Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Peer influence breaks ergodicity in an opinion dynamics model with external information

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Peer influence in a stochastic imitation model drives a population through a critical social weight, beyond which time averages stop tracking the external signal and scatter around 0.5—a non-ergodic consensus phase.

desk verdict The flip probability is solid, but the analytic map doesn't produce the claimed phase transition. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06661 v2 pith:5TFUXOZL submitted 2025-07-09 physics.soc-ph

Federica De Domenico , Fabio Caccioli , Giacomo Livan This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.soc-ph PACS 89.65.-s
keywords opiniondynamicsergodicitybreakingsocialconformityexternalinformationphasetransitionmemoryeffectsimitationmodellogitchoice
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

The paper studies a population of agents with binary opinions who update by balancing peer conformity against a noisy external signal, using a Fermi/logit choice rule. It claims there is a critical social weight $\gamma^*$: below it the population is ergodic and tracks the signal (time average $\approx p$), above it temporal averages scatter around $0.5$ and the population locks into persistent consensus. Adding a finite memory to the signal smooths the transition and lowers $\gamma^*$. The authors derive the phase boundary analytically from a mean-field map, compute the flip probability that triggers consensus with an error-function formula, and confirm the transition on several network topologies. The central point is that social conformity by itself can break the correspondence between what a population does over time and what it does on average.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the deterministic mean-field map $f_+(t+1)=[1+\exp(-\beta(2\gamma f_+(t)+2(1-\gamma)(2p-1)-\gamma))]^{-1}$, obtained by replacing the memory-averaged signal with its expectation $2p-1$. Its fixed points and their stability $|f'(t+1)|<1$ locate the bifurcation at $\gamma^*$; the companion threshold $X^*=\gamma/(2(1-\gamma))$ is the smoothed-signal value required to escape from consensus, and the error-function formula converts it into a flip probability.

What would settle it

Simulate the memory-less model at $\beta=100$, $N=500$, and $T=3000$ for $\gamma$ values just above the reported $\gamma^*\approx0.69$, then repeat with $T$ increased by orders of magnitude while tracking the first escape from consensus; if all realizations eventually flip and the long-run temporal mean approaches $p$, the non-ergodic phase is a finite-time crossover rather than a true phase transition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the high-sensitivity limit (large $\beta$), the paper shows that the social weight $\gamma$ in the payoff $\pi_\pm(t)=\gamma f_\pm(t)\pm(1-\gamma)X(t)$ acts as a control parameter for ergodicity. For $\gamma<\gamma^*$, simulations and a mean-field fixed-point analysis give a unique stable fixed point near the signal bias $p$, so every realization's time average equals the ensemble average and the population oscillates with the external signal. At $\gamma=\gamma^*$ a bifurcation creates two stable fixed points, and for $\gamma>\gamma^*$ each realization becomes trapped in consensus: time averages are scattered, the ensemble average sits at $0.5$, and the system no longer adapts. Memory, implemented by averaging the last $m$ signal values, lowers $\gamma^*$ (from about $0.69$ to $0.37$ in the reference setting) and makes the transition smoother. The flip out of a consensus state is controlled by a threshold $X^*=\gamma/(2(1-\gamma))$ for the smoothed signal, and the probability of crossing it is given in closed form as an error function of $\sqrt{m}$, $p$, and $X^*$.

