Abstract
In this paper opinion dynamics in multi-agent systems is investigated analytically using a kinetic approach. Interactions among agents are interpreted as collisions among molecules in gases and opinion dynamics is described according to the Boltzmann equation. Starting from a microscopic description of single interactions, global properties of the opinion distribution are derived analytically. The proposed analytic model is general enough to allow reproducing features of real societies of agents, such as positive and negative influences and bounded confidence, which are typically used to study opinion distribution models. Analytic results relative to emergent and global characteristics of considered multi-agent systems are verified by simulations obtained via direct implementation of the proposed microscopic interactions rules. Simulations confirm analytic results.







Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Abelson RP (1964) Mathematical models of the distribution of attitudes under controversy. In: Frederiksen N, Gulliksen H (eds) Contributions to mathematical psycology. Columbia University, New York
Abrahamson E (1999) Management fashion: lifecycles, triggers, and collective learning processes. Adm Sci Q 44:708–740
Axtell R, Axelrod R, Epstein JM, Cohen MD (1996) Aligning simulation models: a case study and results. Comput Math Organ Theory 1(2):123–141
Axelrod R (1997) The dissemination of culture: a model with local convergence and global polarization. J Confl Resolut 41(2):203–226
Bergenti F, Franchi E, Poggi A (2013) Agent-based interpretations of classic network models. Comput Math Organ Theory 19:105–127
Ben-Naim E (2005) Opinion dynamics: rise and fall of political parties. Europhys Lett 69:671–677
Bonabeau E (2002) Agent-based modeling: methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:7280–7287
Castellano G, Fortunato S, Loreto V (2009) Statistical physics of social dynamics. Rev Mod Phys 82:591
DiMaggio PJ, Powell W (1983) The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am Sociol Rev 48(2):147–160
Galam S, Gefen Y, Shapir Y (2009) Sociophysics: a new approach of sociological collective behavior. J Math Sociol 81:591–646
Hegselmann R, Krause U (2002) Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 5(3):1–33
Langton C (2000) Artificial life. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston
Mark NP (2003) Culture and competition: homophily and distancing explainations for cultural niches. Am Sociol Rev 68:319–345
Mas M, Flache A (2013) Differentiation without distancing. Explaining bi-polarization of opinions without negative influence. PLOS One 8(11):e74516
Mäs M, Flache A, Helbing D (2010) Individualisazion as driving force of clustering phenomena in humans. PLOS One 6(10):e1000959
Monica S, Bergenti F (2014) A stochastic model of self-stabilizing cellular automata for consensus formation. Proc 15th Workshop “Dagli Oggetti agli Agenti” (WOA 2014). Catania
Monica S, Bergenti F (2015) Simulations of opinion formation in multi-agent systems using kinetic theory. Proc 16th Workshop “Dagli Oggetti agli Agenti” (WOA 2015). Napoli
Monica S, Bergenti F (2015) A kinetic study of opinion dynamics in multi-agent systems. Proc Convegno AI*IA 2015. Ferrara
Nowak A, Szamrej J, Latan B (1990) From private attitude to public opinion: a dynamic theory of social impact. Psycol Rev 97:362–376
Olfati-Saber R, Fax JA, Murray RM (2007) Consensus and cooperation in networked multi-agent systems. Proc IEEE 95:215–233
Pineda M, Toral R, Hernandez-Garcia E (1982) Noisy continuous opinion dynamics. J Stat Mech 9:1–13
Pareschi L, Toscani G (2013) Interacting multiagent systems: kinetic equations and Montecarlo methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Schweitzer F, Holyst JA (2000) Modelling collective opinion formation by means of active brownian particles. Eur Phys J B 15:723–732
Stauffer D, Penna TJP (1998) Crossover in the Cont-Bouchaud percolation model for market fluctuations. Phys A 256:284–290
Tsang A, Larson K (2014) Opinion dynamics of skeptical agents. Proc 13th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2014). Paris
Toscani G (2006) Kinetic models of opinion formation. Commun Math Sci 4:481–496
Weidlich W (2000) Sociodynamics: a systematic approach to mathematical modelling in the social sciences. Harwood Academic Publisher, Amsterdam
Yildiz E, Ozdaglar A, Acemoglu D, Saberi A, Scaglione A (1982) Noisy continuous opinion dynamics. J Stat Mech 9:1–13
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix A
Appendix A
This appendix details how the stationary solutions \(g_{\infty }\) shown in (37) and (48) are derived. First, let us consider the results in Subsect. 3.2 obtained with the diffusion function \(D_1(\cdot )\). The function \(g_{\infty }\) is found by solving (35) with \(C=0\). Let us start by considering \(v>0\), so that (35) can be written as
Dividing both sides by g one obtains
and observing that
Eq. (63) can be written as
where we used the fact that
Integrating (65), one finally obtains the following expression for the stationary profile
where \(\tilde{c}_{u, \lambda }\) is a normalization constant that depends on the average opinion u and on \(\lambda\).
Let us now consider \(v<0\) so that Eq. (35) becomes
Dividing both sides by g leads to
and applying analogous manipulations to the case with \(v>0\) one obtains
Integrating (70) leads to the following formula for the stationary profile
where v has been substituted by \(-|v|\) and \(\hat{c}_{u, \lambda }\) is a normalization constant.
Since \(g_{\infty }\) is the solution of a differential equation it must be continuous. From (67) and (71) it is evident that \(g_{\infty }\) is continuous for \(v>0\) and \(v<0\). By imposing that \(g_{\infty }\) is also continuous in \(v=0\), the following equality needs to hold
Finally, the solution of (35) is
as stated in (37).
Let us now consider the results in Subsect. 3.3 obtained with the diffusion function \(D_2(\cdot )\). The function \(g_{\infty }\) is found by solving (46) with \(C=0\). Using standard techniques, from (46), one obtains
Integrating the right hand side of (74) leads to an explicit expression of \(\log g\), and, therefore, of g. The first addend on the right hand side of (74) can be written as
Concerning the remaining terms in (74), first observe that
Moreover one can compute
Finally, using (75), (76), and (77), Eq. (74) can be written as
and, therefore,
where \(\alpha _{u, \lambda }\) is a constant which depends on the average opinion u and on the value of \(\lambda\). Taking the exponential of (78), the following expression for the stationary solution is derived
which coincides with that shown in (48).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Monica, S., Bergenti, F. Opinion dynamics in multi-agent systems: selected analytic models and verifying simulations. Comput Math Organ Theory 23, 423–450 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-016-9235-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-016-9235-z