pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.07946 · v1 · pith:54SFI363new · submitted 2019-07-18 · 💻 cs.SI · cs.CY· physics.soc-ph

Consensus formation Online using Sociophysics method

Yasuko Kawahata , Akira Ishii This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 19:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SI cs.CYphysics.soc-ph
keywords consensus formationsociophysicsonline opinionmathematical modelsocial riskinformation networksopinion dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

The potential for comparing actual online consensus data with sociophysics mathematical models was investigated for the first time.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper examines the idea of matching real data from online environments with mathematical models drawn from sociophysics to study how opinions form consensus or differences. Online platforms now act as concrete spaces where opposing views meet and agreements emerge, prompting updates to laws and systems. The work calls for quantitative research to track trends that may create social or economic risks. The authors specifically investigate whether data-based studies can be usefully compared with model-based approaches.

Core claim

The authors investigate the potential for comparing research related to consensus formation using actual data and an approach using a mathematical model, as a step toward summarizing quantitative findings on consensus formation and on trends likely to give rise to social and economic risk.

What carries the argument

The comparison between real-world online consensus data and sociophysics mathematical models.

If this is right

  • Quantitative findings on consensus formation and related trends can be summarized from the comparison.
  • Trends that may create social or economic risks can be identified through the data-model link.
  • Relevant laws and systems within society can be updated using these quantitative insights.
  • Online environments can be treated as measurable places of opinion opposition and agreement.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The comparison method could be extended to test whether specific online platforms produce different risk profiles.
  • If the models align with data, they might support early-warning systems for rapid opinion shifts.
  • This line of work opens questions about how to collect the actual data needed for repeated model tests.

Load-bearing premise

A sociophysics mathematical model can be directly and usefully compared to real-world online consensus data in a way that reveals social or economic risks.

What would settle it

Finding that the sociophysics model outputs show no consistent match with observed patterns in online consensus data or produce no usable indicators of risk would falsify the value of the proposed comparison.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.07946 by Akira Ishii, Yasuko Kawahata.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distribution of negative, positive, and neutral comments in Case A (acquisition period 2012/11/15 to 2018/11/30; score range in each case: 0 to1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution when the negative, positive, and neutral comments on Case A are integrated (score range: 0 to 2) (acquisition period 2/11/15 to 2018/11/30) 4.2 Case A ”Skydiving cats cause uproar“ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of negative, positive, and neutral comments in Case B (acquisition period 2015/6/5 to 2018/12/2; score range in each case: 0 to1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of negative, positive, and neutral comments in Case B (acquisition period 2015/6/5 to 2018/12/2) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Consensus formation and difference of opinion have long been the subject of research. However, relevant laws and systems within society are being updated to reflect the changes in information networks. Online environment has come to fulfill a major role as a real and concrete place of opposing opinions and consensus formation. In the future, quantitative findings on consensus formation, and findings on relevant trends, must be summarized, and quantitative research related to trends likely to give rise to social and economic risk is required. Thus, the potential for comparing research related to consensus formation using actual data and an approach using a mathematical model was first investigated.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that it is the first to investigate the potential for comparing actual data on consensus formation in online environments with mathematical models from sociophysics, motivated by the societal need for quantitative research on trends that may create social and economic risks.

Significance. The general topic of modeling online opinion dynamics is relevant to social network analysis. However, because the manuscript supplies neither a specific model, dataset, comparison protocol, nor any outcome, no concrete result exists whose significance can be assessed.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'the potential for comparing research related to consensus formation using actual data and an approach using a mathematical model was first investigated' is unsupported; the text names no sociophysics model (Ising, voter, bounded-confidence, etc.), no data source, no comparison method, and no result.
  2. [Title and Abstract] Title and Abstract: the title announces use of a 'Sociophysics method' yet the manuscript contains no equations, parameters, or procedural description, so the central claim of having performed a data-model comparison cannot be evaluated.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: phrasing such as 'Online environment has come to fulfill a major role as a real and concrete place of opposing opinions' is awkward and could be revised for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the report. The comments correctly identify that the manuscript is a concise note focused on the societal motivation for quantitative work rather than a completed empirical or modeling study. We will revise the title, abstract, and framing to align the claims with the actual content.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'the potential for comparing research related to consensus formation using actual data and an approach using a mathematical model was first investigated' is unsupported; the text names no sociophysics model (Ising, voter, bounded-confidence, etc.), no data source, no comparison method, and no result.

    Authors: We agree the claim is unsupported by specifics. The manuscript is a short position note that identifies the need for future data-model comparisons on online consensus and associated risks; it does not perform or report such a comparison. We will revise the abstract to remove the assertion of having 'first investigated' the potential and instead state that we outline the motivation for such work. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Title and Abstract] Title and Abstract: the title announces use of a 'Sociophysics method' yet the manuscript contains no equations, parameters, or procedural description, so the central claim of having performed a data-model comparison cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: The title uses 'Sociophysics method' to indicate the general research area under consideration. We accept that this phrasing implies a concrete application that is not present. We will revise the title to 'On the Potential for Sociophysics Approaches to Online Consensus Data' and adjust the abstract to clarify the exploratory scope. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No derivation chain or equations present; claim is purely declarative

full rationale

The manuscript text consists solely of a high-level abstract asserting that 'the potential for comparing research related to consensus formation using actual data and an approach using a mathematical model was first investigated.' No equations, models (Ising, voter, bounded-confidence, etc.), datasets, fitting procedures, or derivation steps are supplied. Without any load-bearing mathematical steps or self-citations that reduce a result to its own inputs, none of the enumerated circularity patterns apply. The paper is self-contained as a statement of intent rather than a derivation whose outputs are forced by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5620 in / 880 out tokens · 14340 ms · 2026-05-24T19:43:13.852340+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    GAFA” or “FANG

