Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Pair approximation for the $q$-voter model with independence on multiplex networks

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A homogeneous pair approximation derived for two-state spin models on multiplex networks is shown to quantitatively predict the ferromagnetic transition of the q-voter model with independence when the layer mean degree is much larger than…

desk verdict A parameter-free homogeneous PA for q-voter dynamics on duplex networks, with closed critical-point formulas and honest failure scoping; worth refereeing once the q=3/q=4 label error in Table I and Fig. 1 is fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00660 v2 pith:QQJRKHLU submitted 2019-08-01 cond-mat.stat-mech

Tomasz Gradowski , Andrzej Krawiecki This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords q-votermodelpairapproximationmultiplexnetworksopiniondynamicsferromagnetictransitioncomplexindependencenoiseduplex
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 establishes a homogeneous pair approximation for any two-state spin model with up-down symmetry on a multiplex network, meaning two or more layers of edges over the same nodes, and applies it to the q-voter model with independence, where agents either follow a unanimous q-neighbor lobby or act independently with probability p. The central aim is to show that this approximation, despite using only the mean degree $\langle k\rangle$ of each layer, captures the ferromagnetic transition between disordered and unanimous opinion states. For two layers with identical degree distributions and either the LOCAL&AND or GLOBAL&AND update rule, the theory predicts the order of the transition, the critical values of p, and the width of hysteresis, provided $\langle k\rangle$ is substantially larger than q. Monte Carlo simulations confirm quantitative agreement on homogeneous random graphs, random regular graphs, and weakly scale-free layers; agreement is only qualitative on strongly scale-free layers and fails for small $\langle k\rangle$ comparable to q.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the homogeneous pair approximation: instead of tracking every degree class, it tracks only the global concentration $c$ of up spins and the concentrations $b^{(A)}$, $b^{(B)}$ of active bonds (edges joining opposite spins) in each layer, and closes the dynamics by assuming that the numbers $i^{(A)}$, $i^{(B)}$ of active bonds around a node are independent binomial variables with degree-independent probabilities $\theta_j = b/(2c)$ or the analogous expression for the other layer. This closure, together with the adiabatic assumption $c_{k^{(A)},k^{(B)},\uparrow}\approx c$, yields the closed two-equation systems Eq. (25) for LOCAL&AND and Eq. (30) for GLOBAL&AND, in which the degree distribution enters only through $\langle k\rangle$. The machinery carries the argument because it converts the many-node stochastic process into a low-dimensional dynamical system whose fixed points and stability can be computed analytically, including the critical $p^\star$ formulas obtained from linear stability analysis of the paramagnetic fixed point.

