the axelrod model for cultural dissemination: role of noise, peer pressure and homophily claudio...
TRANSCRIPT
The Axelrod model for cultural dissemination: role of noise, peer pressure and homophily
Claudio CastellanoCNR-INFM Statistical Mechanics and Complexity
andUniversita’ di Roma “La Sapienza”
Outline:• Phenomenology of the Axelrod model• Variations of the original model • The relevance of noise• In search of robustness
Opinion dynamics
• Do regularities exist? Universal laws? • What is the effect of the structure of social networks and
of mass-media?
Interactions between individuals tend to
favor homogeneization
Other mechanisms favor fragmentation
• How do opinions spread? • What affects the way consensus is reached? • What mechanisms are at work?
A model for cultural dissemination
• “If people tend to become more alike in their beliefs, attitudes and behaviors when they interact, why do not all differences disappear?”
[R. Axelrod, J. of Conflict Resolution, 41, 203 (1997)]
• Culture is more complicated than opinions:
several coupled features
• Two basic ingredients
• Social influence: Interactions make individuals more similar.• Homophily: Likeliness of interaction grows with similarity.
Definition of Axelrod model
Each individual is characterized by F integer variables, i,f , assuming q possible traits
1 <=i,f <= q
Dynamics:
• Pick at random a site (i), a neighbor (j)
• Compute
overlap = # of common features/F
• With prob. proportional to overlap:
pick f’, such that i,f’ <> j,f’ and set
i,f’ = j,f’
• Iterate
Fragmentation-consensus transition
Low initial variability
High initial variability
The evolution depends on the number q of traits in the initial state
Phenomenology of Axelrod model: statics
Control parameter:
q = number of possible traits for each feature
Order parameter: smax/N fraction of system occupied by the largest domain
smax/N N -1 disorder
smax/N = O(1) order
Consensus-fragmentation transition
depending on the initial condition
Low q: consensus
High q: fragmentation (polarization)
C. Castellano et al., Phys. Rev. Lett, 85, 3536 (2000)
Phenomenology of Axelrod model: dynamicsObservable:
density of active links n(t)
Active links: pairs of neighbors that are neither
completely different (overlap=0) nor equal
(overlap=1)
Close to the transition (q<q_c) the density of active links almost goes to zero and then grows up to very large values before going to zero.
Nontrivial interplay of different
temporal scales
Mean-field approach
Dynamics is mapped into
a dynamics for links
A transition between a state
with active links and a state
without them is found.
The divergence of the
temporal scales is computed: |q-qc|-1/2
both above and below qc
C. Castellano et al., Phys. Rev. Lett, 85, 3536 (2000)
F. Vazquez and S. Redner, EPL, 78, 18002 (2007)
On complex topologies
Small world (WS) networks: interpolations between regular
lattices and random networks.
• Randomness in topology increases order• Fragmented phase survives for any p
K. Klemm et al., Phys. Rev. E, 67, 026120 (2003)
On complex topologiesScale-free networks: P(k)~k--
• Scale-free topology increases order• Fragmented phase disappears for infinite systems
The effect of mass media
M = (1,……, F) is a
fixed external field
Mass media tend to reduce consensus
Y. Shibanai et al., J. Conflict Resol., 45, 80 (2001)
J. C. Gonzalez-Avella et al, Phys. Rev. E, 72, 065102 (2005)
Also valid for
global or local coupling
The role of noise
Cultural drift:
Each feature of each individual can spontaneously change at rate r
K. Klemm et al., Phys. Rev. E, 67, 045101 (2003)
The role of noise
What happens
as N changes?
Noise destroys the q-dependent transition
For large N the system is always disordered, for any q and r
Competition between temporal scale for noise (1/r) and for the relaxation of perturbation T(N).
T(N) << 1/r consensus
T(N) >> 1/r fragmentation
Another (dis)order parameter
Ng = number of domains
g = <Ng>/N
r=0:
Consensus g ~ N-1
Fragmentation g ~ const
r>0:
Consensus g ~ r
Fragmentation g >> r
In search of robustness
Flache and Macy (preprint, 2007):
a threshold on prob. of interaction
Are there simple modifications
of Axelrod dynamics that preserve
under noise the existence of
a transition depending on q?
Fluctuations simply accumulate until the threshold is overcome.
Agent becomes equal tothe majority of neighbors
Agent becomes equal toa randomly chosen neighbor
Old relatives of Axelrod model
Voter model
Glauber-Ising dynamics
Voter gives disorder for any noise rate.
Glauber-Ising dynamics gives order for small noise.
Axelrod model with peer pressure
Introduced by Kuperman (Phys. Rev. E, 73, 046139, 2006).
Usual prescription for the interaction of agents + additional step:
If the trait to be adopted, i,f’ , is shared by the majority of
neighbors then accept. Otherwise reject it.
For r=0 striped configurations
are reached.
A well known problem for
Glauber-Ising dynamics
[Spirin et al.,
Phys. Rev. E, 63, 036118 (2001)]
This introduces peer pressure (surface tension)
For r>0 there are long lived metastable striped configurations
that make the analysis difficult
Axelrod’s model with peer pressureWe can start from fully ordered configurations
For any q, discontinuity in the asymptotic value of g:
transition between consensus and fragmentation
Axelrod’s model with peer pressure
The order parameter smax/N
Consensus-fragmentation transition for qc(r).
Limit r0 does not coincide with case r=0.
Phase-diagram
Summary and outlook
• Axelrod model has rich and nontrivial phenomenology with
a transition between consensus and fragmentation.
• Noise strongly perturbs the model behavior .
• If peer pressure is included the original Axelrod phenomenology is rather robust with respect to noise.
• Coevolution• Theoretical understanding• Empirical validation
Thanks to: Matteo Marsili, Alessandro Vespignani, Daniele Vilone.