pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.11521 · v2 · pith:2RMQ2PU2new · submitted 2025-07-15 · ⚛️ physics.soc-ph · cond-mat.stat-mech

Opinion dynamics: Statistical physics and beyond

Michele Starnini , Fabian Baumann , Tobias Galla , David Garcia , Gerardo I\~niguez , M\'arton Karsai , Jan Lorenz , Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 00:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.soc-ph cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords opinion dynamicsstatistical physicssocial phenomenaconsensuspolarizationhomophilyecho chambersinterdisciplinary models
0
0 comments X

The pith

Societies form consensus or fragmentation from local opinion interactions, much like physical systems show macroscopic patterns from microscopic rules.

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

The paper reviews opinion dynamics by establishing that individual beliefs evolve into collective public opinions through localized interactions, producing macroscopic outcomes such as consensus or fragmentation in a manner analogous to physical systems. It organizes the field by first defining core concepts including the nature of opinions and the distinction between microscopic and macroscopic dynamics, then surveys empirical work from controlled experiments to large-scale behavioral data analysis. The review next categorizes individual-based models according to the phenomena they generate and the mechanisms they employ, such as homophily and assimilation, before covering analytical and computational methods and pointing to new directions like linking data to models and testing ideas with AI agents. A sympathetic reader would care because this systematic treatment supplies a shared language and theoretical backbone for a rapidly expanding interdisciplinary area.

Core claim

Opinion dynamics examines how beliefs and collective public opinion evolve through localized interactions among individuals, yielding macroscopic regularities such as consensus or fragmentation that parallel those observed in physical systems. This review consolidates the dispersed literature by introducing essential concepts and definitions, surveying empirical research that informs and tests models, presenting individual-based models grouped by their produced phenomena and underlying mechanisms, describing common analytical and computational tools, and identifying emerging frontiers including data-model integration and the use of AI agents as experimental platforms.

What carries the argument

The central analogy between localized social interactions producing macroscopic opinion patterns and the emergence of regularities in physical systems organizes the entire review and justifies applying statistical physics methods to social phenomena.

If this is right

  • Models can be systematically grouped and compared by the macroscopic states they produce, such as consensus, polarization, or echo chambers, and by the microscopic rules they implement.
  • Empirical observations from laboratory experiments and large-scale data analysis can be used to validate, refine, or reject specific model assumptions.
  • Standard tools from statistical physics, including stochastic processes, mean-field treatments, and numerical simulations, become directly applicable to studying opinion evolution.
  • New research directions such as coupling models to real behavioral data and deploying AI agents as controlled testbeds follow naturally from the established foundation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The framework could be extended to forecast how external shocks, such as media campaigns or policy changes, alter opinion distributions across populations.
  • Universal scaling relations observed in physical systems might appear in opinion data when measured across different platforms or cultural contexts.
  • Treating AI agents as model organisms could allow safe exploration of feedback loops between recommendation algorithms and opinion fragmentation.

Load-bearing premise

Macroscopic regularities in societies arise from localized interactions in a manner sufficiently analogous to physical systems to justify the statistical physics approach.

What would settle it

Large-scale opinion datasets that display persistent patterns incompatible with predictions from local-interaction models would undermine the claimed analogy and the usefulness of the statistical physics framework for this domain.

read the original abstract

Opinion dynamics, the study of how individual beliefs and collective public opinion evolve, is a fertile domain for applying statistical physics to complex social phenomena. Like physical systems, societies exhibit macroscopic regularities from localized interactions, leading to outcomes such as consensus or fragmentation. This field has grown significantly, attracting interdisciplinary methods and driven by a surge in large-scale behavioral data. This review covers its rapid progress, bridging the literature dispersion. We begin with essential concepts and definitions, encompassing the nature of opinions, microscopic and macroscopic dynamics. This foundation leads to an overview of empirical research, from lab experiments to large-scale data analysis, which informs and validates models of opinion dynamics. We then present individual-based models, categorized by their macroscopic phenomena (e.g., consensus, polarization, echo chambers) and microscopic mechanisms (e.g., homophily, assimilation). Furthermore, the review covers common analytical and computational tools, including stochastic processes, treatments, simulations, and optimization. Finally, we explore emerging frontiers, such as connecting empirical data to models and using AI agents as testbeds for novel social phenomena. By systematizing terminology and emphasizing analogies with traditional physics, this review aims to consolidate knowledge, provide a robust theoretical foundation, and shape future research in opinion dynamics.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. This review synthesizes the field of opinion dynamics through a statistical physics lens. It opens with definitions of opinions, microscopic and macroscopic dynamics, then surveys empirical work from lab experiments to large-scale data. Models are organized by macroscopic outcomes (consensus, polarization, echo chambers) and microscopic mechanisms (homophily, assimilation). Analytical tools (stochastic processes, mean-field treatments, simulations) and frontiers (data-model integration, AI agents) are covered. The stated aim is to systematize terminology and strengthen the physics analogy for a robust foundation.

