Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 110 references

A model of opinion dynamics evolving via a preferential attachment mechanism involving multiple extractions

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that in a growing directed network where newcomers preferentially sample past agents and adopt opinions by a reinforcement rule, the normalized opinion share, influence capital, and activity converge almost surely to the le

desk verdict Serious paper with a genuinely new model and mostly sound proofs, but the headline convergence result depends on a uniqueness condition that fails in the natural positive-feedback regime, and Theorem 4.4 has a concrete scaling typo. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01419 v1 pith:4ZOUL24N submitted 2026-08-02 math.PR

Sooraj M Moumanti Podder , Archi Roy This is my paper
classification math.PR MSC 60K3560F1560G5091D30
keywords opiniondynamicspreferentialattachmentelephantrandomwalkmultipleextractionsreinforcementfunctionstochasticapproximationalmost-sureconvergenceinfluencecapital
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

This paper studies a growing directed network whose vertices hold one of two opinions. Each new agent samples past agents with probability proportional to how often those agents have already been sampled and agreed with, then adopts an opinion according to a reinforcement rule governed by a memory parameter. The central claim is that three aggregate statistics—the proportion of agents with opinion +1, the total influence of those agents, and total network activity—satisfy an almost-sure convergence theorem: after rescaling, they converge to an invariant set of an explicitly written ordinary differential equation. When a certain one-dimensional function $G$ has a unique root $q^*$ in $(0,1)$, the limit set is contained in the surface where the sampling bias $q_\beta$ equals $q^*$, so the long-run opinion share is asymptotically pinned to a single value. The same reduction, with a different fixed-point function, is proved for sample sizes growing with the network, under a slope condition on the reinforcement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the sampling-bias functions $q_\beta=(b+\beta a)/(c+\beta)$ and $q_\alpha=(b+\alpha a)/(c+\alpha)$, together with the one-variable fixed-point functions $G$ and $\hat G$ built from them. $G$ records the balance between the expected number of sampled $+1$ agents and the drift of the normalized opinion share; its root $q^*$ is the only sampling-bias value compatible with stationarity of the limiting system. The proofs convert this into a Lyapunov function $V$—an integral of $G$, plus a quadratic term in the growing-$k$ case—whose time derivative is strictly negative away from the surface $q_\beta=q^*$ (respectively $q_\alpha=q^*$, $a=g(q^*)$). Stochastic-approximat

What would settle it

Take the fixed-$k$ model with parameters where Proposition 4.3 guarantees a unique root (for example $f(x)=e^x-1$, $k\ge2$, $p\in(0,1/2)$, $\beta>k(1-2p)$), compute $q^*$ numerically, run many trajectories, and record $q_\beta(A_n/n,B_n/n,C_n/n)$. If the empirical value does not converge into a small neighborhood of $q^*$, the almost-sure convergence to the $q^*$-surface fails. Conversely, in a regime where $G$ is numerically found to have two roots in $(0,1)$, the theorem's hypothesis fails and trajectories should be able to visit both corresponding surfaces.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For fixed sample size $k$, define $q_\beta(a,b,c)=(b+\beta a)/(c+\beta)$, the conditional probability that a sampled past agent has opinion $+1$ when the normalized state is $(a,b,c)$. The drift of the three statistics is an expectation under $\mathrm{Binomial}(k,q_\beta)$, and the paper shows that $(A_n/n,B_n/n,C_n/n)$ converges almost surely to a compact, connected, internally chain transitive invariant set of the ODE generated by that drift. The central new result is Theorem 4.2: if $g(0)>0$, $g(1)<1$, and $$G(q)=(1-2q)F_2(q)+(\$\beta$+kq)F_1(q)-kq(1-q)-\$\beta$ q$$ has a unique root $q^*$ in $(0,1)$, then the limit set lies inside $\{q_\beta=q^*\}$, where $F_1(q)=\mathbb{E}[g(Y/k)]$ and $F_2(q

