Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40919061›Full record

ArticleAutonomous agents and multi-agent systems2025

On the graph theory of majority illusions: theoretical results and computational experiments.

Maaike Venema-Los, Zoé Christoff, Davide Grossi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, 2025. 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

3 authors.

Maaike Venema-LosUniversity of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Zoé ChristoffUniversity of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Davide GrossiUniversity of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The popularity of an opinion in one's direct circles is not necessarily a good indicator of its popularity in one's entire community. Network structures make local information about global properties of the group potentially inaccurate, and the way a social network is wired constrains what kind of information distortion can actually occur. In this paper, we discuss which classes of networks allow for a large enough proportion of the population to get a wrong enough impression about the overall distribution of opinions. We start by focusing on the 'majority illusion', the case where one sees a majority opinion in one's direct circles that differs from the global majority. We show that no network structure can guarantee that most agents see the correct majority. We then perform computational experiments to study the likelihood of majority illusions in different classes of networks. Finally, we generalize to other types of illusions. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10458-025-09720-w.

Indexed as

Graph coloringsMajority illusionSocial networks

Identifiers

PMID40919061
PMCPMC12411606

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.