Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Ordering-disordering dynamics of the $q$-voter model under random external bias

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Under an unbiased random external cue, a $q$-voter population loses consensus in time $B\ln N$, with the slowest disordering at $q\approx 2.44$ for all $p>p_c$.

desk verdict A solid mean-field q-voter paper whose new disordering-time scaling and q* bottleneck are real, but whose near-critical |p-pc|^-1 ln N claim needs a finite-size uniformity condition. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05669 v2 pith:BVR6AL4U submitted 2025-06-06 physics.soc-ph

Roni Muslim , Jihye Kim , Noriko Oikawa , Rinto Anugraha N Q Z , Zulkaida Akbar This is my paper
classification physics.soc-ph
keywords q-votermodelrandomexternalbiasdisorderingtimeconsensusmean-fieldapproximationexitprobabilityfinite-sizescalingphasetransition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper studies a $q$-voter model in which agents either adopt the unanimous opinion of $q$ randomly chosen neighbors (probability $1-p$) or flip according to a random external cue (probability $p$, pointing up with probability $s$). Its central claim is that at symmetric bias $s=1/2$ an order-disorder transition occurs at $p_c=(q-1)/(q-1+2^{q-1})$, and that for $p>p_c$ the time for a consensus population to become disordered grows only logarithmically with population size, $T_{\mathrm{dis}}\sim B(q,p)\ln N$. The prefactor $B$ is largest at $q^*=1+1/\ln 2\approx 2.44$, independently of $p$, so consensus is most persistent when agents consult panels of about two to three people. The paper also derives logarithmic consensus times for extreme biases $s=0,1$ and a closed-form exit probability at $p=0$ with an effective system size $N/q$. These results give analytically tractable predictions for when external cues or peer unanimity control the fate of binary opinions.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the mean-field drift $v(c)=R(c)-L(c)$, where $R$ and $L$ are the probabilities that a randomly selected agent raises or lowers the fraction $c$ of $+1$ opinions. Deterministic evolution follows $dc/dt=v(c)$, and mean first-passage times are computed from the integral $\int dc/v(c)$ in Eq. (12). For the disordering time the integral runs from consensus $c=1$ down to the demographic-fluctuation width $c=1/2+1/\sqrt{N}$; linearizing $v(c)\approx v'(1/2)(c-1/2)$ with $v'(1/2)=(1-p)(q-1)2^{1-q}-p$ turns the integral into $(\ln N)/[-2v'(1/2)]$, which is exactly the prefactor $B(q,p)$. The $q^*=1+1/\ln 2$ bottleneck is obtained by differentiating this prefactor with respect to $q$.

What would settle it

Simulate the complete-graph model at $s=1/2$ for $q=2,3,4$ and several $p$ just above $p_c$, measuring the mean time from full consensus to the first passage to $c\le 1/2+1/\sqrt{N}$ for $N=10^3$ through $10^7$; if the slope of $T_{\mathrm{dis}}$ against $\ln N$ is not $[2p-(1-p)(q-1)2^{2-q}]^{-1}$, or if the scaling becomes non-logarithmic near $p_c$, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At $s=1/2$, the symmetric point $c=1/2$ is a stable fixed point only for $p>p_c(q)$; above this threshold the mean-field drift $v(c)=(1-p)[(1-c)c^q-c(1-c)^q]+p(1/2-c)$ drives every initial condition toward equal proportions of the two opinions. The paper's main quantitative discovery is that the mean disordering time from full consensus obeys $T_{\mathrm{dis}}\sim B(q,p)\ln N$ with $B(q,p)=[2p-(1-p)(q-1)2^{2-q}]^{-1}$ for $q>1$, and $B=1/(2p)$ for $q=1$. Because $B(q,p)$ attains its maximum at $q^*=1+1/\ln 2\approx 2.44$ for every $p>p_c$, disordering is slowest for $q$ between 2 and 3; near $p_c$, $B\sim|p-p_c|^{-1}$, giving critical slowing down with dynamical exponent 1. For extreme bias $s=0$ or $1$, consensus is reached in time $(1/p)\ln N$ for $q=1$ and $\ln N$ for $q>1$; for $p=0$, the exit probability is an error function with effective population size $N/q$, including a finite-size scaling collapse.

