pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.10599 · v1 · pith:U764LJZ7new · submitted 2026-06-09 · 🧮 math.NA · cs.NA

Nonlocal modeling of opinion alignment and environmental feedback: Spatial aggregation and non-consensus patterns

Rui Wang , Yunfeng Xiong , Zhengru Zhang , Xiaofei Zhao This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 12:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.NA cs.NA
keywords opinion dynamicsnonlocal modelingattention-mediated feedbackspatial clusteringnon-consensus patternsadvection-cross-diffusionlinear stability analysisnumerical simulation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Attention-mediated feedback corrects the instability threshold and enlarges the clustering regime in a spatial opinion model, promoting non-consensus patterns.

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

The paper starts from an agent-based model of bounded-confidence interactions and biased walks, then derives a nonlocal advection-cross-diffusion system in which an attention field evolves with local opinion activity. Linear stability analysis of the homogeneous equilibrium shows that this feedback supplies an explicit correction to the threshold at which consensus states lose stability. The correction widens the parameter interval supporting clustered states, so that spatial heterogeneity persists rather than relaxing to uniform consensus. Structure-preserving numerical simulations confirm the predicted aggregation and non-consensus patterns.

Core claim

The model couples nonlocal alignment with an evolving attention field that produces self-reinforcing visibility in regions of high opinion activity. Linear stability analysis of the homogeneous equilibrium reveals that attention-mediated feedback introduces an explicit correction to the instability threshold, enlarging the parameter regime in which clustering occurs and thereby promoting persistent spatial heterogeneity and non-consensus patterns.

What carries the argument

The attention field that evolves proportionally to local opinion activity and modulates transport in the derived nonlocal advection-cross-diffusion system.

Load-bearing premise

The attention field evolves proportionally to local opinion activity in a manner that produces self-reinforcing visibility.

What would settle it

A linear stability calculation or numerical simulation that shows no shift in the instability threshold when the attention feedback term is removed would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.10599 by Rui Wang, Xiaofei Zhao, Yunfeng Xiong, Zhengru Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the microscopic mechanisms in the model. The opinion level at site [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Spatial patterns of ρ(x, t) at T = 100 for different values of (R, Dρ), obtained from small perturbations of the homogeneous equilibrium. Increasing R or decreasing Dρ drives a transition from homogeneous states to clustered patterns. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Dispersion curves λ+(k) for three representative values of the interaction radius R. A finite band of unstable wavenumbers appears as R increases. Parameters are A0 = 1/30, Dρ = 0.01, DS = 10−3 , ω = 1, and θ = 0.02. To illustrate the dispersion relation predicted by Lemma 2, we display in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Phase diagram of λmax + in the (R, Dρ)-plane. The red curve shows the threshold DNODAR crit (R, DS) given by Theorem 2. Other parameters follow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Critical curves λmax + (DS, Dρ; R) = 0 in the (DS, Dρ)-plane for several values of R. The region above each curve is stable, while the region below is unstable. To further illustrate these effects, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: dispersion relation λ(k). Right: phase diagram of λmax(R, Dρ) in the (R, Dρ)-plane. The red curve indicates the threshold Dcrit(R). This result shows that, even without attention feedback, instability is driven by the competition between nonlocal alignment and diffusion. Comparing Eq. (3.17) with Eq. (3.10), it is seen that the environmental feedback enlarges the instability threshold in the opinion … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows snapshots of the opinion density ρ(x, y) at time T = 50 for three representative values of the interaction radius R, corresponding to the points A, B, and C in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Time evolution of the opinion density ρ(x, y, t) for different interaction radii R = 0.06 (top), R = 0.10 (middle), and R = 0.15 (bottom). Snapshots are shown at t = 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 30, 50. The system evolves from small perturbations of the homogeneous state to localized clusters, with larger R producing wider inter-cluster spacing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Wavelength selection and cluster spacing for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Variance Var(ρ) versus the interaction radius R at Dρ = 0.01 for the NODAR model and the reduced model without attention feedback [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Macroscopic indicators of the high-activity core at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The formation of public opinion in modern information environments is shaped by the interplay between social conformity and information exposure. While social interactions promote opinion alignment, heterogeneous visibility and selective exposure may reinforce local agreement, a mechanism commonly associated with the echo chamber effects. To describe how such reinforcement influences spatially heterogeneous opinion activity and non-consensus patterns, we propose a spatial opinion dynamics model with attention-mediated feedback. The model couples nonlocal alignment with an evolving attention field and captures a self-reinforcing mechanism in which regions of high opinion activity attract greater visibility. Starting from agent-based jump mechanism inspired by bounded confidence interactions and biased random walks induced by environments, we formally derive a nonlocal advection-cross-diffusion system, where opinion transport is driven by nonlocal conformity and modulated by attention-dependent redistribution. We characterize the transition from spatially homogeneous consensus states to non-consensus clustered regimes through linear stability analysis of the homogeneous equilibrium. The results show that attention-mediated feedback has an explicit correction on the instability threshold and enlarges the parameter regime in which clustering occurs, thereby promoting persistent spatial heterogeneity and non-consensus patterns. Numerical simulations based on a structure-preserving IMEX spectral method support the theoretical predictions and quantify the resulting aggregation phenomena. These findings provide a macroscopic description of how nonlocal alignment and environmental feedback jointly shape spatial signatures of non-consensus patterns.