Load-bearing premise

The analytic phase boundary rests on replacing the smoothed external signal by its expected value $2p-1$ and letting agents interact only through the global fraction $f_+$, so the finite-size fluctuations that actually trigger consensus flips are left out of the fixed-point calculation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $\gamma<\gamma^*$, population-level opinion tracks a biased external signal, so time series and ensemble averages agree and public opinion is self-averaging.
  • For $\gamma>\gamma^*$, populations lock into consensus, the ensemble average of $0.5$ is not representative of any single realization, and aggregate opinion hides widespread inertia.
  • Memory in decision-making lowers the critical social weight, so populations that deliberate over longer windows become non-ergodic at lower levels of conformity.
  • The same transition appears on random, modular, and scale-free networks with nearly the same threshold, indicating the boundary is a property of the interaction rule rather than of a specific topology.
  • In the low-sensitivity regime no sharp transition exists, but strong social conformity can neutralize a systematically biased external signal and pull average opinion toward $0.5$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the analytic boundary replaces the smoothed signal by its expectation, a natural extension is to test whether finite-memory fluctuations shift $\gamma^*$ with a controlled, size-dependent correction as the population and memory grow.
  • For finite $\beta$ the model is a finite Markov chain, so the absorbing phase is metastable rather than strictly absorbing; computing consensus escape times would show when the non-ergodic description fails on very long horizons.
  • The flip-probability formula suggests a calibration probe: from observed opinion flips, an external signal, and an assumed memory window, one could invert the error-function relation to estimate the social weight $\gamma$ of a real population.
  • The network-independence of $\gamma^*$ hints that the threshold may be fixed by the mean-field interaction alone; a testable hypothesis is that any network whose global update depends only on $f_+$ reproduces the same phase boundary.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a binary-opinion model in which agents update via a Fermi/logit rule, balancing peer influence (weighted by gamma) against a stochastic external signal. A memory-less version and a memory-based version (with a moving average over m time steps) are studied. The central claim is that a critical social weight gamma* separates an ergodic, oscillating phase, in which population-level time averages track the external signal, from a non-ergodic, absorbing phase, in which temporal averages scatter and the population locks into consensus. The paper further claims that memory lowers gamma* and smooths the transition, and that this transition is robust across network topologies. Analytical results include the flip threshold X* in Eq. (8), a Gaussian crossing probability in Eq. (10), and a mean-field fixed-point map in Eq. (12), with simulations and a phase diagram in Fig. 5.

Significance. The model is a clean stylized addition to the noisy-voter and social-imitation literature, and the analytical crossing probability Eq. (10) is a genuinely parameter-free prediction that agrees well with simulations in Fig. 4. The network extension is a useful robustness check. However, the paper's central quantitative claim is not supported by the analysis as written: for the reported parameters p=0.6, beta=100, the mean-field map Eq. (12) predicts lock-in to the externally favoured consensus for small gamma, not the oscillating phase that the simulations display, so the 'theoretical' phase boundary in Fig. 5 appears to describe a different object from the simulated transition. In addition, the finite-beta Markov chain has no truly absorbing states, so the 'ergodicity breaking' language requires a finite-time qualification. The underlying phenomenon may be a real finite-time metastability effect, and the paper could be salvaged by an honest operational definition of gamma*, but the current version overclaims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (12)] For the parameters used in the paper (p=0.6, beta=100), Eq. (12) does not produce the oscillating phase claimed in Fig. 2. At gamma=0.1, the argument of the logistic at f+=0 is 100*[2(0.9)(0.2)-0.1]=26, so the map sends f+=0 to f+ approximately 1 in one step, and the unique stable fixed point is near f+=1 for the entire gamma range discussed. The fixed-point analysis therefore cannot generate the theoretical gamma* curve in Fig. 5; the deterministic mean-field reduction in Eq. (5) predicts lock-in to the externally favoured consensus, not a transition into an absorbing phase. The simulated transition is instead driven by finite-m fluctuations that Eq. (5) explicitly discards, so the analytic and empirical gamma* measure different phenomena.
  2. [Fig. 5 and Sec. 3.2] The manuscript never specifies how the 'theoretical' gamma* curve in Fig. 5 is computed. The surrounding text points to the fixed-point analysis of Eq. (12), but, as noted above, that map has no bifurcation for p=0.6 or p=0.8 at beta=100. If the curve is instead obtained from the crossing probability Eq. (10), the chosen probability threshold must be stated, along with error bars, because the empirical gamma* in Fig. 2 is identified by a visual criterion ('smallest value of gamma at which a noticeable discrepancy arises'). Without this specification, the quantitative claim that memory lowers gamma* and that the memory-based simulations align with theory is unsupported.
  3. [Sec. 3 and Sec. 2, Eq. (2)] For finite beta=100, the logit probabilities P+ and P- are strictly positive, so no consensus state is absorbing and the Markov chain is irreducible and ergodic in the standard infinite-time sense. The observed concentration of temporal means is a finite-time, finite-size effect. The paper should either define a practical notion of ergodicity over the observation window T and memory m, or explicitly state that strict ergodicity breaking occurs only in the beta to infinity limit. As written, the terms 'absorbing phase' and 'ergodicity breaking' overstate what the simulations establish.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Appendix B] The heading 'Acknkowledgments' is a typo for 'Acknowledgments'.
  2. [Section 6] The phrase 'a critical value critical value of the social weight' contains a duplicated phrase and should be corrected.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eq. (13)] The stability condition |f'_+(t+1)|<1 should specify that the derivative is evaluated at the fixed point, not at an arbitrary time.
  4. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption is incomplete ('clearly illustrating a the external signal') and should describe what constitutes the flip and which threshold is exceeded.
  5. [References] References [22] and [36] are the same paper and should be merged or one removed.
  6. [Section 4] In the beta to 0 discussion, the text says 'each state is adopted with equal probability p=0.5'; this confuses the parameter p with the resulting probability 1/2, and should be rephrased.
  7. [Fig. 5] The figure would be much clearer with error bars on the simulated gamma* values and with an explicit statement of how the visual criterion used in Fig. 2 is translated into a numerical estimate.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

