Scattered-Light Echoes from the Historical Galactic Supernovae Cassiopeia A and Tycho (SN 1572)

Abstract: We report the discovery of an extensive system of scattered light echo arclets associated with the recent supernovae in the local neighbourhood of the Milky Way: Tycho (SN 1572) and Cassiopeia A. Existing work suggests that the Tycho SN was a thermonuclear explosion while the Cas A supernova was a core collapse explosion. Precise classifications according to modern nomenclature require spectra of the outburst light. In the case of ancient SNe, this can only be done with spectroscopy of their light echo, where the discovery of the light echoes from the outburst light is the first step. Adjacent light echo positions suggest that Cas A and Tycho may share common scattering dust structures. If so, it is possible to measure precise distances between historical Galactic supernovae. On-going surveys that alert on the development of bright scattered-light echo features have the potential to reveal detailed spectroscopic information for many recent Galactic supernovae, both directly visible and obscured by dust in the Galactic plane.

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}

The suggestion that historical supernovae might be studied by their
scattered light echoes was first made by \cite{Zwicky40} and attempted
by \cite{vandenBergh65,vandenBergh75}. Our group pioneered the
discovery and study of ancient supernova scattered-light echoes using
difference imaging in the LMC field where three echo complexes were
found to be associated with 400-900 year-old supernova remnants (SNR)
\citep{Rest05b}. We have since obtained a spectrum of one of these
echoes which reveals that the echo light is from the class of
over-luminous Type Ia supernovae \citep{Rest08,Badenes08} and
demonstrating that precise modern supernova classifications are
possible for ancient supernovae. These scattered light echoes
preserve optical spectral line information from the outburst, and will
be useful for future spectroscopic studies of the original SN
light. This is in contrast to the moving Cas~A features (sometimes
called “infrared echoes”) identified using far-infrared imagery from
the Spitzer Space Telescope \citep{Krause05}, which are the result of
dust absorbing the outburst light, warming and re-radiating at longer
wavelengths.

Echo features similar to those found in the LMC should be detectable
within our own Milky Way. The challenge has been to locate them across
a much larger solid angle. We have begun a program to find echoes
around a sample of 7 certain historical Galactic supernovae recorded
in the last 2000 years \citep{Stephenson02} (SN 185 AD/Centaurus, SN
1054 AD/Crab, SN1006 AD/Lupus, SN 1181 AD/Cassiopeia, Tycho, Kepler,
Cas~A). Given the well-constrained ages of these historical supernovae
and estimated distances, we can improve our chance to find echoes by
targeting regions of cold dust at the approximate expected angular
distance. We used the reprocessed 100 $\micron$ IRAS images
\citep{Miville05} to select fields with lines of sight which contain
such dust, choosing fields closer to the Galactic plane than the
supernovae in the expectation that dust would be more highly
concentrated there.

Tycho in 1572 discovered one of the last two naked eye SNe in the
Galaxy, while another nearby supernova, Cassiopeia A, evidently
escaped discovery around 1671 \citep{Stephenson02}. Based on the
properties of the associated supernova remnants, it is thought that
the Tycho SN was a thermonuclear explosion \citep{Ruiz04a,Badenes06}
while the Cas~A supernova was a core collapse explosion
\citep{Chevalier78}.

\section{Observations \& Reductions}
\label{sec:observations}

We obtained images from four observing runs on the Mayall 4m telescope
at Kitt Peak National Observatory in the fall of 2006 and 2007.  The
Mosaic imager, which operates at the f/3.1 prime focus at an effective
focal ratio of f/2.9, was used with the Bernstein VR Broad filter
(k1040) which has a central wavelength of 594.5nm and a FWHM of
212.0nm. Images of target fields in Cassiopeia were obtained on UT
2006 Oct 21-23, 2006 Dec 16, 2007 Oct 12-15, and 2007 Dec 13-15.
Exposure times were between 120 and 150 seconds. The interval between
the two epochs for a given field is at least 53 days and as much as two
years. We expect echo arclets to have typical apparent motions of 20-40
arcsec yr$^{-1}$, meaning a 3-month baseline is sufficient to resolve
their apparent motion.  Imaging data was kernel- and flux-matched,
aligned, subtracted, and masked using the SMSN
pipeline \citep{Rest05a,Garg07,Miknaitis07}. The resulting difference
images are remarkably clean of the (constant) stellar background and
are ideal for searching for variable sources.

\section{Analysis}
\label{sec:analysis}

Using the same techniques developed for the LMC echo
searches \citep{Rest05b}, candidate echo arclets, such as those shown
in Figure~\ref{fig:leexample}, were identified by visual examination
of difference images.
\begin{figure}[t]
\epsscale{0.9}
\plotone{f1.ps}
\caption[]{
Light echo arclets associated with Tycho from field \#4821.
The orientation is N up and E to the left and the images are
325 x 250 arcseconds. The upper two panels show the first epoch
image from 20 October 2006 (left), and
the second epoch image from 13 December 2007 (right). The lower images
are the difference images between the two upper images where white
represents the later (October 2006) image and black the earlier
December image. Saturated bright stars are masked gray.
In the lower panel, the left image is repeated in the right
panel with the motion vectors plotted. Red represents a straight line
fit to the arclet, yellow represents the apparent motion of the
arclet, and blue shows the reverse vector direction.
The VR surface brightness in the brighter arclets is roughly
$~24 \magarcsec2$. The widths of the echoes are resolved, and typically
$~10\hbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}$ across.
\label{fig:leexample}}
\end{figure}

We estimated the arc motion directions by eye and plotted the inverse
motion vectors, as shown in panel {\it A} of Figure~\ref{fig:vectors}.
Two echo complexes were discovered. In the first, we found six
clusters of light echoes with proper motion vectors converging back to
the Cas~A SNR, and in the other, six more echo clusters consistent
with an origin coincident with the Tycho SNR. No echo arclets were
detected for SN 1181 during this search, which also lies within our
search area, but in a region of lower 100 micron surface
brightness. All light echo features discovered seem to be associated
with either Cas~A or Tycho. We have obtained 3rd and 4th epoch images
in 2007 for the light echo groups we detected in 2006, and the light
echoes were redetected in these images.
\begin{figure}[t]
\epsscale{1.0}
\plotone{f2.ps}
\caption[]{
Arclet vector motions in the region of Cas~A and Tycho supernovae. The
vectors are plotted on an image reconstructed from IRAS data at
$100 \micron$ \citep{Miville05}. The panels are $44\hbox{$^\circ$} \times
25\hbox{$^\circ$}$ with N up and E to the right. The green squares show the
Mosaic fields where we have at least two epochs and have been searched
for arcs in the difference image. The red circles mark the positions
of the three historic SNe SN 1181, Tycho, and Cas~A. There are six
clusters of light echoes with apparent motion vectors pointing back to
the Cas~A SNR, and six more consistent with an origin coincident with
the Tycho SNR. Panel B shows the average vector for each light echo
cluster. The apparent positions for the points of origin for the two
echo complexes are listed in Table~\ref{tab:results}, and calculated
as average of the all the pairs of vector crossings (clipped at
3-sigma) where the large light blue circles denote the standard
deviation of the crossings of all vector pairs in each echo
complex. The yellow circles are centered on the
Table~\ref{tab:results} mean vector crossings and the circle sizes
show the error in the mean for the vector crossings.
\label{fig:vectors}}
\end{figure}

For a given light echo cluster, the vectors have a spread in angle of
~10 degrees (see column PA(stdev) in Table~\ref{tab:leaverage}) mainly due to the orientation of the scattering dust: If
the reflecting dustsheet or filament is confined to a plane
perpendicular to the line of sight, the light echo vector points
exactly back to the source. However, if the dustsheet is inclined or
warped, then the tangent to the light echo arc may rotate with respect
to the perpendicular direction to the remnant position.  Provided that
the inclinations of dust filaments in azimuth and in distance are not
correlated, the average vector will still point in the direction of
the SNR.  For each light echo cluster, we calculate the average
vector
(see Table~\ref{tab:leaverage}),
as shown in panel {\it
B} of Figure~\ref{fig:vectors}.  The estimated positions for the
points of origin for the two echo complexes are given in
Table~\ref{tab:results} as calculated by the average of all pairs of
vector crossings (clipped at 3-sigma). The Tycho and Cas~A SNR
positions are within the standard deviation of the points of origin
and within 3-sigma of the average position.
\input{tab1}
\input{tab2}