Significance. If the analogies are shown to hold with appropriate bounds, the review could consolidate a dispersed literature and guide future work at the physics-social science interface. The structured categorization of models and inclusion of empirical validation and AI testbeds are positive features. However, the significance is limited by the absence of quantitative checks on the physics mapping, reducing its ability to deliver the claimed 'robust theoretical foundation'.

major comments (2)
  1. [Introduction / essential concepts and definitions] Introduction and essential concepts section: the claim that 'societies exhibit macroscopic regularities from localized interactions' is used to justify the statistical physics approach, yet the review provides no quantitative correspondence (e.g., matching critical exponents or mean-field predictions to empirical polarization data) or bounds on validity for directed/non-reciprocal influence. This assumption is load-bearing for the central goal of a robust foundation.
  2. [individual-based models] Section on individual-based models: models are categorized by macroscopic phenomena and microscopic mechanisms, but the text does not examine how standard tools (master equations, mean-field approximations) transfer when interaction symmetry is absent, leaving the analogy heuristic rather than demonstrated.
minor comments (2)
  1. [common analytical and computational tools] The abstract mentions 'treatments' among the tools; clarify whether this refers to mean-field treatments or another technique.
  2. [analytical and computational tools] A few citations to foundational physics papers on phase transitions appear missing when discussing consensus as an ordering transition.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. The comments highlight important ways to strengthen the presentation of the statistical-physics analogy. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Introduction and essential concepts section: the claim that 'societies exhibit macroscopic regularities from localized interactions' is used to justify the statistical physics approach, yet the review provides no quantitative correspondence (e.g., matching critical exponents or mean-field predictions to empirical polarization data) or bounds on validity for directed/non-reciprocal influence. This assumption is load-bearing for the central goal of a robust foundation.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would benefit from a more explicit discussion of the quantitative support for the analogy and its limits. As a review we do not introduce new empirical tests, but we will revise the Introduction to (i) cite and briefly summarize existing studies that report quantitative matches (e.g., critical-exponent comparisons for polarization and mean-field predictions for consensus thresholds), and (ii) state the principal assumptions and known bounds, including the case of directed or non-reciprocal influence. These additions will make the load-bearing claim more precise without over-reaching. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Section on individual-based models: models are categorized by macroscopic phenomena and microscopic mechanisms, but the text does not examine how standard tools (master equations, mean-field approximations) transfer when interaction symmetry is absent, leaving the analogy heuristic rather than demonstrated.

    Authors: We accept the observation. Although some cited models already incorporate asymmetric interactions, the review does not systematically discuss the adaptation of analytical tools. We will add a short subsection (or expand the existing analytical-tools section) that outlines how master equations and mean-field closures are modified for directed networks, referencing the relevant literature on non-reciprocal opinion dynamics. This change will render the analogy more concrete. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Review paper presents no derivations, predictions, or fitted results; synthesis is self-contained.

full rationale

This is a literature review that organizes existing models, empirical findings, and tools without introducing new equations, parameter fits, or first-principles derivations. The abstract and structure describe categorization of prior work by macroscopic outcomes and microscopic mechanisms, plus discussion of analytical tools, but contain no self-referential modeling steps, no predictions derived from fitted inputs, and no load-bearing self-citations that reduce the central claims to unverified premises. The statistical-physics analogy is presented as a framing device for synthesis rather than a derived result, so no circular reduction exists.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

As a review article the paper does not introduce new fitted parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities; it relies on established concepts from statistical physics and social science.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Societies exhibit macroscopic regularities from localized interactions
    Invoked in the abstract as the basis for applying statistical physics methods to opinion dynamics.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5777 in / 1165 out tokens · 54011 ms · 2026-05-22T00:39:30.996062+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

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

  1. Collective Alignment in LLM Multi-Agent Systems: Disentangling Bias from Cooperation via Statistical Physics

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    LLM multi-agent systems on lattices show bias-driven order-disorder crossovers instead of true phase transitions, with extracted effective couplings and fields serving as model-specific fingerprints.

