Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Bias and Identifiability in the Bounded Confidence Model

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

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

Pith's one-line read Estimating the confidence bound of an opinion-dynamics model is unbiased, while estimating the convergence rate is persistently biased.

desk verdict The Rasch-model connection is a nice idea, but the headline bias bound for the epsilon MLE has a reversed inequality and is false as stated; the paper still deserves a serious referee if the authors fix the theorem and report missing experimental details. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11751 v1 pith:ERXFGOQ4 submitted 2025-06-13 stat.ME cs.CYcs.LGphysics.soc-ph

Claudio Borile , Jacopo Lenti , Valentina Ghidini , Corrado Monti , Gianmarco De Francisci Morales This is my paper
classification stat.MEcs.CYcs.LGphysics.soc-ph MSC 62F1062F12
keywords boundedconfidencemodelopiniondynamicsmaximumlikelihoodestimationestimatorbiasidentifiabilityRaschagent-basedcalibrationlikelihood-basedinference
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 asks whether the two key parameters of Deffuant's bounded confidence model of opinion dynamics can be estimated reliably from micro-level interaction data. Working with a stochastic version of the model in which interactions succeed with a logistic probability, the authors show that the maximum likelihood estimator of the confidence bound $\varepsilon$ is biased only by an amount smaller than $1/(8\rho T)$, so it is asymptotically unbiased. In contrast, the maximum likelihood estimator of the convergence rate $\mu$ carries a persistent upward bias of roughly 10–15% that does not vanish as the data trace lengthens, because $\mu$ controls both the evolution of opinions and the support of the observed distribution. The practical consequence is that likelihood-based calibration is trustworthy for one parameter and structurally unreliable for the other, and joint estimation can suffer from flat valleys and local minima in the likelihood surface.

What carries the argument

The argument turns on three pieces. First, the stochastic BCM replaces the deterministic interaction threshold with a logistic probability $\sigma_\rho(\varepsilon - |x_i^t - x_j^t|)$, making the likelihood differentiable and giving any trace positive probability. Second, the resulting likelihood factorizes exactly as a Rasch model, so the known bias and variance formulas for the Rasch ability estimator (with item difficulty $|x_i^t - x_j^t|$, person ability $\varepsilon$, and slope $\rho$) yield the closed-form bias of $\hat{\varepsilon}$ and the bound $1/(8\rho T)$. Third, for $\mu$ the authors analyze the two-agent case explicitly: the opinion at time $t$ is a multinomial whose support points and probabilities both contain $\mu$, so the support of the data depends on the parameter, which is the regularity condition that standard MLE consistency theorems require and that is violated here.

What would settle it

Simulate the stochastic BCM with known $\mu$ and $x_0$ for very long traces (say $T=100{,}000$) and estimate $\mu$ by maximum likelihood: the paper predicts the upward bias stays at roughly 10–15% of the true value; if the estimate instead converges to the true $\mu$ as $T$ grows, the claimed persistent bias is falsified. Conversely, for $\hat{\varepsilon}$ the paper predicts the bias decays like $1/(8\rho T)$; measuring $|\hat{\varepsilon}-\varepsilon|$ at two trace lengths and checking that it shrinks at the predicted rate would test the bound directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is an asymmetry in the statistical estimability of the two parameters of the bounded confidence model. For the confidence bound $\varepsilon$, the authors prove that the MLE is asymptotically unbiased and obeys $|\mathrm{Bias}(\hat{\varepsilon})| < 1/(8\rho T)$, by showing that estimating $\varepsilon$ is algebraically equivalent to estimating the ability parameter of a single individual in a Rasch item-response model; the bias formula from that literature transfers directly. For the convergence rate $\mu$, no such guarantee exists: both the likelihood and the support of the opinion states depend on $\mu$, violating the classical regularity conditions for MLE consistency, and numerical experiments confirm a persistent upward bias of about 10–15%. When both parameters are estimated jointly, the likelihood surface can develop local minima connected by flat valleys for some regions of the parameter space, creating practical identifiability problems even though a unique global minimum exists.

