ArticleScientific reports2024
Leveraging uncertainty in collective opinion dynamics with heterogeneity.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A robotics-inspired scanpath model reveals the importance of uncertainty and semantic object cues for gaze guidance in dynamic scenes.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Leveraging uncertainty in collective opinion dynamics with heterogeneity.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Natural and artificial collectives exhibit heterogeneities across different dimensions, contributing to the complexity of their behavior. We investigate the effect of two such heterogeneities on collective opinion dynamics: heterogeneity of the quality of agents' prior information and of degree centrality in the network. To study these heterogeneities, we introduce uncertainty as an additional dimension to the consensus opinion dynamics model, and consider a spectrum of heterogeneous networks with varying centrality. By quantifying and updating the uncertainty using Bayesian inference, we provide a mechanism for each agent to adaptively weigh their individual against social information. We observe that uncertainties develop throughout the interaction between agents, and capture information on heterogeneities. Therefore, we use uncertainty as an additional observable and show the bidirectional relation between centrality and information quality. In extensive simulations on heterogeneous opinion dynamics with Gaussian uncertainties, we demonstrate that uncertainty-driven adaptive weighting leads to increased accuracy and speed of consensus, especially with increasing heterogeneity. We also show the detrimental effect of overconfident central agents on consensus accuracy which can pose challenges in designing such systems. The opportunities for improved performance and observablility suggest the importance of considering uncertainty both for the study of natural and the design of artificial heterogeneous systems.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.