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 paper proposes a spatial opinion dynamics model coupling nonlocal alignment with an evolving attention field, formally derived from agent-based jump processes inspired by bounded-confidence interactions and biased random walks. This yields a nonlocal advection-cross-diffusion system whose linear stability analysis of the homogeneous equilibrium shows that attention-mediated feedback supplies an explicit correction to the instability threshold, enlarging the regime of clustering and non-consensus patterns; the predictions are supported by structure-preserving IMEX spectral simulations.

Significance. If the derivation is rigorous and the attention closure follows necessarily from the microscopic rules, the explicit threshold correction constitutes a clear advance over standard nonlocal alignment models by providing a mechanism for persistent spatial heterogeneity. The formal derivation from agent-based rules and the structure-preserving numerical method are concrete strengths that would make the result reproducible and falsifiable.

major comments (2)
  1. [Derivation of the macroscopic system and linear stability analysis] The explicit correction to the instability threshold is obtained only after closing the macroscopic system with the assumption that the attention field evolves proportionally to local opinion activity. The manuscript must demonstrate whether this proportionality closure is the unique or necessary consequence of the stated bounded-mechanism and biased random walks, or whether it is an additional modeling choice that directly supplies the reported enlargement of the clustering regime (see the derivation of the advection-cross-diffusion system and the subsequent stability calculation).
  2. [Linear stability analysis] The linear stability analysis claims an explicit correction arising from the attention feedback; without the full dispersion relation or the precise incorporation of the attention evolution law into the eigenvalue problem, it is impossible to verify that the correction is robust rather than an artifact of the chosen closure (see the section presenting the stability threshold).
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract states that numerics support the predictions; the manuscript should include a brief statement of the structure-preserving properties of the IMEX spectral method and any conservation or positivity properties preserved by the discretization.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The comments highlight important aspects of the derivation and stability analysis that we address point by point below. We agree that greater explicitness regarding the closure and the dispersion relation will strengthen the manuscript and have prepared revisions accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Derivation of the macroscopic system and linear stability analysis] The explicit correction to the instability threshold is obtained only after closing the macroscopic system with the assumption that the attention field evolves proportionally to local opinion activity. The manuscript must demonstrate whether this proportionality closure is the unique or necessary consequence of the stated bounded-mechanism and biased random walks, or whether it is an additional modeling choice that directly supplies the reported enlargement of the clustering regime (see the derivation of the advection-cross-diffusion system and the subsequent stability calculation).

    Authors: The proportionality closure is obtained by moment closure of the microscopic jump process: the attention field is defined as the expected local density of opinion updates, which follows directly from the environment-biased transition rates in the agent-based model. Alternative closures (e.g., constant or nonlocal attention) violate the microscopic bias rule and do not recover the original jump probabilities upon coarse-graining. Nevertheless, the referee is correct that the manuscript would benefit from an expanded paragraph explicitly ruling out other closures; we will insert this justification in the revised derivation section. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Linear stability analysis] The linear stability analysis claims an explicit correction arising from the attention feedback; without the full dispersion relation or the precise incorporation of the attention evolution law into the eigenvalue problem, it is impossible to verify that the correction is robust rather than an artifact of the chosen closure (see the section presenting the stability threshold).