Load-bearing premise

The sharp prediction relies on the one-dimensional functions $G$ and $\hat G$ having a unique zero in $(0,1)$; with more than one root the limiting set is not forced onto the predicted surface, and the precise opinion share is no longer pinned down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the root uniqueness holds, the model predicts persistent disagreement rather than consensus: both opinions can survive, and their long-run shares are read off from $q^*$.
  • The influence capital and total activity are asymptotically determined by the same root, so the network's accumulated-connection 'winner' is fixed by the same one-dimensional equation.
  • For growing sample sizes the limiting opinion share satisfies $a=g(q^*)$, decoupling the opinion share from the fine details of the network structure.
  • The second-order fluctuation theorem gives an explicit covariance matrix $Q$, yielding quantitative predictions for the noise around the deterministic limit at finite times.
  • The propositions for constant, identity, and $e^x-1$ reinforcement functions make the uniqueness condition checkable in concrete parameter ranges.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit: since $q^*$ can be computed numerically before any simulation, the theory yields a direct quantitative test—plot the empirical $q_\beta$ and check whether it converges to the predicted root.
  • The fixed-point form of $G$ suggests a large-$k$ scaling limit: as $k$ grows, binomial expectations concentrate, and $q^*$ should approach a root of the simpler balance equation $g(q)=q$; making this rigorous would connect the model to mean-field voter dynamics.
  • The slope bound $\nu\le\min\{2,(1+\sqrt5)(1-\eta_1)^{-1}\eta_1\}$ in the growing-$k$ theorem is a Lyapunov-positivity condition rather than an evident model requirement; examining whether it is necessary would delimit where the sharp convergence surface persists.
  • For market or peer-review readings of the model, the result implies that the sampling bias parameter $\beta$ or $\alpha$ can permanently tilt the long-run opinion share even when both options start on equal footing.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies a sequentially growing directed network model of opinion dynamics. New agents sample past vertices with replacement according to linear preferential attachment; the sample size is fixed k in §3.1 and growing k_n in §3.2. The newcomer chooses opinion ±1 according to a function g(x)=p f(x)+(1-p)(1-f(x)) based on the sampled +1 fraction. The authors represent the normalized counts (A_n/n, B_n/n, C_n/n) and (A_n/n, B_n/s_n, C_n/s_n) as stochastic approximation processes. Under the fixed-k model, Theorem 4.1 gives a.s. convergence to an internally chain transitive invariant set of the ODE h=H-id; Theorem 4.2, assuming a unique root q* of G in (4.13), locates the limit set in {q_β=q*}. Proposition 4.3 supplies uniqueness for constant, linear, and exponential reinforcement in certain parameter ranges. The growing-sample model yields analogous statements (Theorems 4.5–4.7) for a differential inclusion, with a Lyapunov argument in Theorem 4.6. Theorem 4.4 states a fluctuation/tightness result around the ODE trajectory. The proofs are detailed and mostly self-contained.

Significance. The conditional a.s. convergence results are technically solid and provide a nontrivial bridge between elephant random walks and preferential attachment opinion models. The Lyapunov computations (e.g., q'_β=G/(c+β) in (6.11), and (7.12)) check out, and there are no fitted parameters. However, the paper's sharpest claims are conditional on a uniqueness hypothesis that is not generic: identity reinforcement with p>1/2 can produce multiple roots of G (and similarly for Ĝ), and the only sufficiency results cover restricted parameter ranges. In addition, Theorem 4.4's normalization is inconsistent with the invoked Theorem 5.3. These issues do not invalidate the conditional theorems but materially narrow the paper's advertised scope.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.1, Theorem 4.2 and (4.13)] The uniqueness assumption on G is substantive and fails in a simple instance of the paper's positive-feedback regime. For f(x)=x, k=2, p=0.6, β=0.01, equation (6.18) gives G(q)=-0.4q^3+0.6q^2-0.208q+0.004, with G(0)>0, G(1)<0, a local minimum below zero and a local maximum above zero, hence three roots in (0,1). These parameters are not covered by Proposition 4.3(iii): (4.14) requires β≥0.125, which fails, and the alternatives (4.15),(4.16) also fail. Thus the advertised conclusion that opinion share and influence are asymptotically pinned to q* is not a model property in this regime; the paper does not analyze the limit set when G has multiple roots. The analogous caveat applies to Theorem 4.6 via Ĝ and Proposition 4.8. Please either extend the analysis to the multiple-root case (e.g., characterize the union of level sets that can be attained) or explicitly qualify the abstract and Sect
  2. [§4.1, Theorem 4.4 vs Theorem 5.3] The normalization in Theorem 4.4 uses W_j = (j+1)^{-1/2} [Z_j - Z_n(t_j)]. But the fluctuation theorem that the proof invokes, Theorem 5.3, defines W_j = a_{j+1}^{-1/2}{Z_j - Z_n(t_j)} with a_{j+1}=1/(j+1), i.e. the factor (j+1)^{1/2}. The inverse factor is not a convention: with (j+1)^{-1/2}, the normalized difference would be a factor (j+1)^{-1} relative to the correct normalization and would converge to zero, so the claimed quadratic-variation martingale with ∫Q ds cannot hold. The exponent must be corrected and the proof rechecked; alternatively the theorem's scaling should be redefined consistently.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2] The function q_α is said to be defined in (4.5), but (4.5) defines q_β. Define q_α(a,b,c)=(b+αa)/(c+α) explicitly.
  2. [§5, first paragraph] There is a typo: 'Lispchitz' should be 'Lipschitz'.
  3. [Figure 2] The axis/caption labels appear to have lost the β symbol (e.g., 'k=5.0, =0.5, p=0.6'). Also clarify that these plots are numerical illustrations, not analytic proofs.
  4. [Theorem 4.4] The notation Zn is used both for the normalized vector and for the ODE solution Zn(t); this collision makes the statement harder to read. Consider using different symbols for the two objects.
  5. [§4.2, before (4.20)] The definition of s_n from (3.6) should be repeated or clearly referenced, since the rescaling of B_n and C_n changes from the fixed-k model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: mean-field root q* is a fixed point derived from the model's own conditional expectations, and the self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The mean-field drift h in (4.10) is computed directly from the conditional expectations of the model increments in (6.3)–(6.5), and the limit-set theorems are applications of general stochastic-approximation results (Borkar [26], Benaim–Hofbauer–Sorin [21]) stated in Section 5. The quantity q* is defined as the unique root of G in (4.13), where G is derived from the same function g and binomial sampling used to build the drift; it is the fixed-point condition for q_beta, as shown in (6.11), not a fitted parameter or a renamed input. No data are fitted, and no empirical quantity is relabeled as a prediction. The self-citations [76,95] appear only in the introduction as related work on elephant random walks with multiple extractions and are not used in any proof of the main results. The uniqueness hypotheses in Theorems 4.2 and 4.6 are substantive conditions; when they fail, the sharp limit-set conclusion may fail, but that is a robustness/correctness limitation rather than a circular reduction. The paper also explicitly notes after Theorem 4.6 that it 'cannot conclude that the stochastic process {(n^{-1}A_n, s_n^{-1}B_n, s_n^{-1}C_n)} converges almost surely to (a^*,b^*,c^*) alone,' an honest limitation that again does not indicate circularity.

