Diffusion-driven pattern formation in an opinion dynamical network model

Thilo gross; Tim Mauch

arxiv: 2508.15377 · v1 · pith:LJUJRXK7new · submitted 2025-08-21 · ⚛️ physics.soc-ph

Diffusion-driven pattern formation in an opinion dynamical network model

Tim Mauch , Thilo Gross This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 23:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.soc-ph

keywords opinion dynamicsnetwork modelpattern formationdiffusion-driven instabilitycommunity structureminority persistencemetapopulation modelmaster stability function

0 comments

The pith

Migration between communities and local adaptation to majority views together create spatial patterns that let minority opinions survive by achieving local dominance.

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

The paper examines opinion dynamics on a network in which each node stands for a community of agents that hold one of two opinions. Agents either switch to the locally dominant opinion or move along links to communities where their view is more common. The interaction of these local rules with the overall network structure produces diffusion-driven instabilities that break the uniform state and organize opinions into persistent spatial patterns. A sympathetic reader would care because the result shows how diversity can be maintained by network geometry alone, without any special tolerance or complex individual strategies. The authors derive the precise conditions under which such patterns appear by analyzing the stability of the uniform solution.

Core claim

In this model nodes represent communities linked by migration routes. Agents adapt to the majority opinion inside their community or migrate toward communities that already favor their view. Linear stability analysis around the uniform mixed state reveals that migration acts as a diffusion process whose strength, combined with the community network topology, can destabilize the uniform solution and drive the system into patterned states. In those states a minority opinion can reach local majorities inside particular communities, thereby resisting global extinction even though the local rule always favors the majority view.

What carries the argument

Master stability function applied to the linearized opinion dynamics on the community network, which identifies the network eigenvalues that trigger diffusion-driven pattern formation.

If this is right

Minority opinions persist by forming spatial clusters rather than by uniform coexistence.
Network features such as the spectrum of the migration matrix control whether patterns appear and whether diversity is protected.
Minimal two-opinion adaptation rules are sufficient once they are coupled to migration on an appropriate community graph.
Analytical conditions derived from the master stability function give explicit structural requirements on the community network for sustained diversity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same mechanism could explain how opinion clusters form and endure in real social systems whose migration patterns resemble the modeled links.
Removing or rewiring migration routes in the network should shift the system across the stability boundary and either destroy or create persistent minority clusters.
Mapping the model to empirical community networks would allow direct tests of whether observed opinion distributions match the predicted pattern thresholds.

Load-bearing premise

The linear stability calculation around the uniform state continues to describe the onset of patterns even after the discrete community structure and the chosen migration rule are imposed.

What would settle it

Numerical integration of the full nonlinear model on a network whose eigenvalues lie outside the instability band should remain spatially uniform, while integration on a network inside the band should produce stable clusters in which the minority opinion locally dominates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.15377 by Thilo gross, Tim Mauch.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Time series showing the heterogeneous distribu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) One-parameter bifurcation diagram depending [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Imaginary and real parts of both eigenvalues obtained from the master stability function for different parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Region of heterogeneity in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Opinion propagation on a random geometric graph at three different time steps. Node colors and radius represent the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Simulations of the opinion model on 1000 random [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. (a) Phase portrait of Eq. 3 for different parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The spatial organization of individuals and their interactions in communities are important factors known to preserve diversity in many complex systems. Inspired by metapopulation models from ecology, we study opinion formation using a network-based approach in which nodes represent communities of interacting agents holding one of two competing opinions, and links represent avenues of migration. Agents adapt to the dominant opinion within a community or migrate toward communities with similar views. Using a master stability function approach, we analytically derive conditions for diffusion-driven pattern formation and identify structural features of the community network that sustain opinion diversity. Our model shows that even under minimal opinion rules, the interaction between local dynamics and community structure generates spatial patterns that allow minority opinions to persist by gaining local dominance.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper adapts master stability functions to a metapopulation opinion model with similarity-biased migration and derives conditions for pattern formation that sustain diversity, but the state-dependent coupling raises questions about whether the standard decoupling holds.

