Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 67 references

A vanishingly small external bias can dictate the direction of a group's consensus, and two well-placed local biases can flip the entire system.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 23:19 UTC pith:TJA4UBB3

load-bearing objection Sound mean-field core, but the 'tipping sites' headline is under-supported by the paper's own simulations. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.06649 v1 pith:TJA4UBB3 submitted 2025-09-08 physics.soc-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Group Decision Making and Beyond 2. Distorted Polarization and Vulnerability

Serge Galam This is my paper
classification physics.soc-ph cond-mat.stat-mech PACS 89.65.-s05.50.-q
keywords symmetry breakingopinion dynamicspolarizationdistortionvulnerabilitysocial mediasociophysics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

In an earlier model, a group of agents interacting pairwise at zero temperature spontaneously reaches a unanimous opinion whose direction is selected at random. This paper asks how easily that random outcome can be steered. Using mean-field analysis and Monte Carlo simulations, the author shows that an arbitrarily small uniform external bias is enough to fix the direction of consensus, and that a few fixed local biases, even when balanced between camps, can carve the population into opposing domains. Most strikingly, two opposed local biases placed at the right 'tipping sites' can redirect the whole system. The paper's social message is that consensus produced by such dynamics may be the result of hidden, minimal interventions rather than democratic self-organization.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that spontaneous symmetry breaking in a zero-temperature Ising-like model of opinion formation is extremely vulnerable to small distortions. In the mean-field treatment, the anticipated group utility is U^a = γ(C^2 − N) + P C; because the quadratic term alone would be maximized at any extreme polarization, the linear term P C selects C = N for any positive P, however small. The same logic applied to a single local field P_m c_m shows that even one biased agent can, in principle, fix the group's direction. Two opposed local fields produce a more complex hierarchy, where the stronger field wins unless both exceed a threshold, and equal fields restore random symmetr

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the anticipated group utility function U^a = γ(C^2 − N) plus linear pressure terms. The quadratic part makes extreme polarization (C = ±N) the default optimum; any positive coefficient on the linear term, regardless of magnitude, breaks the tie in favor of +1. For local fields, each P_i c_i term biases one agent, and the mean-field analysis yields a hierarchical maximization rule. The Monte Carlo simulations — sequential Metropolis updates at T = 0 on a 30×30 square lattice with open boundaries and field strength |u| = 5 — supply the 'tipping site' phenomenology that the mean-field treatment misses: domain formation, location-dependent outcomes, and the decisive ro

Load-bearing premise

The claim that a few well-placed local biases can redirect the whole population rests on a single simulation setup (a 30×30 square lattice, open boundaries, sequential updates at zero temperature), and the paper itself shows that switching update rules changes the quantitative results.

What would settle it

Perform the same Monte Carlo experiments with random-site update instead of sequential update while keeping all other parameters identical; if the 'two opposed fields flip the system' effect disappears or requires orders of magnitude more fields, the tipping-site claim is specific to the update order. Alternatively, run the simulations on a 60×60 lattice: if the number of needed fields grows with system size rather than staying at O(1), the effect is not a system-size-independent vulnerability.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Consensus direction can be dictated by an arbitrarily weak uniform external bias; the only requirement is that the bias is present from the start, before the dynamics runs.
  • Balanced local biases do not cure polarization; they replace one polarized state with two or more stable opposing domains.
  • A 1–2 percent advantage in local-field proportion is enough to guarantee the winning majority even when initial opinions are exactly split.
  • Tipping sites make intervention costs negligible: one or two changed agents, if correctly placed, can override the population's spontaneous choice.
  • If the model transfers to social platforms, a platform's consensus could be steered by hidden minimal interventions rather than emergent self-organization.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's qualitative 'flipping' effect is demonstrated for one lattice geometry and update order; a natural test is whether tipping sites persist under asynchronous random updates or on networks with different degree distributions, since the author shows the quantitative outcome already changes with update scheme.
  • The mean-field prediction that an infinitesimal uniform bias always selects the global direction assumes the bias applies to every agent; the simulations use much larger local fields, so the 'vanishingly small' result is a pure mean-field corollary not yet tested in finite dimensions.
  • One could measure the distribution of influence across sites: if a small fraction of sites are truly exceptional, the probability that two randomly placed fields flip the system should fall with system size, whereas the strategic-placement version stays at O(1) — a testable distinction between hidden structure and generic noise.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper extends Galam's zero-temperature Ising-like model of opinion dynamics (the companion paper, Symmetry 2024) to study how small external pressures distort spontaneous symmetry breaking. Section 3 derives mean-field utility maxima: a uniform external field selects full alignment with the field for any nonzero P (Eq. 11); one local field can in principle select the global direction; two opposed local fields have a threshold P_n < kJ below which the larger field wins and above which the two fields are both satisfied at the price of a nearly polarized configuration. Section 4 reports Monte Carlo simulations on a 30x30 open lattice with sequential or random Metropolis updates, using quenched local fields of amplitude |u|=|v|=5. The simulations explore symmetric/asymmetric initial configurations and field proportions, and present several hand-placed configurations that reverse the final magnetization, including cases with one or two fields at so-called tipping sites. The paper concludes that spontaneous consensus is fragile and can be overridden by minimal strategic local interventions.