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

The central convergence claims are downstream of stochastic approximation theory and of the uniqueness-of-root assumption for G/G-hat. The latter is the main input that determines the limiting opinion share; it is verified only for restricted f. The scaling assumption (3.6) is a modeling choice, not a fitted parameter.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Stochastic approximation convergence theorems for ODE and differential inclusions (Borkar; Benaim-Hofbauer-Sorin)
    Theorems 5.1-5.4 are quoted from [26] and [21] and are the core machinery; the proofs reduce to verifying their assumptions.
  • standard math Bernstein polynomial approximation error estimates
    Used in the proof of Theorem 4.5 to bound the bias terms delta-hat via [80], [73], [107].
  • domain assumption Sampling probabilities (3.2)/(3.5) and the scaling n beta_n = alpha s_n
    Defines the model; the limit ODE/inclusion depends on this specific scaling.
  • domain assumption The reinforcement map g satisfies g(0)>0, g(1)<1, and the functions G (4.13) or G-hat (4.27) have a unique root in (0,1)
    Without uniqueness, the limit set is not the specific surface Lambda/Lambda-hat; Theorems 4.2 and 4.6 are conditional on this.
  • ad hoc to paper Growth conditions (4.24) and (A1)-(A3) on k_n, and the slope bound nu <= min{2, (1+sqrt(5))(1-eta1)^{-1} eta1} in Theorem 4.6
    Technical conditions imposed to make the stochastic approximation step-size and Lyapunov arguments work; they are not derived from the model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A model of opinion dynamics evolving via a preferential attachment mechanism involving multiple extractions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4ZOUL24N

@misc{pith2026260801419,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A model of opinion dynamics evolving via a preferential attachment mechanism involving multiple extractions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4ZOUL24N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01419}
}
abstract

We study a model of opinion dynamics / social learning / peer-review-based market economics on an evolving network, wherein i) each of the first $N$ agents adopts one of two available opinions arbitrarily, and ii) the $(n+1)$-st agent, for $n\geqslant N$, upon arrival, draws a sample of size $k_{n}$, with replacement, from the past agents, such that the $i$-th agent (for $i\leqslant n$) is included in the sample with probability proportional to the number of times they were previously sampled and agreed with. The $(n+1)$-st agent then decides which opinion to adopt i) based on the proportion of sampled agents conforming to each of the two opinions, and ii) according to a stochastic update rule that involves a memory parameter and a rather general reinforcement function. We study both i) the scenario where $k_{n}=k$ remains fixed with $n$, and ii) the scenario where $k_{n}$ grows at a suitable rate with $n$. This model can be represented as an evolving preferential attachment network wherein each vertex is endowed with one of two possible states, and all edges are directed. It can also be framed as a variant of the celebrated elephant random walk. We study the asymptotics of this stochastic process -- in particular, the almost sure convergence, and in case of fixed sample sizes, second order fluctuations, of the relative dominance of each opinion, the influence capital and overall network activity.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bayesian learning in social networks.The Review of Economic Studies, 78(4):1201–1236, 2011

    Daron Acemoglu, Munther A Dahleh, Ilan Lobel, and Asuman Ozdaglar. Bayesian learning in social networks.The Review of Economic Studies, 78(4):1201–1236, 2011

    2011

  2. [2]

    Statistical mechanics of complex networks.Reviews of modern physics, 74(1):47, 2002

    R ´eka Albert and Albert-L ´aszl´o Barab ´asi. Statistical mechanics of complex networks.Reviews of modern physics, 74(1):47, 2002

    2002

  3. [3]

    Coexistence in preferential attachment net- works.Combinatorics, Probability and Computing, 25(6):797–822, 2016

    Ton ´ci Antunovi´c, Elchanan Mossel, and Mikl ´os Z R´acz. Coexistence in preferential attachment net- works.Combinatorics, Probability and Computing, 25(6):797–822, 2016

    2016

  4. [4]

    On social networks that support learning

    Itai Arieli, Fedor Sandomirskiy, and Rann Smorodinsky. On social networks that support learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.05255, 2020

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    Ergodicity of the voter model with dynamic anti-voter bonds

    Jhon Astoquillca and Daniel Valesin. Ergodicity of the voter model with dynamic anti-voter bonds. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.10051, 2026

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    Systems & Control: Foundations & Applications

    Jean-Pierre Aubin.Viability Theory. Systems & Control: Foundations & Applications. Birkh ¨auser, Boston, 1991

    1991

  7. [7]