What would settle it

Simulate the LOCAL&AND q-voter model on two-layer random regular graphs and on homogeneous random graphs with the same mean degree, both with $\langle k\rangle\gg q$, and compare the measured critical p: if the two agree within error, the mean-degree-only closure is supported; if they differ, the claim that only $\langle k\rangle$ matters is falsified. Alternatively, measure the empirical distribution of active-bond counts around high-degree versus low-degree nodes in a strongly scale-free layer; a visible deviation from the single-$\theta$ binomial distribution would isolate the mechanism behind the paper's only-qualitative agreement there.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the homogeneous pair approximation, developed here for a general two-state spin model with up-down symmetry on a multiplex network, captures the ferromagnetic transition of the q-voter model with independence on two layers with identical degree distributions and full node overlap. The approximation reduces the stochastic many-node dynamics to a two-variable system for the concentration $c$ of up spins and the active-bond concentration $b$, with all degree-distribution information entering only through the mean degree $\langle k\rangle$. For the LOCAL&AND update rule, where the spin-flip rate factorizes across layers, the fixed-point analysis predicts continuous transitions for $q=2,3$, a tricritical point at $q=4$, and discontinuous transitions with hysteresis for $q\geq 5$; for GLOBAL&AND, the system is equivalent to the $2q$-voter model with independence on an aggregate monoplex network of mean degree $2\langle k\rangle$, giving continuous transitions for $q=2$ and discontinuous ones for $q\geq 3$. Linear stability analysis of the paramagnetic fixed point yields the closed-form critical value $p^\star = 2(2q-1)(\theta^\star)^q/[1+2(2q-1)(\theta^\star)^q]$ for LOCAL&AND, with $(\theta^\star)^q$ replaced by $(\theta^\star)^{2q}$ for GLOBAL&AND, where $\theta^\star = (\langle k\rangle-1)/(2\langle k\rangle-1)$, recovering the mean-field result as $\langle k\rangle\to\infty$. The paper asserts, and supports with Monte Carlo simulations, that these predictions are quantitatively correct when $\langle k\rangle\gg q$ on homogeneous random, random regular, and weakly scale-free layers, only qualitatively correct on strongly scale-free layers, and in general qualitatively wrong when $\langle k\rangle$ is small and comparable to $q$.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that, around any chosen agent, the number of disagreeing neighbors in each layer is drawn from an independent binomial distribution with a single layer-wide average rate, so every degree-distribution detail beyond the mean degree drops out of the predictions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the approximation is right, the GLOBAL&AND q-voter model on a two-layer network is dynamically equivalent to the $2q$-voter model with independence on a single aggregate network of mean degree $2\langle k\rangle$, a fact confirmed by simulation for all topologies tested.
  • The closed-form critical values $p^\star$ for both update rules give the location of the continuous transition, or the lower spinodal of the discontinuous one, directly from $q$ and $\langle k\rangle$, with the mean-field complete-graph values recovered as $\langle k\rangle\to\infty$.
  • The first-order versus second-order boundary is predicted to lie at $q=4$ for LOCAL&AND, a tricritical point, and between $q=2$ and $q=3$ for GLOBAL&AND, independent of layer topology in the regime $\langle k\rangle\gg q$.
  • Quantitative agreement is expected only when $\langle k\rangle\gg q$ and the layer degree distributions have finite second moment; strongly scale-free layers with $2<\lambda<3$ require a heterogeneous pair approximation.
  • The same pair-approximation framework extends to other binary-state models with up-down symmetry on multiplex networks, such as the q-neighbor Ising model, and to networks with more than two layers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper: because the homogeneous PA compresses all topology into $\langle k\rangle$, it predicts that two-layer networks with identical mean degree but very different degree distributions should show identical critical p and hysteresis width; measuring this directly on, say, bimodal versus regular random graphs would test the limits of the closure.
  • Going beyond the paper: the same binomial closure suggests that the quantitative failure on strongly scale-free layers should be attributable to degree-dependent active-bond counts, so a degree-resolved heterogeneous PA should restore quantitative accuracy; the paper itself flags this as the natural next step.
  • Going beyond the paper: the model with small mean degree near q may be a useful testbed for corrections to PA, because the independence assumption is most strained when lobbies are a large fraction of a node's neighborhood and the same neighbor can appear in both layers' lobbies.
  • Going beyond the paper: the predicted tricritical point at $q=4$ for LOCAL&AND could be located precisely by simulating $q=4$ on random regular graphs across a range of $\langle k\rangle$ and checking whether the magnetization jump vanishes continuously at the PA's stability boundary.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends the homogeneous pair approximation (PA) to two-state spin models on multiplex networks with fully overlapping layers, and applies it to the q-voter model with independence on duplex networks under the LOCAL&AND and GLOBAL&AND update rules. For two identically distributed layers the PA reduces to a two-variable system (Eqs. (25) and (30)) depending only on the mean degree <k>, and the authors derive closed-form expressions for the instability point of the paramagnetic phase (Eqs. (47)-(50)). The theoretical predictions are compared with Monte Carlo simulations on random regular, Erdős-Rényi, and scale-free layers. The central claim, stated in the abstract, is that for mean degree substantially larger than q the homogeneous PA gives quantitative agreement for homogeneous and weakly heterogeneous layers, qualitative agreement for strongly heterogeneous scale-free layers, and can be qualitatively wrong when <k> is comparable to q.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful methodological contribution: it provides a parameter-free analytic treatment of a nontrivial multiplex opinion-dynamics model, with transparent derivations and explicit closed-form critical-point formulas that reproduce the mean-field limit as <k>→∞. The paper is honest about the scope of the approximation, explicitly reporting failure regimes for small <k> and for strongly heterogeneous layers, and it names the uncontrolled assumptions (independent binomial active-bond counts, degree-independent θ_j). The comparison to Monte Carlo data for <k>≫q on RRGs, ERGs, and weakly heterogeneous SF networks is convincing and would be a solid basis for the central claim once the data-labeling issue below is resolved.