  2. Comparing Data Assimilation and Likelihood-Based Inference on Latent State Estimation in Agent-Based Models

    cs.LG 2025-09 accept novelty 7.0

    First systematic comparison of DA and LBI on the Bounded-Confidence ABM finds LBI superior for recovering latent agent-level opinions and individual forecasts, with comparable aggregate performance.

  3. A Bounded-Confidence Model of Opinion Dynamics with Adaptive Interaction Probabilities

    physics.soc-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    An adaptive edge-weighted version of the DW opinion dynamics model is introduced with proven convergence properties and network-dependent effects on convergence time shown via simulations.

  4. A Bounded-Confidence Model of Opinion Dynamics with Adaptive Interaction Probabilities

    physics.soc-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    The authors extend the DW opinion dynamics model with adaptive edge weights on networks, prove convergence and effective-graph properties, and simulate that adaptive weights speed convergence on dense networks but slo...

  5. Optimality in group-driven social dynamics on hypergraphs

    physics.soc-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Intermediate hyperedge nestedness minimizes the simplicial contagion outbreak threshold and intermediate social reinforcement minimizes the prefactor of logarithmic consensus time in hypergraph models due to competiti...

  6. Mapping the Winds of Stance Dynamics using Potential Landscape Models

    cs.SI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A framework uses stance detection, linear dimensionality reduction, and neural potential landscapes to recover a 3D stance space explaining 45% variance and to visualize large-scale shifts across platforms and years.

  7. Ratio-Dependent Contrarian Activation in Opinion Dynamics

    physics.soc-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Ratio-dependent contrarian activation in groups of three extends the Galam model to allow strategies that bias outcomes toward the initial majority or enforce random fifty-fifty results.

  8. Mean-field dynamics of attractive resource interaction: From uniform to aggregated states

    math.DS 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A generalized mean-field resource model on the simplex has a unique explicit equilibrium to which every trajectory converges monotonically, with parameter regimes for uniform versus aggregated distributions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

300 extracted references · 300 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers · 11 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Kleinberg, D

    Abebe, R., J. Kleinberg, D. Parkes, and C. E. Tsourakakis (2018), inProceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD Interna- tional Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Min- ing, KDD ’18 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA) pp. 1089–1098. Abella, D., J. C. González-Avella, M. San Miguel, and J. J. Ramasco (2024), New Journal of Physics26 (1), 0...

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Abelson, R. P. (1967), in Advances in Experimental So- cial Psychology, Vol. 3, edited by L. Berkowitz (Academic Press) pp. 1–54. Abelson, R. P., and A. Bernstein (1963), Public Opinion Quarterly 27 (1),

    work page 1967

  3. [3]

    Polarized or Sorted? Just What’s Wrong With Our Politics, Anyway?

    Abisheva, A., D. Garcia, and F. Schweitzer (2016), inPro- ceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Web Science, Web- Sci ’16 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA) pp. 307–308. Abramiuk-Szurlej, A., A. Lipiecki, J. Pawłowski, and K. Sznajd-Weron (2021), Scientific Reports11 (1), 17719. Abramowitz, A. I., and M. P. Fiorina (2013), “Polarized...

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022381608080493 2016

  4. [4]

    Flammini, and Y.-Y

    Aiyappa, R., A. Flammini, and Y.-Y. Ahn (2024), Science Advances 10 (15), eadh4439. Al Hammal, O., H. Chaté, I. Dornic, and M. A. Muñoz (2005), Phys. Rev. Lett.94 (23), 230601. Albert, R., and A.-L. Barabási (2002), Reviews of Modern Physics 74 (1),

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    E., and C

    Allen, I. E., and C. A. Seaman (2007), Quality Progress 40 (7),

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Competition between simple and complex conta- gion on temporal networks,

    Amato, R., N. E. Kouvaris, M. San Miguel, and A. Díaz- Guilera (2017), New Journal of Physics19 (12), 123019. Amblard, F., and G. Deffuant (2004), Physica A: Statisti- cal Mechanics and its Applications343, 725, arXiv:cond- mat/0404574. Anderson, C. (2008), Wired . Anderson, D. F. (2007), The Journal of Chemical Physics 127 (21), 214107. Anderson, N. H. (...

    work page arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    Muchnik, and A

    Aral, S., L. Muchnik, and A. Sundararajan (2009), Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences106 (51), 21544. Aral, S., and C. Nicolaides (2017), Nature Communications 8 (1), 14753. Aral, S., and D. Walker (2011), Management science57 (9),

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Walker (2012), Science337 (6092),

    Aral, S., and D. Walker (2012), Science337 (6092),

    work page 2012

  9. [9]