    Consensus formation Online using Sociophysics method Yasuko Kawahata1, Akira Ishii2 1 Gunma University, Faculty of Social and Information Studies, 4-2 Aramaki-machi, Maebashi, Gunma, 371-8510，Japan, kawahata@gunma-u.ac.jp 2 Department of Applied Mathematics and Physics, Tottori University, Koyama, Tottori, 680-8552, Japan, ishii@tottori-u.ac.jp Abstract. ...

    work page 1995

  2. [2]

    We modify the meaning of the coeffi cient 𝐷𝑖𝑗 as the coeffi cient of trust

    Schematic illustration of opinion dynamics think In this case, the value range of 𝐼𝑖 (𝑡 ) 𝑖s −∞ ≤ 𝐼𝑖 (𝑡 ) ≤ +∞ . We modify the meaning of the coeffi cient 𝐷𝑖𝑗 as the coeffi cient of trust. We assume here that 𝐷𝑖𝑗 > 0 if there is a trust relationship between the two persons, and 𝐷𝑖𝑗 < 0 if there is distrust relationship between the two persons. In contrast...

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Distribution of negative, positive, and neutral comments in Case A (acquisition period 2012/11/15 to 2018/11/30; score range in each case: 0 to1) Fig

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    (acquisition period 2/11/15 to 2018/11/30) 4.2 Case A ”Skydiving cats cause uproar“ Fig

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Distribution of negative, positive, and neutral comments in Case B (acquisition period 2015/6/5 to 2018/12/2; score range in each case: 0 to1) Fig

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    This example can be surmised to be one where there is a division between critical opinion, from the viewpoint of animal protection, and those who find the videos funny

    Distribution of negative, positive, and neutral comments in Case B (acquisition period 2015/6/5 to 2018/12/2) Case A and Case B are both animal videos and, while negative mentions are notable at the extreme, neutral opinion is somewhat beyond 1, and it is inferred that the tendency is to take a negative outlook. This example can be surmised to be one wher...

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    French J R P (1956) A formal theory of social power., Psychological Review

    work page 1956

  8. [8]

    A criterion for unanimity in French’s theory of social power

    Harary F (1959) “A criterion for unanimity in French’s theory of social power”. In Cartwright D (Ed.), Stud-ies in Social Power. Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor

    work page 1959

  9. [9]

    Mathematical models of the dis-tribution of attitudes under controversy

    Abelson, R P (1964), “Mathematical models of the dis-tribution of attitudes under controversy." In Frederiksen, N and Gulliksen H (Eds.), Contributions toMathematical Psychology, New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston

    work page 1964

  10. [10]

    De Groot M H (1974) Reaching a consensus. J. Amer.Statist. Assoc

    work page 1974

  11. [11]

    Synthese

    Lehrer K (1975) Social consensus and rational agnoiology. Synthese

    work page 1975

  12. [12]

    Chatterjee S (1975) Reaching a consensus: Some limit theorems. Proc. Int. Statist. Inst. pp.159 -164

    work page 1975

  13. [13]

    ”What is to be Done about Law and Order?.” (1984)

    Lea, John, and Jock Young. ”What is to be Done about Law and Order?.” (1984)

    work page 1984

  14. [14]

    ”Web science emerges.” Scientific American 299.4 (2008): 76-81

    Shadbolt, Nigel, and Tim Berners-Lee. ”Web science emerges.” Scientific American 299.4 (2008): 76-81. 10.France yellow vest protests https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cpzg2d6re0lt/franceyellow-vest-protests¿(Ref:2018/11/27)

    work page 2008

  15. [15]

    Opinion Dynamics and Bounded Confidence Models, Analysis, and Simulation

    Hegselmann R and U Krause, “Opinion Dynamics and Bounded Confidence Models, Analysis, and Simulation”Journal of Artificial Society and Social Simulation 5 (2002)

    work page 2002

  16. [16]

    Opinion dynamics theory considering trust and suspicion in humanrelations

    A. Ishii, “Opinion dynamics theory considering trust and suspicion in humanrelations”Submitted to Proceeding of 19th International Conference on Group Decision and Negotiation in 2019 a Joint GDN-EWG/BOR meeting,

    work page 2019

  17. [19]

    NLTK: the natural language toolkit

    Bird, Steven, and Edward Loper. “NLTK: the natural language toolkit.” Proceedings of the ACL 2004 on Interactive poster and demonstration sessions. Association

    work page 2004

  18. [20]

    A. Ishii, ”Opinion dynamics theory considering trust and suspicion in human relations” Submitted to Proceeding of 19th International Conference on Group Decision and Negotiation in 2019 a Joint GDN-EWG/BOR meeting,

    work page 2019

  19. [21]

    Phys., 08 October 2018 — https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2018.00089

    A Ishii and Y Kawahata, ”Sociophysics Analysis of the dynamics of peoples’ interests in society” Front. Phys., 08 October 2018 — https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2018.00089

    work page doi:10.3389/fphy.2018.00089 2018

  20. [22]

    (2005, October)

    Wilson, T., Wiebe, J., Hoffmann, P. (2005, October). Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase-level sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the conference on human language technology and empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 347-354). Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page 2005

  21. [23]

    ”NLTK: the natural language toolkit.” Proceedings of the ACL 2004 on Interactive poster and demonstration sessions

    Bird, Steven, and Edward Loper. ”NLTK: the natural language toolkit.” Proceedings of the ACL 2004 on Interactive poster and demonstration sessions. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2004.for Computational Linguistics,

    work page 2004