major comments (1)
  1. [Table I and Fig. 1, Sec. IV.B] The data presented as q=4 are quantitatively inconsistent with q=4 and instead match the q=3 predictions of the paper's own Eqs. (47)-(48). For an RRG with <k>=10, Eq. (48) gives θ*=(10-1)/(20-1)=0.4737, and Eq. (47) for q=3 gives p*=0.5152, exactly the value in Table I; for q=4 the same formula gives p*≈0.413, not 0.5152. Likewise, the values 0.535 and 0.541 for SF λ=3.0 and λ=2.5 with kmin=10 are precisely the q=3 results for <k>=20 and <k>=30. Thus Table I and Fig. 1 do not support the stated q=4 finite-size scaling analysis: either the simulations were actually run with q=3 and the labels are wrong, or the quoted critical values are not those of the model described. This must be corrected and the affected statements in Sec. IV.B about the q=4 transition and its exponents re-examined.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption] The last panel of Fig. 4 is labeled (e) twice; the panel showing q=6, <k>=7 should be labeled (f), and the in-text references to subpanels (Fig. 3(a,b), etc.) in Sec. IV.C should be checked against the correct figure number.
  2. [Sec. III.B and Sec. III.C] The cross-reference in Sec. III.B to 'Sec. III.B' for the application to the q-voter model should read Sec. III.C, and the opening of Sec. III.C referring to 'Sec. III.A' should read Sec. III.B.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption spells 'GLOBA&AND'; this should be 'GLOBAL&AND'.
  4. [Figs. 2-5 and Table I] The Monte Carlo data are presented without error bars or sample counts; adding these (at least for the phase-diagram points and critical values) would strengthen the quantitative comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the homogeneous pair approximation is derived from the model rates without fitted parameters, and the simulation comparisons are genuinely predictive.

full rationale

The paper derives the homogeneous pair approximation from the spin-flip rates of the q-voter model on multiplex networks in Eqs. (12)-(30), using only the stated binomial independence assumption and algebraic identities. No simulation data are used to fit any parameter; the critical-point formulas in Eqs. (47)-(50) follow analytically from linear stability analysis of the PM fixed point. The comparison with Monte Carlo results is therefore a genuine test of the theory, and the paper itself reports where the approximation fails, e.g. for small mean degree and for strongly heterogeneous scale-free layers. The self-citations (Refs. 26, 42, 43) are contextual references to prior work on related models and are not load-bearing for the central derivation; the monoplex pair-approximation ingredients are taken from external literature (e.g. Ref. [17]) and are reused as standard results rather than as self-supporting claims. The GLOBAL&AND equivalence to an aggregate 2q-voter network is derived internally in Sec. III.C rather than assumed. No step reduces by construction to its own input, so there is no circularity.

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

The central claim is paid for by the four approximation assumptions listed above; no parameters are fitted to the simulation output. The paper introduces no new physical entities, particles, forces, or conserved quantities.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Binomial moment identity: sum_{i=0}^{k} B_{k,i}(theta) i!(k-q)!/k!(i-q)! = theta^q.
    Used to convert spin-flip rates into powers of theta in Eq. (23), following Ref. [17].
  • domain assumption Layer independence and factorization: P(kA,kB)=P(kA)P(kB), with independently generated layers, no degree correlations, negligible edge overlap.
    Assumed in Sec. II.B; allows factorization of rates and joint degree sums in the PA derivation.
  • domain assumption Homogeneous PA and adiabatic reduction: active-bond concentrations b(A), b(B) are degree-independent and c_{kA,kB,up} can be replaced by c.
    Stated in Sec. III.B; reduces dynamics to two variables c and b and erases degree-distribution detail.
  • domain assumption Independent binomial active-bond counts: the numbers i(A), i(B) of active bonds around a node follow independent binomial distributions with parameters theta(A)_j, theta(B)_j.
    Used in Eq. (19); neglects correlations between neighboring spin orientations and cross-layer edge overlaps.
  • domain assumption Only stationary solutions are considered.
    Sec. I and III.B state that fluctuations and transient dynamics are outside the paper's scope.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pair approximation for the $q$-voter model with independence on multiplex networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QQJRKHLU

@misc{pith2026190800660,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pair approximation for the $q$-voter model with independence on multiplex networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QQJRKHLU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00660}
}
abstract