    Biased Transmis- sion Drives an Accuracy-Consensus Tradeoff in Collective Learning,

    Arehart, E., and E. Akcay (2025), “Biased Transmis- sion Drives an Accuracy-Consensus Tradeoff in Collective Learning,” . Arenas, A., A. Díaz-Guilera, J. Kurths, Y. Moreno, and C. Zhou (2008), Physics Reports469 (3),

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Argyle, L. P., E. C. Busby, N. Fulda, J. R. Gubler, C. Rytting, and D. Wingate (2023), Political Analysis31 (3),

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Computational analysis of US Congressional speeches reveals a shift from evidence to intuition,

    Arnaboldi, V., M. Conti, A. Passarella, and R. I. Dunbar (2017), Online Social Networks and Media1, 44, publisher: Elsevier. Aroyehun, S. T., A. Simchon, F. Carrella, J. Lasser, S. Lewandowsky, and D. Garcia (2024), “Computational analysis of US Congressional speeches reveals a shift from evidence to intuition,” ArXiv:2405.07323 [econ]. Arrow, K. J. (1963...

    work page arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    Artime, O., A. F. Peralta, R. Toral, J. J. Ramasco, and M. San Miguel (2018), Physical Review E98 (3), 032104. Artime, O., J. J. Ramasco, and M. San Miguel (2017), Sci- entific Reports 7 (1), 41627. Asch, S. E. (1951), inGroups, leadership and men; research in human relations(Carnegie Press, Oxford, England) pp. 177–190. Asch, S. E. (1955), Scientific Ame...

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    (1997), Journal of Conflict Resolution 41 (2),

    Axelrod, R. (1997), Journal of Conflict Resolution 41 (2),

    work page 1997

  14. [14]

    Saramäki, and R

    Backlund, V.-P., J. Saramäki, and R. K. Pan (2014), Physical Review E 89 (6), 062815. Bagchi, C., F. Menczer, J. Lundquist, M. Tarafdar, A. Paik, and P. A. Grabowicz (2024), 10.5281/zenodo.13787981, arXiv:2409.18393 [cs]. Bagnoli, F., T. Carletti, D. Fanelli, A. Guarino, and A. Guazzini (2007), Physical Review E76(6), 066105, pub- lisher: American Physica...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.13787981 2014

  15. [15]

    Chadwick, H

    Bakker, M., M. Chadwick, H. Sheahan, M. Tessler, L. Campbell-Gillingham, J. Balaguer, N. McAleese, A. Glaese, J. Aslanides, M. Botvinick, and C. Summer- field (2022), Advances in Neural Information Processing 79 Systems 35, 38176. Bakshy, E., I. Rosenn, C. Marlow, and L. Adamic (2012), in Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web(...

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    Olbrich (2019), The Journal of Mathe- matical Sociology 43 (2),

    Banisch, S., and E. Olbrich (2019), The Journal of Mathe- matical Sociology 43 (2),

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Shamon (2023), Sociological Methods & Research , 00491241231186658

    Banisch, S., and H. Shamon (2023), Sociological Methods & Research , 00491241231186658. Banisch, S., and H. Shamon (2024), Journal of Artificial So- cieties and Social Simulation27 (1),

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    Bao, H., Z. P. Neal, and W. Banzhaf (2023), Complex & Intelligent Systems 9 (1),

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    (2005), Nature435 (7039),

    Barabási, A.-L. (2005), Nature435 (7039),

    work page 2005

  20. [20]

    (2009), Science325 (5939),

    Barabási, A.-L. (2009), Science325 (5939),

    work page 2009

  21. [21]

    Albert (1999), Science 286 (5439),

    Barabási, A.-L., and R. Albert (1999), Science 286 (5439),

    work page 1999

  22. [22]

    Kelly (2012), Berkman Center Research Publication (2012-9)

    Barash, V., and J. Kelly (2012), Berkman Center Research Publication (2012-9). Barberá, P. (2015), Political Analysis23 (1),

    work page 2012

  23. [23]

    Barberá, P., J. T. Jost, J. Nagler, J. A. Tucker, and R. Bon- neau (2015), Psychological Science26 (10),

    work page 2015

  24. [24]

    Baron, J. W., A. F. Peralta, T. Galla, and R. Toral (2022), Entropy 24 (10),

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    (2018), Royal Society Open Science 5 (2), 172189

    Baronchelli, A. (2018), Royal Society Open Science 5 (2), 172189. Baronchelli, A., M. Felici, V. Loreto, E. Caglioti, and L. Steels (2006), Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2006 (06), P06014. Barrat, A., M. Barthélemy, and A. Vespignani (2008),Dy- namical Processes on Complex Networks(Cambridge Uni- versity Press) google-Books-ID: f...