\section{Discussion \& Conclusions}
\label{sec:discussion}

The light echo equation \citep{Couderc39}
\begin{equation}
z = \frac{\rho^2}{2ct} - \frac{ct}{2}
\end{equation}
relates the depth coordinate, $z$, the echo-supernova distance
projected along the line-of-sight, to the echo distance $\rho$
perpendicular to the line of sight, and the time $t$ since the
explosion was observed.  Then the distance $r$ from the scattering
dust to the SN is $r^2=\rho^2+z^2$, and $\rho$ can be estimated with
$\rho \approx D \sin\alpha$, where $D$ is the distance from the
observer to the SN, and $\alpha$ is the angular separation between the
SN and the scattering dust, which yields the 3-D position of the dust
associated with the arclet. In Figure~\ref{fig:z_vs_PA} we see that
three of the six Cas~A light echo clusters (field \#2116, \#3024, and
\#3117) are at very similar distances at $z \approx 400$ light years in front of
Cas~A.  This clustering in $z$ suggests that these three clusters are
associated with the same extended dust sheet/filament. Similarly, two
other Cas~A light echo clusters (field \#3824 and \#3826) are likely
from a single dust structure at $z \approx 2000$ light years. For Tycho a
number of arclets (fields \#3325, \#4022, \#4430, and \#4523) are found
near $z \approx 100$ light years (relative to the Tycho SNR) and one field
\#5717 contains scattering dust at $z \approx 1600$ light years.
\begin{figure}[t]
\epsscale{0.85}
\plotone{f3.ps}
\caption[]{
The distance $z$ from the supernova to the scattering cloud projected
along our line-of-sight plotted with respect to the position angle
from the associated supernova remnant. To calculate $z$, we assume that
the distance to Tycho is 2300pc and for Cas~A
3400pc.
\label{fig:z_vs_PA}}
\end{figure}

The distance to Tycho and Cas A is estimated to be $2.3 \pm 0.5$kpc
and $3.4 \pm 0.5$kpc, respectively
\citep{Albinson86,Strom88,Lee04,Reed95}. This implies that Cas A is
$3600 \pm 2300$ light years behind Tycho.  For both Cas A and Tycho,
there is a clustering of the scattering dust structures in $z$,
indicating that there are extended dust structures or sheets, in
contrast to small, local dust structures.  The Tycho scattering dust
structures cluster around $z=0$, implying that there are also in fron
of Cas A. Since Cas A is in close angular proximity to Tycho, it can
be expected that dust belonging to this extended dust structure produce
light echoes for both Tycho and Cas A. Thus
we explore the possibility that Cas~A and Tycho share extended
scattering dust structures. It is notable that the difference between
the outer and the inner dust structures is about 1500-1600 light years
for both Cas~A and Tycho. Thus one scenario is that the Tycho light
echo groups in field \#3325, \#4022, \#4430, and \#4523 and Cas~A
light echo groups in field \#2116, \#3024, and \#3117 belong to the
same dust structure, and Tycho \#5717 and Cas~A \#3824 and \#3826 to
another dust structure. Since the measured $z$ distance is always
relative to its associated SNR, this would then imply that Cas~A is
about 300-400 light years farther away than Tycho, which
is not within 1 sigma
of the current estimate of $3600 \pm 2300$ light
years.
Another possibility is that the outer Cas~A light echo cluster
in fields \#3824 and \#3826 arise from the same extended dust
structure which causes the Tycho light echoes in field \#3325, \#4022,
\#4430, and \#4523. This association seems more likely due to the
close proximity of these two arc groups on the sky.  For this
association, Cas~A must be $~1900$ light years more distant than
Tycho,
which is within the errors of the current estimates.

Geometric light echo distance estimates are possible when the
scattering angle is known (e.g. \cite{Sparks08} for V838 Mon). A
maximum in the linear polarization is expected for an angle of $90
\hbox{$^\circ$}$ - when the scattering dust is at the same distance as the
supernova. Therefore this method works best with light echoes with
scattering angles spread around $90 \hbox{$^\circ$}$, which corresponds to
distances spread around $z=0$. Such a situation may exist for Tycho
(see Figure~\ref{fig:z_vs_PA}). In the worst case, the distance
$D_{tycho}$ may be significantly larger than the current estimate of
2300pc \citep{Albinson86,Strom88,Lee04} and a strong lower limit on the distance of Tycho
may be set. If Tycho is nearer than the current estimate, a more
accurate distance is possible since the distance of the scattering
dust will then bracket the supernova distance. For Cas A, none of our
detections imply scattering dust behind the SNR (see
Figure~\ref{fig:z_vs_PA}).  However, the existence of re-radiated echo
light in the infrared \citep{Krause05} suggests that such echoes may
yet be detected.

For Cas~A and Tycho, 5\% and 3\% of the fields surveyed with $z<2000$
light years contain scattered-light echo arclets, respectively (see
upper and middle panels of Figure~\ref{fig:histo}).  Virtually all
light echoes are found at $z<2000$ light years, and in particular at
$0<z<500$ light years.  No light echoes from SN1181 (3C58) were
detected. On first glance this is surprising.  However, the bottom
panels reveal that we have searched a smaller fraction of the $0<z<500$
light year, forward-scattering region of SN1181 in comparison to Cas A
and Tycho.  A combination of fainter surface brightness of the light
echoes due to the supernova age and brightness and small number
statistics might explain the lack of detections. Deeper surveys of
SN1181 region might yet yield light echoes.
\begin{figure}[t]
\epsscale{0.85}
\plotone{f4.ps}
\caption[]{
Histograms of the number of fields with two epochs versus their
distance z along the line of sight (i.e., how much “in front” or “in
back” of the supernova the scattering dust is) to the SNRs Cas~A,
Tycho, and SN 1181 from left to right in the upper panels.  The middle
panels show the number of light echo groups found in a given $z$ bin.
The percentage of fields with light echoes for a given bin is shown
above the red bars in percent. The bottom panels show the \% of the
total area (i.e. the annulus associated with the given $z$ bin) is
covered by the observed fields.
\label{fig:histo}}
\end{figure}
Light echoes are expected to be scattered light of the averaged flux
around maximum luminosity - the only significant modification of the
event outburst light is expected to be due to dust grain size which,
in the absence of additional absorption along the echo paths, makes
the spectral flux bluer. We have demonstrated that the type of a SN
(Ia, II, etc.) and the subtype (luminous, normal, underluminous Type
Ia) can be determined centuries after the event by taking a spectrum
of the light echo \citep{Rest05b,Rest08}.

In the Milky Way Galaxy alone there have been at least 7 historic SNe
\citep{Stephenson02} that are good candidates to have produced
still-observable light echoes. Other apparently young SNRs identified
in radio and x-ray surveys exist in the plane of the Galaxy
\citep{Green84,Reynolds08} that have no historical records, most
likely because they are obscured by dust. Light echoes of these
obscured SNe may be visible since the line-of-sight to scattering dust
may be less obscured than direct light. Potentially, dozens of ancient
SNe can be typed by the means of light echo spectroscopy as described
in \cite{Rest08}.  We note that this is one of the very rare occasions
in astronomy that cause and effect of the same astronomical event can
be observed, in that we can study the physics of the SNR as it appears
now and also the physics of the explosion which produced the SNR as it
appeared hundreds of years ago.

The study of scattered-light echoes from galactic SNe provide a host
of newly-recognized observational benefits which have only just begun
to be exploited including: the capacity to understand the connection
between remnant properties and the outburst spectral type, access to
observables related to asymmetric explosion properties, and a network
of absolute distance differences.

\acknowledgements
We dedicate this paper to Howard Lanning, who passed away December 20,
2007. AR thanks the Goldberg Fellowship Program for its support. DW
acknowledges support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC). SuperMACHO was supported by the HST
grant GO-10583 and GO-10903. This work was partially performed under
the auspices of the U.S.  Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory in part under Contract W-7405-Eng-48 and in part
under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. NBS thanks S. van den Bergh for
suggesting in 1995 to search for echoes using CCDs. NOAO is
operated by AURA under cooperative agreement with the NSF.

\bibliographystyle{apj}


X-ray Polarization of Gamma-Ray Bursts

\chapter{X-ray Polarization of Gamma-Ray Bursts}

\abstract{The degree and the temporal evolution of linear polarization
in the prompt and afterglow emission of gamma-ray bursts is a very
robust diagnostic of some key features of gamma-ray bursts jets and
their micro and macro physics. In this contribution, I review the
current status of the theory of polarized emission from GRB jets during
the prompt, optical flash, and afterglow emission. I compare the
theoretical predictions to the available observations and discuss the
future prospect from both the theoretical and observational
standpoints.}

\section{Introduction}

Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) are the brightest explosions in the present day
Universe. Unfortunately, our understanding of their physics is still
incomplete, probably due to the fact that they are short lived,
point-like sources.

Polarization is a formidable tool to improve our understanding of GRB
jets: their geometry, magnetization, and radiation mechanism could in
principle be pinned down with a comprehensive and time-resolved analysis
of linear polarization. Observationally speaking, however, polarization
is not easy to measure. So far, only the optical afterglow has robust
polarization measurements \cite{covino99,greiner03} but the diverse
features and the sensitivity of the models to datail has made their
interpretation, at best, controversial.

