Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 8 minor 28 references

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.

T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. The mark states how deep the mechanical check went, never who wrote it. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

Second-circle vigilance boosts cooperation by 30%

2026-07-08 17:43 UTC pith:RKNTD5VB

load-bearing objection Solid simulation study extending vigilance-based cooperation to multi-hop neighborhoods. The non-normalized kernel is a real but partially mitigated concern. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.06056 v1 pith:RKNTD5VB submitted 2026-07-07 physics.soc-ph

Long-range social pressure and the evolution of cooperation in multiplex networks

Mar\'ia Pereda , Gabrielle Muller This is my paper
classification physics.soc-ph
keywords socialinfluencevigilancecooperationextendingnetworknetworkspressure
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper claims that allowing social pressure — the awareness of being watched — to reach beyond one's immediate neighbors to the second and third circles of social contacts substantially raises the level of cooperation that can be sustained in a population, even when the temptation to defect is high. The authors couple a Prisoner's Dilemma on one layer of a two-layer network to a vigilance cascade on the other, where influence from each circle of contacts decays geometrically with distance. The central mechanism is that accumulated vigilance from a wider neighborhood lowers the effective temptation to defect against any given cooperator, making defection less attractive. The paper shows that the single step from first-circle to second-circle vigilance already captures most of the achievable gain, consistent with empirical measurements of how social influence decays with network distance. The effect is strongest in sparse networks where local monitoring alone fails, requires that the people watching you are the same people you interact with, and reproduces on a real physician social network. In dense, hub-dominated networks, cooperation can switch abruptly between low and high regimes depending on how fast influence decays with distance.

Core claim

The paper establishes that the critical temptation to defect — the payoff threshold above which cooperation collapses — shifts upward by roughly 30% when vigilance extends from the first to the second circle of influence in sparse networks, and by over 50% at four circles. The L=1 to L=2 transition alone accounts for most of the gain, matching the empirically measured decay coefficient of social influence (λ ≈ 0.65). The effect depends on the vigilance layer and the game layer being structurally aligned: when the people monitoring your behavior are not the same people you play against, the benefit of extending vigilance largely disappears. In dense, hub-dominated networks, the outcome is not

What carries the argument

The vigilance kernel I_i = min(1, Σ_{d=1}^{L} λ^{d-1} · m_d/k_d) aggregates the fraction of vigilant agents across L circles of influence with geometric decay. This feeds into the temptation T_i = 1 + (b-1)(1-I_i), so higher vigilance lowers the payoff for defecting. Vigilance itself spreads via a Watts threshold cascade: cooperators become vigilant when their influence index exceeds a threshold θ, creating a feedback loop between monitoring and cooperation.

Load-bearing premise

The vigilance kernel is deliberately not normalized: each additional circle of influence adds non-negative terms to the total influence score, so the score mechanically increases as L grows. This means the headline result — that cooperation increases with vigilance range — is partly built into the model's construction rather than emerging purely from the dynamics. A normalized kernel that redistributes the same total influence across circles could yield a different conclusion

