Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 20 references

Modeling Misinformation as a Commons Problem

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Trust and fragmentation are separate control problems in misinformation spread

desk verdict Genuine commons framing for misinformation; separability claim needs more evidence read the letter →

arxiv 2607.06984 v1 pith:3WAJFZX4 submitted 2026-07-08 cs.CY cs.SI

Vrinda Malhotra This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.SI
keywords misinformationepistemiccommonstrustdynamicsagent-basedsimulationattentioneconomypolarizationadaptivenetworksboundedconfidence
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 builds an agent-based simulation that treats societal trust as a shared, depletable resource — like a fishery or grazing land — rather than as a fixed backdrop. Each agent has a limited attention budget split between credible and misinformation streams. When the population collectively shifts attention toward low-credibility content, the shared trust stock degrades. Crucially, declining trust raises the cognitive cost of processing credible information while lowering the cost of misinformation, creating a self-reinforcing feedback loop that can lock a population into a low-trust equilibrium. The model couples this commons dynamics to bounded-confidence credibility learning and adaptive network rewiring, producing four distinct emergent regimes: credible stability, misinformation dominance, polarization, and a mixed baseline. The central finding is that trust level and network fragmentation respond to different parameter families. The repair-versus-harm balance determines whether the system recovers or collapses, while homophily and rewiring determine whether disagreement stays integrated or separates into persistent echo chambers. Polarization can arise across a range of trust levels whenever cross-cutting exposure erodes, meaning interventions that merely raise trust may fail if the exposure structure continues to sort attention into segregated neighborhoods.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a trust-dependent cognitive price function: as global trust declines, the effective cognitive cost of processing credible information rises while the cost of misinformation falls. This couples individual attention allocation to the aggregate trust stock, closing a macro-micro feedback loop. When agents shift attention toward misinformation, trust degrades, which further raises the cost of credible engagement, accelerating the cycle. The model also incorporates bounded-confidence credibility learning (agents only update beliefs from sufficiently similar neighbors) and adaptive network rewiring (agents drop dissimilar ties and form new ones with similar agents), a

What would settle it

Demonstrate that trust does not condition cognitive costs in the specific inverse manner assumed — for instance, if declining trust raises the cost of processing all information equally rather than differentially favoring misinformation — the feedback loop driving collapse and polarization regimes would not operate as described.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper separates two control problems that are often conflated. Whether the system converges to high or low trust is governed primarily by the balance between trust repair and harm rates. Whether the population fragments into polarized clusters is governed primarily by homophily and network rewiring. These are independent axes: polarization can occur without trust collapse, and trust recovery without desegregation. This means that interventions targeting only trust restoration — without also addressing the structural conditions that produce echo chambers — may leave the system in a fragmented state even if aggregate trust improves.

Load-bearing premise

The model's central feedback loop depends on a specific functional assumption: that declining trust makes credible information more cognitively costly to process while making misinformation relatively cheaper. This inverse relationship between trust and the relative cost of credible engagement is what drives the self-reinforcing collapse toward misinformation dominance. The paper cites bounded-rationality literature but does not provide direct empirical evidence that trust条件s

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Interventions against misinformation should be evaluated on two independent axes: trust-level interventions (repair/harm balance) and structural interventions (network mixing, cross-cutting exposure). A policy that succeeds on one axis may fail on the other.
  • Polarization can persist even in a high-trust environment if the network structure sorts attention into segregated neighborhoods, challenging the assumption that restoring trust alone will reduce polarization.
  • The model predicts a lock-in effect: once trust falls below a threshold, the cost asymmetry between credible and misinformation content makes recovery difficult without exogenous intervention, because the population's own attention patterns sustain the low-trust basin.
  • The phase structure suggests an intermediate rewiring rate is most dangerous for polarization: too little rewiring fails to sort ties, while very high churn disrupts the persistent communities needed for divergence to lock in.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the trust-dependent price function were replaced with a mechanism where declining trust raises the cost of all information equally (rather than differentially favoring misinformation), the collapse and polarization regimes might not emerge, suggesting the asymmetry in cost response is more critical than the trust dynamics alone.
  • The model's binary credible/misinformation split could be extended to a spectrum of content quality, potentially revealing intermediate regimes where moderate-quality content stabilizes trust at intermediate levels rather than producing clean collapse or recovery.
  • If empirical studies could measure whether trust actually conditions cognitive costs in the inverse manner specified, this would serve as a direct test of the model's central mechanism — and if the functional form differs, the regime structure may change qualitatively.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an agent-based simulation that models trust as a depletable commons resource coupled to individual attention allocation, credibility learning, and adaptive network rewiring. The core mechanism links aggregate exposure to a global trust stock, which in turn conditions the cognitive cost of processing credible versus misinformation streams. The model produces four recurring regimes (credible stability, misinformation dominance, polarization, and a mixed baseline) and argues that trust level and network fragmentation are governed by distinct parameter families, implying different intervention levers. The paper includes a verification suite (baseline reductions, unit tests) and validation experiments (shock tests, adaptive vs. random rewiring comparison). The framing of misinformation as a commons problem is novel and the model is internally consistent, but the central claim of separability between the two control problems is not adequately supported by the presented sensitivity analysis, and a key mathematical simplification undermines the stated complexity of the cognitive cost mechanism.

