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
model definition
1 Start with a random network of N vertices M = kN/2edges and G = N/γ randomly assigned opinions.
2 Pick a vertex i at random.3 With a probability φ make an acquaintance formation step
from i.4 . . . otherwise make a voter model step from i.5 If there are edges leading between vertices of different
opinions—iterate from step 2.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
model definition
1 Start with a random network of N vertices M = kN/2edges and G = N/γ randomly assigned opinions.
2 Pick a vertex i at random.3 With a probability φ make an acquaintance formation step
from i.4 . . . otherwise make a voter model step from i.5 If there are edges leading between vertices of different
opinions—iterate from step 2.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
model definition
1 Start with a random network of N vertices M = kN/2edges and G = N/γ randomly assigned opinions.
2 Pick a vertex i at random.3 With a probability φ make an acquaintance formation step
from i.4 . . . otherwise make a voter model step from i.5 If there are edges leading between vertices of different
opinions—iterate from step 2.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
phases
low φ—one dominant cluster
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
phases
high φ—clusters of similar sizes
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
quantities we measure
The relative largest size S of a cluster (of vertices with thesame opinion).The average time τ to reach consensus.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
quantities we measure
The relative largest size S of a cluster (of vertices with thesame opinion).The average time τ to reach consensus.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
quantities we measure
The relative largest size S of a cluster (of vertices with thesame opinion).The average time τ to reach consensus.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
cluster size distribution
φ = 0.458
φ = 0.04
φ = 0.96
P(s
)P
(s)
P(s
)
10−4
10−6
10−8
0.01
s
10−4
0.01
10−6
0.01
101 100 1000
10−4
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
finding the phase transition
Assume a critical scaling form:
scaling form
S = N−a F(Nb(φ − φc)
)
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
finding the phase transition
40
0
10
20
30
5
6
7
0.45 0.46 0.47
10 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8φ
S1N−a
φS
1N−a
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
finding the phase transition
(φ − φc)Nb
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5N = 200N = 400
N = 800N = 1600N = 3200
−0.2 0 0.2 0.4
S1N−a
−0.4
a = 0.61 ± 0.05, φc = 0.458 ± 0.008, b = 0.7 ± 0.1random graph percolation: a = b = 1/3
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
finding the phase transition
(φ − φc)Nb
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5N = 200N = 400
N = 800N = 1600N = 3200
−0.2 0 0.2 0.4
S1N−a
−0.4
a = 0.61 ± 0.05, φc = 0.458 ± 0.008, b = 0.7 ± 0.1random graph percolation: a = b = 1/3
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
finding the phase transition
(φ − φc)Nb
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5N = 200N = 400
N = 800N = 1600N = 3200
−0.2 0 0.2 0.4
S1N−a
−0.4
a = 0.61 ± 0.05, φc = 0.458 ± 0.008, b = 0.7 ± 0.1random graph percolation: a = b = 1/3
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
dynamic critical behavior
10
15
0.4 0.5
20
0
5
φτN−z
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 0.75 10.25 0.5φ
Vτ
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
conclusions
We have proposed a simple, non-equilibrium model for thecoevolution of networks and opinions.The model undergoes a second order phase transitionbetween: One state of clusters of similar sizes. One statewith one dominant cluster.The universality class is not the same as random graphpercolation.In society, a tiny change in the social dynamics may causea large change in the diversity of opinions.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
conclusions
We have proposed a simple, non-equilibrium model for thecoevolution of networks and opinions.The model undergoes a second order phase transitionbetween: One state of clusters of similar sizes. One statewith one dominant cluster.The universality class is not the same as random graphpercolation.In society, a tiny change in the social dynamics may causea large change in the diversity of opinions.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
conclusions
We have proposed a simple, non-equilibrium model for thecoevolution of networks and opinions.The model undergoes a second order phase transitionbetween: One state of clusters of similar sizes. One statewith one dominant cluster.The universality class is not the same as random graphpercolation.In society, a tiny change in the social dynamics may causea large change in the diversity of opinions.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
conclusions
We have proposed a simple, non-equilibrium model for thecoevolution of networks and opinions.The model undergoes a second order phase transitionbetween: One state of clusters of similar sizes. One statewith one dominant cluster.The universality class is not the same as random graphpercolation.In society, a tiny change in the social dynamics may causea large change in the diversity of opinions.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
conclusions
We have proposed a simple, non-equilibrium model for thecoevolution of networks and opinions.The model undergoes a second order phase transitionbetween: One state of clusters of similar sizes. One statewith one dominant cluster.The universality class is not the same as random graphpercolation.In society, a tiny change in the social dynamics may causea large change in the diversity of opinions.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
motivation
In diplomacy, lobbying or other politicalor corporate networking, it is important to:
Holme & Ghoshal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 098701 (2006).