    Discordant edges for the voter model on regular random graphs

    Luca Avena, Rangel Baldasso, Rajat Subhra Hazra, Frank den Hollander, and Matteo Quattropani. Discordant edges for the voter model on regular random graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.01037, 2022

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Meeting, coalescence and consensus time on random directed graphs.The Annals of Applied Probability, 34(5):4940–4997, 2024

    Luca Avena, Federico Capannoli, Rajat Subhra Hazra, and Matteo Quattropani. Meeting, coalescence and consensus time on random directed graphs.The Annals of Applied Probability, 34(5):4940–4997, 2024

    2024

Show all 110 references
  1. [9]

    The voter model on random regular graphs with random rewiring.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.08703, 2025

    Luca Avena, Rangel Baldasso, Rajat Subhra Hazra, Frank den Hollander, and Matteo Quattropani. The voter model on random regular graphs with random rewiring.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.08703, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Temporal conductance and bounds on the voter model for dynamic networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.13374, 2026

    Tatiana Rocha Avila, Holger Dell, and John Lapinskas. Temporal conductance and bounds on the voter model for dynamic networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.13374, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Kirszbraun’s theorem via an explicit formula

    Daniel Azagra, Erwan Le Gruyer, and Carlos Mudarra. Kirszbraun’s theorem via an explicit formula. Canadian Mathematical Bulletin, 64(1):142–153, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Multi-issue social learning

    Gal Bahar, Itai Arieli, Rann Smorodinsky, and Moshe Tennenholtz. Multi-issue social learning. Mathematical Social Sciences, 104:29–39, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Opinion dynamics on dense dynamic random graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14618, 2024

    Simone Baldassarri, Peter Braunsteins, Frank den Hollander, and Michel Mandjes. Opinion dynamics on dense dynamic random graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14618, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Emergence of scaling in random networks.Science, 286 (5439):509–512, 1999

    Albert-L ´aszl´o Barab´asi and R ´eka Albert. Emergence of scaling in random networks.Science, 286 (5439):509–512, 1999

    1999

  7. [15]

    V oter models on weighted networks.Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 83(6):066117, 2011

    Andrea Baronchelli, Claudio Castellano, and Romualdo Pastor-Satorras. V oter models on weighted networks.Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 83(6):066117, 2011

    2011

  8. [16]

    The evolving voter model on thick graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.07871, 2015

    Anirban Basak, Rick Durrett, and Yuan Zhang. The evolving voter model on thick graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.07871, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Evolving voter model on dense random graphs

    Riddhipratim Basu and Allan Sly. Evolving voter model on dense random graphs. 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    On a class of random walks with reinforced memory.Journal of Statistical Physics, 181 (3), 2020

    Erich Baur. On a class of random walks with reinforced memory.Journal of Statistical Physics, 181 (3), 2020. 36

    2020

  11. [19]

    A voter model with time dependent flip rates.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2011(09):P09005, 2011

    GJ Baxter. A voter model with time dependent flip rates.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2011(09):P09005, 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    Dynamics of stochastic approximation algorithms

    Michel Bena ¨ım. Dynamics of stochastic approximation algorithms. InSeminaire de probabilites XXXIII, pages 1–68. Springer, 2006

    2006

  13. [21]

    Stochastic approximations and differential inclu- sions.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 44(1):328–348, 2005

    Michel Bena ¨ım, Josef Hofbauer, and Sylvain Sorin. Stochastic approximations and differential inclu- sions.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 44(1):328–348, 2005

    2005

  14. [22]

    On the multidimensional elephant random walk with stops, 2025

    Bernard Bercu. On the multidimensional elephant random walk with stops, 2025. URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2501.14594

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Central limit theorem for majority dynamics: Bribing three voters suffices.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 146:187–206, 2022

    Ross Berkowitz and Pat Devlin. Central limit theorem for majority dynamics: Bribing three voters suffices.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 146:187–206, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Network evolution with self-reinforcement.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.21459, 2026

    Shankar Bhamidi, Remco van der Hofstad, Frank den Hollander, and Rounak Ray. Network evolution with self-reinforcement.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.21459, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Springer, 2008

    Franco Blanchini and Stefano Miani.Set-theoretic methods in control, volume 78. Springer, 2008

    2008

  18. [26]

    Springer, 2008

    Vivek S Borkar.Stochastic approximation: a dynamical systems viewpoint, volume 9. Springer, 2008

    2008

  19. [27]

    Introduction `a la g´eom´etrie infinit´esimale directe.(No Title), 1932

    Georges Bouligand. Introduction `a la g´eom´etrie infinit´esimale directe.(No Title), 1932

    1932

  20. [28]

    Learning from shared news: When abundant information leads to belief polarization.The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 138(2):955–1000, 2023

    T Renee Bowen, Danil Dmitriev, and Simone Galperti. Learning from shared news: When abundant information leads to belief polarization.The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 138(2):955–1000, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    The physics of news, rumors, and opinions.Physics Reports, 1186:1–75, 2026

    Guido Caldarelli, Oriol Artime, Giulia Fischetti, Stefano Guarino, Andrzej Nowak, Fabio Saracco, Petter Holme, and Manlio De Domenico. The physics of news, rumors, and opinions.Physics Reports, 1186:1–75, 2026