Load-bearing premise

The rigorous bias bound and consistency result for $\hat{\varepsilon}$ hold only when $\mu$ and the initial opinions $x_0$ are known, so that every opinion distance is deterministic given the observed interactions; once $\mu$ is also unknown, the distances are unobserved, the interaction indicators lose their conditional independence, and the proof no longer applies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The MLE of $\varepsilon$ is asymptotically unbiased with bias bounded by $1/(8\rho T)$, so large data traces make $\hat{\varepsilon}$ reliable.
  • The MLE of $\mu$ is persistently biased upward by about 10–15%, so point estimates of the convergence rate overstate the true value even with very long traces.
  • Joint estimation of $(\varepsilon, \mu)$ is practically non-identifiable in some regions of the parameter space, as the likelihood exhibits local minima connected by flat valleys.
  • The violation of the support-independence regularity condition is the mechanism behind the $\mu$ bias, and this mechanism is general enough to warn against MLE-based calibration of any agent-based model parameter that shapes the state-space support.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: a bias-correction scheme for $\hat{\mu}$ could be constructed by conditioning on the observed sequence of successful interactions, since conditional on the interaction set the distances become deterministic functions of $\mu$ and $x_0$, potentially restoring standard MLE behavior.
  • If the Rasch equivalence holds, then item response theory's ability estimation diagnostics (item information curves, ability standard errors) transfer to agent-based model calibration, giving practitioners a ready-made toolbox for assessing where $\varepsilon$ is well identified.
  • The flat-valley regions in the joint likelihood suggest that profile likelihood or regularized estimation might be needed in practice; the paper does not explore these remedies.
  • The persistent $\mu$ bias implies that simulation-based calibration methods that match summary statistics may fare better than likelihood maximization for $\mu$, or at least need to account for the bias.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies maximum likelihood estimation of two parameters of a stochastic bounded confidence model (sBCM), a logistic relaxation of Deffuant's bounded confidence model: the confidence bound ε and the convergence rate μ. Under the assumption that the agent-interaction graph is observed and that the initial opinions and one of the two parameters are known, the paper derives a Rasch-model equivalence and claims an upper bound |Bias(ε̂)| < 1/(8ρT) in Theorem 3.1, implying asymptotic unbiasedness of ε̂. For μ, the paper argues that the dependence of the support of the opinion variables on μ violates standard MLE regularity conditions, and supports this with experiments showing an upward bias that persists as T grows. The paper also presents experiments on joint estimation of (ε, μ), reporting practical identifiability issues in some regions of the parameter space. The empirical sections use synthetic data and compare the observed bias of ε̂ with the theoretical formula.