    work page 2018

  26. [26]

    Bass, F. M., T. V. Krishnan, and D. C. Jain (1994), Market- ing Science 13 (3),

    work page 1994

  27. [27]

    Cencetti, I

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

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    Halpern, A

    Baumann, F., D. Halpern, A. D. Procaccia, I. Rahwan, I. Shapira, and M. Wüthrich (2024), inProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024(ACM, Singapore Singapore) pp. 288–299. Baumann, F., P. Lorenz-Spreen, I. M. Sokolov, and M. Starnini (2020a), Physical Review Letters 124 (4), 048301. Baumann, F., P. Lorenz-Spreen, I. M. Sokolov, and M. Starnini (2021), Ph...

    work page arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Baxter, G. J., R. A. Blythe, and A. J. McKane (2008), Phys- ical Review Letters101 (25), 258701, publisher: American Physical Society. Bellina, A., C. Castellano, P. Pineau, G. Iannelli, and G. De Marzo (2023), Physical Review E108 (5), 054304. Ben-Naim, E., P. L. Krapivsky, and S. Redner (2003), Phys- ica D 183,

    work page 2008

  30. [30]

    Benczik, I. J., S. Z. Benczik, B. Schmittmann, and R. K. P. Zia (2008), EPL (Europhysics Letters)82 (4), 48006. Bernardes, A., D. Stauffer, and J. Kertész (2002), The Euro- pean Physical Journal B - Condensed Matter25 (1),

    work page 2008

  31. [31]

    Altafini, A

    Bernardo, C., C. Altafini, A. Proskurnikov, and F. Vasca (2024), Automatica 159, 111302. Berner, R., T. Gross, C. Kuehn, J. Kurths, and S. Yanchuk (2023), Physics Reports1031,

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    (2022), Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Sim- ulation 25 (1),

    Betz, G. (2022), Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Sim- ulation 25 (1),

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    Dyson, and A

    Biancalani, T., L. Dyson, and A. J. McKane (2014), Physical Review Letters 112 (3), 038101. Biely, C., R. Hanel, and S. Thurner (2009), The European Physical Journal B67 (3),

    work page 2014

  34. [34]

    Bisbee, J., J. D. Clinton, C. Dorff, B. Kenkel, and J. M. Larson (2024), Political Analysis32 (4),

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Boguñá, M., L. F. Lafuerza, R. Toral, and M. A. Serrano (2014), Physical Review E90 (4), 042108. Boguñá, M., R. Pastor-Satorras, A. Díaz-Guilera, and A. Arenas (2004), Physical Review E70 (5), 056122. Bond, R. M., C. J. Fariss, J. J. Jones, A. D. I. Kramer, C. Marlow, J. E. Settle, and J. H. Fowler (2012), Nature 489 (7415), 295, publisher: Nature Publish...

    work page 2014

  36. [36]

    Moreno (2012), Physical Review E 85 (2), 026116

    Borge-Holthoefer, J., and Y. Moreno (2012), Physical Review E 85 (2), 026116. Borge-Holthoefer, J., A.Rivero, andY.Moreno(2012),Phys- ical Review E85 (6), 066123. Borghesi, C., and S. Galam (2006), Physical Review E73(6), 066118. Bornholdt, S., M.H.Jensen, andK.Sneppen(2011),Physical Review Letters 106 (5), 10.1103/physrevlett.106.058701, publisher: Ameri...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.106.058701 2012

  37. [37]

    Ryckebusch, and L

    Botte, N., J. Ryckebusch, and L. E. Rocha (2022), Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications599, 127423. Bovet, A., F. Morone, and H. A. Makse (2018), Scientific Reports 8 (1), 8673, publisher: Nature Publishing Group. Boxell, L., M. Gentzkow, and J. M. Shapiro (2024), Review of Economics and Statistics106 (2),

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    Boyd, R., and P. J. Richerson (2005), in The Origin and Evolution of Cultures(Oxford University PressNew York, NY) pp. 52–65. Brady, W. J., J. A. Wills, J. T. Jost, J. A. Tucker, and J. J. Van Bavel (2017), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 (28),

    work page 2005

  39. [39]