Significance. If the tipping-site phenomenon were robust, this would be a notable result for sociophysics: it would show that a handful of quenched local fields can redirect global consensus in an Ising-like opinion model, with potential implications for social-media manipulation. The mean-field algebra in Section 3 is internally consistent and the uniform-field conclusion follows cleanly from the utility maximization; the derivation of the two-field threshold P_n < kJ is a useful pedagogical step. The Monte Carlo trajectories are transparent and reproducible through the stated seeds, and there is no parameter fitting or data tuning. However, the central novelty — that minimal, well-placed local fields reliably redirect the entire system — is currently supported only by selected single-run trajectories. The paper's own Figs. 8 and 9 show strong dependence on seed and update scheme, so the general claim is not yet established. The significance is therefore conditional: an interesting phenomenon in search of quantitative evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3.2 / Fig. 8 and §4.3.3 / Fig. 9] The abstract's central claim that minimal fields can redirect the whole system is contradicted by the paper's own examples. In Fig. 8(p), the same single red field at the same location gives final magnetization +0.667 for Seed=61 and -0.998 for Seed=62, both with p=0.45. In Fig. 9, the same six red fields reverse the outcome under random update (subparts d,e) but not under sequential update (subparts j,k). Since Section 2 states that initial conditions and update scheme materially change outcomes, the tipping-site phenomenon as stated is a property of selected trajectories, not of the fields or sites alone. I request ensemble statistics over seeds, field placements, and update schemes, with a quantitative statement of reversal probability.
  2. [§4.1.1–§4.1.2 / Figs. 1–2] The two-field and single-field tipping-site results are based on a small number of manually placed configurations, each with one seed. The term 'tipping site' is introduced for these examples but never defined operationally or identified independently: no criterion is given to recognize such a site a priori, and the paper concedes they are 'indistinguishable from others.' Without a characterization (e.g., location relative to domain walls or metastable droplets) or at least a statistical search over random placements, the existence of tipping sites remains an anecdotal observation rather than a demonstrated property of the model.
  3. [§4.2 / Fig. 4] The claim that a difference in field proportions is 'instrumental to guarantee a winning majority' rests on two initial distributions (Seeds 15 and 21) with one run each. For a=0.11, b=0.10 the final magnetizations are 0.0267 and 0.204; for a=0.12, b=0.10 they are 0.207 and 0.256. The run-to-run variability is comparable to the 1–2% proportion difference, so the conclusion is not statistically supported. Averages and error bars over many seeds are needed before claiming a guaranteed majority.
  4. [§4.3.3 / Fig. 9] The text states that the random-update runs 'demonstrate that similar qualitative results are obtained dismissing the possibility that they could have been artefacts of the sequential update.' This is directly contradicted by the same figure: applying the six fields of subpart (c) gives final magnetization +0.969 with random update (d,e) but -0.629 with sequential update (j,k). The robustness claim is therefore false as written. The manuscript should either retract this statement or explicitly conclude that the qualitative effect is update-scheme dependent, consistent with the caveat in Section 2.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3] The sentence 'identical to the statistical physics Hamiltonian of a Random Field Ising Model []' has an empty citation; a reference is needed.
  2. [Throughout] Several typos: 'mean-filed' (p. 5), 'loosing' (p. 11), and 'Subparts (m, n n, o, p)' in the Fig. 7 caption.
  3. [§4.1.3 / Fig. 3] The text says proportions are '0.15 and 0.25 %' while the figure labels show a=0.15 and 0.25, which are proportions, not percentages. Please clarify the scale.
  4. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption says 'Locations are random in first three and selected in last one,' but the figure has three cases, all labeled 'Fields: Random.' This is inconsistent and should be rewritten.
  5. [Eq. (4)–(6)] The notation P_g changes from δ C/N in Eq. (4) to γC in Eq. (6); since δ = γN, this is consistent, but the equality should be stated explicitly to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the mean-field derivations are self-contained algebra, and the simulation claims are not fitted to their inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Section 2 defines the anticipated group utility U_a from an explicit 'anticipation' assumption (Eqs. 4-8), and the symmetry-breaking result follows algebraically from maximizing U_a = γ(C^2 − N); no target outcome is inserted into the derivation. Section 3.1 adds an external field and shows from Eq. (11) that maximizing γ(C^2 − N) + P C yields C = N for any P > 0; this is a direct mathematical consequence of the stated utility, not a restatement of the conclusion. Section 3.2.2 derives the two-opposite-field threshold P_n < kJ by explicit comparison of the four candidate utility maxima (U_1...U_4); again the threshold is obtained from the model equations, not fitted to Monte Carlo data. The Monte Carlo simulations use fixed parameters (J=1, T=0, u=−v=5, 30×30 lattice, open boundaries) and are not calibrated to force the reported final magnetizations; the outcome depends on seed and update scheme, which the paper itself documents extensively. The 'tipping sites' are identified post hoc from selected runs, which is a weakness in generality/robustness but not a definitional circularity: the abstract's claim is conditional ('if placed at tipping sites'), and concrete examples demonstrate that such sites exist. The repeated citations to the author's prior paper [6] are attributions of the baseline model and previously established non-ergodicity; Section 2 re-derives the essential mean-field equations, and no load-bearing argument reduces to an unverified self-citation or an imported uniqueness theorem. The mean-field and simulation claims therefore stand on their own, even if the tipping-site phenomenon is not shown to be generic.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central derivation depends on the author's anticipation-effect mean-field mapping from his previous paper [6], on the choice of a 30x30 open-boundary lattice with zero-temperature sequential updates, and on field amplitudes set to 5 so that field-bearing agents never flip. The 'tipping site' concept is introduced as an explanation of post-hoc simulation outcomes and lacks an independent, falsifiable characterization.