Significance. If the formal results were correct, the paper would provide a valuable likelihood-based route to identifiability analysis for a canonical agent-based model of opinion dynamics. The Rasch-model mapping is elegant and potentially reusable, and the empirical finding that the MLE of μ has a persistent upward bias is interesting and worth reporting. The paper is also careful to separate the partial-observation scenario from joint estimation. However, the current headline guarantee, Theorem 3.1, is not established: the proof contains an algebraic error and the stated constant is false. The qualitative conclusion that ε̂ is asymptotically unbiased may survive under additional conditions, but the paper must be corrected before the central formal claim can be relied upon.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (11) and Theorem 3.1] The final inequality in the proof of Theorem 3.1 is invalid. Writing S = Σ_h κ_h(1−κ_h), the triangle bound gives |Bias(ε̂)| ≤ 1/(2ρS). Since each κ_h(1−κ_h) ≤ 1/4, one has S ≤ |T|/4 and hence 1/(2ρS) ≥ 2/(ρ|T|), which is the reverse of the claimed 1/(2ρS) < 1/(8ρT). The stated universal bound is not just unproved; it is false. For example, take N=2, x0_1=x0_2=0, ε*=2, ρ=1, and any μ: all distances remain zero, every interaction is an iid Bernoulli trial with p=σ(2)≈0.8808, and the MLE solves ε̂=logit(m/T). A standard expansion gives E[ε̂]−ε* ≈ (2p−1)/(2p(1−p)T) ≈ 3.63/T, which exceeds 1/(8T) by a factor of about 29. The theorem needs a corrected statement, with explicit conditions on κ_h (for example, that κ_h(1−κ_h) is bounded away from zero) and a valid constant, or else it should be weakened to a qualitative O(1/T) claim without the numerical constant.
  2. [Supplementary Section B, Eqs. (24) and (10)] The proof treats Lord's bias formula as an exact 'closed formula' for the finite-sample bias. In the item-response-theory literature, Lord's formula is an asymptotic expansion of the bias of the MLE, not an exact expectation, and it is generally used to construct bias corrections. Therefore it cannot yield a strict finite-sample inequality such as |Bias(ε̂)| < 1/(8ρT) unless the authors provide a valid remainder bound or state the approximation order. Please state the conditions under which Eq. (10) holds exactly or replace Theorem 3.1 by an asymptotic statement.
  3. [Section 4] The experimental section does not report the value of ρ used in the simulations. All the theoretical bias and variance formulas in Section 3.1 depend on ρ, and Figure 4 is explicitly a comparison of empirical bias with the theoretical formula. Without the value of ρ (and the optimization settings), the results in Figures 4, 6, and 7 cannot be reproduced or checked against the theory. Please state ρ for every configuration, including the experiments on μ and the joint estimation in Section 4.3.
  4. [Section 3.1, paragraph after Eq. (11)] The statement that 'the bias goes to 0 as ρ→∞' is not generally valid. When ε−|x_i−x_j| is positive and ρ is large, the probability of a successful interaction approaches one, so with high probability the observed data contain no failed interactions; in that case the estimating equation Σ_h σρ(ε̂−|x_i−x_j|)=m has no finite interior solution and the MLE is at the boundary of the parameter space. The claim about the ρ→∞ limit therefore needs qualification, for example by conditioning on an interior solution or by considering a sequence of data sets with at least one failed interaction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract and introduction state that the MLE for ε is asymptotically unbiased without repeating the conditioning on known μ and x0. Since Theorem 3.1 is proved only in that scenario and joint estimation is discussed separately, please qualify the scope in the abstract.
  2. [Equation (10)] Equation (10) is typeset ambiguously: the factor 1/ρ appears to multiply (Σ_h κ_h(1−κ_h))², whereas the subsequent algebra suggests the intended expression is 1/(ρ(Σ_h κ_h(1−κ_h))²) times the sum. Please rewrite the display with explicit brackets so that the formula is unambiguous.
  3. [Figure 7b caption] The caption of Figure 7b says 'Std. dev. of the error for the bounded confidence parameter ε', but the experiment measures the standard deviation for μ; this appears to be a copy-paste error and should be corrected.
  4. [Section 4.3] The discussion of practical identifiability in Figure 8 is based on two illustrative log-likelihood profiles. A quantitative analysis, such as the frequency of local minima across repeated simulated data sets or the width of the flat valley, would make the claim about practical identifiability issues more robust.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the bias derivation for ε uses Lord's external Rasch-model formula; self-citations only provide the sBCM modeling framework and are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central formal result, Theorem 3.1, is not obtained by re-using the authors' own conclusions. The sBCM likelihood is defined in Section 2 (Equations 2-3), and the citation to Monti et al. [30] is a provenance statement for the stochastic relaxation, not the evidence for the estimator's properties. Lemma 3.3 establishes the Rasch-model equivalence by direct variable substitution (ε → person ability, |x_i^t - x_j^t| → item difficulty), and the bias and variance formulas (Equations 10 and 12) are taken from Lord's external psychometric result, as shown in Section B. Thus the bias bound does not reduce to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation chain. The main assumptions are stated openly: Theorem 3.1 is proved under 'μ and x0 observed', and the paper explicitly defers the unknown-x0 case to future work, so there is no hidden fitted input being renamed as a prediction. The analysis of μ does not claim a formal consistency theorem; it proves support dependence (Lemmas 3.4-3.5) and presents the upward bias as an experimental finding with a speculative explanation, which is not circular. No uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to forbid alternatives, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The only apparent concern in the derivation—the step '1/(2ρΣ κ_h(1−κ_h)) < 1/(8ρT)' in Equation (11) being directionally wrong—is a mathematical correctness question, not a circularity, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theoretical results do not fit parameters to data; the main ledger entries are modeling assumptions and an unstated experimental parameter. The Rasch equivalence imports Lord's bias formula as an external theorem, and the N-agent generalization of the mu support-dependence analysis is assumed.