What would settle it

Replace the non-normalized vigilance kernel with a normalized one (e.g., dividing by Σ λ^{d-1}) and check whether cooperation still increases with L. If the gain disappears, the result is an artifact of the kernel's construction rather than a property of long-range social pressure.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Online platforms that make distant contacts' behavior visible could meaningfully shift cooperative norms in populations where local monitoring is insufficient, even if the added visibility only reaches one additional circle of contacts.
  • Interventions aimed at sustaining cooperation in sparse communities — small towns, professional networks, online forums — may benefit more from widening the monitoring radius than from increasing the intensity of local monitoring.
  • The finding that layer alignment is necessary suggests that privacy-preserving designs which decouple who-watches from who-interacts may inadvertently weaken the cooperative benefits of social monitoring.
  • The sharp regime switch in hub-dominated networks implies that small changes in how influence decays — perhaps driven by platform design choices about information visibility — could tip entire populations between cooperative and defective equilibria.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the non-normalized kernel is replaced by a normalized version that redistributes rather than amplifies total influence, the qualitative result that cooperation increases with L may weaken or vanish, since the mechanism partly relies on I_i growing with L by construction rather than emerging from the dynamics.
  • The model's binary vigilance and strategy states may understate the effect: graded vigilance levels could produce smoother transitions and potentially larger cooperative regions, since agents near the threshold would be partially protected rather than all-or-nothing.
  • The absence of monitoring cost means the model sidesteps the second-order free-rider problem — if vigilance were costly, the wider reach might paradoxically dilute individual incentives to remain vigilant, since the marginal contribution of any single monitor shrinks as L grows.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper extends a two-layer multiplex model of social monitoring and cooperation (Pereda, 2016) from direct-neighbor vigilance to L circles of influence, with influence decaying geometrically as λ^{d-1}. The authors couple a weak Prisoner's Dilemma on a game layer to a Watts threshold cascade of vigilance on a vigilance layer, where a cooperator's temptation T_i is reduced in proportion to the vigilance influence I_i received from its L-hop neighborhood. Using the Fermi update rule (validated against replicator dynamics at L=1), the authors study correlated and uncorrelated multiplex networks on BA and ER topologies (z=4, 16), validate on the CKM physician network, and perform sensitivity analysis on λ. The central finding is that extending vigilance to L=2 already accounts for most of the cooperation gain, that the effect requires inter-layer correlation (except in BA networks), and that dense hub-dominated networks exhibit a sharp transition in cooperation as λ crosses a threshold.

Significance. The paper addresses a well-motivated question: whether social pressure from beyond direct neighbors promotes cooperation, grounded in empirical evidence for multi-hop social influence. Strengths include a thorough simulation protocol (100 replications, multiple topologies, adaptive stopping criterion), validation against the prior model at L=1 with two update rules, a real-network validation on the CKM physician data, a natural control via the uncorrelated multiplex, and publicly available code. The sensitivity analysis on λ revealing a topology-dependent sharp transition in dense BA networks is a notable non-trivial finding. The connection to empirical decay coefficients (λ≈0.65 from Miranda et al.) adds calibration credibility.