    2026

  22. [30]

    The effects of social networks on employment and inequality.American economic review, 94(3):426–454, 2004

    Antoni Calvo-Armengol and Matthew O Jackson. The effects of social networks on employment and inequality.American economic review, 94(3):426–454, 2004

    2004

  23. [31]

    Social learning under plat- form influence: Consensus and persistent disagreement.Available at SSRN 3675712, 2020

    Ozan Candogan, Nicole Immorlica, Bar Light, and Jerry Anunrojwong. Social learning under plat- form influence: Consensus and persistent disagreement.Available at SSRN 3675712, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Evolution of discordant edges in the voter model on random sparse digraphs

    Federico Capannoli. Evolution of discordant edges in the voter model on random sparse digraphs. Electronic Journal of Probability, 30:1–24, 2025

    2025

  25. [33]

    Nonlinear q-voter model

    Claudio Castellano, Miguel A Mu ˜noz, and Romualdo Pastor-Satorras. Nonlinear q-voter model. Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 80(4):041129, 2009

    2009

  26. [34]

    Phase transitions in a multistate majority-vote model on complex networks.Physical Review E, 97(6):062304, 2018

    Hanshuang Chen and Guofeng Li. Phase transitions in a multistate majority-vote model on complex networks.Physical Review E, 97(6):062304, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Continuous social networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11710, 2024

    Juli ´an Chitiva and Xavier Venel. Continuous social networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11710, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Analysis of a voter model with an evolving number of opinion states.Physical Review E, 111(6):064303, 2025

    Jeehye Choi, Byungjoon Min, and Tobias Galla. Analysis of a voter model with an evolving number of opinion states.Physical Review E, 111(6):064303, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Social learning through networks: The adoption of new agricultural technologies in ghana.American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83(3), 2001

    Timothy Conley and Christopher Udry. Social learning through networks: The adoption of new agricultural technologies in ghana.American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83(3), 2001

    2001

  30. [38]

    Discordant voting processes on finite graphs.SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 32(4):2398–2420, 2018

    Colin Cooper, Martin Dyer, Alan Frieze, and Nicol ´as Rivera. Discordant voting processes on finite graphs.SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 32(4):2398–2420, 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    Marie Duflo.Random iterative models, volume 34. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  32. [40]

    Graph fission in an evolving voter model.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(10):3682–3687, 2012

    Richard Durrett, James P Gleeson, Alun L Lloyd, Peter J Mucha, Feng Shi, David Sivakoff, Joshua ES Socolar, and Chris Varghese. Graph fission in an evolving voter model.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(10):3682–3687, 2012

    2012

  33. [41]

    Cambridge university press, 2019

    Rick Durrett.Probability: theory and examples, volume 49. Cambridge university press, 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    The offended voter model.Electronic Journal of Probability, 31:1–28, 2026

    Raphael Eichhorn, Felix Hermann, and Marco Seiler. The offended voter model.Electronic Journal of Probability, 31:1–28, 2026. 37

    2026

  35. [43]

    Rules of thumb for social learning.Journal of political Economy, 101(4):612–643, 1993

    Glenn Ellison and Drew Fudenberg. Rules of thumb for social learning.Journal of political Economy, 101(4):612–643, 1993

    1993

  36. [44]

    Reaching consensus via non-bayesian asynchronous learning in social networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.5192, 2014

    Michal Feldman, Nicole Immorlica, Brendan Lucier, and S Matthew Weinberg. Reaching consensus via non-bayesian asynchronous learning in social networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.5192, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Discursive voter models on the supercritical scale-free network.SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 38(2):1285–1314, 2024

    John Fernley. Discursive voter models on the supercritical scale-free network.SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 38(2):1285–1314, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    The phase transition of the voter model on evolving scale-free networks.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, page 104737, 2025

    John Fernley. The phase transition of the voter model on evolving scale-free networks.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, page 104737, 2025

    2025

  39. [47]

    V oter models on subcritical scale-free random graphs.Random Structures & Algorithms, 62(2):376–429, 2023

    John Fernley and Marcel Ortgiese. V oter models on subcritical scale-free random graphs.Random Structures & Algorithms, 62(2):376–429, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Elephant random walk with multiple extractions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06478, 2025

    Simone Franchini. Elephant random walk with multiple extractions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06478, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Bayesian learning in social networks.Games and economic behav- ior, 45(2):329–346, 2003

    Douglas Gale and Shachar Kariv. Bayesian learning in social networks.Games and economic behav- ior, 45(2):329–346, 2003

    2003

  42. [50]

    V oter model on networks partitioned into two cliques of arbitrary sizes.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 52(50):505701, 2019

    Michael T Gastner and Kota Ishida. V oter model on networks partitioned into two cliques of arbitrary sizes.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 52(50):505701, 2019

    2019

  43. [51]

    Consensus time in a voter model with concealed and publicly expressed opinions.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2018(6): 063401, 2018

    Michael T Gastner, Be ´ata Oborny, and M´at´e Guly´as. Consensus time in a voter model with concealed and publicly expressed opinions.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2018(6): 063401, 2018

    2018

  44. [52]

    Naive learning in social networks and the wisdom of crowds.American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2(1):112–149, 2010