One self-referential validation in the flipping-probability comparison; the central phase-transition analysis is independently derived.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1, Eqs. (8)-(10) and Fig. 4]
    "In the simulations, we track how often the condition in (9) is satisfied in the memory-based scenarios, namely when ⟨Xm⟩ exceeds the critical threshold defined in Eq. (8). The crossing frequency is recorded per simulation and averaged across several independent realizations S to obtain the empirical flipping probability. This value is then compared to the theoretical probability predicted from Gaussian statistics using the error function."

    The empirical flipping probability is defined, by construction, as the frequency with which the m-sample mean of the Bernoulli signal exceeds X*, while Eq. (10) is the Gaussian approximation of the probability of that same event. The simulation counts the condition in Eq. (9) directly; it does not run the agent-level update rule in Eq. (2). Therefore the agreement in Fig. 4 only verifies that a binomial tail is well approximated by the error function, not that the opinion-dynamics model's flip mechanism is correct. The analytical prediction and the simulated quantity are the same object, so the comparison is self-referential rather than an independent test.

full rationale

The paper's central phase-transition derivation is self-contained: Section 3.2 derives the fixed-point map Eq. (12) from the stated mean-field assumption Eq. (5) and identifies the bifurcation value gamma* without fitting any simulation output. The simulated gamma* is an independent operational estimate based on the same temporal-versus-ensemble diagnostic used to define the phases, which is a standard order-parameter measurement rather than a fitted input. No load-bearing result depends on a self-citation: refs. [52,53] are background only. The one circular element I found is the Fig. 4 flipping-probability comparison, where both the analytical formula and the computational estimate are probabilities of the same Bernoulli threshold-crossing event, so the agreement is a consistency check of the Gaussian approximation rather than an independent model test. Because this step is secondary and the central phase-transition claim has independent analytical content, the overall circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No constants are fitted to external data. The central mechanism depends on the hand-set inputs p=0.6, m=200, beta=100 and on finite N and T; these choices control where the phase boundary appears. The analytical flip probability is derived from the stated stochastic assumptions without additional fitted constants. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • signal bias p = 0.6
    Chosen to create a mildly asymmetric environment; all flip probabilities and the phase boundary depend on p, although the transition is claimed to persist for p>0.5.
  • memory length m = 200
    Chosen to smooth short-term fluctuations; the memory-based critical value gamma* approximately 0.37 is specific to this m and would shift with m.
  • sensitivity beta = 100 (high-sensitivity regime)
    Chosen to approximate the analytically tractable beta to infinity limit; Section 4 shows no transition for beta in [0,1], so the central claim is restricted to high sensitivity.
  • population size, time horizon and sample size = N=500, T=1000-3000, S=50-200
    These finite-size choices define the operational ergodicity classification; no finite-size scaling or error control is provided.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The population is well-mixed: agents interact only through the global state fraction f+(t).
    Payoffs in Eq. (1) depend only on f±; the fixed-point analysis in Section 3.2 is explicitly mean-field.
  • domain assumption Agents choose according to a Fermi/logit rule with a common sensitivity beta (Eq. 2).
    The choice functional form is assumed from discrete-choice and evolutionary game theory, not derived.
  • domain assumption The external signal X(t) is an i.i.d. Bernoulli sequence independent of the agent states.
    Defined in Section 2; the Gaussian approximation in Appendix A further assumes large m and applies the central limit theorem.
  • domain assumption For memory-based fixed-point analysis, the smoothed signal can be replaced by its expectation 2p-1 (Eq. 5).
    This is an infinite-memory, infinite-time limit; in simulations finite m drives the flips, so the deterministic map is only an approximation.
  • domain assumption Finite-time temporal and ensemble averages can diagnose ergodicity.
    With finite beta, P± are strictly positive, so the Markov chain is not rigorously non-ergodic; the paper treats the ergodic/absorbing distinction operationally.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Peer influence breaks ergodicity in an opinion dynamics model with external information." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5TFUXOZL

