Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Hierarchical clustering and dimensional reduction for optimal control of large-scale agent-based models

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-stage reduction strategy controls consensus in large agent-based models at over 100x speed-up.

desk verdict A useful engineering contribution combining DBSCAN and POD for optimal control of ABMs; the main gap is an unquantified clustering approximation and an overclaimed 'direct control fails' statement. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19644 v1 pith:74KDSVMH submitted 2025-07-25 math.OC cs.NAmath.NA

Angela Monti , Fasma Diele , Dante Kalise This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OCcs.NAmath.NA MSC 93A1693B1149K15
keywords agent-basedmodelsopiniondynamicsoptimalcontrolmodelorderreductionDBSCANclusteringProperOrthogonalDecompositionconsensusPOD-Galerkinprojection
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 proposes a two-stage model-order-reduction strategy that makes optimal control of large first-order agent-based models computationally feasible. First, a DBSCAN clustering step replaces the N agents by K cluster centers of mass, with interaction strengths weighted by cluster size. Second, Proper Orthogonal Decomposition projects the cluster dynamics onto a low-dimensional subspace, preserving the structure of the original model. Controls computed on this reduced model via Pontryagin's principle are lifted back to the full system. In the opinion-dynamics test case the method drives the full-order model to consensus with speed-up factors above 200 relative to direct control, including cases where direct control is too expensive to run.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the weighted center-of-mass dynamics of equation (3.3): each DBSCAN cluster is represented by its center of mass, and its evolution is approximated by summing interactions with other cluster centers weighted by cluster population N_m. This relies on the approximation $\varphi$(||xi - xj||) ≈ $\varphi$(||xhat_l - xhat_m||) for all i in cluster l and j in cluster m. The second mechanism is the POD-Galerkin projection: the snapshot matrix of cluster trajectories is truncated by SVD to a basis Psi_r, and because the basis is orthogonal the interaction kernel in the reduced model is evaluated on the same distances, preserving the structure of the original ABM. These two reductions are wrapped in an iterative feedback loop that solves a short-horizon optimal control problem at each step and applies only the initial control value.

What would settle it

Take an initial opinion configuration in which one DBSCAN cluster straddles the influence radius of $\varphi$ (for example with $\alpha$ = 5 or 300 in the generalized Hegselmann-Krause kernel), simulate both the full model and the cluster-reduced dynamics, and check whether the cluster centers track the true centers of mass and whether controls computed on the reduced model drive the full system to consensus; if they diverge, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a reduced-order representation obtained by first aggregating agents into clusters and then projecting the cluster dynamics with POD retains enough of the original dynamics that optimal controls computed on it still steer the full-order agent-based model to consensus. The paper demonstrates this in a generalized Hegselmann-Krause opinion dynamics model: the cluster-level system (3.3) has the same pairwise-interaction form as the full model but with cluster sizes as weights, and the POD-Galerkin reduced system (5.1) preserves distances, so the interaction kernel is unchanged. Theorem 1 states that consensus of the reduced system implies consensus of the reconstructed full-space solution. Numerical tests report speed-ups exceeding 100 in many configurations, above 200 for N=150, d=50, with the full-order model reaching consensus in about 10 seconds versus about 30 for the reduced framework.