Significance. The paper makes a genuine conceptual contribution by extending Ostrom-style commons logic to epistemic trust, operationalizing a structural analogy that is underexplored in the misinformation modeling literature. The coupling of a depletable trust stock to attention allocation via trust-dependent prices is a creative mechanism that closes the micro-macro feedback loop. The verification suite is commendable: the baseline reductions (fixed trust, homogeneous trust) cleanly isolate feedback channels, the unit tests (Table 2) check invariants, and the adaptive vs. random rewiring stress test (Fig. 5) effectively demonstrates that homophily-driven sorting is not an artifact of network churn. The distinction between trust restoration and structural exposure conditions as separate governance problems is a useful framing for policy exploration, even if the empirical support for separability needs strengthening.

major comments (4)
  1. §3.5 and Conclusions: The central claim that trust level and fragmentation are 'distinct control problems' governed by separate parameter families is supported only by one-at-a-time sensitivity analysis (Figs. 14–16) and a 2D phase map of Var(η) over (β_homophily, p_rewire) (Fig. 6 left). However, the model's feedback structure creates bidirectional cross-coupling: homophily drives network sorting, which affects local trust T_i (Eq. 3), which affects attention allocation (Eq. 7), which feeds back into global trust dynamics (Eq. 1); conversely, trust affects attention, which affects credibility learning (Eq. 9), which affects rewiring decisions and fragmentation. One-at-a-time sensitivity captures only first-order effects and cannot establish that interaction terms are negligible. The paper does not provide a 2D heatmap of T* over (β_homophily, p_rewire) to confirm trust is insensitive to
  2. structural parameters, nor of Var(η) over (α_up, β_down) to confirm fragmentation is insensitive to trust parameters. Without this, 'distinct control problems' remains an assertion about the absence of cross-effects that the model structure gives reason to doubt. The authors should either provide the missing 2D heatmaps or soften the separability claim to reflect that these are dominant but not fully independent levers.
  3. §2.4, Eqs. (5) and (7): The trust-dependent cognitive price function is presented as implementing a bounded-rationality channel where declining trust increases the effective cost of processing credible information. However, substituting Eq. (5) into Eq. (7), the ratio p_m/(p_g+p_m) simplifies to (T+ε)/(1+2ε), making attention allocation m_i linear in T_i and causing λ to cancel entirely. The 'cognitive cost' mechanism is thus a simple proportional feedback, not the rich bounded-rationality channel the framing suggests. The paper should either (a) acknowledge this simplification explicitly and justify why linear proportional feedback is a sufficient operationalization, or (b) revise the price function so that λ and the nonlinearity actually play a role in the attention allocation. As it stands, the gap between the theoretical motivation (Simon, Kahneman, Sims) and the implemented math is.
  4. misleading. Additionally, the functional form assumes that declining trust makes credible information more costly while making misinformation relatively cheaper, but no direct empirical evidence is provided for this specific inverse relationship. The authors should discuss whether this is a stylized assumption or empirically grounded, and note its status in §4 (Assumptions and Limitations).
minor comments (5)
  1. §2.6, Eq. (10): The text repeats the definitions of ρ_η and σ_η twice in the same sentence ('where ρ_η is the imitation weight, σ_η controls mutation/innovation, η̄^t_{N(i)} denotes... where ρ_η is the imitation weight, σ_η controls mutation/innovation'). This is a copy-editing error that should be fixed.
  2. Table 1: The 'Preference η (initial / target pattern)' column is somewhat ambiguous. For the Polarized regime, it lists 'bimodal mix (e.g., mass near η≈0.2 and η≈0.8)' but it is unclear whether this is the initial condition or the emergent outcome. Clarifying whether these are initializations or targets would help reproducibility.
  3. §3.2: The text references 'Appendix Fig. 13' for full trajectory time series, but the appendix figures are labeled as 'Panel Set B, Row 4' (Fig. 13). Cross-referencing could be made more consistent (e.g., 'Fig. 13 (Panel Set B, Row 4)') to avoid confusion.
  4. §4 (Assumptions and Limitations): The paper states it does not calibrate parameters to observational data and treats validation as qualitative pattern checking. This is appropriate for a mechanism-focused study, but the authors could strengthen the paper by briefly discussing what kind of empirical data (e.g., platform-level trust surveys, attention share metrics) could be used for future calibration.
  5. Fig. 6 (right): The regime map uses threshold lines to label outcomes, but the thresholds are not specified. Providing the threshold values (or at least noting that they are heuristic) would improve transparency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: emergent regimes arise from independently specified mechanisms, not by construction