free parameters (2)
  • rho (sigmoid steepness) = not reported in experiments
    Nuisance parameter of the stochastic relaxation; the bias bound for epsilon scales as 1/rho and the experimental magnitudes depend on its value, but Section 4 never states the rho used in simulations.
  • true simulation parameters (epsilon*, mu*) = epsilon*=0.25, mu*=0.5
    Chosen by hand as experiment fixtures; they are not fitted but define the regime where bias and identifiability are measured.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Rasch/Lord bias and variance formulas for the 1PL Rasch model apply to the sBCM likelihood for epsilon.
    Used in Section 3.1, Lemma 3.3 and Appendix B to obtain Eq. (10); requires the interaction distances to act as fixed item difficulties, which holds only when mu and x0 are known.
  • domain assumption The likelihood factorizes as independent Bernoulli trials given x0, mu, and E (Eq. 4).
    Interactions are conditionally independent given the current opinion state; this is the basis of the MLE derivation.
  • domain assumption For mu, the support-dependence analysis for two agents generalizes to N agents.
    Section 3.2 proves Lemmas 3.4 and 3.5 for two agents and asserts without proof that the N-agent case 'does not change the nature of the estimator'.
  • standard math MLE regularity condition A3 (parameter-independent support) is necessary for consistency, as per Casella and Berger.
    Invoked in Section 3.2 and Discussion to attribute mu's bias to support dependence.
  • domain assumption Observed data consists of micro-level interaction outcomes E and initial state x0; latent parameter of interest is one or both of epsilon and mu.
    Defines the inferential setting; real-world opinion data rarely provides this granularity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bias and Identifiability in the Bounded Confidence Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ERXFGOQ4

@misc{pith2026250611751,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bias and Identifiability in the Bounded Confidence Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ERXFGOQ4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11751}
}
read the original abstract

Opinion dynamics models such as the bounded confidence models (BCMs) describe how a population can reach consensus, fragmentation, or polarization, depending on a few parameters. Connecting such models to real-world data could help understanding such phenomena, testing model assumptions. To this end, estimation of model parameters is a key aspect, and maximum likelihood estimation provides a principled way to tackle it. Here, our goal is to outline the properties of statistical estimators of the two key BCM parameters: the confidence bound and the convergence rate. We find that their maximum likelihood estimators present different characteristics: the one for the confidence bound presents a small-sample bias but is consistent, while the estimator of the convergence rate shows a persistent bias. Moreover, the joint parameter estimation is affected by identifiability issues for specific regions of the parameter space, as several local maxima are present in the likelihood function. Our results show how the analysis of the likelihood function is a fruitful approach for better understanding the pitfalls and possibilities of estimating the parameters of opinion dynamics models, and more in general, agent-based models, and for offering formal guarantees for their calibration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11751 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of the evolution of the opinions in the Bounded Confidence Model, varying the ε parameter. Opinion dynamics models (ODMs) aim to uncover the minimal assump￾tions about individual behavior that yield emergent collective patterns such as consensus or polarization [21, 29]. They are a prominent class of agent-based models (ABMs). ABMs describe discrete-time dynamical systems via interacting individual agents, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Graphical model diagram of the stochastic BCM for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of ∂ log L(Θ | x 0 , E)/∂ε over ε ∈ [0, 2]. The derivative is monotonically decreasing. The red curve is the mean over all the realizations of the dynamics with fixed x0 , T . The derivative is zero for ε = ε ∗ , i.e. the true value that originated the observed data. which corresponds to Equation (6). This result demonstrates that the number of positive interactions is a sufficient statistic for the MLE of ε… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between theoretical bias and experimental bias. For each value in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Opinion trajectory of the first agent, under the assumption of two nodes and fixed set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Estimation error for the bounded confidence parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Estimation error for the bounded confidence parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Negative Log Likelihood profile for the joint estimation of ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Theoretical bias in Rasch model, as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Modeling agent decision and behavior in the light of data science and artificial intelligence.Environmental Modelling & Software, 166:105713, 2023

