Paper detail

Critical states in Political Trends. How much reliable is a poll on Twitter? A study by means of the Potts Model

In recent years, Twitter data related to political trends have tentatively been used to make predictions (poll) about several electoral events. Given $q$ candidates for an election and a time-series of Twitts (short messages), one can extract the $q$ mean trends and the $q(q+1)/2$ Twitt-to-Twitt correlations, and look for the statistical models that reproduce these data. On the base of several electoral events and assuming a stationary regime, we find out the following: i) the maximization of the entropy singles out a microscopic model (single-Twitt-level) that coincides with a $q$-state Potts model having suitable couplings and external fields to be determined via an inverse problem from the two sets of data; ii) correlations decay as $1/N_{eff}$, where $N_{eff}$ is a small fraction of the mean number of Twitts; iii) the simplest statistical models that reproduce these correlations are the multinomial distribution (MD), characterized by $q$ external fields, and the mean-field Potts model (MFP), characterized by one coupling; iv) remarkably, this coupling turns out to be always close to its critical value. This results in a MD or MFP model scenario that discriminates between cases in which polls are reliable and not reliable, respectively. More precisely, predictions based on polls should be avoided whenever the data maps to a MFP because anomalous large fluctuations (if $q=2$) or sudden jumps (if $q\geq 3$) in the trends might take place as a result of a second-order or a first-order phase transition of the MFP, respectively.

preprint2019arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 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.