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
motivation
In diplomacy, lobbying or other politicalor corporate networking, it is important to:
1. Be central in the information flow.
Holme & Ghoshal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 098701 (2006).
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
motivation
In diplomacy, lobbying or other politicalor corporate networking, it is important to:
1. Be central in the information flow.2. Not have to maintain too many contacts.
Holme & Ghoshal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 098701 (2006).
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
the object system
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
score function
Central is good—closeness centrality
C(i) = (N − 1)/∑
j!i
d(i, j)
If the network is disconnected, being a part of a largecomponent is good.Large degree is bad.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
score function
Central is good—closeness centrality
C(i) = (N − 1)/∑
j!i
d(i, j)
If the network is disconnected, being a part of a largecomponent is good.Large degree is bad.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
score function
Central is good—closeness centrality
C(i) = (N − 1)/∑
j!i
d(i, j)
If the network is disconnected, being a part of a largecomponent is good.Large degree is bad.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
score function
Central is good—closeness centrality
C(i) = (N − 1)/∑
j!i
d(i, j)
If the network is disconnected, being a part of a largecomponent is good.Large degree is bad.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
score function
Component size can be incorporated by modifying thedefinition of closeness: If we sum the reciprocals (instead ofinverting the sum), we get the score function:
Definition
s(i) =
{(1/ki)
∑Hi 1/d(i, j) if ki > 0
0 if ki = 0 (1)
Hi is the component i belongs to, except i
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
score function
Component size can be incorporated by modifying thedefinition of closeness: If we sum the reciprocals (instead ofinverting the sum), we get the score function:
Definition
s(i) =
{(1/ki)
∑Hi 1/d(i, j) if ki > 0
0 if ki = 0 (1)
Hi is the component i belongs to, except i
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
score function
Component size can be incorporated by modifying thedefinition of closeness: If we sum the reciprocals (instead ofinverting the sum), we get the score function:
Definition
s(i) =
{(1/ki)
∑Hi 1/d(i, j) if ki > 0
0 if ki = 0 (1)
Hi is the component i belongs to, except i
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
score function
Component size can be incorporated by modifying thedefinition of closeness: If we sum the reciprocals (instead ofinverting the sum), we get the score function:
Definition
s(i) =
{(1/ki)
∑Hi 1/d(i, j) if ki > 0
0 if ki = 0 (1)
Hi is the component i belongs to, except i
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
outline
myopic agents . . can use information, and add / deleteedges, within the 2-neighborhoodwe also assume the score and degree of a vertex is known
let the agents use a genetic algorithm to developattachment / deletion strategiesdrive the system with noise
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
outline
myopic agents . . can use information, and add / deleteedges, within the 2-neighborhoodwe also assume the score and degree of a vertex is known
let the agents use a genetic algorithm to developattachment / deletion strategiesdrive the system with noise
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
outline
myopic agents . . can use information, and add / deleteedges, within the 2-neighborhoodwe also assume the score and degree of a vertex is known
let the agents use a genetic algorithm to developattachment / deletion strategiesdrive the system with noise
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
outline
myopic agents . . can use information, and add / deleteedges, within the 2-neighborhoodwe also assume the score and degree of a vertex is known
let the agents use a genetic algorithm to developattachment / deletion strategiesdrive the system with noise
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
outline
myopic agents . . can use information, and add / deleteedges, within the 2-neighborhoodwe also assume the score and degree of a vertex is known