    Braha, D., and M. A. M. De Aguiar (2017), PLOS ONE 12 (5), e0177970. Bramson, A., P. Grim, D. J. Singer, S. Fisher, W. Berger, G. Sack, and C. Flocken (2016), The Journal of Mathe- matical Sociology 40 (2), 80, publisher: Informa UK Lim- ited. 80 Bramson, M., and L. F. Gray (2021), The Annals of Applied Probability 31 (1), 10.1214/20-AAP1586. Brede, M. (2...

    work page doi:10.1214/20-aap1586 2017

  40. [40]

    Restocchi, and S

    Brede, M., V. Restocchi, and S. Stein (2019), Journal of Complex Networks 7 (3),

    work page 2019

  41. [41]

    Breum, S. M., D. V. Egdal, V. G. Mortensen, A. G. Møller, and L. M. Aiello (2024), Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media18,

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    Baumann, J.-F

    Brinkmann, L., F. Baumann, J.-F. Bonnefon, M. Derex, T. F. Müller, A.-M. Nussberger, A. Czaplicka, A. Acerbi, T. L. Griffiths, J. Henrich, J. Z. Leibo, R. McElreath, P.-Y. Oudeyer, J. Stray, and I. Rahwan (2023), Nature Human Behaviour 7 (11),

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    Emergence of polarization in a sigmoidal bounded- confidence model of opinion dynamics,

    Brodka, P., K. Musial, and J. Jankowski (2020), IEEE Access 8, 10316. Brooks, H. Z., P. S. Chodrow, and M. A. Porter (2023), “Emergence of polarization in a sigmoidal bounded- confidence model of opinion dynamics,” ArXiv:2209.07004 [math]. Brush, S. G. (1967), Reviews of Modern Physics39 (4),

    work page arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    Wallen (1984), in Catalogue of Artifi- cial Intelligence Tools, edited by A

    Bundy, A., and L. Wallen (1984), in Catalogue of Artifi- cial Intelligence Tools, edited by A. Bundy and L. Wallen (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg) pp. 13–13. Burton, J. W., N. Cruz, and U. Hahn (2021), Nature Hu- man Behaviour 5 (12), 1629, publisher: Nature Publishing Group. Böhme, G. A., and T. Gross (2012), Physical Review E 85 (6), 06...

    work page 1984

  45. [45]

    Toral, and M

    Carro, A., R. Toral, and M. San Miguel (2013), Journal of Statistical Physics 151 (1),

    work page 2013

  46. [46]

    Toral, and M

    Carro, A., R. Toral, and M. San Miguel (2016a), New Journal of Physics 18 (11), 113056. Carro, A., R. Toral, and M. San Miguel (2016b), Scientific Reports 6 (1), 24775. Carro, A., F. Vazquez, R. Toral, and M. San Miguel (2014), Physical Review E89 (6), 062802. Cartwright, D., and F. Harary (1956), Psychological Review 63 (5),

    work page 2014

  47. [47]

    (2005), AIP Conference Proceedings779 (1),

    Castellano, C. (2005), AIP Conference Proceedings779 (1),

    work page 2005

  48. [48]

    Loreto, A

    Castellano, C., V. Loreto, A. Barrat, F. Cecconi, and D. Parisi (2005), Physical Review E71 (6), 066107, pub- lisher: American Physical Society. Castellano, C., M. A. Muñoz, and R. Pastor-Satorras (2009b), Physical Review E80 (4), 041129. Castellano, C., and R. Pastor-Satorras (2012), Physical Re- view E 86 (5), 051123. Cencetti, G., D. A. Contreras, M. M...

    work page 2005

  49. [49]

    (2018), How behavior spreads: The science of complex contagions, Vol

    Centola, D. (2018), How behavior spreads: The science of complex contagions, Vol. 3 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ). Centola, D. (2022), Trends in Cognitive Sciences26 (11),

    work page 2018

  50. [50]

    Baronchelli (2015), Proceedings of the NationalAcademyofSciences 112(7),1989,publisher: Na- tional Academy of Sciences

    Centola, D., and A. Baronchelli (2015), Proceedings of the NationalAcademyofSciences 112(7),1989,publisher: Na- tional Academy of Sciences. Centola, D., J. Becker, D. Brackbill, and A. Baronchelli (2018), Science 360 (6393), 1116, publisher: American As- sociation for the Advancement of Science. Centola, D., V. M. Eguíluz, and M. W. Macy (2007a), Phys- ic...

    work page 2015

  51. [51]

    Macy (2007), American Journal of So- ciology 113 (3),

    Centola, D., and M. Macy (2007), American Journal of So- ciology 113 (3),

    work page 2007

  52. [52]