Load-bearing premise

The disordering-time formula assumes that random finite-population fluctuations matter only inside a narrow band of width $1/\sqrt{N}$ around the disordered fixed point, so the deterministic drift time to reach that band equals the mean disordering time; if fluctuations act beyond that band, especially near the critical point, the logarithmic scaling and the $q\approx 2.44$ bottleneck could fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central scaling is correct, disordering from consensus in the unbiased-noise regime is logarithmically slow in population size, with the prefactor set only by $p$ and $q$.
  • The $p$-independent maximum at $q\approx 2.44$ implies that, for any noise strength above threshold, panels of about two to three people preserve consensus longest, while larger panels speed up disordering.
  • When the noise probability is tuned proportionally to the critical line, $p=\alpha p_c(q)$, the same point becomes the fastest-disordering 'sweet spot', with $T_{\min}\sim 2^{q-2}[(\alpha-1)(q-1)]^{-1}\ln N$.
  • Near the order-disorder transition the prefactor diverges as $|p-p_c|^{-1}$, so the model predicts measurable critical slowing down of consensus breakdown.
  • For extreme external bias ($s=0$ or $1$), consensus time is logarithmic with prefactor $1/p$ for $q=1$ and $1$ for $q>1$, making the linear versus nonlinear distinction sharp.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extending the paper's logic, any binary-state dynamics with a stable interior fixed point and demographic noise should show a logarithmic disordering time whose prefactor is the inverse linearized drift slope; the $q\approx 2.44$ peak is one instance of that general relation.
  • On non-complete graphs the mean-field drift changes, so the $p$-independent location of $q^*$ is likely a complete-graph feature rather than a universal social law; simulations on scale-free or small-world networks would bound its domain.
  • Practically, the model suggests that to prolong consensus under random external noise one should arrange discussions in groups of about two to three people, while to fragment consensus fastest one should keep group size near $q\approx 2.44$ with noise just above the critical line.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a two-state q-voter model with a random external bias: each agent independently adopts +1 with probability p s or −1 with probability p(1−s), and otherwise follows a unanimous q-panel with probability 1−p. Working in the mean-field (complete graph) limit, the authors derive transition probabilities, fixed points, the order–disorder phase boundary p_c(q) at s=1/2, and approximate logarithmic scaling laws for the consensus time (for s=0 or 1) and the disordering time (for s=1/2, p>p_c). Their central quantitative claims are: (i) the disordering time prefactor B(q,p) = [2p − (1−p)(q−1)2^{2−q}]^{-1} in Eq. (18), with a p-independent maximum at q* ≈ 2.44; (ii) a critical divergence close to p_c with exponent γ=1; (iii) a closed-form exit probability for q=1 and a saddle-point approximation for q>1 at p=0, the latter using an effective population size Neff=N/q. Monte Carlo simulations on complete graphs are used to support the analytical results across a range of parameters.