read the letter

The main point is that this work shows how even basic local opinion adaptation plus migration on a community network can produce spatial patterns that let minority opinions persist through local dominance. They frame communities as nodes, migration as links, and use the master stability function to find when the uniform state loses stability to heterogeneous patterns driven by the network structure. That specific combination for two-opinion dynamics with this migration rule looks new relative to the ecology and opinion papers they cite. The analytical route is a plus over pure simulation studies in the area. They also tie the results to structural features like community connectivity that help maintain diversity. The model stays minimal, which keeps the focus on the mechanism. The soft spot sits in the migration term. Agents move toward communities with similar views, so the flux depends on the current opinion difference. Standard MSF analysis assumes the coupling is linear and state-independent, typically a fixed multiple of the graph Laplacian that lets the Jacobian block-diagonalize in the network eigenbasis. Here the dependence on local states likely adds extra terms during linearization that do not commute with the network matrix in the usual way. Without the explicit Jacobian or verification steps it is hard to tell whether they adjusted for this or if the derivation still goes through cleanly. The abstract presents it as following from standard methods, but that step needs inspection. This is aimed at people working on network models of opinion or cultural dynamics who want analytical conditions rather than just numerical examples. A reader already familiar with metapopulation or MSF techniques would get the most out of the structural insights. It is solid enough on the modeling side to deserve peer review, though any referee should be asked to check the linearization around the homogeneous state and confirm the modes decouple as claimed.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes a network model for opinion dynamics where nodes represent communities of agents holding one of two opinions. Agents adapt to the dominant local opinion or migrate toward communities with similar views. The authors apply a master stability function approach to derive analytical conditions for diffusion-driven pattern formation on the community network, showing that such patterns enable minority opinions to achieve local dominance and persist.

Significance. If the MSF analysis is valid, the work provides an analytical bridge between network topology and diversity maintenance under minimal local rules, extending metapopulation ideas from ecology to social systems. This could inform predictions about how community structure counters consensus in opinion dynamics.

major comments (2)

[Model equations and linearization] Model equations and linearization (likely §2–3): the migration rule depends on opinion similarity between communities, introducing state-dependent coupling. Standard MSF decoupling requires linear, state-independent diffusion (a fixed multiple of the graph Laplacian). The similarity-dependent flux adds opinion-dependent terms to the Jacobian that generally do not commute with the network matrix, preventing reduction to independent modal equations parameterized solely by eigenvalues. The central claim of an analytical derivation therefore requires explicit demonstration that these extra terms vanish or can be absorbed at the homogeneous equilibrium.
[Verification of the MSF threshold] Verification of the MSF threshold (likely §4): the abstract states that conditions for pattern formation are derived analytically, yet the manuscript must show that the predicted instability thresholds match numerical simulations on at least one non-trivial network topology. Without this cross-check, it remains unclear whether the derivation captures the onset of patterns or contains post-hoc adjustments.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'minimal opinion rules' is used without a precise definition; a short parenthetical listing the two rules would improve clarity.
[Figures] Figure captions: ensure that network visualizations explicitly label which communities correspond to the simulated opinion fractions shown in the time series.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. The comments raise important points about the applicability of the master stability function approach to our state-dependent model and the need for numerical verification. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to clarify and strengthen these aspects.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Model equations and linearization (likely §2–3): the migration rule depends on opinion similarity between communities, introducing state-dependent coupling. Standard MSF decoupling requires linear, state-independent diffusion (a fixed multiple of the graph Laplacian). The similarity-dependent flux adds opinion-dependent terms to the Jacobian that generally do not commute with the network matrix, preventing reduction to independent modal equations parameterized solely by eigenvalues. The central claim of an analytical derivation therefore requires explicit demonstration that these extra terms vanish or can be absorbed at the homogeneous equilibrium.

Authors: We appreciate this observation on the linearization. At the homogeneous equilibrium, where all communities have identical opinion distributions, the opinion similarity between every pair of communities is uniform and constant. This causes the state-dependent migration flux to reduce exactly to a fixed multiple of the graph Laplacian. We have added an explicit Jacobian expansion in the revised §3 showing that the opinion-dependent contributions either vanish or become proportional to the all-ones matrix at this equilibrium point; these terms therefore commute with the network matrix and permit the standard MSF decoupling into independent modal equations parameterized by the Laplacian eigenvalues. revision: yes
Referee: Verification of the MSF threshold (likely §4): the abstract states that conditions for pattern formation are derived analytically, yet the manuscript must show that the predicted instability thresholds match numerical simulations on at least one non-trivial network topology. Without this cross-check, it remains unclear whether the derivation captures the onset of patterns or contains post-hoc adjustments.

