摘要
在近些年来,基于统计物理学的社会学研究被研究学者们广泛关注。其中包括：意见传播动力学,语言动力学及舆论传播动力学等等。在本文中,首先介绍了相关动力学的基本模型和结论,包括意见传播动力学及在此基础上发展而来的符号动力学命名博弈。异质性在遗传学和生态学中很常见,而在实际中,其实在社会学中也广泛存在,它是“同质化”的对立面,主要意思是非均匀性或者是复杂性。在本文中,我们分别在意见传播动力学和命名博弈中引入异质性的概念,并讨论异质性对社会动力学的影响。
在本文的第二章主要讨论异质性对意见传播动力学的影响,在Voter模型中引入冰冻期的概念,个体在冰冻期内接受邻居个体意见的概率很小。在表面上冰冻期的引入使得个体改变意见更难,然而通过计算机模拟发现对于不同大小的群体,会存在一个和系统大小相关冰冻期长度----使得系统中意见统一的时间最短。这一现象的出现说明了冰冻期的引入在一定状况下是加速了系统的统一。在第二章的具体讨论中,我们详细讨论了冰冻期对于意见传播动力学中一些微观量的影响：磁化率、意见团簇的大小及个体空间分布图等。同时,文中还使用马尔科夫过程理论分析了冰冻期加速意见统一过程的原理,进而证实了正确性。
基于Voter意见传播模型的研究有很多,命名博弈就是Voter模型的一个变形,目前已经属于符号动力学的研究领域。在本文中,在命名博弈模型中加入了可以体现词汇异质性的多样性。通过对不同的词汇赋予不同的权重作为词汇的异质性,在模型中我们着重考虑了三种不同的多样性分布——均匀分布、指数分布和幂分布。在个体之间的交流中,词汇多样性会直接影响词汇选择的概率。计算机模拟结果显示这种多样性的引入可以加速一致性的达成。在结果中,通过讨论命名博弈中的词汇总量、不同词汇量及交流成功率,从微观上了解多样性对结果的存进作用。同时文中还讨论了在复杂网络上的模型结果,结果显示：模型的实验结果对于不同的拓扑结果是稳定的。通过在两种社会动力学模型中引入异质性的概念,看似使模型变得更为复杂,使得系统更加无序,而实验结果却表明了异质性往往可以促进系统有序的形成。
Recently, the study of collective behavior has received growing attention in statistical physics, economics and sociology. Social dynamics, as an important aspect, include opinion dynamics, language evolution and competition. In this paper, we firstly introduced some basic models and some fruitful results of the models, which mainly focus on the opinion dynamics and a recently developed language model, naming game. In this paper, heterogeneous beliefs are considered, which is popular in biology and sociology.
In the second section, we study voter model with the consideration of freezing period, in which the probability of changing opinion is small. Interestingly, we find that there exists an optimal value of freezing time, leading to the shortest consensus time. This phenomenon can be greatly validated by the evolution of opinion formation. We provide the explanation of this effect from both the number of changing opinion and the number of opinion clusters, and find that the feedback mechanism and fast formation of effective clusters induced by the optimal freezing time are the promotion factors. Moreover, the impact of other quantities, such as the overall number of opinions and the probability of changing opinion, is also studied. The result is also proved by mathematical method. Our results will be helpful for better understanding and exploring the existence of collective behavior in other research fields.
Many modified versions of the voter model have been proposed to study the social dynamics. The naming game which is belong to language game, also related to the opinion formation, has been considered as an important approach to understand the evolution of a language or communication behaviors among a population of agents. In the third section, we introduce word diversity that reflects the heterogeneity of words into the naming game. Diversity is realized by assigning a weight factor to each word. The weight is determined by three distributions (uniform, exponential and power-law distributions). During the communication, the probability that a word is selected from speaker's memory depends on the introduced word diversity. Interestingly, we find that the word diversity following three different distributions can remarkably promote the final convergence, which is of high importance in the self-organized system. We provide an explanation of this effect based on both the number of different names and the number of total names, and find that a wide spread of names induced by the segregation of words is the main promotion factor.
引文
[1]S. Redner, A Guide to First-Passage Processes. Cambridge University Press:Cambridge, UK,,2001.
[2]Castellano C., Fortunato S., Loreto V. Statistical physics of social dynamics. Reviews of Modern Physics[J].2009,81 (2):591-646.
[3]S. Takahashi D. Sallach, and J. Rouchier, Advancing Social Simulation:the First World Congress. Springer-Verlag:Berlin,2007.
[4]Mobilia M. Does a single zealot affect an infinite group of voters? Physical Review Letters [J].2003,91 (2).
[5]Hegselmann R., Krause U. Truth and Cognitive Division of Labour First Steps towards a Computer Aided Social Epistemology. Jasss-the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation[J].2006,9 (3).
[6]Castellano C., Pastor-Satorras R. Zero temperature Glauber dynamics on complex networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics-Theory and Experiment [J].2006.
[7]Wang Zhen, Perc Matjaz. Aspiring to the fittest and promotion of cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma game. Physical Review E[J].2010,82 (2):021115.
