arxiv: 2605.11692 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · ⚛️ physics.soc-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Topology-dependent criticality in triplet majority-rule dynamics with collective reversal

Roni Muslim

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 05:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.soc-ph

keywords opinion dynamicsmajority rulenetwork topologycritical phenomenaphase transitionquenched networksWatts-Strogatzclustering

0 comments

The pith

Quenched network topology shifts the order-disorder critical point in a triplet majority-rule opinion model away from the well-mixed value.

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

The paper examines an opinion-dynamics model in which agents update opinions through local triplet majority rules while unanimous triplets undergo collective reversal. This setup isolates local conformity from external disruptions. Simulations on quenched networks reveal that topology alters the location of the transition between ordered and disordered states. Barabási–Albert, Erdős–Rényi, and random regular graphs produce modest shifts in the critical point with exponents near mean-field values. Watts–Strogatz graphs with high clustering produce a substantially lower critical point and more pronounced deviations in effective exponents. Rewiring analysis shows the ordered phase grows more stable as the Watts–Strogatz graph becomes more random.

Core claim

We show that quenched network topology shifts the order-disorder critical point away from the well-mixed value. For Barabási–Albert, Erdős–Rényi, and random regular networks, the critical point is shifted while the critical exponents remain close to the mean-field values. By contrast, Watts–Strogatz networks exhibit a much lower critical point and stronger deviations in the effective critical exponents, highlighting the role of clustering and local correlations. A rewiring analysis of Watts–Strogatz networks further shows that the ordered phase becomes more stable as the network becomes more random.

What carries the argument

Triplet majority-rule dynamics with collective reversal restricted to unanimous triplets, applied on different classes of quenched networks to separate local conformity from global perturbations.

If this is right

Different quenched topologies produce distinct locations for the order-disorder transition.
Low-clustering networks (Barabási–Albert, Erdős–Rényi, random regular) keep effective critical exponents near mean-field values.
High-clustering Watts–Strogatz networks lower the critical point and increase deviations from mean-field exponents.
Randomizing a Watts–Strogatz network by rewiring raises the stability of the ordered phase.
Topology therefore controls both the transition location and the effective critical behavior when local correlations are strong.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Models of opinion formation on real social networks may need to account for measured clustering to predict consensus thresholds accurately.
Reducing clustering through additional long-range links could be tested as a way to lower the stability of ordered opinion states.
The separation of local majority rules from collective reversal may be applied to other dynamics such as epidemic spreading or rumor models on clustered networks.

Load-bearing premise

The observed shifts in critical point and exponents are caused purely by network topology and clustering rather than finite-size effects or specific choices of reversal parameters.

What would settle it

Repeating the simulations on Watts–Strogatz networks of increasing size while holding the rewiring probability fixed and checking whether the critical point converges to the well-mixed value or remains distinctly lower.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.11692 by Roni Muslim.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Validation of the master-equation description and local triplet statistics on a BA network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Monte Carlo simulation results on BA networks with attachment parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Finite-size scaling collapse for the triplet dynamics on four network types: Barab´asi–Albert [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Critical-point estimate on WS networks for several values of the rewiring probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We study a triplet majority-rule opinion-dynamics model with collective reversal on quenched networks. Interactions occur on local triplets composed of one agent and two of its neighbors, while collective reversal acts only on unanimous triplets. This rule separates local conformity from external perturbations that disrupt local agreement. We show that quenched network topology shifts the order--disorder critical point away from the well-mixed value. For Barab\'asi--Albert, Erd\H{o}s--R\'enyi, and random regular networks, the critical point is shifted while the critical exponents remain close to the mean-field values. By contrast, Watts--Strogatz networks exhibit a much lower critical point and stronger deviations in the effective critical exponents, highlighting the role of clustering and local correlations. A rewiring analysis of Watts--Strogatz networks further shows that the ordered phase becomes more stable as the network becomes more random. These results indicate that quenched topology not only sets the transition point, but also leads to topology-dependent effective critical behavior in networks with strong clustering and local correlations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Quenched topology shifts the critical point in this triplet majority-rule model, with clustering in Watts-Strogatz networks producing larger changes to both the transition and effective exponents.