In this review, I describe the theory underlying the production of
polarized radiation in GRBs in their three main phases. I will focus on
X-ray polarization but the discussion will be general, since the
frequency dependence of GRB polarization is very weak, especially at
frequencies where Faraday rotation is not relevant.

\section{Prompt emission}

The interest in the properties of linear polarization in the prompt
emission of GRBs increased dramatically with the claim that the prompt
emission of GRB~021206 had a linear polarization fraction of $\sim80\%$
\cite{coburn03}. Even though the claim was subsequently put into doubt
\cite{rutledge04,wigger04}, it generated a suite of models against which
any subsequent polarization observation will be compared. In this section we
present these models and compare them to observations.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig1.eps}
\caption{Front view of the toroidal magnetic field in a fireball. The
circle highlights the fact that, due to relativistic aberration, only a
small fraction of the fireball is visible to the observer at infinite.
Additional relativistic aberration effects reduce the maximum
polarization, as shown in the right sub-panel \cite{lyutikov03}.}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}

\begin{itemize}

\item {\bf Toroidal magnetic field model --- } Gamma-ray burst jets are
commonly believed to be produced by the effects of strong magnetization
(either of a neutron star\cite{bucciantini08} or of a massive accretion
disc onto a black hole\cite{macfadyen99}) combined with fast spinning.
In such conditions, sufficiently far from the jet engine, the magnetic
field is expected to be predominantly toroidal.

Synchrotron from a toroidal field configuration does not produce
polarized radiation in normal conditions. However, due to relativistic
aberration, only a small section of the whole toroidal structure
produces the radiation that is detected by an observer at infinity. As a
consequence, the radiation observed appears to come from a region of
uniform magnetic field and is maximally polarized (see
Fig.~\ref{fig:1}). Due to additional aberration effects, the
polarization angle direction is distorted in the edges of the visible
zone, slightly reducing the maximum detectable polarization
\cite{lyutikov03}.

Independently of details, this model predicts that almost all GRBs are
strongly polarized during their prompt emission. The polarization
position angle does not change with time, since the electric field
vector always points towards the pole of the field, i.e., the jet axis.
Only a very small fraction of bursts, those seen within an angle
$1/\Gamma$ from the jet axis, should display little to no polarization.

\item {\bf $1/\Gamma$ viewing angle effects ---} The main reason why
most models for GRB polarization predict small values of polarization
(few to ten per cent) is due to the fact that typically an observer
collects radiation from different regions with different polarization
orientations and the net signal is small. If, however, the fireball
configuration is such that only one emission zone is observed, high
polarization can be detected by the observer at infinity
\cite{waxman03}. Consider a fireball with an opening angle
$\theta_j\sim1/\Gamma$ observed at an angle $\theta_o=1/\Gamma$ from its
edge. Due to relativistic aberration, in the comoving frame the fireball
velocity and the line of sight are at a right angle. Both synchrotron
radiation from a planar magnetic field \cite{ghisellini99,
sari99,granot03} and bulk inverse Compton radiation \cite{lazzati04} are
maximally polarized in that configuration.

This model can in principle account for polarization up to 100 per cent.
Differently from the toroidal field model, only a small fraction of GRBs
should be polarized, due to the low probability for the particular
viewing configuration to be attained. As discussed for the toroidal
model the electric vector points towards the jet axis and the
polarization angle is therefore constant throughout the prompt emission
evolution.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig2.eps}
\caption{Cartoon of the front view of a fireball with magnetic domains.
The arrows show the direction of the field in the domains. The shaded
circle emphasizes the fact that only some of the domains are visible by
the observer.}
\label{fig:2}
\end{figure}

\item {\bf Magnetic domains --- } If the magnetic field generated by a
relativistic collisionless shock can reorganize into a uniform
configuration, the fireball surface would be covered with magnetic
patches, each with a different field orientation, but with a uniform
field within \cite{gruzinov99}. As a result of the speed of the field
re-organization and of relativistic aberration, the observer at infinity
sees radiation from approximately $N\sim100$ domains. The resulting net
polarization is therefore reduced by a factor $\sqrt{N}\sim10$. This
model predicts that all GRBs should be mildly polarized (in teh 10 per
cent range), with rapid fluctuations of the polarization angle. The
model cannot account for very high polarized fractions, as those
possibly observed in the prompt emission of GRBs.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig3.eps}
\caption{Polarization vs. intensity for the radiation coming from a
fireball made by a large number of identical fragments with negligible
opening angle ($\theta_{\rm{jet}}\ll1/\Gamma$).}
\label{fig:3}
\end{figure}

\item {\bf Fragmented fireballs --- } The main weakness of the
``$1/\Gamma$ effects" model is that it requires a very unlikely viewing
configuration. Such limitation would not be present if the fireball is
fragmented in shotguns \cite{heinz99}, cannonballs \cite{dado09}, or
mini-jets \cite{yamazaki06}. If we model a fireball as a series of
identical fragments, each producing radiation with the same efficiency
and moving at the same speed, polarization and intensity from a fragment
are strictly correlated \cite{lazzati09}. The brightest light observed
comes from the fragment that is exactly pointing at the observer. Due to
cylindrical simmetry, the radiation is unpolarized. At the $1/\Gamma$
configuration, the radiation intensity is decreased by a factor
$\sim10$, and the polarization is maximum. For viewing angles
$\theta_o>1/\Gamma$, both the intensity and the polarization decrease
(see Fig.~\ref{fig:3}). Most bursts from fragmented fireballs are highly
polarized if a time-resolved analysis is performed, but they are weakly
polarized if the whole prompt emission is considered. That is because
the electric vector points towards each fragment, and so the position
angle fluctuates randomly from a pulse to the next.

\end{itemize}

\section{Afterglow}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.75]{fig4.eps}
\caption{Polarization of afterglow radiation from a uniform fireball.
the arrows indicate the direction of polarization.}
\label{fig:4}
\end{figure}

The polarization of afterglow radiation has been observed with robust
results, but the comparison of observational data with models is
difficult. Afterglow radiation is known to be produced by synchrotron
from relativistic electrons gyrating into a shock-generated magnetic
field. Detailed calculations show that the polarization from a uniform
fireball is intimately connected to the evolution of the light curve
\cite{ghisellini99,sari99} and is very weakly dependent on the frequency
of photons (at least above optical frequencies, \cite{rossi04}).
Initially, the polarization is vanishingly small. At times before the
jet break, a small polarization of a few per cent is observed, with a
position angle perpendicular to the direction towards the jet axis. At a
time approximately coincident with the jet break time, the polarization
vanishes again. Subsequently, it reappears, rotated by 90 degrees,
reaches a maximum of $\sim10$ per cent and eventually vanishes again
(see Fig.~\ref{fig:4}).

The characteristic behavior of a 90 degrees rotation of the polarization
angle at a time roughly coincident with the jet break time is in
principle a formidable prediction and was actively looked for in
observations, with no success \cite{lazzati03,lazzati04b}. It was
subsequently realized that the polarization curve is very sensitive to
the brightness profile of the fireball, and that fireballs with a bright
core and less energetic wings produce a completely different
polarization curve, with maximum polarization around the break time and
a constant position angle \cite{rossi04}. Even more complicate is the
case of a fireball with bright spots randomly distributed on the
emitting surface. The polarization in that case would be virtually
unpredictable.

\section{Early afterglow}

The polarization of the prompt emission is in principle full of
important information to understand the physics of GRB jets. However,
polarization in the X-ray and $\gamma$-ray regimes is hard to observe.
Optical polarization is relatively easy to observe. However, models are
too sensitive to details and we haven't been able to obtain much robust
clues from optical polarization measurements. A potentially game changer
is polarization of the early optical afterglow, also known as the
optical flash. The optical flash is believed to be due to electrons in
the fireball energized by the reverse shock \cite{sari99b}. If that is
the case (see \cite{beloborodov02} for alternative models) the optical
flash should have the same polarization characteristic of the prompt
emission (and therefore carry a lot of insight) combined with the same
ease of observation of the afterglow polarization \cite{lazzati04b}.

\section{Discussion}

After discussing the polarization of the various stages of GRB emission
in detail, we here compare them with each other and with observations
and focus more on the X-ray aspects and future perspectives. Prompt
emission polarization is certainly the most appealing from the
theoretical point of view. Models are able to deliver univocal
interpretation for the various observational scenarios. The few
available observations are, however, inconclusive and contradictory.
Early observations claimed a high polarization for the overall burst
\cite{coburn03}. More recent observations find, instead, that the
polarization is indeed large, but the position angle varies from pulse
to pulse \cite{gotz09}. The observations are different and so too are
the implications. Constant position angle and high polarization point to
a toroidal magnetic field model, while variable angle is indicative of a
fragmented fireball scenario. The perspective of an early afterglow
polarization measurement is exciting, but the optical flash has no
emission in the X-rays, and its theoretical interpretation is still a
matter of open debate. While a positive measurement of large
polarization would be interesting, a no-polarization result, as the one
for GRB~060418 \cite{mundell07}, would be open to very many
interpretations. Afterglow observations are plagued by the model
sensitivity to details, with the notable exception of polarization of
the X-ray flares (Fan, this volume) which are supposed to be due to
engine activity and could therefore be polarized in the same way the
prompt emission is.