    Duch (2025), PS: Political Science & Pol- itics 58 (2),

    Cerina, R., and R. Duch (2025), PS: Political Science & Pol- itics 58 (2),

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    Chacoma, A., and D. H. Zanette (2015), PLOS ONE10 (10), e0140406. Chandrasekaran, D., and G. J. Tellis (2017), Review of mar- keting research , 39Publisher: Routledge. Charalambous, C., D. Sanchez, and R. Toral (2023), Frontiers in Complex Systems V olume 1 - 2023 , 10.3389/fcpxs.2023.1304448. Chen, H., C. Shen, H. Zhang, G. Li, Z. Hou, and J. Kurths (201...

    work page doi:10.3389/fcpxs.2023.1304448 2015

  54. [54]

    S., and P

    Chodrow, P. S., and P. J. Mucha (2020), SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 80 (1),

    work page 2020

  55. [55]

    Min, and T

    Choi, J., B. Min, and T. Galla (2025), Physical Review E 111 (6), 064303. Chowdhary, S., A. Kumar, G. Cencetti, I. Iacopini, and F. Battiston (2021), Journal of Physics: Complexity2 (3), 035019, publisher: IOP Publishing. Christakis, N. A., and J. H. Fowler (2008), New England Journal of Medicine358 (21),

    work page 2025

  56. [56]

    A density description of a bounded-confidence model of opinion dynamics on hy- 81 pergraphs,

    Christakis, N. A., and J. H. Fowler (2013), Statistics in medicine 32 (4), 556, publisher: Wiley Online Library. Chu, O. J., J. F. Donges, G. B. Robertson, and G. Pop- Eleches (2021), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118 (50), e2104194118. Chu, W., and M. A. Porter (2023), “A density description of a bounded-confidence model of opinion dyna...

    work page arXiv 2013

  57. [57]

    De Francisci Morales, A

    Cinelli, M., G. De Francisci Morales, A. Galeazzi, W. Quat- trociocchi, and M. Starnini (2021), Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences118 (9), e2023301118. Cinus, F., A. Gionis, and F. Bonchi (2023), inProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM ’23 (Association for Computing Machinery, New...

    work page 2021

  58. [58]

    Sudbury (1973), Biometrika60 (3),

    Clifford, P., and A. Sudbury (1973), Biometrika60 (3),

    work page 1973

  59. [59]

    Laber (2020), Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application7 (1),

    Clifton, J., and E. Laber (2020), Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application7 (1),

    work page 2020

  60. [60]

    Cohen, A. R. (1962), Journal of Personality30 (1),

    work page 1962

  61. [61]

    Ruths (2013), Proceedings of the Interna- tional AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media7 (1), 91, number:

    Cohen, R., and D. Ruths (2013), Proceedings of the Interna- tional AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media7 (1), 91, number:

    work page 2013

  62. [62]

    Conover, M. D., B. Goncalves, J. Ratkiewicz, A. Flammini, and F. Menczer (2011b), in2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Social Comput- ing, pp. 192–199. Conover, M. D., B. Gonçalves, A. Flammini, and F. Menczer (2012), EPJ Data Science 1 (1), 1, number: 1 Publisher: ...

    work page 2011

  63. [63]

    Gilbert, G

    Conte, R., N. Gilbert, G. Bonelli, C. Cioffi-Revilla, G. Def- fuant, J. Kertesz, V. Loreto, S. Moat, J. P. Nadal, A. Sanchez, A. Nowak, A. Flache, M. San Miguel, and D. Helbing (2012), The European Physical Journal Special Topics 214 (1),

    work page 2012

  64. [64]

    Converse, P. E. (2006), Critical Review18 (1-3),

    work page 2006

  65. [65]

    Cook, S. W. (1985), American Psychologist40(4), 452, place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association. Cornacchia, E., N. Singer, and E. Abbe (2020), in2020 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) (IEEE, Los Angeles, CA, USA) pp. 2765–2770. Cossard, A., G. D. F. Morales, K. Kalimeri, Y. Mejova, D. Paolotti, and M. Starnini (2020),...

    work page 1985

  66. [66]

    Costello, T. H., G. Pennycook, and D. G. Rand (2024), Sci- ence 385 (6714), eadq1814, publisher: American Associa- tion for the Advancement of Science. Cota, W., S. C. Ferreira, R. Pastor-Satorras, and M. Starnini (2019), EPJ Data Science8 (1),

    work page 2024

  67. [67]