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The trust dynamics (Eq. 1), trust-dependent cognitive prices (Eq. 5), attention allocation (Eq. 7), bounded-confidence credibility updating (Eqs. 8-9), preference dynamics (Eq. 10), and adaptive rewiring (Section 2.7) are each independently specified mechanisms drawn from established literature (Deffuant et al., Hegselmann-Krause, DeGroot, Friedkin-Johnsen, Gross-Blasius, etc.). No mechanism is defined in terms of the emergent outcomes it is claimed to produce. The four regimes (credible stability, misinformation dominance, polarization, baseline) are not inputs or fitted targets but qualitative patterns that arise from parameter sweeps across these coupled mechanisms. Table 1 lists parameter ranges chosen to illustrate regimes, not parameters fitted to data and then presented as predictions. The central claim that trust level and fragmentation respond to different parameter families is supported by one-at-a-time sensitivity analysis (Figs. 14-16) and phase maps (Fig. 6); whether this separability claim is fully justified given cross-coupling is a correctness/empirical-validity concern, not a circularity issue. The skeptic's observation that substituting Eq. 5 into Eq. 7 causes lambda to cancel, making attention allocation linear in T_i, is an interesting simplification but does not constitute circularity: the resulting proportional feedback is still a genuine emergent dynamic, not a definition of the output in terms of itself. No self-citation chain is load-bearing for any central claim. The model is explicitly presented as an uncalibrated simulation testbed, not as a fitted prediction. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The model introduces two invented entities (global trust stock, trust-dependent prices) without independent empirical evidence for their specific functional forms. Eleven free parameters control the system, most with unspecified values. The core axioms are domain assumptions (commons analogy, trust-cost relationship) rather than empirically validated relationships. Standard mathematical components (bounded confidence, social influence) are properly cited.

free parameters (11)
  • alpha_up (repair strength) = [0.3, 3.0] across regimes
    Controls trust repair rate in Eq. 1; set by hand to produce different regimes.
  • beta_down (harm strength) = [0.5, 5.0] across regimes
    Controls trust harm rate in Eq. 1; set by hand to produce different regimes.
  • lambda (price sensitivity)
    Scales cognitive prices in Eq. 5; value not specified in paper.
  • epsilon (singularity prevention)
    Prevents division by zero in Eq. 5; value not specified.
  • epsilon_conf (bounded confidence threshold)
    Controls interaction gating in Eq. 8; value not specified.
  • mu (adjustment strength)
    Controls credibility update step size in Eq. 9; value not specified.
  • rho_eta (imitation weight)
    Controls preference imitation in Eq. 10; value not specified.
  • sigma_eta (mutation noise)
    Controls preference noise in Eq. 10; value not specified.
  • xi (heterogeneity strength)
    Controls local vs. global trust mix in Eq. 3; value not specified.
  • beta_homophily = [0, 12] across regimes
    Controls similarity-seeking in rewiring; set by hand.
  • p_rewire = [0.0, 0.4] across regimes
    Probability of rewiring per step; set by hand.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Trust in information environments is analogous to a depletable commons (like a fishery): non-excludable, subject to depletion, not automatically self-replenishing.
    Section 1: The extension of Ostrom/Hardin to epistemic trust is stated as 'our own analytical move' motivated by structural analogy rather than empirical derivation.
  • domain assumption Declining trust increases the cognitive cost of processing credible information and decreases the cost of processing misinformation.
    Section 2.4, Eq. 5: The inverse relationship p_g = lambda/(T+epsilon) is assumed. Bounded rationality literature is cited but this specific functional form is not empirically derived.
  • standard math Credibility learning follows bounded confidence (Deffuant model).
    Section 2.5, Eqs. 8-9: Standard model from Deffuant et al. 2000.
  • standard math Preferences evolve via linear social imitation with Gaussian noise.
    Section 2.6, Eq. 10: Standard social influence formulation from DeGroot/Friedkin.
  • domain assumption Social networks can be approximated by small-world topology with adaptive rewiring.
    Section 2.1: Standard approximation, but abstracts away platform-specific recommendation and moderation mechanisms.
invented entities (2)
  • Global trust stock T(t)
    purpose: Represents the shared epistemic commons that is repaired or harmed by aggregate attention patterns.
    The global trust stock is a model construct. While trust degradation is empirically observed, the specific formulation as a single scalar stock with logistic dynamics is an invention of the model without direct empirical measurement.
  • Trust-dependent cognitive prices p_g(T) and p_m(T)
    purpose: Couples the trust commons to individual attention allocation by making information processing costs depend on trust level.
    The price functions are model inventions. The paper does not cite empirical evidence that cognitive processing costs vary with trust in the specific inverse functional form used.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling Misinformation as a Commons Problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3WAJFZX4

