{"title":"Voter models on subcritical scale‐free random graphs","authors":"J. Fernley, Marcel Ortgiese","doi":"10.1002/rsa.21107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The voter model is a classical interacting particle system modelling how consensus is formed across a network. We analyze the time to consensus for the voter model when the underlying graph is a subcritical scale‐free random graph. Moreover, we generalize the model to include a “temperature” parameter controlling how the graph influences the speed of opinion change. The interplay between the temperature and the structure of the random graph leads to a very rich phase diagram, where in the different phases different parts of the underlying geometry dominate the time to consensus. Finally, we also consider a discursive voter model, where voters discuss their opinions with their neighbors. Our proofs rely on the well‐known duality to coalescing random walks and a detailed understanding of the structure of the random graphs.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rsa.21107","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
The voter model is a classical interacting particle system modelling how consensus is formed across a network. We analyze the time to consensus for the voter model when the underlying graph is a subcritical scale‐free random graph. Moreover, we generalize the model to include a “temperature” parameter controlling how the graph influences the speed of opinion change. The interplay between the temperature and the structure of the random graph leads to a very rich phase diagram, where in the different phases different parts of the underlying geometry dominate the time to consensus. Finally, we also consider a discursive voter model, where voters discuss their opinions with their neighbors. Our proofs rely on the well‐known duality to coalescing random walks and a detailed understanding of the structure of the random graphs.