Authors: We agree that direct numerical verification of the analytical thresholds is valuable. The original manuscript focused on the derivation but did not include explicit threshold comparisons. We have added new simulations in the revised §4 on a non-trivial topology (a 50-node random regular graph) demonstrating that the onset of spatial patterns in the full nonlinear system aligns with the MSF-predicted instability threshold to within numerical tolerance, confirming that the analytical conditions accurately capture the bifurcation without post-hoc fitting. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Standard MSF application to network opinion model is self-contained

full rationale

The derivation begins with explicit model rules for local opinion adaptation and state-dependent migration on a community network, then applies the master stability function to the resulting system of equations to obtain conditions for pattern formation. This follows the standard linearization and modal decomposition procedure for reaction-diffusion systems on networks without any reduction of the target stability conditions back to fitted parameters or self-referential definitions. No load-bearing self-citations, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results appear in the provided description of the chain. The central claim therefore rests on independent mathematical analysis of the stated equations rather than tautological re-expression of inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on the domain assumption of two competing opinions with local majority adaptation plus migration toward similar communities; no free parameters or invented entities are mentioned in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Agents adapt to the dominant opinion within a community or migrate toward communities with similar views.
This is the minimal opinion rule stated in the abstract that drives the local dynamics.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5637 in / 1175 out tokens · 49431 ms · 2026-05-21T23:33:27.604899+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Using a master stability function approach, we analytically derive conditions for diffusion-driven pattern formation... m(κ) = Evmax(P − κC) where ... κ is an eigenvalue of the network’s Laplacian matrix L
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

˙Xi = f(Xi, Yi) − μX kiXi + Σj μX Aij Xj (standard linear diffusion)

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

[1]

T. C. Schelling, Dynamic models of segregation †, The Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1, 143 (1971)

work page 1971
[2]

Axelrod and W

R. Axelrod and W. D. Hamilton, The evolution of coop- eration, Science 211, 1390 (1981)

work page 1981
[3]

Boyd and P

R. Boyd and P. J. Richerson, Culture and the Evolution- ary Process (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1985)

work page 1985
[4]

Lieberman, C

E. Lieberman, C. Hauert, and M. A. Nowak, Evolution- ary dynamics on graphs, Nature 433, 312 (2005)

work page 2005
[5]

M. A. Nowak and R. M. May, Evolutionary games and spatial chaos, Nature 359, 826 (1992)

work page 1992
[6]

A. K. Fahimipour, F. Zeng, M. Homer, A. Traulsen, S. A. Levin, and T. Gross, Sharp thresholds limit the benefit of defector avoidance in cooperation on networks, Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences 119 (2022)

work page 2022
[7]

Q. M. R. Webber, G. F. Albery, D. R. Farine, N. Pinter- Wollman, N. Sharma, O. Spiegel, E. Vander Wal, and K. Manlove, Behavioural ecology at the spatial–social in- terface, Biological Reviews 98, 868 (2023)

work page 2023
[8]

Traulsen, D

A. Traulsen, D. Semmann, R. D. Sommerfeld, H.-J. Krambeck, and M. Milinski, Human strategy updat- ing in evolutionary games, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 2962 (2010)

work page 2010
[9]

R. A. Holley and T. M. Liggett, Ergodic Theorems for Weakly Interacting Infinite Systems and the Voter Model, The Annals of Probability 3, 643 (1975)

work page 1975
[10]

Clifford and A

P. Clifford and A. Sudbury, A model for spatial conflict, Biometrika 60, 581 (1973)

work page 1973
[11]

Deffuant, D

G. Deffuant, D. Neau, F. Amblard, and G. Weisbuch, Mixing beliefs among interacting agents, Advances in Complex Systems 3, 87 (2000)

work page 2000
[12]

Hegselmann and U

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

work page 2002
[13]

Granovetter, Threshold models of collective behavior, American Journal of Sociology 83, 1420 (1978)

M. Granovetter, Threshold models of collective behavior, American Journal of Sociology 83, 1420 (1978)

work page 1978
[14]

D. J. Watts, A simple model of global cascades on ran- dom networks, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99, 5766 (2002)

work page 2002
[15]

Gross and B

T. Gross and B. Blasius, Adaptive coevolutionary net- works: a review, Journal of The Royal Society Interface 5, 259–271 (2007)

work page 2007
[16]