@misc{pith2026250706661,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Peer influence breaks ergodicity in an opinion dynamics model with external information},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5TFUXOZL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06661}
}
read the original abstract

We present a stochastic imitation-based model of opinion dynamics in which agents balance social conformity with responsiveness to an external signal. The model captures how populations evolve between two binary opinion states, driven by peer influence and noisy external information. Through both memory-less and memory-based implementations, we identify a critical threshold of social sensitivity that separates an ergodic phase--where agents collectively track the external signal--from a non-ergodic phase characterized by persistent consensus and reduced adaptability to external changes. Analytical results and simulations reveal that memory in decision-making smooths the transition and lowers the critical threshold for ergodicity breaking. Extending the model to various network structures confirms the robustness of the observed phase transition. We further discuss empirical methodologies for estimating the critical threshold and show how the model may be applied to real-world domains. Our findings contribute to understanding how social conformity, memory effects and randomness jointly shape collective behaviour, with implications for predicting social tipping points and influencing large-scale social dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06661 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Trajectories for stochastic and deterministic scenarios. Parameters: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Temporal and ensemble averages across several simulations. Simulation param [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The blue line shows the trajectory of a single agent, clearly illustrating a the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Probabilities of flipping P (⟨Xm⟩) > X∗ ) from state 0 to state 1 for several values of p, with a comparison of analytical (lines) and computational (markers with error bars). Other parameters are: β = 100, N = 100, T = 1000, m = 200, S = 50. where m is the number of t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparisons in log-log scale of the critical value [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temporal mean and ensemble average for Erd˝os–R´enyi implementation. Param [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Temporal mean and ensemble average across several simulations, for memory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Group Decision Making and Beyond 2. Distorted Polarization and Vulnerability

    physics.soc-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    In a zero-temperature Ising-like model of opinion dynamics, a single well-placed local field, or two opposed fields at the right sites, can override the random spontaneous consensus and force a predetermined majority.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Fifty years of sociology

    George C Homans. Fifty years of sociology. Annual Review of Sociology , 12(1):xiii– xxx, 1986

    work page 1986

  2. [2]

    Opinion polarization by learning from social feedback

    Sven Banisch and Eckehard Olbrich. Opinion polarization by learning from social feedback. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology , 43(2):76–103, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades

    Sushil Bikhchandani, David Hirshleifer, and Ivo Welch. A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of political Economy, 100(5):992–1026, 1992

    work page 1992

  4. [4]

    J. M. Keynes. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money . Macmillan,

    work page

  5. [5]

    Threshold models of collective behavior

    Mark Granovetter. Threshold models of collective behavior. American journal of sociology, 83(6):1420–1443, 1978

    1978

  6. [6]