At the end of the day, what would be the best choice for an X-ray
polarimeter? Disregarding technical challenges, a theoretician would try
to observe prompt emission first, X-ray flashes second, and the
afterglow emission only as a last resort.

\begin{thereferences}{99}

\bibitem{beloborodov02} Beloborodov, A. M. (2002).
	\textit{ApJ} \textbf{565}, 808--828.

\bibitem{bucciantini08} Bucciantini, N., Quataert, E., Arons, J.,
	Metzger, B. D. and Thompson, T. A. (2008).
	\textit{MNRAS} \textbf{383}, L25--L29.

\bibitem{coburn03} Coburn, W. and Boggs, S. E. (2003).
	\textit{Nature} \textbf{423}, 415--417.

\bibitem{covino99} Covino, S. et al. (1999).
	\textit{A\&A} \textbf{348}, L1--L4.

\bibitem{dado09} Dado, S., Dar, A. (2009).
	\textit{arXiv:0901.4260}

\bibitem{ghisellini99} Ghisellini, G., Lazzati, D. (1999).
	\textit{MNRAS} \textbf{309}, L7--L11.

\bibitem{gotz09} G{\"o}tz, D., Laurent, P., Lebrun, F., Daigne, F.,
	Bo{\v s}njak, {\v Z}. (2009).
	\textit{ApJ} \textbf{695}, L208--L212.

\bibitem{granot03} Granot, J. (2003).
	\textit{ApJ} \textbf{596}, L17--L21.

\bibitem{greiner03} Greiner, J. et al. (2003).
	\textit{Nature} \textbf{426}, 157--159.

\bibitem{gruzinov99} Gruzinov, A., Waxman, E. (1999).
	\textit{ApJ} \textbf{511}, 852--861.

\bibitem{heinz99} Heinz, S., Begelman, M. C. (1999).
	\textit{ApJ} \textbf{527}, L35--L38.

\bibitem{lazzati03} Lazzati, D. et al. (2003).
	\textit{A\&A} \textbf{410}, 823--831.

\bibitem{lazzati04b} Lazzati, D. et al. (2004).
	\textit{A\&A} \textbf{422}, 121--128.

\bibitem{lazzati04} Lazzati, D., Rossi, E. M., Ghisellini, G., Rees, M.
	J. (2004).
	\textit{MNRAS} \textbf{347}, L1--L5.

\bibitem{lazzati09} Lazzati, D., Begelman, M. C. (2009).
	\textit{Submitted to ApJL}.

\bibitem{lyutikov03} Lyutikov, M., Pariev, V. I., Blandford, R. D. (2003).
	\textit{ApJ}, \textbf{597}, 998--1009.

\bibitem{macfadyen99} MacFadyen, A. I., Woosley, S. E. (1999).
	\textit{ApJ} \textbf{524}, 262--289.

\bibitem{mundell07} Mundell, C. G. et al. (2007).
	\textit{Science} \textbf{315}, 1822.

\bibitem{rossi04} Rossi, E. M., Lazzati, D., Salmonson, J., Ghisellini,
	G. (2004).
	\textit{MNRAS} \textbf{354}, 86--100.

\bibitem{rutledge04} Rutledge, R. E. and Fox, D. B. (2004).
	\textit{MNRAS} \textbf{350}, 1288--1300.

\bibitem{sari99} Sari, R. (1999).
	\textit{ApJ} \textbf{524}, L43--L46.

\bibitem{sari99b} Sari, R., Piran, T. (1999).
	\textit{ApJ} \textbf{520}, 641--649.

\bibitem{waxman03} Waxman, E. (2003).
	\textit{Nature} \textbf{423}, 388--389.

\bibitem{wigger04} Wigger, C., Hajdas, W., Arzner, K., G\"udel, M. and Zehnder, A. (2004).
	\textit{ApJ} \textbf{613}, 1088--1100.

\bibitem{yamazaki06} Yamazaki, R., Ioka, K., Nakamura, T., Toma, K. (2006).
	\textit{Advances in Space Research} \textbf{38}, 1299--1302.

\end{thereferences}

\end{document}

High Energy Astrophysical Phenomena (astro-ph.HE); Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO)

X-ray Polarization of Gamma-Ray Bursts


Modelling Opinion Dynamics in the Age of Algorithmic Personalisation

Abstract: Modern technology has drastically changed the way we interact and consume information. For example, online social platforms allow for seamless communication exchanges at an unprecedented scale. However, we are still bounded by cognitive and temporal constraints. Our attention is limited and extremely valuable. Algorithmic personalisation has become a standard approach to tackle the information overload problem. As result, the exposure to our friends' opinions and our perception about important issues might be distorted. However, the effects of algorithmic gatekeeping on our hyper-connected society are poorly understood. Here, we devise an opinion dynamics model where individuals are connected through a social network and adopt opinions as function of the view points they are exposed to. We apply various filtering algorithms that select the opinions shown to users i) at random ii) considering time ordering or iii) their current beliefs. Furthermore, we investigate the interplay between such mechanisms and crucial features of real networks. We found that algorithmic filtering might influence opinions' share and distributions, especially in case information is biased towards the current opinion of each user. These effects are reinforced in networks featuring topological and spatial correlations where echo chambers and polarisation emerge. Conversely, heterogeneity in connectivity patterns reduces such tendency. We consider also a scenario where one opinion, through nudging, is centrally pushed to all users. Interestingly, even minimal nudging is able to change the status quo moving it towards the desired view point. Our findings suggest that simple filtering algorithms might be powerful tools to regulate opinion dynamics taking place on social networks

\section*{Introduction}

Various disciplines, as for example Sociology, Psychology and Behavioral Genetics, investigate the mechanisms leading to opinion formation in groups of people~\cite{Latane1981, Isenberg1986, Onofrio1999, Olson2001, Watts2007}. Generally speaking, opinions are formed by a combination of self-reflection, external information sources and real-world experiences that contribute to the individual reasoning process. Furthermore, it has been argued that social interactions are fundamental in this process since they can be used to spread and exchange information (e.g.\ word-of-mouth and communication) as well as to shape opinion formation (e.g.\ social pressure and social support) through peer's social influence. In this context, both the authority and number of contacts affect the opinion of individuals~\cite{Muchinik2013, castellano2009statistical, baronchelli2018emergence}. Apart from the natural process of influencing the opinions as well as behaviours of family, friends and co-workers~\cite{Christakis2007,Paluck2016}, social influence has been studied in marketing, politics and health interventions~\cite{Aral2012, Bond2012, Kim2015}.

The increasing popularity of social media augments the share on daily social interactions and thus their importance in the dynamics of information exchange, potentially enhancing the power of online social influence. In fact, the low cost of interacting with multiple people, simultaneously or asynchronously, without geographical constrains, facilitates the exchange of information at a faster pace and with a diverse set of contacts. Despite such unprecedented possibilities for interactions and consumption of information, we are still bounded by cognitive and temporal constraints~\cite{watts2002simple, falkinger2007attention, weng2012competition, wu2007novelty, leskovec2009meme, lerman2010information, ratkiewicz2010characterizing, onnela2010spontaneous, gonccalves2011modeling, dunbar1998social, dunbar2015structure,weng2018attention}. As a consequence, ideas, memes, individuals, companies and institutions compete for our limited attention which, in the current landscape, has acquired a real economic value~\cite{simon1971designing, davenport2001attention}. In this context, social platforms use algorithms tailored to improve the online experience by ordering and filtering information judged relevant to a particular individual (or social media user). Seemingly innocuous, algorithms are designed to keep users engaged and select which information is presented to them. They act as gatekeepers and intermediaries of information, functions that traditionally have been covered by news papers and thus by hand curated editorial choices~\cite{bozdag2013bias}. The shift towards algorithmic curation seems a natural consequence of the digital revolution. However, its short and long term societal effects are far from clear and matter of a heated debate. Before summarising some of the central points of such discussion, it is important to provide a better idea about the mechanisms driving algorithmic personalisation in the context of online social platforms. Indeed, algorithms are ruling a wealth of applications that go beyond social media. Examples are search engines, online shops and services.

Every time we access Facebook, or similar platforms, we experience algorithmic curation. In fact our \emph{News Feed} is the complex result of what people and companies connected to the Internet do. In $2013$ Facebook reported that every time we visit our News Feed we could be exposed on average to $1,500$ stories from our friends, people and pages we follow and other content that is sponsored~\cite{facebook_news, rader2015understanding}. Out of this pool, they prioritise around $300$ stories. While the details of the algorithm behind the personalisation are a corporate secret, we know that they are based on a combination of explicit information we provide such as demographics, likes, friendship relations, interests and implicit information derived from previous interactions with the platform, IP addresses, locations, cookies, posts age, page relationships, and content quality etc~\cite{bozdag2013bias, devito2017editors}. All this information is then fused with three main principles of content curation: popularity, semantic and collaborative filtering~\cite{moller2018not}. The first refers to the practice of promoting content that is popular across the platform. The second recommends posts similar to those previously consumed. Similarity is measured according to a range of features such as topics, words, authors, among others. The third refers to the tendency to suggest what people similar or close to us consume.

