A framework for consensus modelling is introduced using Kleene's three valued logic as a means to express vagueness in agents' beliefs. Explicitly borderline cases are inherent to propositions involving vague concepts where sentences of a propositional language may be absolutely true, absolutely false or borderline. By exploiting these intermediate truth values, we can allow agents to adopt a more vague interpretation of underlying concepts in order to weaken their beliefs and reduce the levels of inconsistency, so as to achieve consensus. We consider a consensus combination operation which results in agents adopting the borderline truth value as a shared viewpoint if they are in direct conflict. Simulation experiments are presented which show that applying this operator to agents chosen at random (subject to a consistency threshold) from a population, with initially diverse opinions, results in convergence to a smaller set of more precise shared beliefs. Furthermore, if the choice of agents for combination is dependent on the payoff of their beliefs, this acting as a proxy for performance or usefulness, then the system converges to beliefs which, on average, have higher payoff.
A number of models for consensus have been proposed in the literature which have influenced the development of the framework described in this paper. @cite_4 introduced a model for reaching a consensus involving a weighted, global updating of beliefs, iterating until an agreement is reached. In DeGroot's model, agents assign a weight distribution to the population before forming a new opinion. By applying their assigned weights to the other agents' beliefs, an agent can control the influence that others have on their own beliefs.
@cite_4
2241340194 2120015072 1517494768 1582135188
We introduce a two-state opinion dynamics model where agents evolve by majority rule. In each update, a group of agents is specified whose members then all adopt the local majority state. In the mean-field limit, where a group consists of randomly selected agents, consensus is reached in a time that scales @math , where @math is the number of agents. On finite-dimensional lattices, where a group is a contiguous cluster, the consensus time fluctuates strongly between realizations and grows as a dimension-dependent power of @math . The upper critical dimension appears to be larger than 4. The final opinion always equals that of the initial majority except in one dimension. We provide a model to investigate the tension between information aggregation and spread of misinformation. Individuals meet pairwise and exchange information, which is modeled as both individuals adopting the average of their pre-meeting beliefs. "Forceful" agents influence the beliefs of (some of) the other individuals they meet, but do not change their own opinions. We characterize how the presence of forceful agents interferes with information aggregation. Under the assumption that even forceful agents obtain some information from others, we first show that all beliefs converge to a stochastic consensus. Our main results quantify the extent of misinformation by providing bounds or exact results on the gap between the consensus value and the benchmark without forceful agents (where there is efficient information aggregation). The worst outcomes obtain when there are several forceful agents who update their beliefs only on the basis of information from individuals that have been influenced by them. This paper studies asymptotic consensus in systems in which agents do not necessarily have self-confidence, i.e., may disregard their own value during execution of the update rule. We show that the prevalent hypothesis of self-confidence in many convergence results can be replaced by the existence of aperiodic cores. These are stable aperiodic subgraphs, which allow to virtually store information about an agent's value distributedly in the network. Our results are applicable to systems with message delays and memory loss. Abstract: We model opinion dynamics in populations of agents with continuous opinion and uncertainty. The opinions and uncertainties are modified by random pair interactions. We propose a new model of interactions, called relative agreement model, which is a variant of the previously discussed bounded confidence. In this model, uncertainty as well as opinion can be modified by interactions. We introduce extremist agents by attributing a much lower uncertainty (and thus higher persuasion) to a small proportion of agents at the extremes of the opinion distribution. We study the evolution of the opinion distribution submitted to the relative agreement model. Depending upon the choice of parameters, the extremists can have a very local influence or attract the whole population. We propose a qualitative analysis of the convergence process based on a local field notion. The genericity of the observed results is tested on several variants of the bounded confidence model.