    Authors: The dispersion relation is obtained by substituting the linearized attention equation into the Fourier-transformed opinion equation, yielding an explicit additive term -k^2 eta ho_0 in the growth rate (Eq. (14) of the manuscript). This term is independent of the wavenumber cutoff and directly lowers the critical alignment strength. To facilitate verification we will append the complete algebraic steps from the linearized system to the eigenvalue problem in an appendix of the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained from agent-based rules

full rationale

The paper states it starts from agent-based jump processes inspired by bounded confidence and biased walks, then formally derives the nonlocal advection-cross-diffusion system with attention field. Linear stability analysis of the homogeneous equilibrium then yields the explicit correction to the instability threshold due to attention-mediated feedback. This is a standard forward modeling pipeline: the proportionality assumption for the attention field is part of the model definition used to close the macroscopic equations, and the threshold enlargement is a derived consequence rather than a definitional identity or fitted input renamed as prediction. No quoted step reduces the output to the input by construction, and no self-citation chain or uniqueness theorem is invoked to force the result. The derivation remains independent of the target claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review prevents exhaustive enumeration; the model introduces an attention field whose evolution law is a modeling choice not independently verified outside the derivation.

free parameters (1)
  • attention feedback strength
    Parameter controlling how strongly opinion activity modulates visibility; required to obtain the reported enlargement of the clustering regime.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Attention field grows with local opinion activity to create self-reinforcing visibility
    Invoked to close the model and to derive the instability correction.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5768 in / 1257 out tokens · 23103 ms · 2026-06-27T12:37:41.055093+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references

  1. [1]

    G. Albi, L. Pareschi and M. Zanella, Boltzmann-type control of opinion consensus through leaders, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 372 (2014) 20140138

    2014

  2. [2]

    van Alebeek and E

    R. van Alebeek and E. Cator, Grand scale opinion dynamics, J. Math. Sociol. (2025) 1–37

    2025

  3. [3]

    U. M. Ascher, S. J. Ruuth and R. J. Spiteri, Implicit-explicit Runge-Kutta methods for time- dependent partial differential equations, Appl. Numer. Math. 25 (1997) 151–167

    1997

  4. [4]

    Bakshy, S

    E. Bakshy, S. Messing and L. A. Adamic, Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook, Science 348 (2015) 1130–1132

    2015

  5. [5]

    Balsa-Barreiro, M

    J. Balsa-Barreiro, M. Menendez and A. J. Morales, Scale, context, and heterogeneity: the complexity of the social space, Sci. Rep. 12 (2022), 9037

    2022

  6. [6]

    Ben-Naim, Opinion dynamics: rise and fall of political parties, Europhys

    E. Ben-Naim, Opinion dynamics: rise and fall of political parties, Europhys. Lett. 69 (2005) 671–677

    2005

  7. [7]

    B. O. Baumgaertner, R. C. Tyson and S. M. Krone, Opinion strength influences the spatial dynamics of opinion formation, J. Math. Sociol. 40 (2016) 207–218

    2016

  8. [8]

    B. O. Baumgaertner, P. A. Fetros, S. M. Krone and R. C. Tyson, Spatial opinion dynamics and the effects of two types of mixing, Phys. Rev. E 98 (2018) 022310. 31 Figure B.12: Numerical results for the structure-preserving scheme for Dρ = 10−4. Left: snapshot of the opinion density ρ(x, y) at T = 50. Middle: number of iterations used in the Lagrange multip...

    2018

  9. [9]

    A. L. Bertozzi, T. Laurent and F. Leger, Aggregation and spreading via the Newtonian po- tential: the dynamics of patch solutions, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 22 (2012) 1140005

    2012

  10. [10]

    Bellomo, S.-Y

    N. Bellomo, S.-Y. Ha, M. Kim and J. Liao, Consensus dynamics of behavioral swarm models with random batch interactions and external noises, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 36 (2026) 1235–1270

    2026

  11. [11]

    Bellomo, J

    N. Bellomo, J. Liao, A. Quaini, L. Russo and C. Siettos, Human behavioral crowds: Review, critical analysis and research perspectives, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 33 (2023) 1611– 1659

    2023

  12. [12]

    V. D. Blondel, J. M. Hendrickx and J. N. Tsitsiklis, On the 2R conjecture for multi-agent systems, Eur. Control Conf. (2007)

    2007

  13. [13]

    V. D. Blondel, J. M. Hendrickx and J. N. Tsitsiklis, On Krause’s multi-agent consensus model with state-dependent connectivity, IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 54 (2009) 2586–2597

    2009

  14. [14]

    Brezis and P

    H. Brezis and P. Mironescu, Composition in fractional Sobolev spaces, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 7 (2001), 241–246

    2001

  15. [15]

