IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jcomop/v44y2022i5d10.1007_s10878-022-00913-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Generalized opinion dynamics model for social trust networks

Author

Listed:
  • Changxiang He

    (University of Shanghai for Science and Technology)

  • Jiayuan Zeng

    (University of Shanghai for Science and Technology)

  • Guang Zhang

    (University of Shanghai for Science and Technology)

  • Shuting Liu

    (University of Shanghai for Science and Technology)

Abstract

The study of opinion dynamics model on social networks is one of the hot spots in the field of social sciences. In this paper, we propose a generalized opinion dynamics model, which dynamically compute each person’s expressed opinion, to solve the opinion maximization problem for social trust networks. In the model, we propose a new, reasonable and interpretable confidence index $$\alpha _i$$ α i , which is different from randomly selected $$\alpha _i$$ α i and is determined by both person’s social status and the evaluation of his/her predecessors. By using the theory of diagonally dominant, we obtain the optimal analytic solution of the Nash equilibrium with maximum overall opinion. In addition, we design an efficient traditional ADMM algorithm with $$l_1$$ l 1 -regulations to maximize the overall opinion. A series of experiments are conducted, and the experimental results show that the proposed model is superior to the state-of-the-art in four datasets. The average benefit has promoted $$67.5\%$$ 67.5 % , $$83.2\%$$ 83.2 % , $$31.5\%$$ 31.5 % , and $$33.7\%$$ 33.7 % in solving the internal opinion problem and $$215.2\%$$ 215.2 % , $$225.1\%$$ 225.1 % , $$33.0\%$$ 33.0 % , $$21.2\%$$ 21.2 % in solving the expressed opinion problems on four datasets, respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Changxiang He & Jiayuan Zeng & Guang Zhang & Shuting Liu, 2022. "Generalized opinion dynamics model for social trust networks," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 3641-3662, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:jcomop:v:44:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s10878-022-00913-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10878-022-00913-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10878-022-00913-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10878-022-00913-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bindel, David & Kleinberg, Jon & Oren, Sigal, 2015. "How bad is forming your own opinion?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 248-265.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kareeva, Yulia & Sedakov, Artem & Zhen, Mengke, 2023. "Influence in social networks with stubborn agents: From competition to bargaining," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 444(C).
    2. Tushar Vaidya & Thiparat Chotibut & Georgios Piliouras, 2019. "Broken Detailed Balance and Non-Equilibrium Dynamics in Noisy Social Learning Models," Papers 1906.11481, arXiv.org, revised May 2020.
    3. Shang, Cui & Zhang, Runtong & Zhu, Xiaomin, 2023. "The influence of social embedding on belief system and its application in online public opinion guidance," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 623(C).
    4. Loretta Mastroeni & Maurizio Naldi & Pierluigi Vellucci, 2019. "Personal Finance Decisions with Untruthful Advisors: an Agent-Based Model," Papers 1909.06759, arXiv.org.
    5. Muhammad Umar B. Niazi & A. Bülent Özgüler, 2021. "A Differential Game Model of Opinion Dynamics: Accord and Discord as Nash Equilibria," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 137-160, March.
    6. Griffin, Christopher & Squicciarini, Anna & Jia, Feiran, 2022. "Consensus in complex networks with noisy agents and peer pressure," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 608(P1).
    7. Anufriev, Mikhail & Borissov, Kirill & Pakhnin, Mikhail, 2023. "Dissonance minimization and conversation in social networks," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 167-191.
    8. Loretta Mastroeni & Maurizio Naldi & Pierluigi Vellucci, 2023. "Personal Finance Decisions with Untruthful Advisors: An Agent-Based Model," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 61(4), pages 1477-1522, April.
    9. Catherine A. Glass & David H. Glass, 2021. "Social Influence of Competing Groups and Leaders in Opinion Dynamics," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 58(3), pages 799-823, October.
    10. Sebastiano Della Lena, 2019. "Non-Bayesian Social Learning and the Spread of Misinformation in Networks," Working Papers 2019:09, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    11. Vaidya, Tushar & Chotibut, Thiparat & Piliouras, Georgios, 2021. "Broken detailed balance and non-equilibrium dynamics in noisy social learning models," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 570(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jcomop:v:44:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s10878-022-00913-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.