major comments (2)
  1. §II.B, Eq. (1): The vigilance kernel is 'intentionally not normalized,' so I_i = min(1, Σ_{d=1}^{L} λ^{d-1} m_d/k_d) is non-decreasing in L for any fixed vigilance configuration. By Eq. (2), T_i = 1 + (b-1)(1-I_i), so higher I_i directly lowers temptation. This means the direction of the headline result—cooperation increases with L—is partly guaranteed by construction in the correlated multiplex. The paper acknowledges this design choice but does not test a normalized alternative (e.g., dividing by Σ λ^{d-1}) to isolate the 'reach' effect from the 'amplification' effect. The uncorrelated-multiplex control (§III.C) partially mitigates this concern: cooperation does not increase with L when layers are decorrelated, despite the same mechanical amplification of I_i, demonstrating that amplification alone is insufficient. However, in the correlated case, both effects are intertwined and the '
  2. §III.E, Fig. 6: The sharp jump in BA z=16 between λ=0.5 and λ=0.75 (⟨ρ⟩ from ~0.15 to ~0.87) is reported at a single parameter point (b=1.5, θ=0.5, L=4) and described as a transition between coexisting attractors. Given that the λ grid has only 5 values (0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 0.9), the transition is resolved by a single step. This is a load-bearing claim for the conclusion that dense networks 'switch abruptly.' A finer λ sweep in the transition region, or at minimum an acknowledgment that the transition width is unresolved, would strengthen this finding.
minor comments (8)
  1. The author affiliations contain encoding artifacts (e.g., 'Mar´ ıa', 'Ingenier´ ıa', 'Barab´ asi'). These should be corrected.
  2. §II.B: The justification for the geometric kernel over the linear kernel of Ref. [21] is reasonable, but the paper could note that the geometric kernel also has the property of being scale-free with respect to network diameter, which is the actual argument made—consider rephrasing for clarity.
  3. Figures 2 and 4: The legend lists L=1 through L=4 with color/style assignments, but in Fig. 4 the correlated/uncorrelated distinction adds 8 curves per panel. Consider whether separating correlated and uncorrelated into sub-panels would improve readability.
  4. §III.D: The choice of λ=0.65 for the CKM network validation is well-motivated, but the synthetic results use λ=0.5. A brief note on why the default λ=0.5 was chosen for the main results (beyond 'illustrative') would help the reader.
  5. Table I and §II.G: The parameter space is large (11×11×4×2×2×2×2 = 7744 cells × 100 replications). A note on total computational cost or wall-clock time, perhaps referencing the GitHub repository's runtime notes, would contextualize the effort.
  6. §III.A: The high variance in BA z=16 (σ≈0.41) is attributed to bistability. It would help to state explicitly whether the 100 replications use the same network realization with different initial conditions (which the text implies) or different network realizations, as this affects the interpretation of the variance.
  7. The paper references Supplemental Material figures (S1–S9) but these are not included in the reviewed manuscript. Ensure they are available and properly cross-referenced.
  8. §IV: The connection to higher-order interactions (hypergraphs, simplicial complexes) is mentioned as future work but feels somewhat tangential to the paper's actual contribution. Consider trimming or making the connection more concrete.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive reading of our manuscript. Both major comments identify genuine gaps that we will address in the revised version. Below we respond point by point.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §II.B, Eq. (1): The vigilance kernel is intentionally not normalized, so I_i is non-decreasing in L for any fixed vigilance configuration. By Eq. (2), higher I_i directly lowers temptation. This means the direction of the headline result—cooperation increases with L—is partly guaranteed by construction in the correlated multiplex. The paper does not test a normalized alternative to isolate the 'reach' effect from the 'amplification' effect. The uncorrelated-multiplex control partially mitigates this concern but in the correlated case both effects are intertwined.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the non-normalized kernel makes I_i non-decreasing in L by construction, and that this mechanically lowers T_i as L grows. We acknowledge this design choice in the manuscript but agree that we have not adequately separated the 'reach' effect (accessing vigilant agents at greater distances who were previously invisible) from the 'amplification' effect (adding more weight on top of existing influence). The uncorrelated control demonstrates that amplification alone is insufficient—cooperation does not increase with L when layers are decorrelated despite the same mechanical amplification—but the referee is right that in the correlated case the two effects remain confounded. We will address this in revision by running a normalized-kernel variant, I_i^norm = min(1, Σ_{d=1}^{L} λ^{d-1} m_d/k_d / Σ_{d=1}^{L} λ^{d-1}), which holds the total kernel weight at unity for all L and isolates the reach effect. We will report these results alongside the existing ones for the correlated multiplex on all four topologies. If the cooperation gain persists under normalization (which we expect it will, at least partially, because the reach effect is what enables the Watts threshold to be met by previously invisible vigilant neighbors), this will clarify that the result is not purely an artifact of amplification. We will also add an explicit discussion in §II.B distinguishing the two effects and noting that the non-normalized kernel was chosen to model the empirically motivated scenario in which wider awareness does increase total social pressure, not merely redistribute it. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §III.E, Fig. 6: The sharp jump in BA z=16 between λ=0.5 and λ=0.75 is reported at a single parameter point and resolved by a single step of the λ grid. This is a load-bearing claim for the conclusion that dense networks 'switch abruptly.' A finer λ sweep in the transition region, or at minimum an acknowledgment that the transition width is unresolved, would strengthen this finding.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the current λ grid (5 values) resolves the transition in BA z=16 by a single step, which is insufficient to characterize the transition width or confirm that it is genuinely sharp rather than steep but smooth. We will address this in two ways. First, we will run a finer λ sweep in the transition region (λ = 0.50, 0.55, 0.60, 0.65, 0.70, 0.75) at the representative parameter point (b=1.5, θ=0.5, L=4) for BA z=16, and add the resulting curve to Figure 6. This will allow us to determine whether the transition is genuinely discontinuous (consistent with the bistability interpretation we propose) or merely steep. Second, regardless of the finer sweep's outcome, we will revise the language in §III.E and §IV to acknowledge that the transition width is not fully resolved by the original grid and to temper the claim of abruptness accordingly. If the finer sweep reveals a smooth but steep transition, we will describe it as such rather than as a sharp switch between attractors. revision: yes