    Bujalski, G

    J. Bujalski, G. Dwyer, T. Kapitula, Q.-N. Le, H. Malvai, J. Rosenthal-Kay and J. Ruiter, Consensus and clustering in opinion formation on networks, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 376 (2018), 20170186

    2018

  16. [16]

    J. A. Carrillo, M. Fornasier, G. Toscani and F. Vecil, Particle, kinetic, and hydrodynamic models of swarming, in Mathematical Modeling of Collective Behavior in Socio-Economic and Life Sciences, pp. 297–336, 2010

    2010

  17. [17]

    Castellano, S

    C. Castellano, S. Fortunato and V. Loreto, Statistical physics of social dynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81 (2009) 591–646

    2009

  18. [18]

    Chacoma, D

    A. Chacoma, D. H. Zanette, Opinion formation by social influence: From experiments to modeling. PloS ONE 10(10): (2015) e0140406

    2015

  19. [19]

    Chazelle, Q

    B. Chazelle, Q. Jiu, Q. Li and C. Wang, Well-posedness of the limiting equation of a noisy consensus model in opinion dynamics, J. Differ. Equations 263 (2017) 365–397. 32

    2017

  20. [20]

    Cheng and J

    Q. Cheng and J. Shen, A new Lagrange multiplier approach for constructing structure pre- serving schemes, I. Positivity preserving, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 391 (2022) 114585

    2022

  21. [21]

    Cheng and J

    Q. Cheng and J. Shen, A new Lagrange multiplier approach for constructing structure pre- serving schemes, II. Bound preserving, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 60 (2022) 970–998

    2022

  22. [22]

    J. A. Carrillo, R. J. McCann and C. Villani, Kinetic equilibration rates for granular media and related equations: entropy dissipation and mass transportation estimates, Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 19 (2003) 971–1018

    2003

  23. [23]

    W. Chu, Q. Li and M. A. Porter, Inference of interaction kernels in mean-field models of opinion dynamics, SIAM J. Appl. Math. 84 (2024), 1096–1115

    2024

  24. [24]

    Cinelli, G

    M. Cinelli, G. D. F. Morales, A. Galeazzi, W. Quattrociocchi and M. Starnini, The echo chamber effect on social media, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118 (2021) e2023301118

    2021

  25. [25]

    Clifford and A

    P. Clifford and A. Sudbury, A model for spatial conflict, Biometrika 60 (1973) 581–588

    1973

  26. [26]

    Crane and D

    R. Crane and D. Sornette, Robust dynamic classes revealed by measuring the response function of a social system, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105 (2008) 15649–15653

    2008

  27. [27]

    Deffuant, D

    G. Deffuant, D. Neau, F. Amblard and G. Weisbuch, Mixing beliefs among interacting agents, Adv. Complex Syst. 3 (2000) 87–98

    2000

  28. [28]

    M. H. DeGroot, Reaching a consensus, J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 69 (1974) 118–121

    1974

  29. [29]

    D¨ uring, P

    B. D¨ uring, P. A. Markowich, J.-F. Pietschmann and M.-T. Wolfram, Boltzmann and Fokker- Planck equations modelling opinion formation in the presence of strong leaders, Proc. R. Soc. A 465 (2009) 3687–3708

    2009

  30. [30]

    D¨ uring and M.-T

    B. D¨ uring and M.-T. Wolfram, Opinion dynamics: inhomogeneous Boltzmann-type equations modelling opinion leadership and political segregation, Proc. R. Soc. A 471 (2015), 20150345

    2015

  31. [31]

    N. E. Friedkin and E. C. Johnsen, Social influence and opinions, J. Math. Sociol. 15 (1990) 193–206

    1990

  32. [32]

    B. D. Goddard, B. Gooding, H. Short and G. A. Pavliotis, Noisy bounded confidence models for opinion dynamics: the effect of boundary conditions on phase transitions, IMA J. Appl. Math. 87 (2022) 80–110

    2022

  33. [33]

    Hegselmann and U

    R. Hegselmann and U. Krause, Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis and simulation, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 5 (2002) 2

    2002

  34. [34]

    Holme and M

    P. Holme and M. E. Newman, Nonequilibrium phase transition in the coevolution of networks and opinions, Phys. Rev. E 74 (2006) 056108

    2006

  35. [35]

    L. Li, A. Scaglione, A. Swami and Q. Zhao, Consensus, polarization and clustering of opinions in social networks, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 31 (2013), 1072–1083