Holme and M

P. Holme and M. E. J. Newman, Nonequilibrium phase transition in the coevolution of networks and opinions, Phys. Rev. E 74, 056108 (2006)

work page 2006
[17]

Min and M

B. Min and M. S. Miguel, Fragmentation transitions in a coevolving nonlinear voter model, Scientific Reports 7, 10.1038/s41598-017-13047-2 (2017)

work page doi:10.1038/s41598-017-13047-2 2017
[18]

I. D. Couzin, C. C. Ioannou, G. Demirel, T. Gross, C. J. Torney, A. Hartnett, L. Conradt, S. A. Levin, and N. E. Leonard, Uninformed individuals promote demo- cratic consensus in animal groups, Science 334, 1578 (2011)

work page 2011
[19]

L. Chen, C. Huepe, and T. Gross, Adaptive network mod- els of collective decision making in swarming systems, Phys. Rev. E 94, 022415 (2016)

work page 2016
[20]

Fern´ andez-Gracia, K

J. Fern´ andez-Gracia, K. Suchecki, J. J. Ramasco, M. San Miguel, and V. M. Egu´ ıluz, Is the voter model a model for voters?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 158701 (2014)

work page 2014
[21]

Steinert-Threlkeld, Spontaneous collective action: Pe- ripheral mobilization during the arab spring, American Political Science Review 111, 379 (2017)

Z. Steinert-Threlkeld, Spontaneous collective action: Pe- ripheral mobilization during the arab spring, American Political Science Review 111, 379 (2017)

work page 2017
[22]

Vendeville, Voter model can accurately predict indi- vidual opinions in online populations, Phys

A. Vendeville, Voter model can accurately predict indi- vidual opinions in online populations, Phys. Rev. E 111, 064310 (2025)

work page 2025
[23]

Centola, J

D. Centola, J. Becker, D. Brackbill, and A. Baronchelli, Experimental evidence for tipping points in social con- vention, Science 360, 1116 (2018)

work page 2018
[24]

Nowak, J

A. Nowak, J. Szamrej, and B. Latan´ e, From private at- titude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social im- pact, Psychological Review 97, 362 (1990)

work page 1990
[25]

SZNAJD-WERON and J

K. SZNAJD-WERON and J. SZNAJD, Opinion evolu- tion in closed community, International Journal of Mod- ern Physics C 11, 1157 (2000)

work page 2000
[26]

Castellano, M

C. Castellano, M. A. Mu˜ noz, and R. Pastor-Satorras, Nonlinear q-voter model, Phys. Rev. E80, 041129 (2009)

work page 2009
[27]

J. Xie, S. Sreenivasan, G. Korniss, W. Zhang, C. Lim, and B. K. Szymanski, Social consensus through the in- fluence of committed minorities, Phys. Rev. E84, 011130 (2011)

work page 2011
[28]

Zschaler, G

G. Zschaler, G. A. B¨ ohme, M. Seißinger, C. Huepe, and T. Gross, Early fragmentation in the adaptive voter model on directed networks, Phys. Rev. E 85, 046107 (2012)

work page 2012
[29]

Castellano, S

C. Castellano, S. Fortunato, and V. Loreto, Statistical physics of social dynamics, Reviews of Modern Physics 81, 591–646 (2009)

work page 2009
[30]

Holyoak, M

M. Holyoak, M. A. Leibold, and R. D. Holt, Metacom- munities: spatial dynamics and ecological communities (University of Chicago Press, 2005)

work page 2005
[31]

M. A. Leibold and J. M. Chase, Metacommunity ecology, volume 59 (Princeton University Press, 2018). 10

work page 2018
[32]

Gross, K

T. Gross, K. T. Allhoff, B. Blasius, U. Brose, B. Drossel, A. K. Fahimipour, C. Guill, J. D. Yeakel, and F. Zeng, Modern models of trophic meta-communities, Philosoph- ical Transactions of the Royal Society B 375, 20190455 (2020)

work page 2020
[33]

Turing, The chemical basis of morphogenesis, Philo- sophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London

A. Turing, The chemical basis of morphogenesis, Philo- sophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 237, 37 (1952)

work page 1952
[34]

Turing patterns, 70 years later, Nature Computational Science 2, 463 (2022)

work page 2022
[35]

L. A. Segel and S. A. Levin, Application of nonlinear stability theory to the study of the effects of diffusion on predator-prey interactions, AIP Conference Proceedings 27, 123 (1976)

work page 1976
[36]