    Sociophysics: A review of galam models

    Serge Galam. Sociophysics: A review of galam models. International Journal of Modern Physics C , 19(03):409–440, 2008. 15

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Social impact models of opinion dynamics

    Janusz A Ho lyst, Krzysztof Kacperski, and Frank Schweitzer. Social impact models of opinion dynamics. Annual Reviews Of Computational PhysicsIX , pages 253–273, 2001

    work page 2001

  8. [8]

    Statistical physics of social dynamics

    Claudio Castellano, Santo Fortunato, and Vittorio Loreto. Statistical physics of social dynamics. Reviews of modern physics , 81(2):591–646, 2009

    work page 2009

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    How can statistical mechanics contribute to social science? Pro- ceedings of the national academy of sciences , 96(19):10582–10584, 1999

    Steven N Durlauf. How can statistical mechanics contribute to social science? Pro- ceedings of the national academy of sciences , 96(19):10582–10584, 1999

    1999

  2. [10]

    Crises and collective socio-economic phenomena: simple models and challenges

    Jean-Philippe Bouchaud. Crises and collective socio-economic phenomena: simple models and challenges. Journal of Statistical Physics , 151(3):567–606, 2013

    2013

  3. [11]

    Voter models and external influence

    Jimit R Majmudar, Stephen M Krone, Bert O Baumgaertner, and Rebecca C Tyson. Voter models and external influence. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 44(1):1– 11, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Impact of memory on opinion dynamics

    Arkadiusz J¸ edrzejewski and Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron. Impact of memory on opinion dynamics. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications , 505:306–315, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    The noisy voter model on complex networks

    Adri´ an Carro, Ra´ ul Toral, and Maxi San Miguel. The noisy voter model on complex networks. Scientific reports, 6(1):24775, 2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    Ergodicity-breaking re- veals time optimal decision making in humans

    David Meder, Finn Rabe, Tobias Morville, Kristoffer H Madsen, Magnus T Koudahl, Ray J Dolan, Hartwig R Siebner, and Oliver J Hulme. Ergodicity-breaking re- veals time optimal decision making in humans. PLoS computational biology , 17(9):e1009217, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Statistical mechanics of phase transitions

    Julia M Yeomans. Statistical mechanics of phase transitions . Clarendon Press, 1992

    1992

  8. [16]

    Spontaneous symmetry breaking and the transition to disorder in physics

    Serge Galam. Spontaneous symmetry breaking and the transition to disorder in physics. In Cognitive Economics: An Interdisciplinary Approach , pages 157–168. Springer, 2004

    2004

  9. [17]

    Voter model on heterogeneous graphs

    Vishal Sood and Sidney Redner. Voter model on heterogeneous graphs. Physical review letters, 94(17):178701, 2005

    2005

  10. [18]

    Does a single zealot affect an infinite group of voters? Physical review letters, 91(2):028701, 2003

    Mauro Mobilia. Does a single zealot affect an infinite group of voters? Physical review letters, 91(2):028701, 2003

    2003

  11. [19]

    Brock and Steven N

    William A. Brock and Steven N. Durlauf. Discrete choice with social interactions. The Review of Economic Studies , 68(2):235–260, 2001

    2001

  12. [20]

    Scaling and criticality in a stochastic multi-agent model of a financial market

    Thomas Lux and Michele Marchesi. Scaling and criticality in a stochastic multi-agent model of a financial market. Nature, 397(6719):498–500, 1999

    1999

  13. [21]

    Whom or what does the representative individual represent? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 6(2):117–136, 1992

    Alan Kirman. Whom or what does the representative individual represent? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 6(2):117–136, 1992

    1992

  14. [22]

    Evolutionary dynamics in structured populations

    Martin A Nowak, Corina E Tarnita, and Tibor Antal. Evolutionary dynamics in structured populations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1537):19–30, 2010. 16

    2010

  15. [23]

    Nonequilibrium phase transition in the coevo- lution of networks and opinions

    Petter Holme and Mark EJ Newman. Nonequilibrium phase transition in the coevo- lution of networks and opinions. Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics , 74(5):056108, 2006