Significance. If the central scaling results hold, the paper provides a useful and partly novel characterization of ordering–disordering dynamics in a noisy q-voter model: the prediction of a p-independent bottleneck at q* ≈ 2.44 is a falsifiable statement that goes beyond previous q-voter studies, and the explicit exit-probability integral (Eq. (23)) with the saddle-point approximation gives a compact description of the p=0 nonlinear crossover. The authors present transparent derivations of the drift, fixed points, and critical point, and the simulations agree with the analytical formulas for the parameters tested. However, the paper's strength is moderated by two limitations that need addressing: the disordering-time derivation is not uniformly valid near p_c, and the effective population size Neff=N/q is introduced after the fact to match simulations rather than derived from the microscopic dynamics.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (17) and Appendix F] The claim that Eq. (17), T_dis ∼ B(q,p) ln N, is valid for all p > p_c overreaches near the critical point. The derivation uses the deterministic drift integral (Eq. (12)) with the ad hoc lower cutoff c = 1/2 + 1/√N, which presumes that |v′(1/2)| N ≫ 1 throughout the approach to the fluctuation layer. Near p_c, however, v′(1/2) = 2[(1−p)(q−1)2^{−q} − p/2] ≃ (p_c − p)(1 + (q−1)2^{1−q}) (up to a factor), so for p − p_c = O(1/N) the linearized drift is too weak to dominate demographic noise before the cutoff is reached; the first-passage time then is not of the form B ln N. Equation (20), T ∼ |p−p_c|^{−1} ln N, therefore holds only under a quantitative finite-size condition such as |p−p_c| N ≫ 1. The simulations in Figs. 5–7 use parameters sufficiently far from p_c (or N sufficiently large) that the bottleneck result at q* ≈ 2.44 is not directly threatened, but the text should state the uniformity condition and either prove or soften the claim of validity for all p > p_c.
  2. [Section VI, Eq. (28) and Appendix G] The effective population size Neff = N/q entering Eq. (28) is introduced after the fact to match simulations; the manuscript itself says 'numerical simulations reveal that the correct scaling is obtained by replacing N with an effective population size'. The saddle-point derivation in Appendix G naturally yields N in place of Neff, so the closed-form exit probability for p=0 is partly calibrated rather than purely derived. The same applies to the 'effective finite-size exponent' ν ≈ 2 in the inset of Fig. 9(b). This is not fatal for the disordering-time results, which are the paper's main claim, but the exit-probability section should either derive Neff from a microscopic argument (for example, from the correlation volume of q-panel updates) or present Eq. (28) explicitly as an empirical scaling law with a clearly stated limitation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 14 caption] The caption states 'q∗ ≈ 0.244'; the correct value from Eq. (21) is q∗ = 1 + 1/ln 2 ≈ 2.44.
  2. [Section V, paragraph after Eq. (21)] The sentence 'the influence of independence grows stronger, accelerating the disordering process' for q > q* is vague; the decrease of B(q,p) with q at fixed p is due to the decreasing probability of unanimity in larger panels, which reduces the conformity contribution to the drift slope.
  3. [Appendix D, Eq. (D8)] In the displayed integral, the term originating from the lower limit (ln u(0)) is absorbed into the constant C; the text should mention this to avoid the impression that the ln N prefactor is exact without subleading corrections.
  4. [Section IV, Eq. (14)] The sentence 'the leading prefactor becomes independent of q and takes a universal value of 1' is consistent with the leading-order ln N term, but it would be clearer to state that the prefactor is exactly 1 only asymptotically if one defines T/ln N as the slope of the linear fit, since the constant C(c(0),q,p) in Eq. (15) does depend on the parameters and can be negative.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Secondary exit-probability formula uses a simulation-calibrated Neff=N/q and is then validated against the same simulations; the central disordering-time scaling is otherwise derived self-containedly.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section VI, Eq. (28); Appendix G, Eq. (G19)]
    "While the original derivation suggests a dependence on the total system size N , numerical simulations reveal that the correct scaling is obtained by replacing N with an effective population size Neff = N/q. ... The prediction of Eq. (28) for various values of q shows excellent agreement with MC simulation results."

    The saddle-point derivation in Appendix G yields an erf profile with argument sqrt(2N(q-1)) (c(0)-1/2), with no factor 1/q. The paper then replaces N by Neff = N/q solely because 'numerical simulations reveal' this scaling. That replacement is a fit to the same Monte Carlo data later used to claim that Eq. (28) is a successful prediction. Consequently the q-dependence of the exit-probability curve and the finite-size collapse are partly constructed from the simulation output rather than derived from the model, so the reported agreement is partly by construction. The central disordering-time result B(q,p) ln N is not affected by this fit, which limits the overall circularity.

full rationale

The main derivation chain for the disordering time is self-contained: the drift v(c) is computed from the transition probabilities, linearized at c=1/2 for s=1/2, and integrated with a 1/sqrt(N) fluctuation cutoff to obtain B(q,p) ln N. The prefactor B(q,p) and the bottleneck at q* = 1 + 1/ln 2 follow algebraically from that linearization, with no fitted parameters. The consensus-time results similarly follow from a deterministic drift integral with explicit partial-fraction evaluations, and the critical point pc is derived from v'(1/2)=0 rather than imported as a black box. The only clear circular step is in the p=0 exit-probability section, where Neff = N/q is introduced after noting that simulations reveal the correct scaling, and this calibrated expression is then presented as an analytical prediction and validated against the same simulations. That is a secondary result, not the central disordering-time claim, so the overall circularity is moderate rather than pervasive.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard mean-field and saddle-point approximations. The main added postulates are the ad hoc effective population size N/q and the heuristic fluctuation cutoff, which are not derived from the microscopic rules.