Load-bearing premise

The approach assumes that agents within a DBSCAN cluster are packed tightly enough that every agent in one cluster interacts with every agent in another cluster through approximately the same kernel value, $\varphi$(||xi - xj||) ≈ $\varphi$(||xhat_l - xhat_m||), and the paper gives no error bound for that approximation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the tested opinion dynamics model, the speed-up over full-order control grows with N and exceeds 200 at N=150, d=50, making feasible configurations that would otherwise be prohibitive.
  • The reduced system preserves the structural form of the full ABM, so the same Pontryagin-based control machinery applies without modification.
  • Because consensus of the reduced system implies consensus of the reconstructed full system (Theorem 1), the framework is safe to use as a surrogate for control design.
  • Agent clustering is the dominant source of speed-up; POD dimension reduction alone yields only modest gains (1.0-1.6x), so the benefit concentrates in reducing the number of controlled entities.
  • The two-level framework reaches consensus in roughly 30 seconds versus about 10 for full-order control in the largest test, trading a longer convergence time for a much lower computational cost.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the cluster assumption (3.2) fails, for example when a cluster straddles the influence radius of the kernel, the reduced dynamics will misrepresent the full model and controls computed on it may not steer the full system to consensus; a testable extension is to compare cluster-level and full-order trajectories for such configurations.
  • The framework is content-agnostic: it enforces consensus as a purely dynamical goal, so it could be used to probe how much control effort is needed to synchronize polarized opinion clusters in risk-perception models, though the authors only sketch this link.
  • The POD reduced dimension r is chosen by a fixed singular-value threshold and shrinks as consensus approaches; an adaptive strategy that re-samples snapshots as clusters merge could improve accuracy, but the paper does not analyze the resulting approximation error.
  • The reported speed-ups are runtime comparisons on a specific test; a more general claim would require a priori error bounds linking the reduced control to the full-order cost, which the paper does not provide.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a two-level model-order-reduction framework for optimal control of large-scale first-order agent-based models. Agent clustering via DBSCAN reduces the number of controlled agents to cluster centers of mass, and Proper Orthogonal Decomposition with Galerkin projection reduces the state dimension of each cluster. The reduced dynamics are used to design optimal controls via Pontryagin's principle inside an iterative receding-horizon loop, then the controls are lifted back to the full agent system. The method is demonstrated on generalized Hegselmann-Krause opinion dynamics, reporting speed-up factors over the full-order controlled model in Tables 2--4, with speed-ups exceeding 100 in several configurations.

Significance. If the two-level reduction is reliable, the framework could be a useful practical tool for consensus control in high-dimensional ABMs, and the modular structure (clustering plus POD) is a reasonable idea. The algebraic derivations in Sections 3 and 4 are transparent and the POD-based consensus preservation result in Theorem 1 is correctly proven. The numerical experiments show consistent consensus achievement and large CPU-time reductions. However, the central approximation in Eq. (3.2) is unquantified, and the numerical claims rest on single-run CPU times without error bars. The claim that direct control 'fails' is not supported by any experiment. With added error analysis and more careful numerical validation, the contribution could be solid, but in the current form the main efficacy claims are not fully established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (3.2)] The cluster-level dynamics (3.3) rely on the approximation phi(||x_i - x_j||) ≈ phi(||x_hat_l - x_hat_m||) for all agents i in cluster l and j in cluster m, but no error bound or a posteriori estimate is provided. For the GHK kernel with alpha=1.6, phi decays sharply; clusters with diameter comparable to the interaction scale can contain pairs whose distances differ from the center-to-center distance by O(1), making the relative error in phi O(1). DBSCAN groups by spatial density and does not control the variation of phi within a cluster, and the pre-clustered initial conditions emphasized in Section 3.1 create a favorable regime. Since Algorithm 1 lifts controls computed on (5.1)--(5.3) to the full dynamics, an unquantified error in (3.2) propagates directly into the full-order control. The paper should either prove an error bound under explicit cluster-diameter conditions, or conduct a numerical residual study of (3.2) for the tested configurations and for less structured initial data.
  2. [Abstract and Section 5.1] The abstract and the conclusions claim that the method improves control efficiency 'even in scenarios where direct control fails due to model complexity,' but no experiment in the manuscript demonstrates failure of direct control. Table 1 reports finite CPU times for the full-order controlled model in all configurations, and Section 5.1 states that the full-order model reaches consensus in about 10 seconds. The only demonstrated difference is computational cost, not success or failure. This claim should be removed or substantiated with a concrete example where the full-order problem cannot be solved (e.g., memory exhaustion, non-convergence, or numerical breakdown).
  3. [Tables 2--4] The speed-up factors that support the central numerical claim are reported as single numbers with no error bars, no number of repetitions, no description of random seeds or initial-condition sampling, and no details of the hardware/software environment or the numerical linear algebra routines. Because the CPU-time comparison is the main quantitative evidence, at least mean +/- standard deviation over several independent runs and a description of the computational setup are needed. Without this, the speed-ups above 100 in Tables 2 and 4 are not statistically supported.
  4. [Section 5.1 and Figure 5] The comparison between the full-order and two-level controlled systems uses different stopping tolerances for the consensus parameter: the full-order model is run to 10^{-19} in Figure 5, while the reduced framework is only described as reaching consensus with a prescribed threshold. If the thresholds differ, the reported time-to-consensus values (approximately 10 versus 30 seconds) are not directly comparable, and the connection between these wall-clock times and the per-iteration CPU speed-up factors should be clarified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.3] The existence of a minimizer is asserted from 'smoothness and convexity,' but the controlled dynamics are nonlinear; a more precise argument or a reference for the existence of optimal controls for this class of systems would avoid an unsupported statement.
  2. [Section 4.1, after Eq. (4.4)] The sentence 'with unknowns x_i^r, v_i^r in R^r' introduces v_i^r which is not defined; it should presumably be the reduced control u_i^r.
  3. [Remark 1] The formula epsilon = ||data||/N for the DBSCAN radius mixes the Frobenius norm of an N-by-d matrix with a typical inter-agent distance; the scaling is not dimensionally transparent. A brief derivation or a sensitivity study with respect to this choice would be helpful.
  4. [Section 5.1] The text says 'just over 10 seconds compared to approximately 30 seconds' for the full-order versus reduced framework, while Table 4 reports CPU speed-up factors exceeding 100. The relation between these two time scales (total horizon vs. per-iteration CPU cost) is not explained and should be made explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reduced model is an approximation of the full ABM and is validated against the full-order system; self-citations are contextual.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain. The full-order ABM (Eq. 2.1) and the optimal-control formulation (Eqs. 2.5-2.13) are standard and independent of the reduction. The clustering step derives cluster-center dynamics (Eq. 3.3) from the full model under the explicit approximation (Eq. 3.2); this is an unquantified modeling error, not a circularity, because the approximation is stated as a supposition and the resulting ROM is tested against the full model. The POD step constructs a basis from full-model snapshots and Galerkin-projects the dynamics; the distance-preservation property of an orthonormal POD basis makes Eq. (4.5) an algebraic consequence, not a fitted prediction. Theorem 1 is a true isometry argument: consensus in reduced coordinates implies consensus of the reconstructed full-dimensional trajectory; it is not used to define the full-order result. Algorithm 1 adaptively recomputes clusters and POD bases from actual full-model trajectories and then applies the lifted controls to the full system; the speed-ups in Tables 2-4 are run-time ratios against the full-order controlled simulation, so the benchmark is external to the reduced model's parameters. Self-citations ([1]-[3], [14], [16], [27], [30], [4], [5], [11]) appear only as background or extensions and are not load-bearing for the central reduction claim. No parameter fitted to the target quantity is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The main weakness is the unquantified cluster-interaction approximation (3.2), which is a correctness/robustness risk, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central result rests on the cluster approximation (3.2), on the choice of POD basis from simulated snapshots, and on several unreported numerical parameters (gamma, time steps). Free parameters include the control weight gamma, kernel smoothness alpha, DBSCAN epsilon, POD tolerance, and time-stepping data; none are fitted to external data, but several are chosen by hand or from the data itself.

