The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Opinion Fluctuations and Disagreement in Social Networks
Open accessAbstract
We study a tractable opinion dynamics model that generates long-run disagreements and persistent opinion fluctuations. Our model involves an inhomogeneous stochastic gossip process of continuous opinion dynamics in a society consisting of two types of agents: (1) regular agents who update their beliefs according to information that they receive from their social neighbors and (2) stubborn agents who never update their opinions and might represent leaders, political parties, or media sources attempting to influence the beliefs in the rest of the society. When the society contains stubborn agents with different opinions, the belief dynamics never lead to a consensus (among the regular agents). Instead, beliefs in the society fail to converge almost surely, the belief profile keeps on fluctuating in an ergodic fashion, and it converges in law to a nondegenerate random vector. The structure of the graph describing the social network and the location of the stubborn agents within it shape the opinion dynamics. The expected belief vector is proved to evolve according to an ordinary differential equation coinciding with the Kolmogorov backward equation of a continuous-time Markov chain on the graph with absorbing states corresponding to the stubborn agents, and hence to converge to a harmonic vector, with every regular agent's value being the weighted average of its neighbors' values, and boundary conditions corresponding to the stubborn agents' beliefs. Expected cross products of the agents' beliefs allow for a similar characterization in terms of coupled Markov chains on the graph describing the social network. We prove that, in large-scale societies, which are highly fluid, meaning that the product of the mixing time of the Markov chain on the graph describing the social network and the relative size of the linkages to stubborn agents vanishes as the population size grows large, a condition of homogeneous influence emerges, whereby the stationary beliefs' marginal distributions of most of the regular agents have approximately equal first and second moments.
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
Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks
Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509 · Cited by 36,135
Consensus Problems in Networks of Agents With Switching Topology and Time-Delays
Olfati-Saber, R., & Murray, R. M. (2004) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.2004.834113 · Cited by 12,788 · cited 2×
“Our work is also related to work on consensus and gossip algorithms, which is motivated by different problems, but typically leads to a similar mathematical formulation (Tsitsiklis [48], Tsit-siklis, Bertsekas and Athans [49], Jadbabaie, Lin and Morse [28], Olfati-Saber and Murray [42], Olshevsky and Tsitsiklis [43], F…”
Coordination of groups of mobile autonomous agents using nearest neighbor rules
Jadbabaie, A., Lin, J., & Morse, A. S. (2003) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.2003.812781 · Cited by 8,339
Statistical physics of social dynamics
Castellano, C., Fortunato, S., & Loreto, V. (2009) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.81.591 · Cited by 4,119
Distributed Subgradient Methods for Multi-Agent Optimization
Nedic, A., & Ozdaglar, A. (2009) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.2008.2009515 · Cited by 3,719
Self-citationMixing 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
Distributed asynchronous deterministic and stochastic gradient optimization algorithms
Tsitsiklis, J., Bertsekas, D., & Athans, M. (1986) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.1986.1104412 · Cited by 1,967
The Dissemination of Culture: A Model with Local Convergence and Global Polarization
Axelrod, R. (1997) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/0022002797041002001 · Cited by 1,918
Spread of (mis)information in social networks
Acemoglu, D., Ozdaglar, A., & ParandehGheibi, A. (2010) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.geb.2010.01.005 · Cited by 444
Self-citation
Cited by
A 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
Biased Assimilation, Homophily, and the Dynamics of Polarization
Dandekar, P., Goel, A., & Lee, D. (2012) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35311-6_47 · Cited by 201
Social media networks, fake news, and polarization
Azzimonti, M., & Fernandes, M. (2023) · European Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2022.102256 · Cited by 111
A model of online misinformation
Acemoglu, D., Ozdaglar, A., & Siderius, J. (2024) · Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.1093/restud/rdad111 · Cited by 82
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
- Acemoğlu, D., Como, G., Fagnani, F., & Ozdaglar, A.
- Venue
- Mathematics of Operations Research
- Published
- 2013-02
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-27
- ISSN
- 0364-765X (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5471
- OpenAlex
- W2081632029
- Cited by
- 371
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 15.33
- 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: Opinion Fluctuations and Disagreement in Social Networks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/moor.1120.0570
- The paper
- Acemoğlu, D., Como, G., Fagnani, F., & Ozdaglar, A. (2013). Opinion Fluctuations and Disagreement in Social Networks. Mathematics of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.1120.0570
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.