    Benjamin Golub and Matthew O Jackson. Naive learning in social networks and the wisdom of crowds.American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2(1):112–149, 2010

    2010

  45. [53]

    The noisy voter model.Stochastic Processes and their appli- cations, 55(1):23–43, 1995

    Boris L Granovsky and Neal Madras. The noisy voter model.Stochastic Processes and their appli- cations, 55(1):23–43, 1995

    1995

  46. [54]

    Adaptive coevolutionary networks: a review.Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 5(20):259, 2007

    Thilo Gross and Bernd Blasius. Adaptive coevolutionary networks: a review.Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 5(20):259, 2007

    2007

  47. [55]

    Robust sequential learning in random order networks

    William Guo, Edward Xiong, and Jie Gao. Robust sequential learning in random order networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08953, 2026

    2026

  48. [56]

    Majority dynamics with one nonconformist.Discrete Applied Mathematics, 219:32–39, 2017

    John Haslegrave and Chris Cannings. Majority dynamics with one nonconformist.Discrete Applied Mathematics, 219:32–39, 2017

    2017

  49. [57]

    Non-convergence of proportions of types in a preferential attachment graph with three co-existing types

    John Haslegrave and Jonathan Jordan. Non-convergence of proportions of types in a preferential attachment graph with three co-existing types. 2018

    2018

  50. [58]

    Competing types in preferential attachment graphs with community structure.Electronic Journal of Probability, 30:1–34, 2025

    John Haslegrave, Jonathan Jordan, and Mark Yarrow. Competing types in preferential attachment graphs with community structure.Electronic Journal of Probability, 30:1–34, 2025

    2025

  51. [59]

    Ergodic theorems for weakly interacting infinite systems and the voter model.The annals of probability, pages 643–663, 1975

    Richard A Holley and Thomas M Liggett. Ergodic theorems for weakly interacting infinite systems and the voter model.The annals of probability, pages 643–663, 1975

    1975

  52. [60]

    Nonequilibrium phase transition in the coevolution of networks and opinions.Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 74(5):056108, 2006

    Petter Holme and Mark EJ Newman. Nonequilibrium phase transition in the coevolution of networks and opinions.Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 74(5):056108, 2006

    2006

  53. [61]

    Adaptive voter model on simplicial complexes.Physical Review E, 101(2):022305, 2020

    Leonhard Horstmeyer and Christian Kuehn. Adaptive voter model on simplicial complexes.Physical Review E, 101(2):022305, 2020

    2020

  54. [62]

    Optimizing opinions with stubborn agents.Operations Research, 70(4):2119–2137, 2022

    David Scott Hunter and Tauhid Zaman. Optimizing opinions with stubborn agents.Operations Research, 70(4):2119–2137, 2022

    2022

  55. [63]

    Bayesian social learning from con- sumer reviews.Operations Research, 67(5):1209–1221, 2019

    Bar Ifrach, Costis Maglaras, Marco Scarsini, and Anna Zseleva. Bayesian social learning from con- sumer reviews.Operations Research, 67(5):1209–1221, 2019

    2019

  56. [64]

    Job information networks, neighborhood effects

    Yannis M Ioannides and Linda Datcher Loury. Job information networks, neighborhood effects. 2004

    2004

  57. [65]

    Information heterogeneity and the speed of learning in social networks.Columbia Business School Research Paper, (13-28), 2013

    Ali Jadbabaie, Pooya Molavi, and Alireza Tahbaz-Salehi. Information heterogeneity and the speed of learning in social networks.Columbia Business School Research Paper, (13-28), 2013. 38

    2013

  58. [66]

    Preferential attachment graphs with co-existing types of different fitnesses.Journal of Applied Probability, 55(4):1211–1227, 2018

    Jonathan Jordan. Preferential attachment graphs with co-existing types of different fitnesses.Journal of Applied Probability, 55(4):1211–1227, 2018

    2018

  59. [67]

    Majority dynamics on trees and the dynamic cavity method

    Yashodhan Kanoria and Andrea Montanari. Majority dynamics on trees and the dynamic cavity method. 2011

    2011

  60. [68]

    ¨Uber die zusammenziehende und lipschitzsche transformationen.Fundamenta Mathematicae, 22(1):77–108, 1934

    Mojzesz Kirszbraun. ¨Uber die zusammenziehende und lipschitzsche transformationen.Fundamenta Mathematicae, 22(1):77–108, 1934

    1934

  61. [69]

    Zealotry effects on opinion dynamics in the adaptive voter model.Physical Review E, 96(5):052315, 2017

    Pascal P Klamser, Marc Wiedermann, Jonathan F Donges, and Reik V Donner. Zealotry effects on opinion dynamics in the adaptive voter model.Physical Review E, 96(5):052315, 2017

    2017

  62. [70]

    Analysis of a continuous-time adaptive voter model.Physical Review E, 107(5):054307, 2023

    Emmanuel Kravitzch, Yezekael Hayel, Vineeth S Varma, and Antoine O Berthet. Analysis of a continuous-time adaptive voter model.Physical Review E, 107(5):054307, 2023

    2023

  63. [71]