The $q$-voter model with independence is investigated on multiplex networks with fully overlapping layers in the form of various complex networks corresponding to different levels of social influence. Detailed studies are performed for the model on multiplex networks with two layers with identical degree distributions, obeying the LOCAL&AND and GLOBAL&AND spin update rules differing by the way in which the $q$-lobbies of neighbors within different layers exert their joint influence on the opinion of a given agent. Homogeneous pair approximation is derived for a general case of a two-state spin model on a multiplex network and its predictions are compared with results of Monte Carlo simulations of the above-mentioned $q$-voter model with independence for a broad range of parameters. As the parameter controlling the level of agents' independence is changed ferromagnetic phase transition occurs which can be first- or second-order, depending on the size of the lobby $q$. Details of this transition, e.g., position of the critical points, depend on the topology and other features, e.g., the mean degree of nodes of the layers. If the mean degree of nodes in the layers is substantially larger than the size of the $q$-lobby good agreement is obtained between numerical results and theoretical predictions based on the homogeneous pair approximation concerning the order and details of the ferromagnetic transition. In the case of the model on multiplex networks with layers in the form of homogeneous Erdo\"s-R\'enyi and random regular graphs as well as weakly heterogeneous scale-free networks this agreement is quantitative, while in the case of layers in the form of strongly heterogeneous scale-free networks it is only qualitative. If the mean degree of nodes is small and comparable with $q$ predictions of the homogeneous PA are in general even qualitatively wrong.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00660 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Results of MC simulations of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. LOCAL&AND rule on duplex network. (a): Concentration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. GLOBA&AND rule on duplex network. (a): Concentration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison between the lower ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Magnetization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. N. Dorogovtsev, A. V. Goltsev, and J. F. F. Mendes, Critical phenomena in complex networks, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1276 (2008)

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    (22) by changing the superscript A intoB

    (22) The formula for f ( i(B), ˆp ⏐⏐k(B)) can be obtained from Eq. (22) by changing the superscript A intoB. The averaged ratesγ+,γ− in Eq. (12) for nodes with given degrees k(A),k(B) can be obtained as averages of the spin flip rate, Eq. (22), over the binomial distributions of the numbers of active bonds attached to such nodes within the layers G(A) and ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    (27) The rates γ+, γ− in Eq. (13) are γ+ ( ck(A),k(B),↑,θ (A) ↓ ,θ (B) ↓ ,p ) = ( 1−ck(A),k(B),↑ )[ (1−p)θ(A)q ↓ θ(B)q ↓ + p 2 ] , γ− ( ck(A),k(B),↑,θ (A) ↑ ,θ (B) ↑ ,p ) =ck(A),k(B),↑ [ (1−p)θ(A)q ↑ θ(B)q ↑ + p 2 ] . (28) Assuming again that layers of the MN are independently generated so that P ( k(A),k (B)) =P ( k(A)) P ( k(B)) , sub- stituting Eq. (28...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Arenas, A

    A. Arenas, A. D´ ıaz-Guilera, J. Kurths, Y. Moreno, and Ch. Zhou, Synchronization in complex networks, Phys. Rep. 469, 93 (2008)

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Barrat, M

    A. Barrat, M. Barthlemy, and A. Vespignani, Dynamical Processes on Complex Networks, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Pastor-Satorras, C

    R. Pastor-Satorras, C. Castellano, P. Van Mieghem, and A. Vespignani, Epidemic processes in complex networks, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 925 (2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

    Barab´ asi, Network Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2016)

    A.-L. Barab´ asi, Network Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Castellano, S

    C. Castellano, S. Fortunato, and V. Loreto, Statistical physics of social dynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 591 (2009)

    2009

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Albert and A.-L

    R. Albert and A.-L. Barab´ asi, Statistical mechanics of complex networks, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 47 (2002)

    2002

  2. [10]

    Vazquez and V

    F. Vazquez and V. M. Egu´ ıluz, Analytical solution of the voter model on uncorrelated networks, New J. Phys. 10, 063011 (2008)

    2008

  3. [11]

    Sood and S

    V. Sood and S. Redner, Voter model on heterogeneous graphs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 178701 (2005)

    2005

  4. [12]

    V. Sood, T. Antal, and S. Redner, Voter models on heterogeneous networks, Phys. Rev. E 77, 041121 (2008)

    2008

  5. [13]

