Paper detail

Long route to consensus: Two stage coarsening in a binary choice voting model

Formation of consensus, in binary yes/no type of voting, is a well defined process. However, even in presence of clear incentives, the dynamics involved can be incredibly complex. Specifically, formations of large groups of similarly opinionated individuals could create a condition of `support-bubbles' or spontaneous polarization that renders consensus virtually unattainable (e.g., the question of the UK exiting the EU). There have been earlier attempts in capturing the dynamics of consensus formation in societies through simple $Z_2$-symmetric models hoping to capture the essential dynamics of average behaviorof a large number of individuals in a statistical sense. However, in absence of external noise, they tend to reach a frozen state with fragmented and polarized states i.e., two or more groups of similarly opinionated groups with frozen dynamics. Here we show in a kinetic exchange opinion model (KEM) considered on $L \times L$ square lattices, that while such frozen states could be avoided, an exponentially slow approach to consensus is manifested. Specifically, the system could either reach consensus in a time that scales as $L^2$ or a long lived metastable state (termed a domain-wall state) for which formation of consensus takes a time scaling as $L^{3.6}$. The latter behavior is comparable to some voter-like models with intermediate states studied previously. The late-time anomaly in the time scale is reflected in the persistence probability of the model. Finally, the interval of zero-crossing of the average opinion i.e., the time interval over which the average opinion does not change sign is shown to follow a scale free distribution, which is compared with that seen in the opinion surveys regarding Brexit and associated issues in the last 40 years. The issue of minority spreading is also addressed by calculating the exit probability.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.