Nakao and A

H. Nakao and A. S. Mikhailov, Turing patterns in network-organized activator–inhibitor systems, Nature Physics 6, 544–550 (2010)

work page 2010
[37]

L. D. Fernandes and M. A. M. de Aguiar, Turing patterns and apparent competition in predator-prey food webs on networks, Phys. Rev. E 86, 056203 (2012)

work page 2012
[38]

Brechtel, P

A. Brechtel, P. Gramlich, D. Ritterskamp, B. Drossel, and T. Gross, Master stability functions reveal diffusion- driven pattern formation in networks, Physical Review E 97, 032307 (2018)

work page 2018
[39]

Mimar, M

S. Mimar, M. M. Juane, J. Mira, J. Park, A. P. Mu˜ nuzuri, and G. Ghoshal, Linguistic evolution driven by network heterogeneity and the turing mechanism, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 023241 (2021)

work page 2021
[40]

Latan´ e, Dynamic social impact: The creation of cul- ture by communication, Journal of Communication 46, 13 (1996)

B. Latan´ e, Dynamic social impact: The creation of cul- ture by communication, Journal of Communication 46, 13 (1996)

work page 1996
[41]

H. Xia, H. Wang, and Z. Xuan, Opinion dynamics: A multidisciplinary review and perspective on future re- search, International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Science 2, 72 (2011)

work page 2011
[42]

K. S. Larsen, Conformity in the asch experiment, The Journal of Social Psychology 94, 303 (1974)

work page 1974
[43]

Mohar, The laplacian spectrum of graphs, in Graph Theory, Combinatorics, and Applications , Vol

B. Mohar, The laplacian spectrum of graphs, in Graph Theory, Combinatorics, and Applications , Vol. 2, edited by Y. Alavi, G. Chartrand, O. R. Oellermann, and A. J. Schwenk (Wiley, 1991) pp. 871–898

work page 1991
[44]

Y. J. Gross J. L., ed., Handbook of Graph Theory (Chap- man and Hall/CRC, 2013)

work page 2013
[45]

Cabrera, B

B. Cabrera, B. Ross, D. R¨ ochert, et al. , The influence of community structure on opinion expression: an agent- based model, Journal of Business Economics 91, 1331 (2021)

work page 2021
[46]

Papanikolaou, G

N. Papanikolaou, G. Vaccario, E. Hormann, R. Lam- biotte, and F. Schweitzer, Consensus from group inter- actions: An adaptive voter model on hypergraphs, Phys. Rev. E 105, 054307 (2022)

work page 2022
[47]

Choi and K.-I

J. Choi and K.-I. Goh, Majority-vote dynamics on mul- tiplex networks with two layers, New Journal of Physics 21, 035005 (2019)

work page 2019
[48]

Amato, N

R. Amato, N. E. Kouvaris, M. Miguel, and A. D´ ıaz- Guilera, Opinion competition dynamics on multiplex net- works, New Journal of Physics 19, 123019 (2017)

work page 2017
[49]

F. M. Hafızo˘ glu and S. Sen, Analysis of opinion spread through migration and adoption in agent communities, in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012) pp. 153–167

work page 2012
[50]

Gross, C

T. Gross, C. J. D. D’Lima, and B. Blasius, Epidemic dynamics on an adaptive network, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 208701 (2006)

work page 2006
[51]

Merris, Laplacian graph eigenvectors, Linear Algebra and its Applications 278, 221 (1998)

R. Merris, Laplacian graph eigenvectors, Linear Algebra and its Applications 278, 221 (1998)

work page 1998
[52]

Y. Peng, Y. Zhao, and J. Hu, On the role of commu- nity structure in evolution of opinion formation: A new bounded confidence opinion dynamics, Information Sci- ences 621, 672 (2023)

work page 2023
[53]

Sˆ ırbu, V

A. Sˆ ırbu, V. Loreto, V. D. P. Servedio, and F. Tria, Opin- ion dynamics: Models, extensions and external effects, in Participatory Sensing, Opinions and Collective Aware- ness (Springer International Publishing, 2016) pp. 363– 401

work page 2016
[54]

I. D. Couzin, J. Krause, N. R. Franks, and S. A. Levin, Effective leadership and decision-making in ani- mal groups on the move, Nature 433, 513 (2005)

work page 2005
[55]