free parameters (5)
  • gamma (control penalization) = not reported
    Weights consensus objective against control effort in Eq. (2.7); no value is given for the simulations, so the trade-off is unverifiable.
  • alpha (GHK kernel smoothness) = 1.6
    Sets the interaction kernel shape; all experiments use alpha = 1.6, a hand-chosen value, and results may depend on this choice.
  • DBSCAN radius epsilon = ||data||/N
    Empirical scale-adaptive threshold from Remark 1; selected from the same initial data, influencing the clustering and hence the reduced model.
  • POD tolerance tau = 10^-3
    Threshold for retaining singular values in Remark 2; controls the reduced dimension r and the approximation error.
  • time step h_t and horizon h = not reported
    Discretization and receding-horizon length in Section 2.4 and Algorithm 1 are not specified, yet they affect both numerical stability and CPU times.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The agent dynamics are exactly given by Eq. (2.1) with a symmetric, distance-dependent kernel phi.
    The entire control design starts from this first-order model; real ABMs may have heterogeneous or non-symmetric interactions.
  • ad hoc to paper Approximation (3.2): phi(||xi - xj||) is approximately phi(||x_l_hat - x_m_hat||) for all i in cluster l and j in cluster m.
    This is the core assumption that makes the cluster-level dynamics (3.3) valid; no error bound or numerical validation is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The POD basis constructed from snapshot data spans the controlled trajectories.
    The reduced model (5.1) is assumed adequate for control design, but no a priori bound connects snapshot-based subspaces to controlled dynamics.
  • standard math Orthonormality of the POD basis, Psi_r^T Psi_r = I.
    Used in Eqs. (4.4)-(4.5) and Theorem 1 to preserve distances and to justify the reconstruction step.
  • domain assumption Fixed-horizon iterative control on short intervals yields acceptable suboptimality.
    Section 2.4 asserts the iterative scheme 'in practice produces very satisfactory results' without an optimality gap analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hierarchical clustering and dimensional reduction for optimal control of large-scale agent-based models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/74KDSVMH