free parameters (3)
  • Local field amplitude |u| = |v| = 5
    Chosen to exceed the maximum nearest-neighbor contribution of 4J=4, ensuring field-bearing agents are effectively pinned. The value is hand-set; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Lattice size = 30x30 (N=900)
    All simulations use a single system size. Claims about 'a handful' of fields and percentages (1%, 2%) are made without finite-size scaling, so size is an implicit free parameter.
  • Proportions a, b of local fields
    These are exploration parameters, not fitted to data, but the claim that a 1-2% difference in proportions guarantees a majority rests on only two seeds per case.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The anticipation effect reduces pair interactions to a global alignment term: Ua = gamma(C^2 - N) (Eq. 8).
    This is the central modeling step inherited from the author's prior paper [6]; it is not derived from first principles and assumes agents optimize an anticipated group utility. Used in Eqs. (11), (13), (15) for all mean-field results.
  • domain assumption Society is a 30x30 square lattice with open boundaries and nearest-neighbor interactions only.
    Invoked in Section 4 for all Monte Carlo simulations; no justification is given for why this topology represents social media or any real group.
  • domain assumption Agents update sequentially at zero temperature via Metropolis/Glauber dynamics, equivalent to best-response with random tie-breaking.
    The paper uses only this update scheme and explicitly notes that the update scheme matters (Section 2), so the reported tipping-site phenomena are conditional on this choice.
  • domain assumption Local field amplitude is 5, so field-bearing agents never change their opinion.
    This is a modeling choice to represent inflexible/stubborn agents; it essentially removes those agents from the dynamics, and the paper does not test weaker fields.
invented entities (1)
  • Tipping sites no independent evidence
    purpose: To explain how one or two local fields redirect the entire system; sites that amplify microscopic biases into macroscopic consensus.
    Identified only post hoc from selected Monte Carlo runs; the paper provides no algorithm or feature to recognize them before the simulation, calling them 'indistinguishable from others'. No falsifiable handle outside the specific runs is given.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20883 in / 18157 out tokens · 187538 ms · 2026-08-04T23:19:27.594536+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Group Decision Making and Beyond 2. Distorted Polarization and Vulnerability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TJA4UBB3