    Li An, Volker Grimm, Yu Bai, Abigail Sullivan, Billie L Turner II, Nicolas Malleson, Alison Heppenstall, Christian Vincenot, Derek Robinson, Xinyue Ye, et al. Modeling agent decision and behavior in the light of data science and artificial intelligence.Environmental Modelling & Software, 166:105713, 2023. (Cited on 2)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Efficient calibration of multi-agent simulation models from output series with bayesian optimization

    Yuanlu Bai, Henry Lam, Tucker Balch, and Svitlana Vyetrenko. Efficient calibration of multi-agent simulation models from output series with bayesian optimization. InProceedings of the Third ACM International Conference on AI in Finance, pages 437–445, 2022. (Cited on 2)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Bounded confidence opinion dynamics: A survey.Automatica, 159:111302, January 2024

    Carmela Bernardo, Claudio Altafini, Anton Proskurnikov, and Francesco Vasca. Bounded confidence opinion dynamics: A survey.Automatica, 159:111302, January 2024. ISSN 0005-1098. doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2023. 111302. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005109823004661. (Cited on 1)

    doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2023 2024

  4. [4]

    A computational approach to identifiability analysis for a model of the propagation and control of COVID-19 in Chile.Journal of Biological Dynamics, 17(1):2256774, December 2023

    Raimund B¨ urger, Gerardo Chowell, Ilja Kr¨ oker, and Leidy Yissedt Lara-D ´ ıaz. A computational approach to identifiability analysis for a model of the propagation and control of COVID-19 in Chile.Journal of Biological Dynamics, 17(1):2256774, December 2023. ISSN 1751-3758, 1751-3766. doi: 10.1080/17513758.2023.2256774. URLhttps://www.tandfonline.com/do...

    work page arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Why we are failing at connecting opinion dynamics to the empirical world.Review of Artificial Societies and Social Simulations, 2023

    Dino Carpentras. Why we are failing at connecting opinion dynamics to the empirical world.Review of Artificial Societies and Social Simulations, 2023. (Cited on 1)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Mapping the global opinion space to explain anti-vaccine attraction.Scientific reports, 12(1):6188, 2022

    Dino Carpentras, Adrian L¨ uders, and Michael Quayle. Mapping the global opinion space to explain anti-vaccine attraction.Scientific reports, 12(1):6188, 2022. (Cited on 1)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    No free lunch when estimating simulation parameters.Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 24(2), 2021

    Ernesto Carrella. No free lunch when estimating simulation parameters.Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 24(2), 2021. (Cited on 2)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Berger.Statistical inference, volume 2

    George Casella and Roger L. Berger.Statistical inference, volume 2. Duxbury Pacific Grove, CA, 2002. (Cited on 8, 11)

    work page 2002

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Castellano, S

    C. Castellano, S. Fortunato, and V. Loreto. Statistical Physics of Social Dynamics.Reviews of Modern Physics, 81(2):591, 2009. (Cited on 1)

    2009

  2. [10]

    The frontier of simulation-based inference.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(48):30055–30062, December 2020

    Kyle Cranmer, Johann Brehmer, and Gilles Louppe. The frontier of simulation-based inference.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(48):30055–30062, December 2020. ISSN 0027-8424, 1091-6490. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1912789117. (Cited on 1, 11)

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    Comparing extremism propagation patterns in continuous opinion models.Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 9(3), 2006

    Guillaume Deffuant. Comparing extremism propagation patterns in continuous opinion models.Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 9(3), 2006. (Cited on 3)

    2006

  4. [12]

    Mixing beliefs among interacting agents.Advances in Complex Systems, 3(01n04):87–98, 2000

    Guillaume Deffuant, David Neau, Frederic Amblard, and G´ erard Weisbuch. Mixing beliefs among interacting agents.Advances in Complex Systems, 3(01n04):87–98, 2000. (Cited on 1, 2)

    2000

  5. [13]

    How can extremism prevail? a study based on the relative agreement interaction model.Journal of artificial societies and social simulation, 5(4), 2002

    Guillaume Deffuant, Fr´ ed´ eric Amblard, G´ erard Weisbuch, and Thierry Faure. How can extremism prevail? a study based on the relative agreement interaction model.Journal of artificial societies and social simulation, 5(4), 2002. (Cited on 3)