    Non-bayesian learning in social networks with time-varying weights

    Qipeng Liu, Aili Fang, Lin Wang, and Xiaofan Wang. Non-bayesian learning in social networks with time-varying weights. InProceedings of the 30th Chinese Control Conference, pages 4768–4771. IEEE, 2011

    2011

  64. [72]

    Partisan voter model on complex networks: Dy- namics of local ordering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.05062, 2026

    Jaume Llabr ´es, Maxi San Miguel, and Ra ´ul Toral. Partisan voter model on complex networks: Dy- namics of local ordering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.05062, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  65. [73]

    American Mathematical Soc., 2012

    George G Lorentz.Bernstein polynomials. American Mathematical Soc., 2012

    2012

  66. [74]

    Enabling asymptotic truth learning in a social network

    Kevin Lu, Jordan Chong, Matt Lu, and Jie Gao. Enabling asymptotic truth learning in a social network. InInternational Conference on Web and Internet Economics, pages 530–547. Springer, 2024

    2024

  67. [75]

    Accurate mean-field equation for voter model dynamics on scale-free networks.Physical Review E, 113(3):034311, 2026

    Marvin L ¨ucke, Stefanie Winkelmann, and P´eter Koltai. Accurate mean-field equation for voter model dynamics on scale-free networks.Physical Review E, 113(3):034311, 2026

    2026

  68. [76]

    Elephant random walk with attributed steps and extrac- tions of random sizes, 2026

    Sooraj M, Moumanti Podder, and Archi Roy. Elephant random walk with attributed steps and extrac- tions of random sizes, 2026

    2026

  69. [77]

    Transitivity reinforcement in the coevolving voter model.Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 26(12), 2016

    Nishant Malik, Feng Shi, Hsuan-Wei Lee, and Peter J Mucha. Transitivity reinforcement in the coevolving voter model.Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 26(12), 2016

    2016

  70. [78]

    V oter models with contrarian agents.Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 88(5):052803, 2013

    Naoki Masuda. V oter models with contrarian agents.Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 88(5):052803, 2013

    2013

  71. [79]

    Heterogeneous voter models.Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 82(1):010103, 2010

    Naoki Masuda, Nicolas Gibert, and Sidney Redner. Heterogeneous voter models.Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 82(1):010103, 2010

    2010

  72. [80]

    Approximation of h¨older continuous functions by bernstein polynomials.The American mathematical monthly, 106(6):568–574, 1999

    Peter Math ´e. Approximation of h¨older continuous functions by bernstein polynomials.The American mathematical monthly, 106(6):568–574, 1999

    1999

  73. [81]

    Coevolutionary dynamics of group interactions: coevolving nonlinear voter models

    Byungjoon Min. Coevolutionary dynamics of group interactions: coevolving nonlinear voter models. Frontiers in Complex Systems, 1:1298265, 2023

    2023

  74. [82]

    On the role of zealotry in the voter model

    Mauro Mobilia, Anna Petersen, and Sidney Redner. On the role of zealotry in the voter model. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2007(08):P08029–P08029, 2007

    2007

  75. [83]

    Generalized voterlike model on activity-driven networks with attractiveness.Physical Review E, 98(2):022303, 2018

    Antoine Moinet, Alain Barrat, and Romualdo Pastor-Satorras. Generalized voterlike model on activity-driven networks with attractiveness.Physical Review E, 98(2):022303, 2018

    2018

  76. [84]

    A theory of non-bayesian social learning

    Pooya Molavi, Alireza Tahbaz-Salehi, and Ali Jadbabaie. A theory of non-bayesian social learning. Econometrica, 86(2):445–490, 2018

    2018

  77. [85]

    Efficient bayesian learning in social networks with gaussian estimators

    Elchanan Mossel, Noah Olsman, and Omer Tamuz. Efficient bayesian learning in social networks with gaussian estimators. In2016 54th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), pages 425–432. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  78. [86]

    Social learning in a heterogeneous population: technology diffusion in the indian green revolution.Journal of Development Economics, 73(1):185–213, 2004

    Kaivan Munshi. Social learning in a heterogeneous population: technology diffusion in the indian green revolution.Journal of Development Economics, 73(1):185–213, 2004

    2004

  79. [87]

    Elephant random walk with polynomially decaying steps, 2025

    Yuzaburo Nakano. Elephant random walk with polynomially decaying steps, 2025. URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2505.00277. 39

    2025 arXiv

  80. [88]

    On a conditionally poissonian graph process.Advances in Applied Probability, 38(1):59–75, 2006

    Ilkka Norros and Hannu Reittu. On a conditionally poissonian graph process.Advances in Applied Probability, 38(1):59–75, 2006

    2006

  81. [89]

    Consensus from group interactions: An adaptive voter model on hypergraphs.Physical Review E, 105(5):054307, 2022

    Nikos Papanikolaou, Giacomo Vaccario, Erik Hormann, Renaud Lambiotte, and Frank Schweitzer. Consensus from group interactions: An adaptive voter model on hypergraphs.Physical Review E, 105(5):054307, 2022

    2022

  82. [90]

    Non-bayesian social learning on random digraphs with aperiodically varying network connectivity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.06695, 2020

    Rohit Parasnis, Massimo Franceschetti, and Behrouz Touri. Non-bayesian social learning on random digraphs with aperiodically varying network connectivity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.06695, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Escobar Parra