let the agents use a genetic algorithm to developattachment / deletion strategiesdrive the system with noise
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
time evolution
MAXC MINC MAXD MIND RND NO
10.750.5
0.250
0.750.5
0.250
010200
204060
00.250.5
0.75
70000 75000 80000 85000 90000 95000t
addition
deletion
degree
score
largest component
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
effect of random moves: degree & cluster size
N = 200 N = 800N = 400
345
1
0.80.9
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.50.4
〈k〉
pr
0.7〈n 1〉
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
conclusions
A simple problem that gets quite convoluted when onewants to be general.Complex time evolution with spikes, quasi-equilibria andtrends.Network structure and strategy densities are correlated.The most common strategy, over a large range ofparameter space, is MAXC.MAXC gives a bimodal degree distributionThe NO/NO strategy is not stable—Red Queen.The network gets sparser and more connected with size.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
conclusions
A simple problem that gets quite convoluted when onewants to be general.Complex time evolution with spikes, quasi-equilibria andtrends.Network structure and strategy densities are correlated.The most common strategy, over a large range ofparameter space, is MAXC.MAXC gives a bimodal degree distributionThe NO/NO strategy is not stable—Red Queen.The network gets sparser and more connected with size.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
conclusions
A simple problem that gets quite convoluted when onewants to be general.Complex time evolution with spikes, quasi-equilibria andtrends.Network structure and strategy densities are correlated.The most common strategy, over a large range ofparameter space, is MAXC.MAXC gives a bimodal degree distributionThe NO/NO strategy is not stable—Red Queen.The network gets sparser and more connected with size.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
conclusions
A simple problem that gets quite convoluted when onewants to be general.Complex time evolution with spikes, quasi-equilibria andtrends.Network structure and strategy densities are correlated.The most common strategy, over a large range ofparameter space, is MAXC.MAXC gives a bimodal degree distributionThe NO/NO strategy is not stable—Red Queen.The network gets sparser and more connected with size.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
conclusions
A simple problem that gets quite convoluted when onewants to be general.Complex time evolution with spikes, quasi-equilibria andtrends.Network structure and strategy densities are correlated.The most common strategy, over a large range ofparameter space, is MAXC.MAXC gives a bimodal degree distributionThe NO/NO strategy is not stable—Red Queen.The network gets sparser and more connected with size.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
conclusions
A simple problem that gets quite convoluted when onewants to be general.Complex time evolution with spikes, quasi-equilibria andtrends.Network structure and strategy densities are correlated.The most common strategy, over a large range ofparameter space, is MAXC.MAXC gives a bimodal degree distributionThe NO/NO strategy is not stable—Red Queen.The network gets sparser and more connected with size.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
conclusions
A simple problem that gets quite convoluted when onewants to be general.Complex time evolution with spikes, quasi-equilibria andtrends.Network structure and strategy densities are correlated.The most common strategy, over a large range ofparameter space, is MAXC.MAXC gives a bimodal degree distributionThe NO/NO strategy is not stable—Red Queen.The network gets sparser and more connected with size.
Simplemodels of
teens,diplomats,
religious cultsand more
PETTERHOLME
groupformation
youthsubcultures
coevolution ofnetworks andopinions
the diplomat’sdilemma
conclusions
A simple problem that gets quite convoluted when onewants to be general.Complex time evolution with spikes, quasi-equilibria andtrends.Network structure and strategy densities are correlated.The most common strategy, over a large range ofparameter space, is MAXC.MAXC gives a bimodal degree distributionThe NO/NO strategy is not stable—Red Queen.The network gets sparser and more connected with size.
top related