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Non-normalized kernel guarantees the direction of the headline result, but uncorrelated-multiplex control and topology-dependent findings provide substantial independent content.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Eq. (1) and Eq. (2), Section II.B]
    "The vigilance influence received by agent i across L circles is I_i = min(1, Σ_{d=1}^{L} λ^{d-1} m_d^i / k_d^i) ... The kernel α_d = λ^{d-1} is intentionally not normalized: each additional circle adds influence on top of the previous one, so that an agent embedded in a larger vigilant neighborhood feels stronger social pressure. ... The individual temptation of defecting against cooperator i is T_i = 1 + (b−1)(1−I_i)"

    The paper's central claim is that extending vigilance (increasing L) promotes cooperation. By construction: (1) the non-normalized kernel in Eq. (1) guarantees I_i is non-decreasing in L for any fixed vigilance configuration (each added circle contributes a non-negative term); (2) Eq. (2) guarantees T_i is non-increasing in I_i. Therefore T_i is non-increasing in L, making defection mechanically less attractive as L grows. The direction of the headline result — 'cooperation increases with L' — is thus partly determined by the modeling choice rather than emerging purely from the dynamics. The paper explicitly acknowledges this ('an agent exposed to L circles of influence receives a stronger total vigilance signal as L increases, even when the fraction of vigilant agents is constant'), but从不

  2. self definitional [Section III.B, paragraph on L=1→2 transition]
    "the L=1→2 transition already accounts for most of the achievable gain: in ER z=4 the entire transition region shifts to higher b already at L=2, with L=3 and L=4 adding progressively smaller increments, consistent with the geometric decay λ^{d−1} = 0.5^{d−1} that assigns weights 1, 0.5, 0.25 to circles d=1,2,3."

    The observation that L=1→2 accounts for 'most of the gain' is presented as a finding, but it follows directly from the kernel weights: the second circle adds weight 0.5 (50% of the first circle's weight), while the third adds 0.25 and the fourth 0.125. The diminishing-returns pattern is a direct consequence of the geometric kernel definition, not an emergent dynamical result. The paper itself notes the consistency with the kernel weights, effectively acknowledging the reduction.

full rationale

The paper's headline direction — cooperation increases with L — is partly guaranteed by construction: the non-normalized kernel (Eq. 1) ensures I_i grows with L, and Eq. (2) ensures T_i shrinks as I_i grows. This is a genuine structural circularity in the direction of the effect. However, the circularity is partial, not total, for three reasons. First, the uncorrelated-multiplex control (Sec. III.C) provides a natural counter-test: I_i still mechanically increases with L in the uncorrelated case, yet cooperation does NOT increase — the critical temptation in ER z=4 stays fixed near b≈1.3–1.5 for all L (Fig. 4). This demonstrates that mechanical amplification of I_i alone is insufficient to produce the cooperation gain; spatial coherence between vigilance and game layers is essential. Second, the detailed findings — topology dependence (sparse vs. dense, BA vs. ER), the λ-sensitivity regime switch in dense BA networks, and the inter-layer correlation effect — are not trivially guaranteed by the kernel construction. Third, the validation on real physician networks (Sec. III.D) tests the model outside the synthetic topologies where the construction was defined. The self-citations to [10] (Pereda, 2016) and [21] (Miranda et al., 2024, co-authored by Pereda) are load-bearing for the base model and λ-calibration respectively, but [21] is an experimental study with 592 participants that is externally falsifiable and independent of the present paper's simulation results, so it constitutes real evidence rather than a circular self-citation chain. The paper does not test a normalized kernel alternative, which would be needed to fully separate the 'reach' effect from the 'amplification' effect, but this is a modeling limitation rather than a circularity defect. Score 4 reflects that the headline direction is built into the equations while the specific quantitative and topological findings retain independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new entities are postulated. The model uses standard components: Prisoner's Dilemma, Watts threshold cascade, Fermi update rule, and multiplex networks.