@misc{pith2026260706984,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling Misinformation as a Commons Problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3WAJFZX4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.06984}
}
read the original abstract

Misinformation often harms society not just by spreading a single false belief, but by breaking down the shared trust people rely on to evaluate what is true. This paper presents an agent-based simulation that frames trust as a collective resource and attention as a scarce private budget: when aggregate attention shifts toward low credibility content, the trust environment degrades, making credible information harder to process and correct. Across experiments, the model produces four recurring modes: credible stability, misinformation dominance, polarization, and a mixed baseline, with distinct signatures in trust trajectories and network structure. The results separate two control problems that matter for simulation-based policy exploration: the balance of trust repair versus harm largely determines whether the system recovers or collapses, while homophily and rewiring determine whether disagreement remains integrated or separates into persistent clusters. This foundation provides a transparent testbed for comparative experiments on interventions that must address both trust restoration and structural conditions for cross-cutting exposure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06984 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Conceptual information flow in the updated misinformation–commons model. Preferences and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Network snapshots colored by credibility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Phase portraits (T vs. ¯c) for all four regimes: Credible (top-left), Misinformation (top-right), Polarized (bottom-left), Baseline (bottom-right). Each trajectory shows how the system evolves in trust– credibility space. Corresponding time-series line plots appear in Appendix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Verification baselines. Left column: fixed global trust T(t) ≡ T¯ (commons feedback removed). Right column: homogeneous trust Ti(t) ≡ T(t) (local heterogeneity removed). Row 1 and 2: correlation between credibility and local trust over time. Row 3 phase plot of T vs. m…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Row 1 (shock test): Global trust trajectory with shock window shaded (left); credibility–local￾trust correlation (right). Row 2 (spatial structure): Spatial autocorrelation Moran’s I (left); node-level assortativity (right) - adaptive rewiring (solid) vs. random rewiri…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: polarization phase diagram Var(η) over (βhomophily, prewire). Right: regime map in T ∗– Var(η) space with threshold lines used to label outcomes. tion environment into two competing streams (credible vs. misinformation) and represent trust as a single global stoc…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Panel Set A, Row 1 (credibility ci): network snapshots for (A) Credible (top-left), (B) Misinfor￾mation (top-right), (C) Polarized (bottom-left), (D) Baseline (bottom-right). Reproduced at smaller scale in the main body ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Panel Set A, Row 2 (local trust Ti): network snapshots for (A) Credible (top-left), (B) Misinfor￾mation (top-right), (C) Polarized (bottom-left), (D) Baseline (bottom-right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Panel Set A, Row 3 (preference ηi): network snapshots for (A) Credible (top-left), (B) Misinfor￾mation (top-right), (C) Polarized (bottom-left), (D) Baseline (bottom-right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Panel Set B, Row 1 (trust and attention trajectories): (A) Credible (top-left), (B) Misinformation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Panel Set B, Row 2 (credibility and preference distributions): (A) Credible (top-left), (B) Misin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Panel Set B, Row 3 (verification baselines): (A) Credible (top-left), (B) Misinformation (top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Panel Set B, Row 4 (global trust T and mean credibility ¯c over time): (A) Credible (top-left), (B) Misinformation (top-right), (C) Polarized (bottom-left), (D) Baseline (bottom-right). Phase plots for the same runs appear in the main body ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Parameter sensitivity, Row 1: global trust level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Parameter sensitivity, Row 2: local trust dispersion Var [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Parameter sensitivity, Row 3: preference dispersion Var [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The science of fake news,

