The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Structural Balance and Opinion Separation in Trust–Mistrust Social Networks
Open accessAbstract
Structural balance theory has been developed in sociology and psychology to explain how interacting agents, for example, countries, political parties, opinionated individuals, with mixed trust and mistrust relationships evolve into polarized camps. Recent results have shown that structural balance is necessary for polarization in networks with fixed, strongly connected neighbor relationships when the opinion dynamics are described by DeGroot-type averaging rules. We develop this line of research in this paper in two steps. First, we consider fixed, not necessarily strongly connected, neighbor relationships. It is shown that if the network includes a strongly connected subnetwork containing mistrust, which influences the rest of the network, then no opinion clustering is possible when that subnetwork is not structurally balanced; all of the opinions become neutralized in the end. In contrast, it is shown that when that subnetwork is indeed structurally balanced, the agents of the subnetwork evolve into two polarized camps and the opinions of all other agents in the network spread between these two polarized opinions. Second, we consider time-varying neighbor relationships. We show that the opinion separation criteria carry over if the conditions for fixed graphs are extended to joint graphs. The results are developed for both discrete-time and continuous-time models.
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
Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815478 · Cited by 17,557 · cited 2×
“Then the network is structurally balanced if all the vertices of its signed graph can be divided into two disjoint sets such that every edge between vertices in the same set is with a positive sign and every edge between vertices in the distinct sets is with a negative sign [10].”
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
Consensus of multi-agent systems via fully distributed event-triggered control
Li, X., Tang, Y., & Karimi, H. R. (2020) · Automatica · doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2020.108898 · Cited by 391
Opinion Dynamics in Social Networks With Hostile Camps: Consensus vs. Polarization
Proskurnikov, A. V., Matveev, A. S., & Cao, M. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.2015.2471655 · Cited by 357
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Xia, W., Cao, M., & Johansson, K. H.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems
- Published
- 2016-03
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 46-56
- ISSN
- 2325-5870 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3101211700
- Cited by
- 270
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.47
- 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: Structural Balance and Opinion Separation in Trust–Mistrust Social Networks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tcns.2015.2437528
- The paper
- Xia, W., Cao, M., & Johansson, K. H. (2016). Structural Balance and Opinion Separation in Trust–Mistrust Social Networks. IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems. https://doi.org/10.1109/tcns.2015.2437528
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.