@misc{pith2026250906649,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Group Decision Making and Beyond 2. Distorted Polarization and Vulnerability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TJA4UBB3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06649}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

This paper extends previous work on echo chambers modeled by an Ising-like system at zero temperature (1. Echo Chambers and random Polarization, Symmetry 2024, 16(12), 1566). There, polarization emerged as a spontaneous symmetry-breaking process with a randomly selected direction. Here using a mean-field analysis and Monte Carlo simulations I show that this mechanism is highly vulnerable to minimal distortions. An external symmetry-breaking field, even vanishingly small, suffices to impose a global direction and suppress opposite domains, producing distorted full polarization. In contrast, a handful of quenched local fields with zero average do not erase polarization but reorganize it into opposing domains. Remarkably, as few as two opposed fields, if placed at tipping sites, can redirect the entire system. These fragile sites, indistinguishable from others, act as hidden tipping points that amplify microscopic biases into macroscopic outcomes. Difference in local field proportions is found to be instrumental to guarantee a winning majority. The results highlight how minimal, strategically placed interventions can override autonomous self-organization. The results could, if applicable on social media platforms, question their presumed democratic nature of consensus.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06649 by Serge Galam.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A simulation with an initial configuration with half +1 and half [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Same initial distribution of red and blue sites as in subpart (b) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Simulations with proportions p = 0.15, 0.25 of red and blue local fields shown in subparts (a, d). Subparts (b, c, e, f) exhibit the related dynamics for two different initial distributions of initial choices with p = 0.50. Yet, the outcome is still random with strong fluctuations with respect to the winning majority as seen in the subparts. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Subpart (a) show a distribution a = 0.11 and b = 0.10 of red and blue fields with two different distributions of initial choices. The related dynamics are shown in subparts (b, c). Subpart (d) has a = 0.12 and b = 0.10 with the associated dynamics shown in subparts (e, f). While an extra 1% of red fields ensure a red majority for one initial distribution (subpart (c)), it does not in the other (subpart (b)… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Three cases with respectively a = 0.15, 0.09, 0.08 for the density of red local fields. The related locations are seen in subparts (b, e, h). Locations are random in first three and selected in last one. Associated dynamics are exhibited in subparts (a, d, g). Subpart (c) shows the grid after six MC steps before it turns all red after about 15 MC steps. Subparts (f) with a = 0.09 shows the same final grid … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Red local fields are applied at selected locations: 18 in subpart [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Subparts (a, b, c, d) show that one single red local field located at a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Subparts (a, b, c, d), (e, f, g, h), (i, j, k, l) have a single red local field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Subpart (a) shows an initial distribution of red and blue choices [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_9.png] view at source ↗

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

67 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Sh-k Ma, Modern Theory of Critical Phenomena, The Benjamin Inc.: Reading MA (1976)

    work page 1976

  2. [2]

    H. E. Stanley, Introduction to Phase Transitions and Critical Phenom- ena, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York (1971)

    work page 1971

  3. [3]

    Ising, Beitrag zur Theorie des Ferromagnetismus, Z

    E. Ising, Beitrag zur Theorie des Ferromagnetismus, Z. Phys., 31 (1): 253?258 (1925) 31

    work page 1925

  4. [4]

    Onsager, Crystal Statistics

    L. Onsager, Crystal Statistics. I. A Two-Dimensional Model with an Order-Disorder Transition, Phys. Rev. 65, 117 (1944)

    work page 1944

  5. [5]

    Stauffer, Social applications of two-dimensional Ising models, Social Applications of Two-dimensional Ising Models, Am

    D. Stauffer, Social applications of two-dimensional Ising models, Social Applications of Two-dimensional Ising Models, Am. J. Phys. 76, 470?473 (2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Galam, Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Group Decision-Making, and Beyond: 1

    S. Galam, Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Group Decision-Making, and Beyond: 1. Echo Chambers and Random Polarization. Symmetry 2024, 16, 1566

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    A. M. Timpanaro, Emergence of echo chambers in a noisy adaptive voter model, arXiv:2409.12933v1 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Galam and S