    D. M. J. Lazer, M. A. Baum, Y . Benkler, A. J. Berinsky, K. M. Greenhill, F. Menczer, M. J. Metzger, B. Nyhan, G. Pennycook, D. Rothschild, M. Schudson, S. A. Sloman, C. R. Sunstein, E. A. Thorson, D. J. Watts, and J. L. Zittrain, “The science of fake news,”Science, vol. 359, no. 6380, pp. 1094– 1096, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    The spread of true and false news online,

    S. V osoughi, D. Roy, and S. Aral, “The spread of true and false news online,”Science, vol. 359, no. 6380, pp. 1146–1151, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Mixing beliefs among interacting agents,

    G. Deffuant, D. Neau, F. Amblard, and G. Weisbuch, “Mixing beliefs among interacting agents,” Advances in Complex Systems, vol. 3, no. 1–4, pp. 87–98, 2000

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation,

    R. Hegselmann and U. Krause, “Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation,”Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 5, no. 3, 2002. [Online]. Available: https://www.jasss.org/5/3/2.html

    work page 2002

  5. [5]

    A behavioral model of rational choice,

    H. A. Simon, “A behavioral model of rational choice,”The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 99–118, 1955

    work page 1955

  6. [6]

    Kahneman,Thinking, Fast and Slow

    D. Kahneman,Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Implications of rational inattention,

    C. A. Sims, “Implications of rational inattention,”Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 665–690, 2003

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Birds of a feather: Homophily in social net- works,

    M. McPherson, L. Smith-Lovin, and J. M. Cook, “Birds of a feather: Homophily in social net- works,”Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 415–444, 2001

    work page 2001

Show all 20 references
  1. [9]

    Adaptive coevolutionary networks: A review,

    T. Gross and B. Blasius, “Adaptive coevolutionary networks: A review,”Journal of the Royal Soci- ety Interface, vol. 5, no. 20, pp. 259–271, 2008

    2008

  2. [10]

    The spreading of misinformation online,

    M. Del Vicario, A. Bessi, F. Zollo, F. Petroni, A. Scala, G. Caldarelli, H. E. Stanley, and W. Quat- trociocchi, “The spreading of misinformation online,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 113, no. 3, pp. 554–559, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    Fact-checking effect on viral hoaxes: A model of misinformation spread in social networks,

    M. Tambuscio, G. Ruffo, A. Flammini, and F. Menczer, “Fact-checking effect on viral hoaxes: A model of misinformation spread in social networks,” inProceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion, 2015, pp. 977–982

    2015

  4. [12]

    Social influence and unfollowing accelerate the emergence of echo chambers,

    K. Sasahara, W. Chen, H. Peng, G. L. Ciampaglia, A. Flammini, and F. Menczer, “Social influence and unfollowing accelerate the emergence of echo chambers,”Journal of Computational Social Science, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 381–402, Sep. 2020. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1...

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    Introduction: An overview of the knowledge commons,

    C. Hess and E. Ostrom, “Introduction: An overview of the knowledge commons,” inUnderstanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice, C. Hess and E. Ostrom, Eds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007, pp. 3–26

    2007

  6. [14]

    B. M. Frischmann, M. J. Madison, and K. J. Strandburg,Governing Knowledge Commons. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    J. M. Epstein,Agent Zero: Toward Neurocognitive Foundations for Generative Social Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013

    2013

  8. [16]

    Reaching a consensus,

    M. H. DeGroot, “Reaching a consensus,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 69, no. 345, pp. 118–121, 1974

    1974

  9. [17]

    N. E. Friedkin and E. C. Johnsen,Social Influence Network Theory: A Sociological Examination of Small Group Dynamics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011

    2011

  10. [18]

    Nonequilibrium phase transition in the coevolution of networks and opinions,

    P. Holme and M. E. J. Newman, “Nonequilibrium phase transition in the coevolution of networks and opinions,”Physical Review E, vol. 74, no. 5, p. 056108, 2006

    2006

  11. [19]

    Collective dynamics of “small-world

    D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, “Collective dynamics of “small-world” networks,”Nature, vol. 393, Vrinda Malhotra no. 6684, pp. 440–442, 1998

    1998

  12. [20]

    Modeling misinformation as a commons problem: Code repository,

    V . Malhotra, “Modeling misinformation as a commons problem: Code repository,” https://github. com/TheChirpyWitch/misinformation_as_a_commons_problem, 2026, accessed: 2026-03-29. AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES VRINDA MALHOTRAis a PhD student in the Computational Data Science Department at...

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.