The critics of algorithmic personalisation consider such practices possibly very dangerous. Recommendations might increase the divide, exacerbating the phenomena of filter bubbles and echo-chambers~\cite{bozdag2015breaking, pariser2011filter, del2016echo}. They might remove opposing view points and homogenise the type of information we are exposed to. The phenomenon is often described as the \emph{threat of invisibility} because, in a society where more and more people use social platforms to gather information and form opinions, also what is not shown to us might be very important~\cite{bucher2012want, rader2017examining, ciampaglia2018algorithmic}. The homogenisation of information based on past preferences and actions might also reduce the possibility of serendipitous discoveries of new interests, sources, people, etc~\cite{devito2017editors}. Algorithmic gatekeeping might suffer from technical biases induced by the limitations of the databases they use and the codes they are based on~\cite{friedman1996bias, gillespie2014relevance}. Algorithms are data hungry. This raises ethical concerns about the access and sharing of potentially sensitive information~\cite{darren2015privacy, mittelstadt2016ethics}. Finally, social media platforms are large for-profit corporations driven by shareholders' and stakeholders' interests. There is clearly, at least in principle, a friction between societal and commercial objectives that might result in the so called \emph{corrupt personalisation}~\cite{darren2015privacy, sandvig2015can}. The proponents of algorithmic personalisation paint a far less scarier picture. First, without algorithmic filtering social platforms would be much more demanding and probably less appealing to users~\cite{darren2015privacy, liu2012personalization}. Indeed, as mentioned above, the data produced nowadays is simply too much for any type of manual filtering. Personalisation might be positive with respect to alternatives simply based on popularity metrics which could induce even stronger homogenisation of information~\cite{goldman2008search}. Some recent results suggest that the possible biases created by different personalisation algorithms are very similar to those resulting from hand curation~\cite{moller2018not}. Others show how the homogeneity and popularity bias are not the same across platforms and services~\cite{nikolov2018quantifying}. Finally, algorithmic gatekeeping can be developed having in mind the perils of filter bubbles and the importance of serendipity and heterogeneity in information~\cite{bozdag2015breaking}. To this point however, it is important to stress how the effects of algorithmic gatekeeping are largely not well understood. Thus the design of \emph{optimal} solutions are far from trivial and possibly counter intuitive~\cite{bail2018exposure}. Indeed, the complexity of the processes involved makes predicting the effects of new features very hard and the very idea of optimal is relative. In fact, at its roots, it depends also on the specific definition of democracy considered~\cite{bozdag2015breaking}.

In this background, we study, from a theoretical point of view, the effects of algorithmic personalisation on a population of networked individuals. We model online interactions where users both share their opinions in their timeline and update their own following the information exposed to them. In these settings, we consider the impact of different personalisation algorithms that prioritise the information shown to each user according to time ordering or their opinions expressed in previous interactions with the system. We then study a scenario in which a particular opinion is centrally posted in all users' timelines. We refer to this as \emph{nudge} and we assume that the social platform introduces, promotes, and pushes a particular opinion to all users thus nudging the population towards it. In all cases, we study the effect of each filtering method as a function of different i) initial conditions, and ii) network topologies where the interactions take place.

\section*{Materials and Methods}

We devise a mechanistic model to analyze the impact of social interactions and algorithmic exposure on the individual and group opinion dynamics. In particular, we consider a simple bipartisan model of opinion dynamics in which users can select between two opinions: $A$ or $B$. Users might decide to change their status according to the fraction of posts shown in their timelines promoting each opinion. Our model assumes that only part of the information shared by friends is shown to the users. This is the fundamental idea beyond algorithmic curation.  We then study how different methods used to create the personalisation affects the evolution of opinions in the system. We first look at the effect of sorting information randomly, according to time or previous ideological leanings expressed by each user in previous posts (semantic filtering). Then we consider a scenario in which one specific opinion is pushed in the timeline of each user.

The opinion formation model contains three parts (Fig.~\ref{fig:01}). The first is the underlying social network structure connecting users through friendship ties. The second is the activation mechanism that defines the timings in which information is exchanged between users through the social network. The third part is the algorithmic filtering mechanism that selects which information is presented in the user's timeline (i.e.\ the posts actually seen by the user).

The model has some similarities and is inspired by previous research. Wang et al~\cite{weng2012competition} proposed a model to mimic the spreading of memes on Twitter. In their approach, users' timelines are populated by posts from other users. With the aim to study the mechanisms behind the popularity of memes, they considered time ordered timelines in which posts survive only for a limited period of time. However, they did not considered opinion dynamics, but the spreading of memes. Also, they did not investigate the effects of different sorting algorithms. More recently, Rossi et al~\cite{rossi2018closed} shed some light, as we aim here, on the feedback between opinions and algorithmic personalisation. To this end, they proposed a model in which a single user interacts with a news aggregator which recommends news items to the user. In their model, they considered rather realistic scenarios in which the user might be subject to confirmation biases and the aggregator tries to optimise the number of clicks of the user. However, the model neglects the network effects induced by the interaction of multiple users connected via social ties. Finally, one of the areas that received more attention, probably due to data availability, focuses on the effects of algorithms on customer choices~\cite{bressan2016limits, fleder2009blockbuster, dandekar2013biased, spinelli2017closed}. Although, some of these papers study the interplay between algorithmic personalisation and social interactions, they consider purchase or more in general items selection (i.e.\ books) which are driven by different processes than those we are considering here. For example, purchasing power, popularity of items, reviews of products, among others, are critical ingredients in those cases.

\subsection*{Network Structure}

The social network structure is fixed and defined as a set of $N$ users (i.e.\ network nodes) connected by undirected links $(i,j)$. The distribution of contacts, clustering, and small world phenomena are well known features of networks that might have a strong effects on opinion dynamics or more in general complex contagion processes~\cite{guilbeault2018complex, barrat2008dynamical, baronchelli2018emergence, barabasi2016network,centola2015spontaneous}. To isolate the role of topology and its interplay with the various algorithmic personalisation strategies, we consider three types of networks models. The first is a random network following the configuration model~\cite{newman2003structure} with power-law (heterogeneous) degree distribution ($P(k)\propto k^{-2.5})$ with $k_{\text{min}}=2$. These parameters produce small-world networks with an average degree $\langle k \rangle = 5.5$ and an average clustering coefficient $\langle C \rangle = 10^{-3}$.  The second is the Watts-Strogatz model~\cite{watts1998collective} where each node is initially connected to six (i.e.\ $\langle k \rangle = 6$) friends in a ring configuration; with probability $g$ a link is rewired to a uniformly chosen random node. In the following, we consider three configurations of the model by setting $g=0$, $g=10^{-2}$, and $g=1$. The three values of $g$ all produce networks with homogeneous degree distributions but allow us to explore very different combination of clustering and average path length. The first network is characterised by high values of clustering $\langle C \rangle = \frac{3(\langle k \rangle-2)}{4(\langle k \rangle-1)}=\langle C(0) \rangle=0.6$~\cite{barrat2000properties} and a very large average path length which is known to scale as $N/(2\langle k \rangle)$. The second instead, by a large value of the clustering $\langle C(g) \rangle =\langle C(0) \rangle (1-g)^{3}=0.58$~\cite{barrat2000properties}. However, in contrast with the first case, this network is characterised by the small-world phenomenon. The third, is instead a random network with negligible clustering ($\langle C \rangle=\frac{\langle k \rangle}{N-1}$) and characterised by the small-world phenomenon. The final type of network we consider is a regular $2D$ lattice with periodic boundary conditions. Each node has degree $4$, the clustering coefficient is zero, and the average path length is very large due to spatial clustering between nodes. In our simulations, we use $N=10^5$ and run the simulations taking averages over $10$ independent realisations of the networks with the same fixed parameters (except for the lattice which is not subject to random fluctuations). In summary (see Table~\ref{tab:01}), the first type of networks, CM for short, is characterised by a heterogeneous degree distribution, negligible clustering and short average path length. The second type of networks, WS for short, features homogeneous degree distributions as well as i) high clustering and large average path length (for $g=0$) ii) high clustering and short average path length (for $g=10^{-2}$) iii) negligible clustering and short average path length (for $g=1$). Finally, the regular lattice, LA for short, is characterised by a homogeneous degree distribution, zero clustering, and large average path length. Altogether, these networks allow to isolate and contrast the interplay and interactions of the three topological features with the sorting algorithms.