free parameters (3)
  • Neff = N/q = N/q for each q
    Introduced in Eq. (28) after the saddle-point derivation to match simulations; the derivation gives N, but simulations show N/q is the correct effective population size.
  • Disordering-time cutoff 1/sqrt(N) = 1/sqrt(N)
    Chosen boundary for the disordered state at c = 1/2 + 1/sqrt(N); sets the additive constant in the disordering time but not the leading logarithmic prefactor.
  • Effective finite-size exponent nu = approximately 2
    Used to collapse exit probability data in Fig. 9(b) inset; the paper calls it an 'effective' exponent rather than a derived one.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Complete-graph (mean-field) limit
    All analytical results assume all-to-all interactions; finite-dimensional networks are not treated.
  • ad hoc to paper Deterministic drift approximation for first-passage times
    Eq. (12) neglects the diffusion term D(c) in the backward Kolmogorov equation; used for both consensus and disordering times.
  • standard math Saddle-point (Laplace) approximation for the exit probability
    Used in Appendix G to derive Eq. (28) for q > 1, p = 0.
  • ad hoc to paper Finite-size cutoff at absorbing boundary 1 - 1/N
    Regularizes the integral in Eq. (12) for consensus time; standard in the literature (Ref. [9]).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ordering-disordering dynamics of the $q$-voter model under random external bias." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BVR6AL4U

@misc{pith2026250605669,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ordering-disordering dynamics of the $q$-voter model under random external bias},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BVR6AL4U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05669}
}
abstract

We investigate a variant of the two-state $q$-voter model in which agents update their states under a random external field (which points upward with probability $s$ and downward with probability $1-s$) with probability $p$ or adopt the unanimous opinion of $q$ randomly selected neighbors with probability $ 1-p$. Using mean-field analysis and Monte Carlo simulations, we identify an order-disorder transition at $p_c$ when $s=\tfrac{1}{2}$. Notably, in the regime of $p>p_c$, we estimate the time for systems to reach disordered state from consensus state and find the logarithmic scaling $T_{\text{dis}} \sim \mathcal{B}\ln N$, with $\mathcal{B} = 1/(2p)$ for $q = 1$, while for $q > 1$, $\mathcal{B}$ depends on both $p > p_c$ and $q$. We observe that disordering dynamics slow down significantly for nonlinear strengths $q$ between $2$ and $3$, independent of the probability $p$. On the other hand, when $s=0$ or $s=1$, the system is bound to reach consensus, with the consensus time scaling logarithmically with system size as $T_{\text{con}} \sim \mathcal{B}\ln N$, where $\mathcal{B} = 1/p$ for $q = 1$ and $\mathcal{B} = 1$ for $q > 1$. Furthermore, in the limit of $p = 0$, we derive a closed-form exit probability valid for arbitrary values of $q$ and demonstrate a finite-size scaling collapse. These results clarify how external cues and peer conformity jointly control ordering and disordering in binary opinion dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05669 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustration of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Time evolution of the state fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows the stationary fraction c as a func￾tion of the independence probability p for several values of s. Solid (dashed) curves are stable (unstable) fixed points from Eq. (11), and symbols are MC data on a fully connected graph initialized from a homogeneous +1 state. The analytical predictions and simulations agree across all s. At the symmetric point s = 1 2 , the transi￾tion is continuous for q = 3 (a supercriti… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Consensus time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Disordering time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Disordering time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Exit probability of the linear VM for various values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Exit probability of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Fold (saddle–node) loci in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Drift function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Comparison of the analytical approximation for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Disordering time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (G3), as the drift and diffu- sion functions admit a closed-form expression given by Eq

    Case for linear model, q = 1 For q = 1, an exact expression for the exit probability can be obtained from Eq. (G3), as the drift and diffu- sion functions admit a closed-form expression given by Eq. (E1). Defining K(u) = Z v(u) D(u) du = N p (1 − p) ln [2(1 − p)u + p] , (G4) the integral form of the exit probability becomes E(c(0)) = Z c(0) 0 [2 (1 − p) c...

    work page

  2. [2]

    all-or-nothing

    Case for q >1 and p = 0 For q > 1, one can derive an approximate analytical expression for the exit probability by applying the saddle- point (Laplace) approximation to Eq. (G3). In the limit p = 0, the ratio of drift to diffusion simplifies to v(c) D(c) = 2N cq−1 − (1 − c)q−1 cq−1 + (1 − c)q−1 . (G8) Defining ψ(r) = rq−1 − (1 − r)q−1 rq−1 + (1 − r)q−1 , ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    In these regimes, the quadratic Laplace approximation is not uniformly accurate and can break down, especially near boundaries or fold loci where stationary points coalesce

    Case for q >1 and p ̸= 0 For nonzero p, the interior stationary point shifts to r∗(p, s, q) and the local curvature can be reduced so that the integrand may receive significant weight from a broader neighborhood. In these regimes, the quadratic Laplace approximation is not uniformly accurate and can break down, especially near boundaries or fold loci wher...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Suchecki, V