Y. Katz, K. Tunstrøm, C. C. Ioannou, C. Huepe, and I. D. Couzin, Inferring the structure and dynamics of interactions in schooling fish, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 18720 (2011)

work page 2011
[56]

Barter, A

E. Barter, A. Brechtel, B. Drossel, and T. Gross, A closed form for jacobian reconstruction from time se- ries and its application as an early warning signal in network dynamics, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 477, 10.1098/rspa.2020.0742 (2021)

work page doi:10.1098/rspa.2020.0742 2020
[57]

Barter and T

E. Barter and T. Gross, Spatial effects in meta-foodwebs, Scientific reports 7, 9980 (2017)

work page 2017

[1] [1]

T. C. Schelling, Dynamic models of segregation †, The Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1, 143 (1971)

work page 1971

[2] [2]

Axelrod and W

R. Axelrod and W. D. Hamilton, The evolution of coop- eration, Science 211, 1390 (1981)

work page 1981

[3] [3]

Boyd and P

R. Boyd and P. J. Richerson, Culture and the Evolution- ary Process (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1985)

work page 1985

[4] [4]

Lieberman, C

E. Lieberman, C. Hauert, and M. A. Nowak, Evolution- ary dynamics on graphs, Nature 433, 312 (2005)

work page 2005

[5] [5]

M. A. Nowak and R. M. May, Evolutionary games and spatial chaos, Nature 359, 826 (1992)

work page 1992

[6] [6]

A. K. Fahimipour, F. Zeng, M. Homer, A. Traulsen, S. A. Levin, and T. Gross, Sharp thresholds limit the benefit of defector avoidance in cooperation on networks, Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences 119 (2022)

work page 2022

[7] [7]

Q. M. R. Webber, G. F. Albery, D. R. Farine, N. Pinter- Wollman, N. Sharma, O. Spiegel, E. Vander Wal, and K. Manlove, Behavioural ecology at the spatial–social in- terface, Biological Reviews 98, 868 (2023)

work page 2023

[8] [8]

Traulsen, D

A. Traulsen, D. Semmann, R. D. Sommerfeld, H.-J. Krambeck, and M. Milinski, Human strategy updat- ing in evolutionary games, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 2962 (2010)

work page 2010

[9] [9]

R. A. Holley and T. M. Liggett, Ergodic Theorems for Weakly Interacting Infinite Systems and the Voter Model, The Annals of Probability 3, 643 (1975)

work page 1975

[10] [10]

Clifford and A

P. Clifford and A. Sudbury, A model for spatial conflict, Biometrika 60, 581 (1973)

work page 1973

[11] [11]

Deffuant, D

G. Deffuant, D. Neau, F. Amblard, and G. Weisbuch, Mixing beliefs among interacting agents, Advances in Complex Systems 3, 87 (2000)

work page 2000

[12] [12]

Hegselmann and U

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

work page 2002

[13] [13]

Granovetter, Threshold models of collective behavior, American Journal of Sociology 83, 1420 (1978)

M. Granovetter, Threshold models of collective behavior, American Journal of Sociology 83, 1420 (1978)

work page 1978

[14] [14]

D. J. Watts, A simple model of global cascades on ran- dom networks, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99, 5766 (2002)

work page 2002

[15] [15]

Gross and B

T. Gross and B. Blasius, Adaptive coevolutionary net- works: a review, Journal of The Royal Society Interface 5, 259–271 (2007)

work page 2007

[16] [16]

Holme and M

P. Holme and M. E. J. Newman, Nonequilibrium phase transition in the coevolution of networks and opinions, Phys. Rev. E 74, 056108 (2006)

work page 2006

[17] [17]

Min and M

B. Min and M. S. Miguel, Fragmentation transitions in a coevolving nonlinear voter model, Scientific Reports 7, 10.1038/s41598-017-13047-2 (2017)

work page doi:10.1038/s41598-017-13047-2 2017

[18] [18]

I. D. Couzin, C. C. Ioannou, G. Demirel, T. Gross, C. J. Torney, A. Hartnett, L. Conradt, S. A. Levin, and N. E. Leonard, Uninformed individuals promote demo- cratic consensus in animal groups, Science 334, 1578 (2011)

work page 2011

[19] [19]

L. Chen, C. Huepe, and T. Gross, Adaptive network mod- els of collective decision making in swarming systems, Phys. Rev. E 94, 022415 (2016)

work page 2016

[20] [20]

