Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39516659›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Leveraging uncertainty in collective opinion dynamics with heterogeneity.

Vito Mengers, Mohsen Raoufi, Oliver Brock, Heiko Hamann, Pawel Romanczuk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

5 authors.

Vito Mengers *Science of Intelligence, Research Cluster of Excellence, Berlin, Germany.
Mohsen Raoufi *Science of Intelligence, Research Cluster of Excellence, Berlin, Germany. mohsenraoufi@icloud.com.
Oliver BrockScience of Intelligence, Research Cluster of Excellence, Berlin, Germany.
Heiko HamannScience of Intelligence, Research Cluster of Excellence, Berlin, Germany.
Pawel RomanczukScience of Intelligence, Research Cluster of Excellence, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID39516659
PMCPMC11549442

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.