    Przyby la, K

    P. Przyby la, K. Sznajd-Weron and M. Tabiszewski, Exit probability in a one-dimensional nonlinear q-voter model, Phys. Rev. E 84, 031117 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    Pugliese and C

    E. Pugliese and C. Castellano, Heterogeneous pair approximation for voter models on networks, Europhys. Lett. 88, 58004 (2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    Castellano, M

    C. Castellano, M. A. Mu˜ noz, and R. Pastor-Satorras, Nonlinearq-voter model, Phys. Rev. E 80, 041129 (2009)

    2009

  8. [16]

    Chmiel and K

    A. Chmiel and K. Sznajd-Weron, Phase transitions in the q-voter model with noise on a duplex clique, Phys. Rev. E 92, 052812 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    A. M. Timpanaro and C. P. C. Prado, Exit probability of the one-dimensional q-voter model: Analytical results and simulations for large networks, Phys. Rev. E 89, 052808 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Nyczka, K

    P. Nyczka, K. Sznajd-Weron, and J. Cis lo, Phase transitions in the q-voter model with two types of stochastic driving, Phys. Rev. E 86, 011105 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Moretti, S

    P. Moretti, S. Liu, C. Castellano, and R. Pastor-Satorras, Mean-field analysis of the q-voter model on networks, J. Stat. Phys. 151, 113 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    J¸ edrzejewski, Pair approximation for the q-voter model with independence on complex networks, Phys

    A. J¸ edrzejewski, Pair approximation for the q-voter model with independence on complex networks, Phys. Rev. E 95, 012307 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Abramiuk, J

    A. Abramiuk, J. Paw lowski, and K. Sznajd-Weron, Is independence necessary for a discontinuous phase transition within the q-voter model?, Entropy 21, 521 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Vieira and C

    A. Vieira and C. Anteneodo, Threshold q-voter model Phys. Rev. E 97, 052106 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    A. F. Peralta, A. Carro, M. San Miguel, and R. Toral, Stochastic pair approximation treatment of the noisy voter model, New J. Phys. 20, 103045 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    A. F. Peralta, A. Carro, M. San Miguel, and R. Toral, Analytical and numerical study of the non-linear noisy voter model on complex networks, Chaos 28, 075516 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Chmiel, J

    A. Chmiel, J. Sienkiewicz, and K. Sznajd-Weron, Tricriticality in the q-neighbor Ising model on a partially duplex clique, Phys. Rev. E 96, 062137 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    J¸ edrzejewski, A

    A. J¸ edrzejewski, A. Chmiel, and K. Sznajd-Weron, Oscillating hysteresis in theq-neighbor Ising model, Phys. Rev. E 92, 052105 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    Park and J

    J.-M. Park and J. D. Noh, Tricritical behavior of nonequilibrium Ising spins in fluctuating environments, Phys. Rev. E 95, 042106 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    J. P. Gleeson, Binary-state dynamics on complex networks: pair approximation and beyond. Phys. Rev. X 3, 021004 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    Chmiel, T

    A. Chmiel, T. Gradowski, and A. Krawiecki, q-neighbor Ising model on random networks, Int. J. Modern Phys. C 29, 1850041 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    J. P. Gleeson, High-accuracy approximation of binary-state dynamics on networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 068701 (2011). 20

    2011

  23. [31]

    Kyu-Min Lee, Byungjoon Min, and Kwang-Il Goh, Towards real-world complexity: an introduction to multiplex networks, Eur. Phys. J. B 88, 48 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    Boccaletti, G

    S. Boccaletti, G. Bianconi, R. Criado, C. I. del Genio, J. G´ omez-Garde˜ nes, M. Romance, I. Sendi˜ na-Nadal, Z. Wang, and M. Zanin, The structure and dynamics of multilayer networks, Phys. Rep. 544, 1 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    Goh, Multiplex networks, in: Networks of Networks: The Last Frontier of Complexity, ed

    Kyu-Min Lee, Jung Yeol Kim, Sangchul Lee, and K.-I. Goh, Multiplex networks, in: Networks of Networks: The Last Frontier of Complexity, ed. G. D’Agostino, A. Scala, Springer (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    Fei Tan, Yongxiang Xia, Wenping Zhang, and Xinyu Jin, Cascading failures of loads in interconnected networks under intentional attack, EPL 102, 28009 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    S. V. Buldyrev, R. Parshani, G. Paul, H. E. Stanley, and S. Havlin, Catastrophic cascade of failures in interdependent networks, Nature 464, 1025 (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    G. J. Baxter, S. N. Dorogovtsev, A. V. Goltsev, and J. F. F. Mendes, Avalanche Collapse of Interdependent Networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 248701 (2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    G´ omez, A

