The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Novel Multidimensional Models of Opinion Dynamics in Social Networks
Open accessAbstract
Unlike many complex networks studied in the literature, social networks rarely exhibit unanimous behavior, or consensus. This requires a development of mathematical models that are sufficiently simple to be examined and capture, at the same time, the complex behavior of real social groups, where opinions and actions related to them may form clusters of different size. One such model, proposed by Friedkin and Johnsen, extends the idea of conventional consensus algorithm (also referred to as the iterative opinion pooling) to take into account the actors' prejudices, caused by some exogenous factors and leading to disagreement in the final opinions. In this paper, we offer a novel multidimensional extension, describing the evolution of the agents' opinions on several topics. Unlike the existing models, these topics are interdependent, and hence the opinions being formed on these topics are also mutually dependent. We rigorously examine stability properties of the proposed model, in particular, convergence of the agents' opinions. Although our model assumes synchronous communication among the agents, we show that the same final opinions may be reached “on average” via asynchronous gossip-based protocols.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Boyd, S., & Vandenberghe, L. (2004) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511804441 · Cited by 56,601
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger, L. (1957) · doi:10.1515/9781503620766 · Cited by 24,241
Mixing beliefs among interacting agents
Deffuant, G., Neau, D., Amblard, F., & Weisbuch, G. (2000) · Advances in Complex Systems · doi:10.1142/s0219525900000078 · Cited by 2,165
Small Worlds and Cultural Polarization
FLACHE, A., & MACY, M. W. (2011) · The Journal of Mathematical Sociology · doi:10.1080/0022250x.2010.532261 · Cited by 237
Cited by
A tutorial on modeling and analysis of dynamic social networks. Part I
Proskurnikov, A. V., & Tempo, R. (2017) · Annual Reviews in Control · doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2017.03.002 · Cited by 553
Self-citationA tutorial on modeling and analysis of dynamic social networks. Part II
Proskurnikov, A. V., & Tempo, R. (2018) · Annual Reviews in Control · doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2018.03.005 · Cited by 294
Self-citationPublic Discourse and Social Network Echo Chambers Driven by Socio-Cognitive Biases
Wang, X., Sirianni, A. D., Tang, S., Zheng, Z., & Fu, F. (2020) · Physical Review X · doi:10.1103/physrevx.10.041042 · Cited by 93
Epistemic Communities under Active Inference
Albarracin, M., Demekas, D., Ramstead, M. J. D., & Heins, C. (2022) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e24040476 · Cited by 60
Modeling Confirmation Bias and Peer Pressure in Opinion Dynamics
Liu, L., Wang, X., Chen, X., Tang, S., & Zheng, Z. (2021) · Frontiers in Physics · doi:10.3389/fphy.2021.649852 · Cited by 23
Metadata
- Authors
- Parsegov, S. E., Proskurnikov, A. V., Tempo, R., & Friedkin, N. E.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control
- Published
- 2017-05
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 2270-2285
- ISSN
- 0018-9286 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-2523
- OpenAlex
- W1020659046
- Cited by
- 396
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 17.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Novel Multidimensional Models of Opinion Dynamics in Social Networks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tac.2016.2613905
- The paper
- Parsegov, S. E., Proskurnikov, A. V., Tempo, R., & Friedkin, N. E. (2017). Novel Multidimensional Models of Opinion Dynamics in Social Networks. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. https://doi.org/10.1109/tac.2016.2613905
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.