    2006

  16. [24]

    Physics and financial economics (1776–2014): puzzles, ising and agent-based models

    Didier Sornette. Physics and financial economics (1776–2014): puzzles, ising and agent-based models. Reports on progress in physics , 77(6):062001, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    The emergence of consensus: a primer

    Andrea Baronchelli. The emergence of consensus: a primer. Royal Society open science, 5(2):172189, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Binary-state dynamics on complex networks: Pair approximation and beyond

    James P Gleeson. Binary-state dynamics on complex networks: Pair approximation and beyond. Physical Review X , 3(2):021004, 2013

    2013

  19. [27]

    Unifying local dynamics in two-state spin systems

    Serge Galam. Unifying local dynamics in two-state spin systems. arXiv preprint cond-mat/0409484, 2004

    2004 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Statistical mechanics of socio-economic systems with heterogeneous agents

    Andrea De Martino and Matteo Marsili. Statistical mechanics of socio-economic systems with heterogeneous agents. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General , 39(43):R465, 2006

    2006

  21. [29]

    Sociodynamics: A systematic approach to mathematical modelling in the social sciences

    Wolfgang Weidlich. Sociodynamics: A systematic approach to mathematical modelling in the social sciences . Courier Corporation, 2006

    2006

  22. [30]

    Evolutionary prisoner’s dilemma game on a square lattice

    Gy¨ orgy Szab´ o and Csaba T˝ oke. Evolutionary prisoner’s dilemma game on a square lattice. Physical Review E , 58(1):69, 1998

    1998

  23. [31]

    Fixation probabilities in evolutionary games with the moran and fermi processes

    Xuesong Liu, Qiuhui Pan, Yibin Kang, and Mingfeng He. Fixation probabilities in evolutionary games with the moran and fermi processes. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 364:242–248, 2015

    2015

  24. [32]

    Evolutionary dynamics and fixation probabilities in directed networks

    Naoki Masuda and Hisashi Ohtsuki. Evolutionary dynamics and fixation probabilities in directed networks. New Journal of Physics , 11(3):033012, 2009

    2009

  25. [33]

    Econophysics: Empirical facts and agent-based models

    Anirban Chakraborti, Ioane Muni Toke, Marco Patriarca, and Fr´ ed´ eric Abergel. Econophysics: Empirical facts and agent-based models. arXiv preprint arXiv:0909.1974, 2009

    1974 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Post choice information in- tegration as a causal determinant of confidence: Novel data and a computational account

    Rani Moran, Andrei R Teodorescu, and Marius Usher. Post choice information in- tegration as a causal determinant of confidence: Novel data and a computational account. Cognitive psychology, 78:99–147, 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    On the evolution of random graphs

    Paul Erdos, Alfr´ ed R´ enyi, et al. On the evolution of random graphs. Publ. math. inst. hung. acad. sci , 5(1):17–60, 1960

    1960

  28. [36]

    Nowak, Corina E

    Martin A. Nowak, Corina E. Tarnita, and Tibor Antal. Evolutionary dynamics in structured populations. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B , 365:19–30, 2010

    2010

  29. [37]

    Stochastic blockmodels: First steps

    Paul W Holland, Kathryn Blackmond Laskey, and Samuel Leinhardt. Stochastic blockmodels: First steps. Social networks, 5(2):109–137, 1983

    1983

  30. [38]

    Emergence of scaling in random networks

    Albert-L´ aszl´ o Barab´ asi and R´ eka Albert. Emergence of scaling in random networks. science, 286(5439):509–512, 1999. 17

    1999

  31. [39]

    What is sociophysics about? In Sociophysics: A Physicist’s Modeling of Psycho-political Phenomena , pages 3–19

    Serge Galam. What is sociophysics about? In Sociophysics: A Physicist’s Modeling of Psycho-political Phenomena , pages 3–19. Springer, 2011

    2011

  32. [40]

    The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment

    Damon Centola. The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science, 329(5996):1194–1197, 2010