    K. Suchecki, V. M. Egu ´ ıluz, and M. San Miguel, Voter model dynamics in complex networks: Role of dimen- sionality, disorder, and degree distribution, Phys. Rev. E. 72, 036132 (2005)

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    T. M. Liggett, Stochastic interacting systems: contact, voter and exclusion processes , Vol. 324 (springer science & Business Media, 1999)

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    Castellano, S

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

    2009

  7. [7]

    Redner, Reality-inspired voter models: A mini-review, Comptes Rendus

    S. Redner, Reality-inspired voter models: A mini-review, Comptes Rendus. Physique 20, 275 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Muslim, R

    R. Muslim, R. A. Nqz, and M. A. Khalif, Mass media and its impact on opinion dynamics of the nonlinear q-voter model, Phys. A: Stat. Mech. Appl. 633, 129358 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Sood and S

    V. Sood and S. Redner, Voter model on heterogeneous graphs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 178701 (2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    A. F. Peralta, N. Khalil, and R. Toral, Ordering dynamics in the voter model with aging, Phys. A: Stat. Mech. Appl. 552, 122475 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Ramirez, M

    L. Ramirez, M. San Miguel, and T. Galla, Local and global ordering dynamics in multistate voter models, Phys. Rev. E. 106, 054307 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Nyczka, K

    P. Nyczka, K. Sznajd-Weron, and J. Cis lo, Phase transi- tions in the q-voter model with two types of stochastic driving, Phys. Rev. E. 86, 011105 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    Kim, D.-S

    J. Kim, D.-S. Lee, B. Min, M. A. Porter, M. San Miguel, and K.-I. Goh, Competition between group interactions and nonlinearity in voter dynamics on hypergraphs, Phys. Rev. E 111, L052301 (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    N. R. Anugraha, R. Muslim, H. H. Lugo, F. Nugroho, I. S. Alam, and M. A. Khalif, Nonlinear q-voter model involving nonconformity on networks, Phys. D: Nonlinear Phenom. 472, 134508 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    Schweitzer, Sociophysics, Physics today 71, 40 (2018)

    F. Schweitzer, Sociophysics, Physics today 71, 40 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Doniec, P

    M. Doniec, P. Mullick, P. Sen, and K. Sznajd-Weron, Modeling biases in binary decision-making within the generalized nonlinear q-voter model, Chaos 35, 043133 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    Mobilia, Nonlinear q-voter model with inflexible zealots, Phys

    M. Mobilia, Nonlinear q-voter model with inflexible zealots, Phys. Rev. E. 92, 012803 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Mellor, M

    A. Mellor, M. Mobilia, and R. Zia, Heterogeneous out-of- equilibrium nonlinear q-voter model with zealotry, Phys. Rev. E 95, 012104 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Civitarese, External fields, independence, and disorder in q-voter models, Phys

    J. Civitarese, External fields, independence, and disorder in q-voter models, Phys. Rev. E 103, 012303 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    A. R. Vieira and C. Anteneodo, Threshold q-voter model, Phys. Rev. E. 97, 052106 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Fardela, Z

    R. Fardela, Z. Abdullah, and R. Muslim, Opinion evolu- tion under mass media influence on the barabasi-albert network based on the q-voter model, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 36, 1 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Muslim, The external field effect on the opinion formation based on the majority rule and the q- voter models on the complete graph, Int

    Azhari and R. Muslim, The external field effect on the opinion formation based on the majority rule and the q- voter models on the complete graph, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 34, 2350088 (2023). 19

    2023

  15. [23]

    Jkedrzejewski, Pair approximation for the q-voter model with independence on complex networks, Phys

    A. Jkedrzejewski, Pair approximation for the q-voter model with independence on complex networks, Phys. Rev. E. 95, 012307 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Castellano, M

    C. Castellano, M. A. Mu˜ noz, and R. Pastor-Satorras, Nonlinear q-voter model, Phys. Rev. E. 80, 041129 (2009)

    2009

  17. [25]

    A. R. Vieira, A. F. Peralta, R. Toral, M. S. Miguel, and C. Anteneodo, Pair approximation for the noisy threshold q-voter model, Phys. Rev. E. 101, 052131 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    P. G. Meyer and R. Metzler, Time scales in the dynamics of political opinions and the voter model, New J. Phys. 26, 023040 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    V. Sood, T. Antal, and S. Redner, Voter models on het- erogeneous networks, Phys. Rev. E. 77, 041121 (2008)