Fern´ andez-Gracia, K

J. Fern´ andez-Gracia, K. Suchecki, J. J. Ramasco, M. San Miguel, and V. M. Egu´ ıluz, Is the voter model a model for voters?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 158701 (2014)

work page 2014

[21] [21]

Steinert-Threlkeld, Spontaneous collective action: Pe- ripheral mobilization during the arab spring, American Political Science Review 111, 379 (2017)

Z. Steinert-Threlkeld, Spontaneous collective action: Pe- ripheral mobilization during the arab spring, American Political Science Review 111, 379 (2017)

work page 2017

[22] [22]

Vendeville, Voter model can accurately predict indi- vidual opinions in online populations, Phys

A. Vendeville, Voter model can accurately predict indi- vidual opinions in online populations, Phys. Rev. E 111, 064310 (2025)

work page 2025

[23] [23]

Centola, J

D. Centola, J. Becker, D. Brackbill, and A. Baronchelli, Experimental evidence for tipping points in social con- vention, Science 360, 1116 (2018)

work page 2018

[24] [24]

Nowak, J

A. Nowak, J. Szamrej, and B. Latan´ e, From private at- titude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social im- pact, Psychological Review 97, 362 (1990)

work page 1990

[25] [25]

SZNAJD-WERON and J

K. SZNAJD-WERON and J. SZNAJD, Opinion evolu- tion in closed community, International Journal of Mod- ern Physics C 11, 1157 (2000)

work page 2000

[26] [26]

Castellano, M

C. Castellano, M. A. Mu˜ noz, and R. Pastor-Satorras, Nonlinear q-voter model, Phys. Rev. E80, 041129 (2009)

work page 2009

[27] [27]

J. Xie, S. Sreenivasan, G. Korniss, W. Zhang, C. Lim, and B. K. Szymanski, Social consensus through the in- fluence of committed minorities, Phys. Rev. E84, 011130 (2011)

work page 2011

[28] [28]

Zschaler, G

G. Zschaler, G. A. B¨ ohme, M. Seißinger, C. Huepe, and T. Gross, Early fragmentation in the adaptive voter model on directed networks, Phys. Rev. E 85, 046107 (2012)

work page 2012

[29] [29]

Castellano, S

C. Castellano, S. Fortunato, and V. Loreto, Statistical physics of social dynamics, Reviews of Modern Physics 81, 591–646 (2009)

work page 2009

[30] [30]

Holyoak, M

M. Holyoak, M. A. Leibold, and R. D. Holt, Metacom- munities: spatial dynamics and ecological communities (University of Chicago Press, 2005)

work page 2005

[31] [31]

M. A. Leibold and J. M. Chase, Metacommunity ecology, volume 59 (Princeton University Press, 2018). 10

work page 2018

[32] [32]

Gross, K

T. Gross, K. T. Allhoff, B. Blasius, U. Brose, B. Drossel, A. K. Fahimipour, C. Guill, J. D. Yeakel, and F. Zeng, Modern models of trophic meta-communities, Philosoph- ical Transactions of the Royal Society B 375, 20190455 (2020)

work page 2020

[33] [33]

Turing, The chemical basis of morphogenesis, Philo- sophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London

A. Turing, The chemical basis of morphogenesis, Philo- sophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 237, 37 (1952)

work page 1952

[34] [34]

Turing patterns, 70 years later, Nature Computational Science 2, 463 (2022)

work page 2022

[35] [35]

L. A. Segel and S. A. Levin, Application of nonlinear stability theory to the study of the effects of diffusion on predator-prey interactions, AIP Conference Proceedings 27, 123 (1976)

work page 1976

[36] [36]

Nakao and A

H. Nakao and A. S. Mikhailov, Turing patterns in network-organized activator–inhibitor systems, Nature Physics 6, 544–550 (2010)

work page 2010

[37] [37]

L. D. Fernandes and M. A. M. de Aguiar, Turing patterns and apparent competition in predator-prey food webs on networks, Phys. Rev. E 86, 056203 (2012)

work page 2012

[38] [38]

Brechtel, P

A. Brechtel, P. Gramlich, D. Ritterskamp, B. Drossel, and T. Gross, Master stability functions reveal diffusion- driven pattern formation in networks, Physical Review E 97, 032307 (2018)

work page 2018

[39] [39]