    2010

  33. [41]

    Theory of collective opinion shifts: from smooth trends to abrupt swings

    Quentin Michard and J-P Bouchaud. Theory of collective opinion shifts: from smooth trends to abrupt swings. The European Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter and Complex Systems , 47:151–159, 2005

    2005

  34. [42]

    How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect

    Jan Lorenz, Heiko Rauhut, Frank Schweitzer, and Dirk Helbing. How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 108(22):9020–9025, 2011

    2011

  35. [43]

    Social influence and the collective dynamics of opinion formation

    Mehdi Moussa ¨ ıd, Juliane E K¨ ammer, Pantelis P Analytis, and Hansj¨ org Neth. Social influence and the collective dynamics of opinion formation. PloS one , 8(11):e78433, 2013

    2013

  36. [44]

    Dynamics of political polarization

    Delia Baldassarri and Peter Bearman. Dynamics of political polarization. American sociological review, 72(5):784–811, 2007

    2007

  37. [45]

    The brexit vote: a divided nation, a divided continent

    Sara B Hobolt. The brexit vote: a divided nation, a divided continent. Journal of European public policy, 23(9):1259–1277, 2016

    2016

  38. [46]

    Cross-country trends in af- fective polarization

    Levi Boxell, Matthew Gentzkow, and Jesse M Shapiro. Cross-country trends in af- fective polarization. Review of Economics and Statistics , 106(2):557–565, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Schelling

    Thomas C. Schelling. Micromotives and Macrobehavior. W. W. Norton & Company, 1978

    1978

  40. [48]

    Sociophysics: A Physicist’s Modeling of Psycho-political Phenomena

    Serge Galam. Sociophysics: A Physicist’s Modeling of Psycho-political Phenomena . Springer, 2012

    2012

  41. [49]

    Herbert A. Simon. Models of bounded rationality. MIT Press, 1982

    1982

  42. [50]

    Experts’ earning forecasts: Bias, herding and gossamer information

    Olivier Guedj and Jean-Philippe Bouchaud. Experts’ earning forecasts: Bias, herding and gossamer information. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance, 08(07):933–946, 2005

    2005

  43. [51]

    Robert J. Shiller. Irrational Exuberance. Princeton University Press, 3rd edition, 2015

    2015

  44. [52]

    Don’t follow the leader: how ranking performance reduces meritoc- racy

    Giacomo Livan. Don’t follow the leader: how ranking performance reduces meritoc- racy. Royal society open science , 6(11):191255, 2019

    2019

  45. [53]

    Imitation versus serendipity in ranking dynamics

    Federica De Domenico, Fabio Caccioli, Giacomo Livan, Guido Montagna, and Oreste Nicrosini. Imitation versus serendipity in ranking dynamics. Royal Society Open Science, 11(7):240177, 2024

    2024

  46. [54]

    Evaluating gambles using dynamics

    Ole Peters and Murray Gell-Mann. Evaluating gambles using dynamics. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science , 26(2), 2016

    2016

  47. [55]

    Prediction markets

    Justin Wolfers and Eric Zitzewitz. Prediction markets. Journal of Economic Per- spectives, 18(2):107–126, 2004. 18

    2004

  48. [56]

    Herd behavior and aggregate fluctuations in financial markets

    Rama Cont and Jean-Philippe Bouchaud. Herd behavior and aggregate fluctuations in financial markets. Macroeconomic dynamics, 4(2):170–196, 2000

    2000

  49. [57]

    Minority Games: Interacting Agents in Financial Markets

    Damien Challet, Matteo Marsili, and Yi-Cheng Zhang. Minority Games: Interacting Agents in Financial Markets . Oxford University Press, 2005

    2005

  50. [58]

    Matthew O. Jackson. Social and Economic Networks . Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2010

    2010

  51. [59]

    Statistical mechanics of socio-economic systems with heterogeneous agents

    Andrea De Martino and Matteo Marsili. Statistical mechanics of socio-economic systems with heterogeneous agents. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General , 39(43):R465, oct 2006. 19

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.