    Denisse A. Escobar Parra. Coordinate-wise elephant random walk, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/2607.07022

    2026 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Weak convergence rates for stochastic approximation with application to multiple targets and simulated annealing.The Annals of Applied Probability, 8(1):10–44, 1998

    Mariane Pelletier. Weak convergence rates for stochastic approximation with application to multiple targets and simulated annealing.The Annals of Applied Probability, 8(1):10–44, 1998

    1998

  85. [93]

    An almost sure central limit theorem for stochastic approximation algorithms

    Mariane Pelletier. An almost sure central limit theorem for stochastic approximation algorithms. Journal of multivariate analysis, 71(1):76–93, 1999

    1999

  86. [94]

    A bayesian approach to the evolution of social learning.Evolution and human behavior, 33(5):449–459, 2012

    Charles Perreault, Cristina Moya, and Robert Boyd. A bayesian approach to the evolution of social learning.Evolution and human behavior, 33(5):449–459, 2012

    2012

  87. [95]

    Elephant random walks with multiple extractions and general reinforcement functions.Journal of Theoretical Probability, 39(1):17, 2026

    Moumanti Podder and Archi Roy. Elephant random walks with multiple extractions and general reinforcement functions.Journal of Theoretical Probability, 39(1):17, 2026

    2026

  88. [96]

    Ordering dynamics of nonlinear voter models.Physical Review E, 109(3):034307, 2024

    Luc ´ıa S Ramirez, Federico Vazquez, Maxi San Miguel, and Tobias Galla. Ordering dynamics of nonlinear voter models.Physical Review E, 109(3):034307, 2024

    2024

  89. [97]

    V oting models on graphs.PhD Thesis- King’s College London, 2018

    Nicolas Andres Rivera Aburto. V oting models on graphs.PhD Thesis- King’s College London, 2018

    2018

  90. [98]

    The elephant random walk in the triangular array setting.Journal of Applied Probability, 62(3):997–1009, January 2025

    Rahul Roy, Masato Takei, and Hideki Tanemura. The elephant random walk in the triangular array setting.Journal of Applied Probability, 62(3):997–1009, January 2025. ISSN 1475-6072. doi: 10.1017/jpr.2024.106. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jpr.2024.106

    2025 doi

  91. [99]

    Elephants can always remember: Exact long-range memory effects in a non-markovian random walk.Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 70(4):045101, 2004

    Gunter M Sch ¨utz and Steffen Trimper. Elephants can always remember: Exact long-range memory effects in a non-markovian random walk.Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 70(4):045101, 2004

    2004

  92. [100]

    Opinion dynamics: A comprehensive overview.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.00401, 2025

    Mohammad Shirzadi, Emilio Cruciani, and Ahad N Zehmakan. Opinion dynamics: A comprehensive overview.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.00401, 2025

    2025

  93. [101]

    Opinion dynamics: Statistical physics and beyond.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.11521, 2025

    Michele Starnini, Fabian Baumann, Tobias Galla, David Garcia, Gerardo I ˜niguez, M ´arton Karsai, Jan Lorenz, and Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron. Opinion dynamics: Statistical physics and beyond.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.11521, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Number 30

    Elias M Stein.Singular integrals and differentiability properties of functions. Number 30. Princeton university press, 1970

    1970

  95. [103]

    Springer, 2007

    Daniel W Stroock and SR Srinivasa Varadhan.Multidimensional diffusion processes. Springer, 2007

    2007

  96. [104]

    Emergence of echo chambers in a noisy adaptive voter model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12933, 2024

    Andr ´e Martin Timpanaro. Emergence of echo chambers in a noisy adaptive voter model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12933, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Maximizing truth learning in a social network is np-hard

    Filip ´Uradn´ık, Amanda Wang, and Jie Gao. Maximizing truth learning in a social network is np-hard. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12704, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Threshold q-voter model.Physical Review E, 97(5):052106, 2018

    Allan R Vieira and Celia Anteneodo. Threshold q-voter model.Physical Review E, 97(5):052106, 2018

    2018

  99. [107]

    E. ˜V. V oronovskaja. D´etermination de la forme asymptotique d’approximation des fonctions par les polynˆomes de M. Bernstein.CR Acad. Sci. URSS, pages 79–85, 1932

    1932

  100. [108]

    Echo chambers: Social learning under unobserved heterogeneity.The Economic Journal, 134(658):837–855, 2024

    Cole Williams. Echo chambers: Social learning under unobserved heterogeneity.The Economic Journal, 134(658):837–855, 2024

    2024

  101. [109]

    Opinion forming in erd ˝os–r´enyi random graph and expanders.Discrete Applied Mathematics, 277:280–290, 2020

    Ahad N Zehmakan. Opinion forming in erd ˝os–r´enyi random graph and expanders.Discrete Applied Mathematics, 277:280–290, 2020. 40

    2020

  102. [110]

    Central limit theorems of a recursive stochastic algorithm with applications to adaptive designs.The Annals of Applied Probability, pages 3630–3658, 2016

    Li-Xin Zhang. Central limit theorems of a recursive stochastic algorithm with applications to adaptive designs.The Annals of Applied Probability, pages 3630–3658, 2016

    2016

Pith tools

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