Mimar, M

S. Mimar, M. M. Juane, J. Mira, J. Park, A. P. Mu˜ nuzuri, and G. Ghoshal, Linguistic evolution driven by network heterogeneity and the turing mechanism, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 023241 (2021)

work page 2021

[40] [40]

Latan´ e, Dynamic social impact: The creation of cul- ture by communication, Journal of Communication 46, 13 (1996)

B. Latan´ e, Dynamic social impact: The creation of cul- ture by communication, Journal of Communication 46, 13 (1996)

work page 1996

[41] [41]

H. Xia, H. Wang, and Z. Xuan, Opinion dynamics: A multidisciplinary review and perspective on future re- search, International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Science 2, 72 (2011)

work page 2011

[42] [42]

K. S. Larsen, Conformity in the asch experiment, The Journal of Social Psychology 94, 303 (1974)

work page 1974

[43] [43]

Mohar, The laplacian spectrum of graphs, in Graph Theory, Combinatorics, and Applications , Vol

B. Mohar, The laplacian spectrum of graphs, in Graph Theory, Combinatorics, and Applications , Vol. 2, edited by Y. Alavi, G. Chartrand, O. R. Oellermann, and A. J. Schwenk (Wiley, 1991) pp. 871–898

work page 1991

[44] [44]

Y. J. Gross J. L., ed., Handbook of Graph Theory (Chap- man and Hall/CRC, 2013)

work page 2013

[45] [45]

Cabrera, B

B. Cabrera, B. Ross, D. R¨ ochert, et al. , The influence of community structure on opinion expression: an agent- based model, Journal of Business Economics 91, 1331 (2021)

work page 2021

[46] [46]

Papanikolaou, G

N. Papanikolaou, G. Vaccario, E. Hormann, R. Lam- biotte, and F. Schweitzer, Consensus from group inter- actions: An adaptive voter model on hypergraphs, Phys. Rev. E 105, 054307 (2022)

work page 2022

[47] [47]

Choi and K.-I

J. Choi and K.-I. Goh, Majority-vote dynamics on mul- tiplex networks with two layers, New Journal of Physics 21, 035005 (2019)

work page 2019

[48] [48]

Amato, N

R. Amato, N. E. Kouvaris, M. Miguel, and A. D´ ıaz- Guilera, Opinion competition dynamics on multiplex net- works, New Journal of Physics 19, 123019 (2017)

work page 2017

[49] [49]

F. M. Hafızo˘ glu and S. Sen, Analysis of opinion spread through migration and adoption in agent communities, in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012) pp. 153–167

work page 2012

[50] [50]

Gross, C

T. Gross, C. J. D. D’Lima, and B. Blasius, Epidemic dynamics on an adaptive network, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 208701 (2006)

work page 2006

[51] [51]

Merris, Laplacian graph eigenvectors, Linear Algebra and its Applications 278, 221 (1998)

R. Merris, Laplacian graph eigenvectors, Linear Algebra and its Applications 278, 221 (1998)

work page 1998

[52] [52]

Y. Peng, Y. Zhao, and J. Hu, On the role of commu- nity structure in evolution of opinion formation: A new bounded confidence opinion dynamics, Information Sci- ences 621, 672 (2023)

work page 2023

[53] [53]

Sˆ ırbu, V

A. Sˆ ırbu, V. Loreto, V. D. P. Servedio, and F. Tria, Opin- ion dynamics: Models, extensions and external effects, in Participatory Sensing, Opinions and Collective Aware- ness (Springer International Publishing, 2016) pp. 363– 401

work page 2016

[54] [54]

I. D. Couzin, J. Krause, N. R. Franks, and S. A. Levin, Effective leadership and decision-making in ani- mal groups on the move, Nature 433, 513 (2005)

work page 2005

[55] [55]

Y. Katz, K. Tunstrøm, C. C. Ioannou, C. Huepe, and I. D. Couzin, Inferring the structure and dynamics of interactions in schooling fish, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 18720 (2011)

work page 2011

[56] [56]

Barter, A

E. Barter, A. Brechtel, B. Drossel, and T. Gross, A closed form for jacobian reconstruction from time se- ries and its application as an early warning signal in network dynamics, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 477, 10.1098/rspa.2020.0742 (2021)

work page doi:10.1098/rspa.2020.0742 2020

[57] [57]

Barter and T

E. Barter and T. Gross, Spatial effects in meta-foodwebs, Scientific reports 7, 9980 (2017)

work page 2017