@misc{pith2026250719644,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hierarchical clustering and dimensional reduction for optimal control of large-scale agent-based models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/74KDSVMH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19644}
}
read the original abstract

Agent-based models (ABMs) provide a powerful framework to describe complex systems composed of interacting entities, capable of producing emergent collective behaviours such as consensus formation or clustering. However, the increasing dimensionality of these models -- in terms of both the number of agents and the size of their state space -- poses significant computational challenges, particularly in the context of optimal control. In this work, we propose a scalable control frame work for large-scale ABMs based on a twofold model order reduction strategy: agent clustering and projection-based reduction via Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (POD). These techniques are integrated into a feedback loop that enables the design and application of optimal control laws over a reduced-order representation of the system. To illustrate the effectiveness of the approach, we consider the opinion dynamics model, a prototyp ical first-order ABM where agents interact through state-dependent influence functions. We show that our method significantly improves control efficiency, even in scenarios where direct control fails due to model complexity. Beyond its methodological contributions, this work also highlights the rel evance of opinion dynamics models in environmental contexts -- for example, modeling the diffusion of pro-environmental attitudes or decision-making processes in sustainable policy adoption -- where controlling consensus formation plays a crucial role.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19644 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Opinion dynamics for four different values of the smoothness parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Effect of agent clustering on consensus formation for fixed agent dimension [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effect of POD-based dimension reduction on consensus formation for fixed number of agents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Algorithm 1 Adaptive Control via two-level reduction: clustering and POD 1: INPUT: threshold tol, ht 2: OUTPUT: xi(t), K(t), r(t), ui(t), T 3: Simulate the uncontrolled ABM (2.1) in [t0, tn] with step size ht 4: Set k = 1 5: while X > tol do 6: Cluster the agents {xi(t…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Flow diagram of the two-level model reduction framework for optimal control of agent-based dynamics. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Two-level reduction results for d = 150 and N = 150. Top panel: evolution of the mean opinion over time, confirming convergence to consensus with a threshold of 10−19 for the full model without any reduction (left) and for the proposed reduction framework (right). Bott…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A statistical physics framework for optimal learning

    cond-mat.dis-nn 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Optimal control on high-dimensional learning equations produces nontrivial training schedules, such as easy-hard-easy curricula, that outperform standard baselines in toy and real-data tests.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    G. Albi, S. Bicego, and D. Kalise. Supervised learning for kinetic consensus control. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 55(30):103–108, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    G. Albi, M. Fornasier, and D. Kalise. A Boltzmann approach to mean-field sparse feedback control. IFAC- PapersOnLine, 50(1):2898–2903, 2017. 20th IFAC World Congress

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    G. Albi, M. Herty, D. Kalise, and C. Segala. Moment-Driven predictive control of mean-field collective dynam- ics. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 60(2):814–841, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    A. Alla, A. Monti, and I. Sgura. Adaptive POD-DEIM correction for Turing pattern approximation in reaction– diffusion PDE systems. Journal of Numerical Mathematics, 31(3):205–229, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    A. Alla, A. Monti, and I. Sgura. Piecewise DMD for oscillatory and turing spatio-temporal dynamics.Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 160:108–124, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    H. A. Ameden, P. C. Boxall, S.B. Cash, and D. A. Vickers. An Agent-Based Model of Border Enforcement for In- vasive Species Management. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue Canadienne d’Agroeconomie, 57(4):481–496, 2009. 17 A PREPRINT - SEPTEMBER 3, 2025

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Benner, S

    P. Benner, S. Grundel, and P. Mlinari´c. Clustering-Based Model Order Reduction for Nonlinear Network Systems, pages 75–96. Springer International Publishing, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Benner, S

    P. Benner, S. Gugercin, and K. Willcox. A Survey of Projection-Based Model Reduction Methods for Parametric Dynamical Systems. SIAM Review, 57(4):483–531, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Bongini, M

    M. Bongini, M. Fornasier, O. Junge, and B. Scharf. Sparse control of alignment models in high dimension. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 10(3):647–697, 2015

    2015

  2. [10]

    J. F. Bonnans and J. Laurent-Varin. Computation of order conditions for symplectic partitioned Runge-Kutta schemes with application to optimal control. Numerische Mathematik, 103:1–10, 2006

    2006

  3. [11]