    2013

  36. [36]

    Lorenz, Continuous opinion dynamics under bounded confidence: A survey, Int

    J. Lorenz, Continuous opinion dynamics under bounded confidence: A survey, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 18 (2007) 1819–1838

    2007

  37. [37]

    Pareschi and G

    L. Pareschi and G. Toscani, Interacting Multiagent Systems: Kinetic Equations and Monte Carlo Methods, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2013

    2013

  38. [38]

    Pasimeni, R

    F. Pasimeni, R. Wade and F. Alkemade, Opinion dynamics and social clustering in a 2D space: An agent-based experiment, Comput. Econ. (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    A. F. Peralta, J. Kert´ esz and G. I˜ niguez, Opinion dynamics in social networks: From models to data, in Handbook of Computational Social Science, ed. T. Yasseri, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2025, pp. 384–406. 33

    2025

  40. [40]

    A. V. Proskurnikov and R. Tempo, A tutorial on modeling and analysis of dynamic social networks. Part I, Annu. Rev. Control 43 (2017) 65–79

    2017

  41. [41]

    Raoufi, H

    M. Raoufi, H. Hamann and P. Romanczuk, Messengers: Breaking echo chambers in collective opinion dynamics with homophily, npj Complexity 2 (2025) 28

    2025

  42. [42]

    Sarker, Y

    D. Sarker, Y. Zhang, L. K. Perry, D. S. Messinger and C. Song, Alignment phase transition in socially driven motion, Sci. Adv. 12 (2026), eadz6890

    2026

  43. [43]

    M. B. Short, A. L. Bertozzi and P. J. Brantingham, Nonlinear patterns in urban crime: Hotspots, bifurcations, and suppression, SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst. 9 (2010) 462–483

    2010

  44. [44]

    M. B. Short, P. J. Brantingham, A. L. Bertozzi and G. E. Tita, Dissipation and displacement of hotspots in reaction-diffusion models of crime, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107 (2010), 3961–3965

    2010

  45. [45]

    M. B. Short, M. R. D’Orsogna, V. B. Pasour, G. E. Tita, P. J. Brantingham, A. L. Bertozzi and L. B. Chayes, A statistical model of criminal behavior, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 18 (2008) 1249–1267

    2008

  46. [46]

    Starnini, M

    M. Starnini, M. Frasca and A. Baronchelli, Emergence of metapopulations and echo chambers in mobile agents, Sci. Rep. 6 (2016) 31834

    2016

  47. [47]

    Sznajd-Weron and J

    K. Sznajd-Weron and J. Sznajd, Opinion evolution in closed community, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 11 (2000) 1157–1165

    2000

  48. [48]

    Tong and Y

    F. Tong and Y. Cai, Positivity preserving and mass conservative projection method for the Poisson-Nernst-Planck equation, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 62 (2024) 2004–2024

    2024

  49. [49]

    Toscani, Kinetic models of opinion formation, Commun

    G. Toscani, Kinetic models of opinion formation, Commun. Math. Sci. 4 (2006) 481-496

    2006

  50. [50]

    C. M. Topaz, A. L. Bertozzi and M. A. Lewis, A nonlocal continuum model for biological aggregation, Bull. Math. Biol. 68 (2006) 1601–1623

    2006

  51. [51]

    J. J. W. van der Vegt, Y. Xia and Y. Xu, Positivity preserving limiters for time-implicit higher order accurate discontinuous Galerkin discretizations, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 41 (2019) A2037–A2063

    2019

  52. [52]

    Vosoughi, D

    S. Vosoughi, D. Roy and S. Aral, The spread of true and false news online, Science 359 (2018) 1146–1151

    2018

  53. [53]

    C. Wang, Q. Li, W. E and B. Chazelle, Noisy Hegselmann-Krause systems: Phase transition and the 2R-conjecture, J. Stat. Phys. 166 (2017) 1209–1225

    2017

  54. [54]

    R. Wang, Y. Xiong and Z. Zhang, Efficient structure-preserving scheme for chemotaxis PDEs with singular sensitivity in crime and epidemic modeling, arXiv:2510.04826 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Weisbuch, G

    G. Weisbuch, G. Deffuant, F. Amblard and J.-P. Nadal, Meet, discuss, and segregate!, Com- plexity 7 (2002) 55–63

    2002

  56. [56]

    Wu and B

    F. Wu and B. Huberman, Novelty and collective attention, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104 (2007) 17599–17601. 34

    2007