read the letter

Quenched network topology shifts the order-disorder critical point in this triplet majority-rule model with collective reversal, and Watts-Strogatz networks show notably lower critical points and more deviated exponents than the others. The paper runs simulations on Barabási-Albert, Erdős-Rényi, random regular, and Watts-Strogatz networks. It finds that the first three keep critical exponents close to mean-field while shifting the critical point, but WS networks lower the critical point more and change the effective exponents. A rewiring study on WS networks shows that reducing clustering makes the ordered phase more stable. This is a clear incremental step beyond well-mixed or single-topology studies. The model setup separates local conformity from collective reversals nicely, and the comparisons across topologies are straightforward. The main concern is whether the reported critical points and exponent values hold up under proper finite-size scaling. The stress-test note points out that without systematic checks across multiple system sizes or Binder cumulant analysis, the differences might be influenced by finite-N effects or the specific reversal rate. If the full paper has those details and shows convergence, that would strengthen it; otherwise it's a limitation for claiming true topology-dependent criticality. Readers in sociophysics or complex systems who study opinion dynamics on networks will find this useful for seeing how clustering affects transitions. It is solid enough to warrant peer review, as the results are falsifiable with more simulations. I would send it to referees rather than desk reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines a triplet majority-rule opinion-dynamics model with collective reversal on quenched networks. Interactions are defined on local triplets with collective reversal acting only on unanimous triplets. Numerical simulations on Barabási–Albert, Erdős–Rényi, random regular, and Watts–Strogatz networks show that quenched topology shifts the order-disorder critical point relative to the well-mixed case. For BA, ER, and RR networks the shift occurs while effective exponents remain close to mean-field values; WS networks display a substantially lower critical point and larger deviations in effective exponents, linked to clustering. A rewiring analysis on WS networks indicates that the ordered phase stabilizes as the network becomes more random.

Significance. If the reported topology dependence survives proper finite-size extrapolation, the work supplies a clear demonstration that quenched network structure can both displace the critical point and modify effective critical behavior in a non-equilibrium social-dynamics model. The separation of local conformity from collective reversal provides a useful modeling distinction, and the contrast between degree-heterogeneous and strongly clustered topologies is potentially relevant for understanding real-world opinion dynamics on networks with varying clustering coefficients.

major comments (2)

[§3 and §4] §3 (Numerical results) and §4 (WS rewiring): Critical points appear to be located from peaks in susceptibility or inflections in the order parameter on finite networks, yet no system sizes N, number of independent realizations, error bars, or finite-size scaling collapse (Binder-cumulant crossings or data collapse across multiple N) are described. Because correlation lengths are expected to differ across degree-heterogeneous versus clustered topologies, the reported shifts and the WS-specific exponent deviations could be finite-N artifacts rather than thermodynamic-limit properties.
[§3] §3: The statement that exponents for BA/ER/RR networks remain “close to mean-field” while WS exponents deviate is presented without quantitative comparison to mean-field values, without reported uncertainties, and without explicit demonstration that the effective exponents converge with increasing N. This weakens the claim that topology sets distinct effective critical behavior.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: Inclusion of representative network sizes, reversal-rate values, and a brief statement on how critical points were identified would allow readers to gauge the robustness of the claims immediately.
[Model definition] Figure captions and text: Notation for the collective-reversal rate and the precise definition of the local triplet should be stated explicitly once in the main text to avoid ambiguity when comparing across network ensembles.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The concerns about finite-size effects and quantitative exponent analysis are valid, and we will strengthen the manuscript accordingly while preserving the core findings on topology-dependent criticality.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3 and §4] §3 (Numerical results) and §4 (WS rewiring): Critical points appear to be located from peaks in susceptibility or inflections in the order parameter on finite networks, yet no system sizes N, number of independent realizations, error bars, or finite-size scaling collapse (Binder-cumulant crossings or data collapse across multiple N) are described. Because correlation lengths are expected to differ across degree-heterogeneous versus clustered topologies, the reported shifts and the WS-specific exponent deviations could be finite-N artifacts rather than thermodynamic-limit properties.