\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Network Type} & \textbf{Degree Distribution} & \textbf{High Clustering} & \textbf{Small World}  \\
\hline
CM & Heterogeneous  & x & \checkmark  \\
\hline
WS, $g=0$ & Homogeneous & \checkmark & x  \\
\hline
WS, $g=10^{-2}$ & Homogeneous& \checkmark &  \checkmark\\
\hline
WS, $g=1$ & Homogeneous & x  & \checkmark \\
\hline
LA & Homogeneous & x & x \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Main networks' features summary. In the table CM stands for Configuration model, WS for Watts and Strogatz model, and LA for regular lattice.}
\label{tab:01}
\end{table}

\subsection*{Nodes Activation}

With probability $p_i$, each user $i$ becomes active during one time-step $t$. When the user becomes active, it first broadcasts its current opinion to all its friends, for example by writing a post, then updates its own looking at its personal timeline $R_i(t)$. In particular, a user whose timeline shows $30\%$ of posts promoting opinion $A$ and thus $70\%$ promoting opinion $B$, will adopt opinion $B$ with probability $0.7$ and opinion $A$ with probability $0.3$. In other words, the updates are done proportionally to the share of posts promoting each opinion in the timelines.  Although the most common opinion shown to each user will be most likely adopted, the process is not deterministic. In fact, there is a level of randomness which is an important component of opinion formation and dynamics~\cite{castellano2009statistical}. In the main text, we consider a scenario in which the activation probabilities are extracted from a power-law distribution ($F(p) \sim p^{-1.5}$ with $p \in [0.01,1]$). Indeed, analyses of real online social networks show that the propensity of each user to start a social interaction follows an heterogeneous distribution~\cite{perra2012activity, ribeiro2013quantifying}. In the Supplemental Information (SI), we consider the case of a constant activation probability ($p=0.1$, which is the average of the heterogeneous case) across the entire population. The results are qualitatively similar to the homogeneous case.

\subsection*{Algorithmic Personalisation and Filtering}

At time $t$, each user $i$ has a hidden list $L_i(t)$ containing all the opinions received from its friends since the last time $t_{\text{last}}$ that user $i$ was active, i.e.\ $L_i(t)$ contains all opinions posted by $i$'s friends during $[t_{\text{last}}, t)$, plus the opinions in user $i$ timeline at time $t_{\text{last}}$ ($R_i(t_{\text{last}})$).

We consider different methods, see Figure~\ref{fig:01}D, to select items from the list $L_i(t)$ and thus create the timeline $R_i(t)$: (i) select $Q$ random items from $L_i(t)$ (reference method, named REF), (ii) show older posts first (old method, OLD), (iii) sort the list $L_i(t)$ from the most recent to the oldest received and show most recent posts first (recent method, REC), (iv) sort $L_i(t)$ according to $i$'s current opinion (e.g.\ if $i$'s opinion is $A$, sort the list as $AAA \ldots BBB$) (preference method, PR), (v) given any of the sorting method just described, a random fraction $z$ of opinions in this list is replaced by a pre-defined opinion centrally chosen (nudge method, NU). In all the scenarios the timeline $R_i(t)$ is a subset of this virtual list $L_i(t)$ and has maximum length $Q$. The remaining of the list is discarded once a timeline is formed at a given time $t$. In the main text we set $Q=20$, but as we show in the SI its value has little impact on the results.

\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{figure1b}
\caption{Schematic representation of the opinion dynamics model. In the plot we focus on the user $i$ in the center of panels A-C. It is connected with eight other users that are depicted around. For simplicity, we assume that these users are connected only to the central user $i$ thus their opinions or timelines will not change or be updated until user $i$ will be active. Active users are represented in red and the list (i.e.\ $L_i$) of posts that user $i$ could possibly see is described by the boxes. Panel A shows the initial state. Opinions are drawn randomly and the $L_i$ is initially empty. At the next time step (panel B) two friends of $i$ are active and post their opinions thus $L_i$ starts to be filled. At the next time step (panel C) other friends become active and so on. In panel D we show what would happen in case user $i$ becomes active. We assume $Q=3$ (red vertical line) and show the effect of different algorithmic personalisation schemes: i) REF, the list is random shuffled; ii) OLD, does not change the order, the posts are shown in the order they were posted; iii) REC, recent posts are prioritized; iv) PR, shows the effects of a personalisation that prioritise posts according the preference/opinion of $i$; v) NU, shows the nudge case in which one post (in red), $z=1/3$, shown to the user does not come from its friends but it is imposed by the social platform. For each scenario we show the probability that the user $i$ would have to change opinion. In all scenarios only the first $Q$ posts after the personalisation affect the opinion of $i$. The rest are deleted.}
\label{fig:01}
\end{figure}

\section*{Results}

In this section, we study the effects of sorting algorithms on the group and on the individual opinion dynamics by first looking at methods REF, OLD, REC and PR.  Then we investigate the effect of nudging, or centrally controlled bias.

\subsection*{Opinion dynamics subject to algorithmic personalisation}

If we start the networks with two opinions $A$ and $B$, in equal proportions ($P_{\text{A}} = 0.5$ and $P_{\text{B}} = 0.5$) and uniformly distributed among the users (i.e.\ nodes), the prevalence of both opinions remains stable around the starting values for all four sorting methods for various network configurations (first row in Fig.~\ref{fig:02}). Thus, in these scenarios all the filtering algorithms are not able to break the status quo. Both ideas are able to coexist and the social platform does not drive the system towards a different equilibrium with respect to the initial status. If the opinions are unequal from the start ($P_{\text{A}} = 0.2$ and $P_{\text{B}} = 0.8$), the prevalence also remains stable for the methods REC, REF and OLD during the entire observation period (second row in Fig.~\ref{fig:02}). Indeed, as the order in which posts appears in the list $L_i$ of each user is random and regulated by the activation process of its neighbours, introducing a temporal bias (in the case of REC and OLD) does not affect the share ($20-80$) of opinions in each timeline thus preserving the status quo. On the other hand, the preference method (PR) leads to a decrease in the prevalence of the minority opinion ($P_{\text{A}}$) that mainly occurs within the initial $200$ time steps across all networks.
In an unbalanced situation, the ordering of opinions according to users' preferences, for users holding opinion $B$, might lead to the disappearance of the opposite idea from their timeline. Effectively, such semantic filtering brings to zero the probability of such users to change idea (the \emph{visibility} of the others is zero) thus modifying the initial share and increasing the already dominant position of opinion $B$. It is important to notice that although the less popular opinion decreases its share, it is still able to survive. As shown in the SI, the survival happens even in case of much skewed initial configurations such as $1-99$. Results are similar for all network configurations, but for the WS network with $g=1$ the decrease in $P_{\text{A}}$ occurs earlier in time and $P_{\text{A}}$ stabilises at lower values ($P_{\text{A}}(500)= 0.06$, see Fig.~\ref{fig:02}-I). The CM network reaches larger values ($P_{\text{A}}(500)=0.08$) which are however slightly smaller than the other three networks ($P_{\text{A}}(500)=0.09$). Altogether, these results point to the fact that the PR filtering mechanism, in case of unbalanced initial conditions, causes more biases in networks characterised by null clustering, short path length, and homogeneous degree distributions. The heterogeneity in contact patterns hampers the reduction of the less popular opinion due to the presence of hubs which limit the effectiveness of the algorithm to hide the subordinate opinion.  High values of clustering both in combination with low and high average path length behave as in the case of regular lattice which features null clustering, high spatial correlations and high average path length. This result suggests that correlations in the connectivity patterns hamper the effectiveness of semantic filtering with respect to uncorrelated cases, which is qualitatively in line with previous research on recommender systems mentioned above~\cite{bressan2016limits}.

\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure2.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of group opinion in the various network models. The prevalence $P_{\text{A}}(t)$ of opinion $A$ over time for starting $P_{\text{A}}(0)=0.5$ and $P_{\text{B}}(0) = 0.5$ (first row) and $P_{\text{A}}(0)=0.2$ and $P_{\text{B}}(0) = 0.8$ (second row). Each column describes the results for one of the networks. In each plot, we show results for the four sorting algorithms. Each plot is the average of $10^2$ independent simulations and to improve the visualisation we are showing the data points every $50$ time steps. In all scenarios we set $Q=20$.}
\label{fig:02}
\end{figure}

The interplay between the features of the sorting mechanisms and the network structure might induce the formation of opinion clusters (echo chambers) and polarization in the population. Figure~\ref{fig:03} shows the distribution of the fraction of users $i$ whose friends (nearest neighbours,\emph{nn} for short) share the opinion $A$ at $t=500$, $\langle P_A^{nn} \rangle$. In these plots, the region of the $x$-axis close to one describes neighbourhoods formed by a
majority of users sharing opinion $A$. Conversely, the region of the $x$-axis close to zeros describes neighbourhoods in which none, or very few users, adopt opinion $A$. In order to remove spurious effects, on the $y$-axis we show $F_N(\langle P_A^{nn} \rangle)$ that is obtained dividing the average distribution of opinions in each neighbourhood at time $t=500$ with its correspondent value at $t=0$. In doing so,  to avoid issues with the binning, we imposed $10$ equispaced bins ($\Delta x=0.1$) in all cases.

