Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39689073›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

How social reinforcement learning can lead to metastable polarisation and the voter model.

Benedikt V Meylahn, Janusz M Meylahn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Benedikt V MeylahnKorteweg-de Vries Institue for Mathematics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2685-6857
Janusz M MeylahnDepartment of Applied Mathematics, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4388-805X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous explanations for the persistence of polarization of opinions have typically included modelling assumptions that predispose the possibility of polarization (i.e., assumptions allowing a pair of agents to drift apart in their opinion such as repulsive interactions or bounded confidence). An exception is a recent simulation study showing that polarization is persistent when agents form their opinions using social reinforcement learning. Our goal is to highlight the usefulness of reinforcement learning in the context of modeling opinion dynamics, but that caution is required when selecting the tools used to study such a model. We show that the polarization observed in the model of the simulation study cannot persist indefinitely, and exhibits consensus asymptotically with probability one. By constructing a link between the reinforcement learning model and the voter model, we argue that the observed polarization is metastable. Finally, we show that a slight modification in the learning process of the agents changes the model from being non-ergodic to being ergodic. Our results show that reinforcement learning may be a powerful method for modelling polarization in opinion dynamics, but that the tools (objects to study such as the stationary distribution, or time to absorption for example) appropriate for analysing such models crucially depend on their properties (such as ergodicity, or transience). These properties are determined by the details of the learning process and may be difficult to identify based solely on simulations.

Indexed as

Reinforcement, SocialComputer SimulationHumansLearningModels, PsychologicalModels, TheoreticalReinforcement, PsychologyVoting

Identifiers

PMID39689073
PMCPMC11651571

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.