    2008

  20. [28]

    Mullick and P

    P. Mullick and P. Sen, Social influence and consensus building: Introducing a q-voter model with weighted in- fluence, PLoS One 20, e0316889 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Castellano, V

    C. Castellano, V. Loreto, A. Barrat, F. Cecconi, and D. Parisi, Comparison of voter and glauber ordering dy- namics on networks, Phys. Rev. E. 71, 066107 (2005)

    2005

  22. [30]

    L. S. Ramirez, F. Vazquez, M. San Miguel, and T. Galla, Ordering dynamics of nonlinear voter models, Phys. Rev. E. 109, 034307 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Mobilia, Does a single zealot affect an infinite group of voters?, Phys

    M. Mobilia, Does a single zealot affect an infinite group of voters?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 028701 (2003)

    2003

  24. [32]

    S. G. Brush, History of the lenz-ising model, Rev. Mod. Phys. 39, 883 (1967)

    1967

  25. [33]

    Chmiel and K

    A. Chmiel and K. Sznajd-Weron, Phase transitions in the q-voter model with noise on a duplex clique, Phys. Rev. E 92, 052812 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Corberi and L

    F. Corberi and L. Smaldone, Ordering kinetics of the two- dimensional voter model with long-range interactions, Phys. Rev. E. 109, 034133 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Corberi, S

    F. Corberi, S. dello Russo, and L. Smaldone, Coarsening and metastability of the long-range voter model in three dimensions, Phys. Rev. E. 110, 024143 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    J. A. Chevalier and D. Mayzlin, The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews, J. Mark. Res. 43, 345 (2006)

    2006

  29. [37]

    G. L. Cohen, Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs., J. Pers. Soc. Psy- chol. 85, 808 (2003)

    2003

  30. [38]

    J. N. Druckman, E. Peterson, and R. Slothuus, How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation, APSR 107, 57 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Latan´ e, The psychology of social impact., Am Psychol

    B. Latan´ e, The psychology of social impact., Am Psychol. 36, 343 (1981)

    1981

  32. [40]

    Clifford and A

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

    1973

  33. [41]

    J. J. V. Bavel, K. Baicker, P. S. Boggio, V. Capraro, A. Cichocka, M. Cikara, M. J. Crockett, A. J. Crum, K. M. Douglas, J. N. Druckman, et al. , Using social and behavioural science to support covid-19 pandemic response, Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 460 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Centola and M

    D. Centola and M. Macy, Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties, Am. J. Sociol. 113, 702 (2007)

    2007

  35. [43]

    P. L. Krapivsky, S. Redner, and E. Ben-Naim, A kinetic view of statistical physics (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  36. [44]

    N. G. Van Kampen, Stochastic processes in physics and chemistry, Vol. 1 (Elsevier, 1992)

    1992

  37. [45]

    Witu la and D

    R. Witu la and D. S lota, Cardano’s formula, square roots, chebyshev polynomials and radicals, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 363, 639 (2010)

    2010

  38. [46]

    Abramiuk, J

    A. Abramiuk, J. Paw lowski, and K. Sznajd-Weron, Is independence necessary for a discontinuous phase transi- tion within the q-voter model?, Entropy 21, 521 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    A. F. Peralta, A. Carro, M. San Miguel, and R. Toral, Analytical and numerical study of the non-linear noisy voter model on complex networks, Chaos 28 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    H. E. Stanley, Phase transitions and critical phenomena , Vol. 7 (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1971)

    1971

  41. [49]

    Vazquez, V

    F. Vazquez, V. M. Egu ´ ıluz, and M. S. Miguel, Generic absorbing transition in coevolution dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 108702 (2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    (26) and (27)

    Panel (a) shows the standard plot of E(c), while panel (b) presents a scaling collapse using the variables defined in Eqs. (26) and (27). The inset in panel (b) displays the exit probability as a function of p for c = 0 .03 with s = 1 (red- shaded region), and c = 0.97 with s ...

  43. [51]

    P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin, Theory of dynamic critical phenomena, Rev. Mod. Phys. 49, 435 (1977)

    1977

  44. [52]

    Cardy, Scaling and renormalization in statistical physics, Vol

    J. Cardy, Scaling and renormalization in statistical physics, Vol. 5 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996)

    1996

  45. [53]

    Sen and B

    P. Sen and B. K. Chakrabarti, Sociophysics: an intro- duction (OUP Oxford, 2014)

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.