    Miller (2017), The Theory of Stochastic Processes, 1st ed

    Cox, D., and H. Miller (2017), The Theory of Stochastic Processes, 1st ed. (Routledge). Cox, J. T. (1989), The Annals of Probability17 (4), 1333, publisher: Institute of Mathematical Statistics. Cox, J. T., and R. Durrett (1991), inRandom Walks, Brow- nian Motion, and Interacting Particle Systems, edited by R. Durrett and H. Kesten (Birkhäuser Boston, Bos...

    work page 2017

  68. [68]

    Toral, and M

    Czaplicka, A., R. Toral, and M. San Miguel (2016), Physical Review E 94 (6), 10.1103/physreve.94.062301, publisher: American Physical Society (APS). Daley, D. J., and D. G. Kendall (1964), Nature204 (4963),

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.94.062301 2016

  69. [69]

    Castellano (2007), Europhysics Letters 77 (6), 60005

    Dall’Asta, L., and C. Castellano (2007), Europhysics Letters 77 (6), 60005. Dall’Asta, L., and T. Galla (2008), Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical41 (43), 435003. Dandekar, P., A. Goel, and D. T. Lee (2013), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences110 (15),

    work page 2007

  70. [70]

    Bhattacharya, P

    De, A., S. Bhattacharya, P. Bhattacharya, N. Ganguly, and S. Chakrabarti (2014), inProceedings of the 23rd ACM in- ternational conference on conference on information and knowledge management, pp. 401–410. De, A., I. Valera, N. Ganguly, S. Bhattacharya, and M. Gomez Rodriguez (2016), Advances in neural informa- tion processing systems29. De Arruda, G. F.,...

    work page 2014

  71. [71]

    Gallo, F

    De Kemmeter, J.-F., L. Gallo, F. Boncoraglio, V. Latora, and T. Carletti (2024), Advances in Complex Systems 27 (04n05), 2440001. De Marzo, G., A. Zaccaria, and C. Castellano (2020), Phys- ical Review Research2 (4), 043117. De Oliveira, M. J. (1992), Journal of Statistical Physics66(1- 2),

    work page 2024

  72. [72]

    (2006), Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 9 (3),

    Deffuant, G. (2006), Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 9 (3),

    work page 2006

  73. [73]

    Deffuant, G., D. Neau, F. Amblard, and G. Weisbuch (2000), Advances in Complex Systems03 (01n04),

    work page 2000

  74. [74]

    Deffuant, G., D. Neau, F. Amblard, and G. Weisbuch (2002), Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation5 (4),

    work page 2002

  75. [75]

    Degroot, M. H. (1974), Journal of the American Statistical Association 69 (345),

    work page 1974

  76. [76]

    Scala, G

    Del Vicario, M., A. Scala, G. Caldarelli, H. E. Stanley, and W. Quattrociocchi (2017), Scientific Reports7 (1), 40391. Del Vicario, M., G. Vivaldo, A. Bessi, F. Zollo, A. Scala, G. Caldarelli, and W. Quattrociocchi (2016b), Scientific Reports 6 (1), 37825, publisher: Nature Publishing Group. DellaPosta, D. (2020), American Sociological Review85 (3),

    work page 2017

  77. [77]

    Shi, and M

    DellaPosta, D., Y. Shi, and M. Macy (2015), American Jour- nal of Sociology 120 (5), 1473, publisher: University of Chicago Press Chicago, IL. Demirel, G., F. Vazquez, G. Böhme, and T. Gross (2014), Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena267,

    work page 2015

  78. [78]

    (2021), Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 31 (2), 023137

    DeVille, L. (2021), Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 31 (2), 023137. Diakonova, M., V. M. Eguíluz, and M. San Miguel (2015), Physical Review E92 (3), 032803. 82 Diakonova, M., V. Nicosia, V. Latora, and M. San Miguel (2016), New Journal of Physics18 (2), 023010, publisher: IOP Publishing. Diakonova, M., M. San Miguel, and V. M. Egu...

    work page 2021

  79. [79]

    Evans, and B

    DiMaggio, P., J. Evans, and B. Bryson (1996), Amer- ican Journal of Sociology 102 (3), 690, _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1086/230995. Disarò, G., and M. E. Valcher (2023), in2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC)(IEEE, Singa- pore, Singapore) pp. 3384–3389. Djurdjevac Conrad, N., N. Quang Vu, and S. Nagel (2024), Chaos: An Interdisciplinar...

    work page doi:10.1086/230995 1996

  80. [80]

    S., and J

    Dodds, P. S., and J. L. Payne (2009), Physical Review E 79 (6), 066115. Dong, Y., L. Huo, M. Perc, and S. Boccaletti (2025), Com- munications Physics 8 (1),

    work page 2009

Showing first 80 references.