    S. Galam and S. Moscovici, Towards a theory of collective phenomena: Consensus and attitude changes in groups, Eur. J. Soc. Psychol, 21 (1) 49-74 (1991)

    work page 1991

  9. [9]

    Galam, Rational group decision making: A random field ising model atT= 0, Physica A, 238 (1-4) 66-80 (1997)

    S. Galam, Rational group decision making: A random field ising model atT= 0, Physica A, 238 (1-4) 66-80 (1997)

    work page 1997

  10. [10]

    Walter and G.T

    J.C. Walter and G.T. Barkema, An introduction to Monte Carlo meth- ods, Phys. A418, 78-87 (2015)

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    Takano, On Monte Carlo Methods for the Kinetic Ising Model, J

    H. Takano, On Monte Carlo Methods for the Kinetic Ising Model, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 62, 370-371 (1993)

    work page 1993

  12. [12]

    Binder and D

    K. Binder and D. W. Heermann, Monte Carlo Simulation in Statistical Physics, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg (2010)

    work page 2010

  13. [13]

    Brazil, The physics of public opinion, Physics World

    R. Brazil, The physics of public opinion, Physics World. January Is- sue. 2020. Available online: https://physicsworld.com/a/the-physics-of- public-opinion/ (accessed on 1 September 2025)

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    Brazil, Borrowing scientific theories, Chem- istry World, November Issue

    R. Brazil, Borrowing scientific theories, Chem- istry World, November Issue. 2019. Available online: https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/borrowing-scientific- theories/3010929.article (accessed on 1 September 2025)

    work page arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    I. S. Maksymov, Cognition in Superposition: Quantum Models in AI, Finance, Defence, Gaming and Collective Behaviour, arXiv:2508.20098 (2025) 32

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Patterns, Models, and Challenges in Online Social Media: A Survey

    A. Bonetti, E. Di Martino, E. Loru, J. Nudo, et al., Patterns, Models, and Challenges in Online Social Media: A Survey, arXiv:2507.13379 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    A. S. Marques, A. P. dos Santos, R. C. da Rosa, J. R. R. Bordin, The Physics of Getting Elected: Financial Dynamics in Local Council Elec- tions in Brazil, SSRN:5382183 (2025)

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    G. Xu, J. Chen, X. Zhou, Y. Wang, Phase transitions in voting simulated by an intelligent Ising model, arXiv:2507.19161 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Peer influence breaks ergodicity in an opinion dynamics model with external information

    F. De Domenico, F. Caccioli, G. Livan, Peer influence breaks er- godicity in an opinion dynamics model with external information, arXiv:2507.06661v2 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Barrier induced stalemate-consensus transition of self-propelled participants subject to majority rule

    Y.-W. Xiao, W.-C. Guo, B.-Q. Ai, L. He, Barrier induced stalemate- consensus transition of self-propelled participants subject to majority rule, arXiv:2505.03464v2 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    M. O. Hase, A. A. Ferreira, A. C. R. Martins, F. F. Ferreira, Anneal- ing Approximation in Master-Node Network Model, arXiv:2505.03150 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Fine structure of phase diagram for social impact theory

    K. Malarz, M. Wo `loszyn, Fine structure of phase diagram for social impact theory, arXiv:2503.16721v2 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Analysing contrarian behaviour using nonlinear biased $q$-voter model

    A. Pradhan, P. Mullick and P. Sen, Analysing contrarian behaviour using nonlinear biased q-voter model, arXiv:2509.01982 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Rotundo, R

    G. Rotundo, R. Cerqueti, G. Dhesi, C. Herteliu, P. Kaur, M. Aus- loos, Hybrid Galam-Bass Model for Technology Innovation. Entropy 27 (8):789 ( 2025)

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Galam, Ambiguities, Built-in Biases and Flaws in Big Data Insight Extraction, Information 16(8) 661 (2025)

    S. Galam, Ambiguities, Built-in Biases and Flaws in Big Data Insight Extraction, Information 16(8) 661 (2025)

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    R. G. de Almeida, J. J. Arenzon, F. Corberi, W. G. Dantas, et al., Coarsening in the Persistent Voter Model: analytical results, Phys. Rev. E 111, 064313 (2025) 33

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Biswas, M

    S. Biswas, M. S. Annapurna, V. Jakkampudi, D. Yarlagadda and B. Thota, Order-disorder-order transitions and winning margins scaling in kinetic exchange opinion model, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C, To appear (2025)