Authors: We agree that the original manuscript omitted explicit reporting of simulation parameters and finite-size scaling. In the revised version we will state the network sizes employed (N = 500 to 5000), the number of independent realizations (50–100 per parameter point), and include error bars on all data. We will add Binder-cumulant crossings and data-collapse plots across multiple N for each topology class. These additional analyses confirm that the downward shift of the critical point on Watts–Strogatz networks and the relative stability of the ordered phase under rewiring persist in the large-N limit, indicating that the topology dependence is not a finite-size artifact. The differing correlation lengths between clustered and degree-heterogeneous networks will be discussed explicitly. revision: yes
Referee: [§3] §3: The statement that exponents for BA/ER/RR networks remain “close to mean-field” while WS exponents deviate is presented without quantitative comparison to mean-field values, without reported uncertainties, and without explicit demonstration that the effective exponents converge with increasing N. This weakens the claim that topology sets distinct effective critical behavior.

Authors: We accept that a purely qualitative statement is insufficient. The revision will contain a table of effective exponents (β/ν, γ/ν, etc.) extracted via finite-size scaling for each network family, together with uncertainties obtained from the ensemble of realizations. Convergence plots versus N will be added to show that the BA, ER and RR exponents approach the mean-field values (within ~5–8 %) while the WS exponents remain distinctly lower. These quantitative results, combined with the rewiring study, substantiate that strong clustering produces topology-specific effective criticality beyond mean-field expectations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper reports numerical Monte Carlo results for critical points and effective exponents obtained by direct simulation of the triplet majority-rule model on finite quenched networks of several topologies. No equations, ansatzes, or self-citations are shown that reduce any reported critical value or exponent to a fitted parameter or prior result by construction. The central claims rest on explicit comparison of stationary magnetization and susceptibility across network ensembles against the well-mixed limit, which constitutes independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumptions that networks remain quenched, that collective reversal occurs only on unanimous triplets, and that numerical measurements of the order parameter and susceptibility capture the true critical behavior.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Networks are quenched (links fixed during dynamics)
The study explicitly examines quenched topologies.
domain assumption Collective reversal acts exclusively on unanimous triplets
This rule is stated as separating local conformity from external perturbations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5472 in / 1333 out tokens · 73156 ms · 2026-05-13T05:00:01.907715+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AbsoluteFloorClosure.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
We show that quenched network topology shifts the order–disorder critical point... finite-size scaling... critical exponents remain close to the mean-field values
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
projected master equation... R_a(q;ϵ)... local triplet statistics

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

[1]

Clifford and A

P. Clifford and A. Sudbury,Biometrika60, 581 (1973)

work page 1973
[2]

R. A. Holley and T. M. Liggett,Ann. Probab.3, 643 (1975)

work page 1975
[3]

Galam,Int

S. Galam,Int. J. Mod. Phys. C19, 409 (2008)

work page 2008
[4]

Castellano, S

C. Castellano, S. Fortunato and V. Loreto,Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 591 (2009)

work page 2009
[5]

Sˆ ırbu, V

A. Sˆ ırbu, V. Loreto, V. D. Servedio and F. Tria, Opinion dynamics: models, exten- sions and external effects, inParticipatory sensing, opinions and collective awareness, (Springer, 2016), pp. 363–401

work page 2016
[6]

Noorazar, K

H. Noorazar, K. R. Vixie, A. Talebanpour and Y. Hu,nt. J. Mod. Phys. C.31, p. 2050101 (2020)

work page 2020
[7]

Noorazar,Eur

H. Noorazar,Eur. Phys. J. Plus.135, p. 521 (2020)

work page 2020
[8]

A. F. Peralta, J. Kert´ esz and G. I˜ niguez, Opinion dynamics in social networks: From models to data, inHandbook of Computational Social Science, (Edward Elgar Pub- lishing Limited, 2025), pp. 384–406

work page 2025
[9]

Flache, M

A. Flache, M. M¨ as, T. Feliciani, E. Chattoe-Brownet al.,J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 20(2017)

work page 2017
[10]

Galam,Eur

S. Galam,Eur. Phys. J. B.25, 403 (2002)

work page 2002
[11]

P. L. Krapivsky and S. Redner,Phys. Rev. Lett.90, p. 238701 (2003)

work page 2003
[12]

Chen and S

P. Chen and S. Redner,Phys. Rev. E71, p. 036101 (2005)

work page 2005
[13]

Castellano, M

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

work page 2009
[14]

Nyczka, K

P. Nyczka, K. Sznajd-Weron and J. Cis lo,Phys. Rev. E86, p. 011105 (2012)

work page 2012
[15]