For equal starting conditions ($P_{\text{A}} = 0.5$ and $P_{\text{B}} = 0.5$) (first row in Fig.~\ref{fig:03}), we notice that CM and WS ($g=1$) behave similarly. The distribution of opinions in the neighbourhood of all nodes is similar to the initial (random) configuration. The PR mechanism, in the case of WS with $g=1$, produces two little spikes at zero and one which indicate the emergence of low levels of polarisation in the network. Thus, the semantic filtering, in networks characterised by homogeneous degree distributions, null clustering, and short average path length, is able to produce few patches like-minded people which however do not form in case of heterogeneous connectivity patterns (CM network). The polarisation effects of the filtering algorithms, in particular PR, are much stronger in the other networks. Indeed, in highly clustered networks, independently of the average path length (WS graphs with $g=0$ and $g=10^{-2}$) the sorting mechanisms induce the emergence of strong opinion polarisation. As shown in the SI, if the size of the timelines is comparable with the degree (i.e. $Q=5$), REC and REF filtering methods produce stronger polarization effects in combination with high clustering in the contacts patterns. This is due to the fact that the PR mechanism in these cases might over represent the local minority opinion, thus hampering the convergence to a local majority. Echo chambers appear, although to smaller degree, also in case of strong spatial correlations and null clustering (LA network). These observations provide further evidence that topological as well as spatial correlations are important features for algorithmic filtering and that heterogeneity in contact patterns has a slightly stronger potential to hamper the formation of each chambers in comparison to homogeneous patterns.  In fact, in combination with the filtering mechanisms, these features induce a re-organisation of the distribution of opinions creating \emph{compact domains} made of like-minded nodes (echo chambers). This observation aligns with previous results in the literature of complex contagion processes on complex networks~\cite{dall2006nonequilibrium}. The polarisation emerges even if the total fraction of the population with opinion $A$ or $B$ is the same and stable as function of time (Fig.~\ref{fig:02}). Thus, although the interplay between the topological features and algorithm filtering does not change the status quo, it might introduce high levels of polarisation and echo chambering.

The case of unbalanced starting conditions (i.e.\ $P_{\text{A}} = 0.2$ and $P_{\text{B}} = 0.8$) confirms this picture (second row in Fig.~\ref{fig:03}). In fact, the behaviour of CM and WS ($g=1$) networks is still very similar.  The absence of topological clustering and the presence of short cuts between parts of the network (small-world phenomenon) does not allow the emergence of echo chambers around the dominant opinion. This is somehow surprising considering that opinion $B$ reaches around $90\%$ of the population. There is an exception however, the semantic filtering (PR method) fights against this tendency. As mentioned above, this personalisation algorithm reduces the \emph{visibility} of the few nodes holding opinion $A$ that might be present in neighbourhoods of $B$ nodes. The effective reduction of the share of nodes with opinion $A$ in such configuration brings the system to a different, and lower, equilibrium as eventually such nodes change opinion to $B$. This is confirmed by the fact that across the entire $x$-axis (with exception of $x=0$) the average number of neighbours holding some fraction of opinion $A$ decreases for all network models. The presence of heterogeneous connectivity patterns in CM networks reduces the effectiveness of such effect. Figure~\ref{fig:03}F-L  shows that the three other sorting algorithms, OLD above all, induce a relatively higher number of echo chambers around the subordinate opinion in WS ($g=1$) networks. As such effects are reduced in CM networks, we can speculate that this is due to the interaction between the algorithms and homogeneous contact patterns.

Also for unbalanced initial conditions, topological and spatial correlations induce a much stronger polarisation (notice the log scale on the $y$-axis). In particular,  in networks with high values of clustering, the number of $A$ echo chambers is two orders of magnitude larger than in the initial configuration. Spatial correlations introduce less stronger effects which are however of the order of a factor $6$. Overall, these results suggest that correlations interacts with the sorting algorithms creating compact domains that, in this case, boost the survival of the less common opinion with respect to the other two networks.

\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure3.pdf}
\caption{Opinions of friends. We show the distribution of the fraction of friends (nearest neighbours, nn) of $i$ with the same opinion $A$ at $t=500$. We normalise the $y$-axis by dividing for the same quantity computed at $t=0$. In the first row we show the results for starting conditions $P_{\text{A}}(0)=0.5$ and $P_{\text{B}}(0) = 0.5$. In the second row, for starting conditions $P_{\text{A}}(0)=0.2$ and $P_{\text{B}}(0) = 0.8$. Each column describes the results for a particular network. Each plot is the average of $10^2$ independent simulations. In each plot, we consider the four ranking algorithms and set $Q=20$.}
\label{fig:03}
\end{figure}

\subsection*{Nudging Scenario}

We now consider the same filter algorithms studied in the previous section with the added feature that a random fraction $z$ of opinions, in the list $L_i(t)$ shown to each user $i$, is replaced by a pre-defined opinion centrally chosen and fixed in time (see Fig.\ref{fig:01}-D). In other words, we are investigating a scenario in which the social platform, where the interactions take place, nudges the users towards a particular opinion. In doing so, a fraction of the opinions shown to a user is substituted with ideas that might or might not be representative of what its nearest neighbours are posting. In the following, we set $z=0.1$, $Q=20$ and chose $A$ as the centrally set opinion. Independently of the starting conditions (balanced or unbalanced prevalence of $A$ and $B$), the group opinion moves towards $A$ for all network configurations and sorting algorithms (Fig.~\ref{fig:04}). In the case of unbalanced starting conditions (i.e.\ $P_{\text{A}} = 0.2$ and $P_{\text{B}} = 0.8$), opinion $A$ may become dominant as early as $t \sim 100$ time steps and typically no later than $t \sim 150$. At $t = 500$ almost the entire population turned to opinion $A$. Across the board, the REF method is the most efficient at $t=500$ to nudge the population opinion towards $A$. This is more evident with unbalanced initial conditions. Arguably, this is due to the fact that this filtering method (REF) is the least biased towards the current and past opinions hold by each user and its neighbours. The OLD method instead, in the balanced case, is significantly slower than the rest. By nature, this sorting algorithm slows down the overall drift of the system by showing to each user old neighbours' beliefs. In contrast to the results in the previous section, method PR performs in between the other methods.

\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure4.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of population opinion with central influencer (nudging). The prevalence $P_{\text{A}}(t)$ of opinion $A$ over time for starting conditions $P_{\text{A}}(0)=0.5$ and $P_{\text{B}}(0) = 0.5$ in the first row; $P_{\text{A}}(0)=0.2$ and $P_{\text{B}}(0) = 0.8$ in the second row. Each column describes the results for a particular network. In each plot, we set $Q=20$ and show results for the four sorting algorithms. Each plot is the average of $10^2$ independent simulations and to improve the visualisation data points are shown every $50$ time steps.}
\label{fig:04}
\end{figure}

In order to gather a better understanding of the impact of different sorting algorithms and networks topologies in the nudging process, in Fig.~\ref{fig:06} we show the time $T^*$ that the opinion $A$ needs to take over the entire population. To reduce the computational cost of the simulations, we set $10^{4}$ as time limit, thus the actual $T^*$ for the curves that reach such threshold is higher. The first observation is that the OLD sorting mechanism is, across the board, the slowest to reach convergence.  The OLD method introduces a delay by promoting the oldest posts of each neighbours, which, over time, might sponsor a different opinion with respect to the opinion the focus nodes currently hold. The second observation is that for $z=0.05$, thus when only one opinion is centrally replaced in the list of each user (since $Q=20$), the PR sorting algorithm is generally faster than the OLD method but slower than the others. This is particularly visible in the case of networks with topological (WS networks with $g=0$ and $g=10^{-2}$) or spatial correlations (LA network). As mentioned above, correlations interact with the semantic filtering (PR) creating relatively strong echo chambers which shield its members protecting them from the nudged opinion. The third observation is that for $z \ge 0.15$, the time for convergence for the REF, REC, and PR methods becomes a very weak function of $z$ and of the initial share of the two opinions. Fourth, as also noted in Fig.~\ref{fig:04}, the REF filtering mechanism, which does not introduce any type of bias in the ordering of neighbours' posts, is the fastest to reach convergence in all topologies. In the case of networks with negligible clustering and small average shortest path (WS networks with $g=1$) the convergence, for $z=0.05$, is reached
faster than in the other topologies. The comparison with the CM networks points one more time to the fact that heterogeneous connectivity patterns hamper both local (as seen before) and global convergence (as seen now) to a single opinion.