    2002

  6. [14]

    Analysis of mean- field approximation for deffuant opinion dynamics on networks.SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 83: 436–459, 04 2023

    Alina Dubovskaya, Susan Fennell, Kevin Burke, James Gleeson, and Doireann O’Kiely. Analysis of mean- field approximation for deffuant opinion dynamics on networks.SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 83: 436–459, 04 2023. (Cited on 2)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Assessing the safety of (numerical) representation in social simulation

    Bruce Edmonds et al. Assessing the safety of (numerical) representation in social simulation. In3rd European Social Simulation Association conference (ESSA), 2005. (Cited on 3)

    2005

  8. [16]

    Ferguson

    Thomas S. Ferguson. An inconsistent maximum likelihood estimate.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 77(380):831 – 844, 1982. (Cited on 8)

    1982

  9. [17]

    Rasch Models

    Gerhard H Fischer. Rasch Models. InPsychometrics, volume 26, pages 515–585. Elsevier, 2006. (Cited on 4, 5, 14)

    2006

  10. [18]

    Models of Social Influence: Towards the Next Frontiers.Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 20(4):2, 2017

    Andreas Flache, Michael M¨ as, Thomas Feliciani, Edmund Chattoe-Brown, Guillaume Deffuant, Sylvie Huet, and Jan Lorenz. Models of Social Influence: Towards the Next Frontiers.Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 20(4):2, 2017. (Cited on 1)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Lack of practical identifiability may hamper reliable predictions in COVID-19 epidemic models.Science Advances, 8(3):eabg5234, January 2022

    Luca Gallo, Mattia Frasca, Vito Latora, and Giovanni Russo. Lack of practical identifiability may hamper reliable predictions in COVID-19 epidemic models.Science Advances, 8(3):eabg5234, January 2022. ISSN 2375-2548. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abg5234. URL https://www.science.org/doi...

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    The bounded confidence model of opinion dynamics.Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 22(02):1150007, 2012

    Javier G´ omez-Serrano, Carl Graham, and Jean-Yves Le Boudec. The bounded confidence model of opinion dynamics.Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 22(02):1150007, 2012. (Cited on 1)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Hegselmann and U

    R. Hegselmann and U. Krause. Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation. J. Artif. Soc. Simul., 5(3), 2002. (Cited on 1)

    2002

  14. [22]

    Keisuke Hirano and Jack R. Porter. Asymptotic efficiency in parametric structural models with parameter- dependent support.Econometrica, 71(5):1307 – 1338, 2003. (Cited on 8)

    2003

  15. [23]

    Istv´ an Zolt´ an Kiss and P´ eter L. Simon. On parameter identifiability in network-based epidemic models, August 2022. URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2208.07543. arXiv:2208.07543 [math]. (Cited on 2)

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    McMahon, Jakob Macke, Kyle Cranmer, Jiaxin Zhang, Haruko Wainwright, Adi Hanuka, Manuela Veloso, Samuel Assefa, Stephan Zheng, and Avi Pfeffer

    Alexander Lavin, Hector Zenil, Brooks Paige, David Krakauer, Justin Gottschlich, Tim Mattson, Anima Anandkumar, Sanjay Choudry, Kamil Rocki, Atılım G¨ une¸ s Baydin, Carina Prunkl, Brooks Paige, Olexandr Isayev, Erik Peterson, Peter L. McMahon, Jakob Macke, Kyle Cranmer, Jiaxi...

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Ju-Sung Lee, Tatiana Filatova, Arika Ligmann-Zielinska, Behrooz Hassani-Mahmooei, Forrest Stonedahl, Iris Lorscheid, Alexey Voinov, Gary Polhill, Zhanli Sun, and Dawn C. Parker. The Complexities of Agent- Based Modeling Output Analysis.Journal of Artificial Societies and Socia...

