Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37978249›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Probabilistic analysis of agent-based opinion formation models.

Carlos Andres Devia, Giulia Giordano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Carlos Andres DeviaDelft Center for Systems and Control, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CD, Delft, The Netherlands.
Giulia GiordanoDelft Center for Systems and Control, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CD, Delft, The Netherlands. giulia.giordano@unitn.it.

Funding

HORIZON EUROPE European Research Council 101076926Technische Universiteit Delft Delft Technology Fellowship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When agent-based models are developed to capture opinion formation in large-scale populations, the opinion update equations often need to embed several complex psychological traits. The resulting models are more realistic, but also challenging to assess analytically, and hence numerical analysis techniques have an increasing importance in their study. Here, we propose the Qualitative Outcome Likelihood (QOL) analysis, a novel probabilistic analysis technique aimed to unravel behavioural patterns and properties of agent-based opinion formation models, and to characterise possible outcomes when only limited information is available. The QOL analysis reveals which qualitative categories of opinion distributions a model can produce, brings to light their relation to model features such as initial conditions, agent parameters and underlying digraph, and allows us to compare the behaviour of different opinion formation models. We exemplify the proposed technique by applying it to four opinion formation models: the classical Friedkin-Johnsen model and Bounded Confidence model, as well as the recently proposed Backfire Effect and Biased Assimilation model and Classification-based model.

Identifiers

PMID37978249
PMCPMC10656423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.