\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure6.pdf}
\caption{Time for convergence. We show the time $T^*$ that the nudged opinion needs to converge (i.e.\ be shared by all nodes) as function of $z$. We set $10^4$ as maximal time of convergence of the simulations. In he first row we show the results for $P_{\text{A}}(0)=0.5$ and $P_{\text{B}}(0) = 0.5$; in the second row we show the results for $P_{\text{A}}(0)=0.2$ and $P_{\text{B}}(0) = 0.8$. In each plot, we set $Q=20$ and each column describes the results for a particular network model. Each plot is the average of $10$ independent simulations.}
\label{fig:06}
\end{figure}

Figure~\ref{fig:05} shows the normalised distribution of the fraction of neighbours sharing opinion $A$ at $t=500$ for both starting conditions. Since opinion $B$ is almost extinguished in both cases, the distributions are all asymmetric and skewed towards values of $\langle P_A^{nn} \rangle$ close to one. Across all networks, the system is converging towards opinion $A$ and a large number of neighbourhoods share all the same nudged opinion. Indeed, the reduction of all the other values of $\langle P_A^{nn} \rangle$ is dramatic (note the logarithm scale on the $y$). The comparison between the CM and WS ($g=1$) networks shows how the heterogeneity in connectivity patterns alone hampers the formation of echo chambers around the dominant opinion.

\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure5.pdf}
\caption{Opinions of friends. The distribution of the fraction of friends of $i$ with the same opinion as $i$ at $t=500$. The $y$-axis is normalised by dividing by the same quantity computed at $t=0$. In the first row, we show the results for starting conditions $P_{\text{A}}(0)=0.5$ and $P_{\text{B}}(0) = 0.5$. In the second row, we show the results for starting conditions $P_{\text{A}}(0)=0.2$ and $P_{\text{B}}(0) = 0.8$. Columns show the results for different networks. Each plot is the average of $10^2$ independent simulations and we set $Q=20$.}
\label{fig:05}
\end{figure}

\section*{Discussion}

Technology has dramatically reduced the cost of communications and vastly increased their reach. As consequence, the amount of information produced at any given moment far surpasses our ability to consume it. Individuals, companies, and institutions alike compete for our attention that has acquired a real economic value. For example, online social platforms such as Twitter and Facebook profit from our engagement with their systems. Thus, optimising our experience is a key part of their business model. To this end, they adopt algorithmic personalisation which broadly describes a range of automated methods that filter the information to which we are exposed to. The filtering is not random, but targeted to stimulate our interests and online activity. Generally speaking the aims of algorithmic filtering are benign. However, in our hyper-connected society they might have unintended and unanticipated consequences. One area of concern is the possibility that such methods, which often are black boxes, affect opinion formation and dynamics. As many of our social interactions are mediated by such platforms and since much of the information gathering and exposure happen online, the perception of our friends as well as of specific issues might be distorted by such algorithms. These concerns are now mainstream and the words \emph{echo chamber}, \emph{confirmation bias}, and \emph{filter bubbles} have become a staple in the news cycle. Despite the heated debate the effect of algorithmic filtering on opinion dynamics is still largely not understood.

In this paper, we studied the effect of different filtering algorithms on the opinion dynamics of a population of interconnected individuals. We modelled their interactions having in mind prototypical online platforms where users post their opinions which appear in friends' timelines. Due to the limited attention of each user, timelines are curated by means of algorithmic personalisation. We considered different scenarios where posts are selected i) randomly, ii) as function of the time when they were posted, and iii) as function of previous posts of users (semantic filtering). Even more, we studied how the features of the connectivity patterns mediating the interactions between users interplay with filtering algorithms and possibly affect opinions. In particular, we considered three different types of networks which allow us to isolate and contrast three main properties of real networks i) heterogeneity in degree distributions, ii) high values of clustering, and iii) small-world phenomenon. Finally, we investigated another scenario in which the social platform where interactions take place tries to nudge the population towards a particular opinion by manipulating a fraction of the posts in users' timelines.

For simplicity we investigated a bipartisan system in which users can adopt one of two opinions, i.e.\ $A$ or $B$. We studied two very different initial configurations where the share of opinion $A$ was equal ($50-50$) or much lower ($20-80$) than $B$. In these settings, we found that, independently of the social network structure, the sorting mechanisms are not able to change the status quo when the prevalence of opinions is equally distributed in the population. Despite the overall share of opinions does not change, we observed that some features of the networks interact with the filtering algorithms inducing polarisation effects. In particular, we found that topological (high values of clustering) and to a lesser extent spatial (proximity of nodes in a regular lattice) correlations create compact domains (echo chambers) formed only by like-minded individuals. Despite the algorithmic personalisation, absence of correlations, especially in conjunction with heterogeneity in the contacts patterns, hamper the formation of such echo chambers. In case of unbalanced initial conditions, we found that semantic filtering induces a further increase of the predominant opinion because of positive reinforcement.  Also in this scenario correlations play a significant role hampering the reinforcement by creating compact domains around the subordinate opinion that effectively is able to protect such minorities. As mentioned above the absence of topological, or the presence of spatial, correlations hinders the formation of echo chambers, even those centred around the dominant opinion.

If a centralised bias mechanism (i.e.\ nudging) is introduced, population opinion can move towards the nudged opinion relatively fast and eventually  completely switch the status quo. In this case, filtering algorithms that randomly select friends' opinions or that give preference to the most recent ones speedup convergence to the centrally desired opinion. Conversely, methods biased towards older posts are the slowest to reach convergence.
Semantic filtering, in case only a single post in users timelines is manipulated, slows down convergence especially in networks characterised by topological or spatial correlations. In these cases, the emergence of echo chambers opposes the change towards the nudged opinion.

Overall, our results support the view that opinion dynamics can be manipulated by algorithmic personalisation methods. Furthermore, they highlight the interplay between filtering mechanisms and the features of the networks where interactions take place. In particular, correlations in contacts patterns are key ingredients that might lead to the emergence of polarisation and echo chambers even in case of equal share between opinions. Our results show that filtering algorithms might exacerbate polarisation but the organisation of social ties is a key factor.  Conversely, the absence of correlations, especially in conjunction with heterogeneous distributions of contacts hampers the creation of compact domains. These results are in line with the literature of complex contagion processes on complex networks~\cite{baronchelli2018emergence, guilbeault2018complex, barrat2008dynamical}. The study of the nudging scenario shows how the dominant  opinion in the population can completely switch within short time by moderately pushing a desired opinion. This idea is supported by the Nudge Theory in behavioural economics originally developed by Richard Thaler~\cite{Thaler2008} and by recent experiments on the emergence of conventions~\cite{centola2018experimental}. The vulnerability of social media to manipulations can be disastrous because nudging for example can be easily introduced by the company controlling the media, by external players through paid advertisement or by the use of bots~\cite{ferrara2016rise}. There are claims that such strategies have been used to bias political public opinion in recent years~\cite{Bessi2016, Stukal2017}. Not least, since positive reinforcement mechanisms may increase opinion polarisation according to our study, the spread of fake news, that tend to spread faster than true news~\cite{Vosoughi2018,qiu2017limited}, may generate local convergence of opinion that later leads to the emergence of bubbles and group isolation~\cite{Nikolov2015}. In light of democratic access to information, a common and intuitive idea is that social media developers should make efforts to minimise opinion biases by increasing the diversity of opinions received from friends and counter-balancing the content of advertisements. However, recent empirical evidence points out that the actual dynamics at play are much more complex~\cite{bail2018exposure}. Indeed, the exposure to opposite view points might further increase polarisation~\cite{bail2018exposure}. Thus, the research on the feedback between opinion dynamics and algorithmic personalisation is just in its infancy.

Our model aims to capture key mechanisms driving online social interactions and opinion dynamics. It has however some limitations since it disregards other potentially relevant mechanisms. In particular, our model does not consider that constantly diverging friends may stop following each other and thus their opinions are not shared. This manual curation, complementary to the automated curation included in our model, might further contribute to the formation of opinion bubbles and likely boosts biases towards the users' own opinion. Future models should include manual curation taking into account the user's own memory of his or her friends opinions. In the language of modern Network Science this will imply the development of adaptive and time-varying networks models that couple the dynamics of the networks (link formation) with the dynamics on the networks (opinion dynamics). Another limitation is that users have some level of resistance to change and thus some people need reinforced exposure to an opinion before switching. This may affect the timing, possibly delaying, and the likelihood to switch the prevalent opinion in the population. Also, friends do not necessarily have the same authority and possibly information coming from specific friends, e.g.\ close offline friends or relatives, may have higher importance on shaping the user's opinions. Another limitation is the type of filtering mechanisms considered. Future work should consider more complex and realistic models possibly linked to the history and features of each user as well as the popularity of specific memes or information circulating in the system. Finally, here we considered only some prototypical networks models as way to isolate three of the main features of real networks. Other properties such as the presence of communities, high-order correlations, and temporal connectivity patterns will be matter of future explorations.

Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph); Social and Information Networks (cs.SI)