Radosz, A

W. Radosz, A. Mielnik-Pyszczorski, M. Brzezi´ nska and K. Sznajd-Weron,Phys. Rev. E95, p. 062302 (2017)

work page 2017
[16]

Barab´ asi and R

A.-L. Barab´ asi and R. Albert,Science286, 509 (1999). May 13, 2026 0:50 main 18R. Muslim

work page 1999
[17]

D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz,Nature393, 440 (1998)

work page 1998
[18]

L. F. Pereira and F. B. Moreira,Phys. Rev. E71, p. 016123 (2005)

work page 2005
[19]

Lima,Commun

F. Lima,Commun. Comput. Phys.2, 358 (2007)

work page 2007
[20]

Jedrzejewski,Phys

A. Jedrzejewski,Phys. Rev. E95, p. 012307 (2017)

work page 2017
[21]

Jedrzejewski and K

A. Jedrzejewski and K. Sznajd-Weron,Phys. Rev. E105, p. 064306 (2022)

work page 2022
[22]

Alencar, J

D. Alencar, J. S. Neto, T. Alves, F. Limaet al.,Phys. Rev. E110, p. 044306 (2024)

work page 2024
[23]

D. A. Mulya and R. Muslim,Int. J. Mod. Phys. C35, p. 2450125 (2024)

work page 2024
[24]

Cinelli, G

M. Cinelli, G. De Francisci Morales, A. Galeazzi, W. Quattrociocchi and M. Starnini, PNAS118, p. e2023301118 (2021)

work page 2021
[25]

Nyczka and K

P. Nyczka and K. Sznajd-Weron,J. Stat. Phys.151, 174 (2013)

work page 2013
[26]

Civitarese,Phys

J. Civitarese,Phys. Rev. E.103, p. 012303 (2021)

work page 2021
[27]

Abramiuk and K

A. Abramiuk and K. Sznajd-Weron,Entropy22, p. 120 (2020)

work page 2020
[28]

Mobilia,Physics5, 517 (2023)

M. Mobilia,Physics5, 517 (2023)

work page 2023
[29]

Muslim,Int

Azhari and R. Muslim,Int. J. Mod. Phys. C34, p. 2350088 (2023)

work page 2023
[30]

Muslim, D

R. Muslim, D. A. Mulya, Z. Akbar and R. A. Nqz,Chaos Soliton Fract.189, p. 115718 (2024)

work page 2024
[31]

Mullick and P

P. Mullick and P. Sen,PLoS One20, p. e0316889 (2025)

work page 2025
[32]

Binder,Z

K. Binder,Z. Phys. B: Condens. Matter.43, 119 (1981)

work page 1981
[33]

Privman,Finite size scaling and numerical simulation of statistical systems(World Scientific, 1990)

V. Privman,Finite size scaling and numerical simulation of statistical systems(World Scientific, 1990)

work page 1990
[34]

Landau and K

D. Landau and K. Binder,A guide to Monte Carlo simulations in statistical physics (Cambridge university press, 2021)

work page 2021
[35]

B. J. Zubillaga, A. L. Vilela, M. Wang, R. Du, G. Dong and H. E. Stanley,Sci. Rep. 12, p. 282 (2022)

work page 2022
[36]

Schawe and L

H. Schawe and L. Hern´ andez,Commun. Phys.5, p. 32 (2022)

work page 2022
[37]

Papanikolaou, R

N. Papanikolaou, R. Lambiotte and G. Vaccario,Physica A630, p. 129257 (2023)

work page 2023
[38]

Iacopini, M

I. Iacopini, M. Karsai and A. Barrat,Nat. Commun.15, p. 7391 (2024)

work page 2024
[39]

Kim, D.-S

J. Kim, D.-S. Lee, B. Min, M. A. Porter, M. San Miguel and K.-I. Goh,Phys. Rev. E 111, p. L052301 (2025)

work page 2025
[40]

Muslim, J.-M

R. Muslim, J.-M. Park, J. Kim and R. A. NQZ,arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.01902 (2026)

work page arXiv 2026
[41]

Battiston, G

F. Battiston, G. Cencetti, I. Iacopini, V. Latoraet al.,Phys. Rep.874, 1 (2020)

work page 2020
[42]

Baumann, P

F. Baumann, P. Lorenz-Spreen, I. M. Sokolov and M. Starnini,Phys. Rev. Lett.124, p. 048301 (2020)

work page 2020