free parameters (5)
  • λ (decay parameter) = 0.5 (default), 0.65 (real network)
    Controls geometric decay of vigilance influence with network distance. Default 0.5 is illustrative; 0.65 is calibrated from empirical measurements in ref [21]. Swept over {0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 0.9} in sensitivity analysis.
  • b (baseline temptation) = 1.0–2.0 (11 values)
    Standard PD temptation parameter; swept across the full range.
  • θ (vigilance threshold) = 0.0–1.0 (11 values)
    Watts threshold for vigilance adoption; swept across the full range.
  • K (Fermi noise) = 0.1
    Inverse temperature for strategy update; fixed at a standard value from the literature.
  • L (circles of influence) = 1, 2, 3, 4
    Range of vigilance propagation; the central independent variable of the study.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Vigilance influence decays geometrically with network distance: α_d = λ^{d-1}
    Stated in Sec. II.B. Motivated by empirical fit to ref [21], but the geometric form is a modeling choice; ref [21] actually used a linear approximation α_d ∝ (D-d)/(D-1).
  • ad hoc to paper The vigilance kernel is not normalized across circles
    Sec. II.B: 'The kernel α_d = λ^{d-1} is intentionally not normalized: each additional circle adds influence on top of the previous one.' This is a load-bearing modeling choice that determines the direction of the main effect.
  • domain assumption Vigilance is costless to the monitor
    Stated in Sec. IV: 'monitoring carries no direct cost to the monitor.' Simplifies the model but removes the second-order free-rider problem.
  • domain assumption Strategies and vigilance states are binary
    Sec. II.A: C_i ∈ {0,1}, V_i ∈ {0,1}. Acknowledged as simplifying in Sec. IV.
  • standard math Vigilance follows a Watts threshold rule (Eq. 3)
    Standard threshold contagion model from ref [12]. Agent i is vigilant iff it is a cooperator and I_i ≥ θ.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 15910 in / 4562 out tokens · 356345 ms · 2026-07-08T17:43:19.611599+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Social pressure -- the awareness of being observed by others -- is a fundamental driver of prosocial behavior in human societies. Yet it is typically assumed that only direct neighbors exert vigilance pressure on an individual, despite empirical evidence that social influence persists to at least three degrees of separation. Here we show that extending the reach of social vigilance beyond direct neighbors substantially promotes cooperation. We couple a Prisoner's Dilemma on one layer of a multiplex network to a vigilance cascade on the other, with influence decaying geometrically with network distance. Extending vigilance to just the second circle of influence shifts the critical temptation for defection by nearly 30\% in sparse networks. Extending to four circles raises this threshold by over 50\%. The $L=1\to2$ transition already accounts for most of the gain, consistent with the decay coefficients of social influence reported in controlled experiments. The effect is strongest in sparse topologies, requires that the vigilance and game layers be aligned, and reproduces directly on a real social network of physicians; in dense, hub-dominated networks the gain instead depends sharply on how fast influence decays with distance, switching between weak and strong cooperation as the decay rate crosses a threshold. Our results strongly suggest that even modest expansions of social awareness -- such as those enabled by online social platforms -- can substantially reshape the landscape of cooperative behavior in human populations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06056 by Gabrielle Muller, Mar\'ia Pereda.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Stationary cooperation fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Stationary cooperation fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Cooperation gain ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Stationary cooperation fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Stationary cooperation fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the cooperation fraction at the midpoint of both scanned ranges (b = 1.5, θ = 0.5) as a function of λ. At L = 4, the transition is starkest at this point: ⟨ρ⟩ moves from 0.13–0.15 for λ ≤ 0.5 to 0.87 at λ = 0.75 and 0.94 at λ = 0.9, a jump of more than 0.7 within a single step of the λ grid. The standard deviation mirrors this jump, rising from σ ≈ 0.07–0.09 below the transition to σ = 0.31 at λ = 0.… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. A. Nowak and R. M. May, Evolutionary games and spatial chaos, Nature359, 826 (1992). 20

    work page 1992

  2. [2]

    F. C. Santos and J. M. Pacheco, Scale-free networks provide a unifying framework for the emergence of cooperation, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 098104 (2005)

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Szab´ o and G

    G. Szab´ o and G. F´ ath, Evolutionary games on graphs, Phys. Rep.446, 97 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    M. Perc, J. J. Jordan, D. G. Rand, Z. Wang, S. Boccaletti, and A. Szolnoki, Statistical physics of human cooperation, Phys. Rep.687, 1 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Boccaletti, G

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

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Kivel¨ a, A

    M. Kivel¨ a, A. Arenas, M. Barthelemy, J. P. Gleeson, Y. Moreno, and M. A. Porter, Multilayer networks, J. Complex Netw.2, 203 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Battiston, G

