Paper detail

Consensus in the Presence of Multiple Opinion Leaders: Effect of Bounded Confidence

The problem of analyzing the performance of networked agents exchanging evidence in a dynamic network has recently grown in importance. This problem has relevance in signal and data fusion network applications and in studying opinion and consensus dynamics in social networks. Due to its capability of handling a wider variety of uncertainties and ambiguities associated with evidence, we use the framework of Dempster-Shafer (DS) theory to capture the opinion of an agent. We then examine the consensus among agents in dynamic networks in which an agent can utilize either a cautious or receptive updating strategy. In particular, we examine the case of bounded confidence updating where an agent exchanges its opinion only with neighboring nodes possessing 'similar' evidence. In a fusion network, this captures the case in which nodes only update their state based on evidence consistent with the node's own evidence. In opinion dynamics, this captures the notions of Social Judgment Theory (SJT) in which agents update their opinions only with other agents possessing opinions closer to their own. Focusing on the two special DS theoretic cases where an agent state is modeled as a Dirichlet body of evidence and a probability mass function (p.m.f.), we utilize results from matrix theory, graph theory, and networks to prove the existence of consensus agent states in several time-varying network cases of interest. For example, we show the existence of a consensus in which a subset of network nodes achieves a consensus that is adopted by follower network nodes. Of particular interest is the case of multiple opinion leaders, where we show that the agents do not reach a consensus in general, but rather converge to 'opinion clusters'. Simulation results are provided to illustrate the main results.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.