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    Malarz and M

    K. Malarz and M. Woloszyn, Fine structure of phase diagram for social impact theory, CHAOS 35 (6) (2025)

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    Sevinchan, P

    Y. Sevinchan, P. Sarkanych, A. Tenenbaum, Y. Holovatch and P. Ro- manczuk, Collective decision-making with heterogeneous biases: Role of network topology and susceptibility, Phys. Rev. Research 7, 013286 (2025)

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    Almudi, F

    I. Almudi, F. Fatas-Villafranca, F. J. V´ azquez, The evolutionary politi- cal economy of dichotomized societies, Journal Evolutionary Economics 35 (2) 173-206 (2025)

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Crokidakis, Dynamics of drug trafficking: Results from a simple com- partmental model, Int

    N. Crokidakis, Dynamics of drug trafficking: Results from a simple com- partmental model, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 36 (03) 2450201 (2025)

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Ermann, D

    L. Ermann, D. L. Shepelyansky, Confrontation of Capitalism and So- cialism in Wikipedia Networks, Information 15(9), 571 (2024)

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    I. V. G. Oliveira, C. Wang, G. Dong, R. Du, et al., Entropy Produc- tion on Cooperative Opinion Dynamics,Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 181, 114694 (2024)

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    S. Mori, S. Nakamura, K. Nakayama, M. Hisakado, Phase Transition in Ant Colony Optimization, Physics 6(1), 123-137 (2024)

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Kaufman, S

    M. Kaufman, S. Kaufman and H. T. Diep, Social Depolarization: Blume-Capel Model, Physics 6(1), 138-147 (2024)

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    Muslim and D

    R. Muslim and D. A. Mulya, The impact of social noise on the majority rule model across various network topologies, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 189, 115718 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    H. B. Zhang and D. P. Tang, Effects of group size and noise on coop- eration in population evolution of dynamic groups, Eur. Phys. J. B 97 (10) 150 (2024)

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    A. C. R. Martins, Agent Mental Models and Bayesian Rules as a Tool to Create Opinion Dynamics Models, Physics 6 (3) 1013-1031 (2024) 34

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Palermo, A

    G. Palermo, A. Mancini, A. Desiderio, R. Di Clemente and G. Cimini, Spontaneous opinion swings in the voter model with latency, Phys. Rev. E.110.024313 (2024)

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    Crokidakis, Nonequilibrium phase transitions and absorbing states in a model for the dynamics of religious affiliation, Phys

    N. Crokidakis, Nonequilibrium phase transitions and absorbing states in a model for the dynamics of religious affiliation, Phys. A 643, 129820 (2024)

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    X. H. Liu, M. A. Achterberg and R. Kooij, Mean-field dynamics of the non-consensus opinion model, Appl. Network Science 9 (1) 47 (2024)

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    W. Liu, J. C. Wang, F. F. Wang, K. Qi, K and Z. R. Di, The precursor of the critical transitions in majority vote model with the noise feedback from the vote layer, J. Stat. Mech. 083402 (2024)

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    F. L. Forgerini, L. Fabricio, N.Crokidakis and M. A. V. Carvalho, Di- rected propaganda in the majority-rule model, nt. J. Mod. Phys. C 35 (07) 2450082 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Malarz and T

    K. Malarz and T. Maslyk, Phase Diagram for Social Impact Theory in Initially Fully Differentiated Society, Physics 5 (4) 1031-1047 (2024)

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    Toth, Models of opinion dynamics with random parametrisation, J

    G. Toth, Models of opinion dynamics with random parametrisation, J. Math. Phys. 65, 073301 (2024)

    2024

  46. [46]

    I. S. Maksymov and G. Pogrebna, The Physics of Preference: Unravel- ling Imprecision of Human Preferences through Magnetisation Dynam- ics, Information 15(7):413 (2024)

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    N. V. Santen, J. Ryckebusch and L. E.C. Rocha, Social clustering rein- forces external influence on the majority opinion model, Phys. A 648, 129929 (2024)

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Ausloos, G

    M. Ausloos, G. Rotundo and R. Cerqueti, A Theory of Best Choice Selection through Objective Arguments Grounded in Linear Response Theory Concepts, Physics 6(2), 468-482 (2024)