    F. Battiston, G. Cencetti, I. Iacopini, V. Latora, M. Lucas, A. Patania, J.-G. Young, and G. Petri, Networks beyond pairwise interactions: Structure and dynamics, Phys. Rep.874, 1 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Battiston, E

    F. Battiston, E. Amico, A. Barrat, G. Bianconi, G. Ferraz de Arruda, B. Franceschiello, I. Iacopini, S. K´ efi, V. Latora, Y. Moreno, M. M. Murray, T. P. Peixoto, F. Vaccarino, and G. Petri, The physics of higher-order interactions in complex systems, Nat. Phys.17, 1093 (2021)

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Battiston, V

    F. Battiston, V. Capraro, F. Karimi, S. Lehmann, A. B. Migliano, O. Sadekar, A. S´ anchez, and M. Perc, Higher-order interactions shape collective human behaviour, Nat. Hum. Behav. 10.1038/s41562-025-02373-5 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41562-025-02373-5 2025

  10. [10]

    Pereda, Evolution of cooperation under social pressure in multiplex networks, Phys

    M. Pereda, Evolution of cooperation under social pressure in multiplex networks, Phys. Rev. E94, 032314 (2016)

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    Axelrod, An evolutionary approach to norms, Am

    R. Axelrod, An evolutionary approach to norms, Am. Political Sci. Rev.80, 1095 (1986)

    work page 1986

  12. [12]

    D. J. Watts, A simple model of global cascades on random networks, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA99, 5766 (2002)

    work page 2002

  13. [13]

    Deffuant, D

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

    work page 2000

  14. [14]

    Hegselmann and U

    R. Hegselmann and U. Krause, Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul.5, 2 (2002)

    work page 2002

  15. [15]

    Pereda and D

    M. Pereda and D. Vilone, Social Pressure and Environmental Effects on Networks: A Path to Cooperation, Games8, 7 (2017). 21

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    N. A. Christakis and J. H. Fowler, The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years, N. Engl. J. Med.357, 370 (2007)

    work page 2007

  17. [17]

    J. H. Fowler and N. A. Christakis, Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study, BMJ337, a2338 (2008)

    work page 2008

  18. [18]

    Centola and M

    D. Centola and M. Macy, Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties, Am. J. Sociol. 113, 702 (2007)

    work page 2007

  19. [19]

    Abella, M

    D. Abella, M. San Miguel, and J. J. Ramasco, Aging in binary-state models: The threshold model for complex contagion, Phys. Rev. E107, 024101 (2023)

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Centola, The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment, Science329, 1194 (2010)

    D. Centola, The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment, Science329, 1194 (2010)

    work page 2010

  21. [21]

    Miranda, M

    M. Miranda, M. Pereda, A. S´ anchez, and E. Estrada, Indirect social influence and diffusion of innovations: An experimental approach, PNAS Nexus3, pgae409 (2024)

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    C. P. Roca, J. A. Cuesta, and A. S´ anchez, Evolutionary game theory: Temporal and spatial effects beyond replicator dynamics, Phys. Life Rev.6, 208 (2009)

    work page 2009

  23. [23]

    Barab´ asi and R

    A.-L. Barab´ asi and R. Albert, Emergence of scaling in random networks, Science286, 509 (1999)

    work page 1999

  24. [24]

    Erd˝ os and A

    P. Erd˝ os and A. R´ enyi, On random graphs, Publ. Math. Debrecen6, 290 (1959)

    work page 1959

  25. [25]

    Coleman, E

    J. Coleman, E. Katz, and H. Menzel, The diffusion of an innovation among physicians, So- ciometry20, 253 (1957)

    work page 1957

  26. [26]

    J. S. Coleman, E. Katz, and H. Menzel,Medical Innovation: A Diffusion Study(Bobbs Merrill, New York, 1966)

    work page 1966

  27. [27]

    R. S. Burt, Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence, Am. J. Sociol.92, 1287 (1987)

    work page 1987

  28. [28]

    Wilhelm and M

    S. Wilhelm and M. Godinho de Matos,spatialprobit: Spatial Probit Models(2024), r package version 1.0.4. 22

    work page 2024