    S. G´ omez, A. D´ ıaz-Guilera, J. G´ omez-Garden˜ es, C. J. P´ erez-Vicente, Y. Moreno, and A. Arenas, Diffusion Dynamics on Multiplex Networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 028701 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    Goh, Coevolution and Correlated Multiplexity in Multiplex Networks, Phys

    Jung Yeol Kim and K.-I. Goh, Coevolution and Correlated Multiplexity in Multiplex Networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 058702 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Lee, C.D

    K.-M. Lee, C.D. Brummitt, and K.-I. Goh, Threshold cascades with response heterogeneity in multiplex networks, Phys. Rev. E 90, 062816 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    Diakonova, V

    M. Diakonova, V. Nicosia, V. Latora, and M. San Miguel, Irreducibility of multilayer network dynamics: the case of the voter model, New J. Phys. 18, 023010 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Sol´ e-Ribalta, M

    A. Sol´ e-Ribalta, M. De Domenico, N. E. Kouvaris, A. D´ ıaz-Guilera, S. G´ omez, and A. Arenas, Spectral properties of the Laplacian of multiplex networks, Phys. Rev. E 88, 032807 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Qingchu Wu, Yijun Lou, and Wenfang Zhu, Epidemic outbreak for an SIS model in multiplex networks with immunization, Mathematical Biosciences 277, 38 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    Krawiecki, Spin glass transition in a simple variant of the Ising model on multiplex networks, Physica A 506, 773 (2018)

    A. Krawiecki, Spin glass transition in a simple variant of the Ising model on multiplex networks, Physica A 506, 773 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    San Miguel, Multilayer coevolution dynamics of the nonlinear voter model, New J

    Byungjoon Min and M. San Miguel, Multilayer coevolution dynamics of the nonlinear voter model, New J. Phys. 21, 035004 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Krawiecki, Ferromagnetic transition in a simple variant of the Ising model on multiplex networks, Physica A 492, 534 (2018)

    A. Krawiecki, Ferromagnetic transition in a simple variant of the Ising model on multiplex networks, Physica A 492, 534 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    Erd˝ os and A

    P. Erd˝ os and A. R´ enyi, On random graphs, Publicationes Mathematicae6, 290 (1959)

    1959

  39. [47]

    S. Jang, J. S. Lee, S. Hwang, and B. Kahng, Ashkin-Teller model and diverse opinion phase transitions on multiplex networks, Phys. Rev. E 92, 022110 (2015)

    2015

  40. [48]

    social temperature

    on the observed phenomena are not studied. Under the above-mentioned assumptions the model under study exhibits qualitatively similar behavior as that on MNs with layers in the form of complete graphs [16]. However, details of the first- or second-order FM transition observed i...

  41. [49]

    Goh, Majority-vote dynamics on multiplex networks with two layers, New J

    Jeehye Choi and K.-I. Goh, Majority-vote dynamics on multiplex networks with two layers, New J. Phys. 21, 035005 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    Barab´ asi and R

    A.-L. Barab´ asi and R. Albert, Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks, Science 286, 509 (1999)

    1999

  43. [51]

    Goh, Link overlap, viability, and mutual percolation in multiplex networks, Chaos Solitons & Fractals 72, 49 (2015)

    Byungjoon Min, Sangchul Lee, Kyu-Min Lee, and K.-I. Goh, Link overlap, viability, and mutual percolation in multiplex networks, Chaos Solitons & Fractals 72, 49 (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    M. E. J. Newman, Handbook of Graphs and Networks: From the Genome to the Internet, ed. S. Bornholdt and H. G. Schuster, Wiley - VCH, Berlin, p. 35 (2003)

    2003

  45. [53]

    Hyunsuk Hong, Meesoon Ha, and Hyunggyu Park, Finite-size scaling in complex networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 258701 (2007)

    2007

  46. [54]

    Binder and D

    K. Binder and D. Heermann, Monte Carlo Simulation in Statistical Physics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, (1997). 21 101 102 k 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 p(1) c , p(2) c (a) 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 p 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0m (b) 101 102 k 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0...

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.