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    Llabr` es, S

    J. Llabr` es, S. Oliver-Bonafoux, C. Anteneodo and R. Toral, Aging in Some Opinion Formation Models: A Comparative Study, Physics 6(2), 515-528 (2024) 35

    work page 2024

  50. [50]

    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, 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(07):2350088 (2023)

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    Li and A

    S. Li and A. N. Zehmakan, Graph-Based Generalization of Galam Model: Convergence Time and Influential Nodes, Physics 5 (4), 1094- 1108 (2023)

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    S. Thurner, New Forms of Collaboration Between the Social and Natu- ral Sciences Could Become Necessary for Understanding Rapid Collec- tive Transitions in Social Systems, Perspect Psychol Sci. 19 (2) 503-510 (2024)

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    Ellero, G

    A. Ellero, G. Fasano and D. Favaretto, Mathematical Programming for the Dynamics of Opinion Diffusion, Physics 5 (3) 936-951 (2023)

    work page 2023

  54. [54]

    Alves, F

    E. Alves, F. W. Lima, T. F. A. Alves, F. A. Tayroni, G. D. Alves and J. A. Plascak, Opinion Dynamics Systems via Biswas-Chatterjee-Sen Model on Solomon Networks, Physics Physics 5 (3) 873-862 (2023)

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    Mobilia, Polarization and Consensus in a Voter Model under Time- Fluctuating Influences, Physics 2023, 5(2), 517-536 (2023)

    M. Mobilia, Polarization and Consensus in a Voter Model under Time- Fluctuating Influences, Physics 2023, 5(2), 517-536 (2023)

    work page 2023

  56. [56]

    Galam, Unanimity, Coexistence, and Rigidity: Three Sides of Polar- ization, Entropy 25 (4) 622 (2023)

    S. Galam, Unanimity, Coexistence, and Rigidity: Three Sides of Polar- ization, Entropy 25 (4) 622 (2023)

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    Galam, Y

    S. Galam, Y. Gefen, and Y. Shapir, Sociophysics: a new approach of sociological collective behavior, J. Math. Sociology 9, 1 (1982)

    work page 1982

  58. [58]

    Tiwari, X

    M. Tiwari, X. Yang and S. Sen, Modeling the nonlinear effects of opinion kinematics in elections: A simple Ising model with random field based study, Physica A 582, 126287 (2021)

    work page 2021

  59. [59]

    M. W. Macy, B. K. Szymanski and J. A. Holyst, The Ising model cel- ebrates a century of interdisciplinary contributions, npj Complex 1, 10 (2024)

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    Hurtado-Marin, J.D

    V.A. Hurtado-Marin, J.D. Agudelo-Giraldo and E. Restrepo-Parra, Analysis of dynamic networks based on the Ising model for the case of study of co-authorship of scientific articles, Sci. Rep. 11, 5721 (2021) 36

    work page 2021

  61. [61]

    Agliari, R

    E. Agliari, R. Burioni and P. Sgrignoli, A two-populations Ising model on diluted random graphs, J Stat Mech Theory Exp, 2010 (07) P07021 (2010)

    work page 2010

  62. [62]

    G. A. Kohring, Ising models of social impact: the role of cumulative advantage, J. Phys. I. France 6, 301 (1996)

    work page 1996

  63. [63]

    Mullick and P

    P. Mullick and P. Sen, Sociophysics models inspired by the Ising model, arXiv:2506.23837v1 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    Galam and F

    S. Galam and F. Jacobs, The role of inflexible minorities in the breaking of democratic opinion dynamics, Physica A38, 366-376 (2007)

    work page 2007

  65. [65]

    Galam, Stubbornness as an unfortunate key to win a public debate: an illustration from sociophysics, Mind & Society (15) 117-130 (2016)

    S. Galam, Stubbornness as an unfortunate key to win a public debate: an illustration from sociophysics, Mind & Society (15) 117-130 (2016)

    work page 2016

  66. [66]

    M. J. Alava, P. K. V. V. Nukala and S. Zapperi, Statistical models of fracture. Advances in Physics, 55(3?4) 349-476 (2006)

    work page 2006

  67. [67]

    Wagner, Robustness and evolvability in living systems, Princeton University Press (2005) 37

    A. Wagner, Robustness and evolvability in living systems, Princeton University Press (2005) 37

    work page 2005