    Bozzini, A

    B. Bozzini, A. Monti, and I. Sgura. Model-reduction techniques for PDE models with Turing type electrochem- ical phase formation dynamics. Applications in Engineering Science, 8:100074, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    S. L. Brunton and J. N. Kutz. Data-Driven Science and Engineering: Machine Learning, Dynamical Systems, and Control. Cambridge University Press, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Caplat, M

    P. Caplat, M. Anand, and C. Bauch. Symmetric competition causes population oscillations in an individual-based model of forest dynamics. Ecological Modelling, 211(3):491–500, 2008

    2008

  6. [14]

    J. A. Carrillo, D. Kalise, F. Rossi, and E. Trélat. Controlling swarms toward flocks and mills. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 60(3):1863–1891, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Choi, S.-Y

    Y .-P. Choi, S.-Y . Ha, and Z. Li. Emergent dynamics of the Cucker–Smale flocking model and its variants.Active Particles, Volume 1: Advances in Theory, Models, and Applications, pages 299–331, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Diele, D

    F. Diele, D. Lacitignola, and A. Monti. On–off intermittency and long-term reactivity in a host–parasitoid model with a deterministic driver. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 34(02):2450041, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Diele, C

    F. Diele, C. Marangi, and S. Ragni. Exponential Lawson integration for nearly Hamiltonian systems arising in optimal control. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 81(5):1057–1067, 2011

    2011

  10. [18]

    Dietrich, S

    F. Dietrich, S. Martin, and M. Jungers. Transient cluster formation in generalized Hegselmann-Krause opinion dynamics. In 2016 European Control Conference (ECC), pages 531–536. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    Ester, H.-P

    M. Ester, H.-P. Kriegel, J. Sander, and X. Xu. A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD’96, page 226–231. AAAI Press, 1996

    1996

  12. [20]

    Giardini and D

    F. Giardini and D. Vilone. Opinion dynamics and collective risk perception: An agent-based model of institu- tional and media communication about disasters.JASSS-The Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 24(1):4, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    W. W. Hager. Runge-Kutta methods in optimal control and the transformed adjoint system. Numerische Mathe- matik, 87:247–282, 2000

    2000

  14. [22]

    Hegselmann and U

    R. Hegselmann and U. Krause. Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence: models, analysis and simulation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 5(3), 2002

    2002

  15. [23]

    J. S. Hesthaven, C. Pagliantini, and G. Rozza. Reduced basis methods for time-dependent problems. Acta Numerica, 31:265–345, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Q. Li, L. Chen, C. Tai, et al. Maximum principle based algorithms for deep learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18(165):1–29, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Monshizadeh, H

    N. Monshizadeh, H. L. Trentelman, and M. K. Camlibel. Projection-based model reduction of multi-agent systems using graph partitions. IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, 1(2):145–154, 2014

    2014

  18. [26]

    Monshizadeh, H

    N. Monshizadeh, H. L. Trentelman, and M. Kanat Camlibel. Stability and synchronization preserving model reduction of multi-agent systems. Systems & Control Letters, 62(1):1–10, 2013

    2013

  19. [27]

    Monti, F

    A. Monti, F. Diele, C. Marangi, and A. Provenzale. On–off intermittency in population outbreaks: Reactive equilibria and propagation on networks. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation , 130:107788, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Motsch and E

    S. Motsch and E. Tadmor. Heterophilious dynamics enhances consensus. SIAM Review, 56(4):577–621, 2014

    2014

  21. [29]

    L. S. Pontryagin. Mathematical theory of optimal processes. Routledge, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Ragni, F

    S. Ragni, F. Diele, and C. Marangi. Steady-state invariance in high-order Runge–Kutta discretization of optimal growth models. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 34(7):1248–1259, 2010. 18 A PREPRINT - SEPTEMBER 3, 2025

    2010

  23. [31]

    Y . A. Shin, S. M. Constantino, B. Beckage, and K. Lacasse. Climate change and opinion dynamics models: Linking individual, social, and institutional level changes. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 64:101528, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Sirovich

    L. Sirovich. Turbulence and the dynamics of coherent structures. I. Coherent structures. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, 45(3):561–571, 1987

    1987

  25. [33]

    Sun and D

    Z. Sun and D. Müller. A framework for modeling payments for ecosystem services with agent-based models, Bayesian belief networks and opinion dynamics models. Environmental modelling & software, 45:15–28, 2013

    2013

  26. [34]

    G. Toscani. Kinetic models of opinion formation. Communications in Mathematical Sciences, 4:481–496, 2006. 19

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.