Paper detail

Nonlinear $q$-voter model from the quenched perspective

We compare two versions of the nonlinear $q$-voter model: the original one, with annealed randomness, and the modified one, with quenched randomness. In the original model, each voter changes its opinion with a certain probability $ε$ if the group of influence is not unanimous. In contrast, the modified version introduces two types of voters that act in a deterministic way in case of disagreement in the influence group: the fraction $ε$ of voters always change their current opinion, whereas the rest of them always maintain it. Although both concepts of randomness lead to the same average number of opinion changes in the system on the microscopic level, they cause qualitatively distinct results on the macroscopic level. We focus on the mean-field description of these models. Our approach relies on the stability analysis by the linearization technique developed within dynamical system theory. This approach allows us to derive complete, exact phase diagrams for both models. The results obtained in this paper indicate that quenched randomness promotes continuous phase transitions to a greater extent, whereas annealed randomness favors discontinuous ones. The quenched model also creates combinations of continuous and discontinuous phase transitions unobserved in the annealed model, in which the up-down symmetry may be spontaneously broken inside or outside the hysteresis loop. The analytical results are confirmed by Monte Carlo simulations carried out on a complete graph.

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.