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    Likelihood-Based Methods Improve Pa- rameter Estimation in Opinion Dynamics Models

    Jacopo Lenti, Corrado Monti, and Gianmarco De Francisci Morales. Likelihood-Based Methods Improve Pa- rameter Estimation in Opinion Dynamics Models. InProceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pages 350–359, Merida Mexico, March 2024. ...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Variational Inference of Parameters in Opinion Dynamics Models.arXiv, 2024

    Jacopo Lenti, Fabrizio Silvestri, and Gianmarco De Francisci Morales. Variational Inference of Parameters in Opinion Dynamics Models.arXiv, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2403.05358. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2403.05358. (Cited on 2)

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Unbiased estimators of ability parameters, of their variance, and of their parallel-forms reliability.Psychometrika, 48(2):233–245, 1983

    Frederic M Lord. Unbiased estimators of ability parameters, of their variance, and of their parallel-forms reliability.Psychometrika, 48(2):233–245, 1983. (Cited on 14)

    1983

  21. [29]

    Continuous Opinion Dynamics under Bounded Confidence: A Survey.International Journal of Modern Physics C, 18(12):1819–1838, December 2007

    Jan Lorenz. Continuous Opinion Dynamics under Bounded Confidence: A Survey.International Journal of Modern Physics C, 18(12):1819–1838, December 2007. doi: 10.1142/S0129183107011789. (Cited on 1)

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    Learning opinion dynamics from social traces

    Corrado Monti, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, and Francesco Bonchi. Learning opinion dynamics from social traces. InProceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 764–773, 2020. (Cited on 2, 3, 11)

    2020

  23. [31]

    On learning agent-based models from data.Scientific Reports, 13(1):9268, June 2023

    Corrado Monti, Marco Pangallo, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, and Francesco Bonchi. On learning agent-based models from data.Scientific Reports, 13(1):9268, June 2023. ISSN 2045-2322. doi: 10. 1038/s41598-023-35536-3. URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35536-3 . t...

    2023

  24. [32]

    The unequal effects of the health–economy trade-off during the covid-19 pandemic.Nature Human Behaviour, 8(2):264–275, 2024

    Marco Pangallo, Alberto Aleta, R Maria del Rio-Chanona, Anton Pichler, David Mart ´ ın-Corral, Matteo Chinazzi, Fran¸ cois Lafond, Marco Ajelli, Esteban Moro, Yamir Moreno, et al. The unequal effects of the health–economy trade-off during the covid-19 pandemic.Nature Human Beh...

    2024

  25. [33]

    A comparison of economic agent-based model calibration methods.Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 113:103859, 2020

    Donovan Platt. A comparison of economic agent-based model calibration methods.Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 113:103859, 2020. (Cited on 1)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Robin, Jaime Cascante-Vega, Jeffrey Shaman, and Sen Pei

    Tal T. Robin, Jaime Cascante-Vega, Jeffrey Shaman, and Sen Pei. System identifiability in a time-evolving agent-based model.PLOS ONE, 19(1):e0290821, January 2024. ISSN 1932-6203. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone. 0290821. URLhttps://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290821. (Cited on 2)

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    Smaldino, Deyshawn Moser, and Agostino Merico

    Peter Steiglechner, Marijn A Keijzer, Paul E. Smaldino, Deyshawn Moser, and Agostino Merico. Noise and opinion dynamics: how ambiguity promotes pro-majority consensus in the presence of confirmation bias. Royal Society Open Science, 11(4):231071, 2024. (Cited on 3)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, St´ efan J

    Pauli Virtanen, Ralf Gommers, Travis E. Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, St´ efan J. van der Walt, Matthew Brett, Joshua Wilson, K. Jarrod Millman, Nikolay Mayorov, Andrew R. J. Nelson,...

    2020

  29. [37]

    On structural and practical identifiability.Current Opinion in Systems Biology, 25:60–69, 2021

    Franz-Georg Wieland, Adrian L Hauber, Marcus Rosenblatt, Christian T¨ onsing, and Jens Timmer. On structural and practical identifiability.Current Opinion in Systems Biology, 25:60–69, 2021. (Cited on 2)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Empirical validation of agent-based models: Alterna- tives and prospects.Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 10(2):8, 2007

    Paul Windrum, Giorgio Fagiolo, and Alessio Moneta. Empirical validation of agent-based models: Alterna- tives and prospects.Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 10(2):8, 2007. ISSN 1460-7425. (Cited on 1) 13 Supplementary Information A Connection with Rasch m...

    2007

Pith tools

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