Paper detail

On the role of zealots in a best-of-n problem on a heterogeneous network

Both humans and social animals live in groups and are frequently faced to choose between options with different qualities. When no leader agents are controlling the group decision, consensus can be achieved through repeated interactions among group members. Various studies on CDM illustrate how the dynamics of opinions are determined by the structure of the social network and the methods that individuals use to share and update their opinion upon a social interaction. In this paper, we are interested in further exploring how cognitive, social, and environmental factors interactively contribute to determining the outcome of a collective best-of-n decision process involving asymmetric options, i.e., different costs and/or benefits for each option. We propose and study a novel model capturing those different factors, i) the error in processing social information, ii) the number of zealots (i.e., asocial agents who never change their opinion), iii) the option qualities, iv) the social connectivity structure, and v) the degree centrality of the asocial agents. By using the HMF approach, we study the impact of the above-mentioned factors in the decision dynamics. Our findings indicate that when susceptible agents use the voter model as a mechanism to update their opinion, both the number and the degree of connectivity of the zealots can lead the population to converge towards the lowest quality option. Instead, when susceptible agents use methods more cognitively demanding, the group is marginally impacted by the presence of zealots. The results of the analytical model are complemented and extended by agent-based simulations. Our analysis also shows that the network topology can modulate the influence of zealots on group dynamics.

preprint2023arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors2 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.