[8]Lambiotte R., Redner S. Dynamics of non-conservative voters. Epl[J].2008,82 (1).
[9]Galam S. Local dynamics vs. social mechanisms:A unifying frame. Europhysics Letters[J].2005,70 (6):705-711.
[10]J. Binney N. Dowrich, A. Fisher, and M. Newman, The theory of Critical Phenomena: An Introduction to the Renormalization Group. Oxford University Press:Oxford, UK, 1992.
[11]Holley R. A., Liggett T. M. Ergodic theorems for weakly interacting infinite systems and the voter model. Annals of Probability[J].1975,3 (4):643-663.
[12]Suchecki Krzysztof, Egu, iacute, luz V., ctor M., San Miguel Maxi. Voter model dynamics in complex networks:Role of dimensionality, disorder, and degree distribution. Physical Review E[J].2005,72 (3):036132.
[13]Sznajd-Weron K., Sznajd J. Opinion evolution in closed community. International Journal of Modern Physics C[J].2000,11 (6):1157-1165.
[14]Krapivsky P. L., Redner S. Dynamics of Majority Rule in Two-State Interacting Spin Systems. Physical Review Letters[J].2003,90 (23):238701.
[15]Wu Z. X., Holme P. Majority-vote model on hyperbolic lattices. Physical Review E[J].2010,81 (1).
[16]Kozma B., Barrat A. Consensus formation on adaptive networks. Physical Review E[J]. 2008,77 (1).
[17]Hu H. B., Wang X. F. Discrete opinion dynamics on networks based on social influence. Journal of Physics a-Mathematical and Theoretical[J].2009,42 (22).
[18]Axelrod R. The dissemination of culture-A model with local convergence and global polarization. Journal of Conflict Resolution[J].1997,41 (2):203-226.
[19]Lucas R. Peres Jos'e F. Fontanari. The media effect in Axelrod's model explained 2011.
[20]Xiao X. H., Ye G. W., Wang B., He M. F. Cultural dissemination in a complex network. Physica a-Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications[J].2009,388 (5):775-779.
[21]Shibanai Y., Yasuno S., Ishiguro I. Effects of global information feedback on diversity-Extensions to Axelrod' s adaptive culture model. Journal of Conflict Resolution[J].2001,45 (1):80-96.
[22]Vazquez F., Redner S. Non-monotonicity and divergent time scale in Axelrod model dynamics. Epl[J].2007,78 (1).
[23]Barbosa L. A., Fontanari J. F. Culture-area relation in Axelrod's model for culture dissemination. Theory in Biosciences[J].2009,128 (4):205-210.
[24]Schulze C., Stauffer D., Sociophysics simulations I:language competition. In Modeling Cooperative Behavior in the Social Sciences, Garrido, P. L.; Marro, J. Munoz, M. A., Eds.2005; Vol.779, pp 49-55.
[25]Schulze C., Stauffer D. Monte Carlo simulation of the rise and the fall of languages. International Journal of Modern Physics C[J].2005,16 (5):781-787.
[26]Schulze C., Stauffer D. Competition of languages in the presence of a barrier. Physica a-Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications[J].2007,379 (2):661-664.
[27]Schulze C., Stauffer D., Wichrnann S. Birth, survival and death of languages by Monte Carlo simulation. Communications in Computational Physics[J].2008,3 (2): 271-294.
[28]de Oliveira V. M., Campos P. R. A., Gomes M. A. F., Tsang I. R. Bounded fitness landscapes and the evolution of the linguistic diversity. Physica a-Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications[J].2006,368 (1):257-261.
[29]Castello X., Eguiluz V. M., San Miguel M. Ordering dynamics with two non-excluding options:bilingualism in language competition. New Journal of Physics[J].2006, 8.
[30]Baronchelli A., Dall'Asta L., Barrat A., Loreto V. Topology-induced coarsening in language games. Physical Review E[J].2006,73 (1).
[31]Baronchelli A., Felici M., Loreto V., Caglioti E., Steels L. Sharp transition towards shared vocabularies in multi-agent systems. Journal of Statistical Mechanics:Theory and Experiment[J].2006,2006 (06):P06014.
[32]Nardini C., Kozma B., Barrat A. Who's talking first? Consensus or lack thereof in coevolving opinion formation models. Physical Review Letters[J].2008,100(15).
[33]Mira J., Paredes A. Interlinguistic similarity and language death dynamics. Europhysics Letters[J].2005,69 (6):1031-1034.
[34]Marceau V., Noel P. A., Hebert-Dufresne L., Allard A., Dube L. J. Adaptive networks: Coevolution of disease and topology. Physical Review E[J].2010,82 (3).
[35]Burda Z., Krzywicki A., Martin 0. C. Adaptive networks of trading agents. Physical Review E[J].2008,78 (4).
[36]Perc M., Szolnoki A. Social diversity and promotion of cooperation in the spatial prisoner's dilemma game. Physical Review E[J].2008,77 (1).
[37]Poncela J., Gomez-Gardenes J., Floria L. M., Sanchez A., Moreno Y. Complex Cooperative Networks from Evolutionary Preferential Attachment. Plos One[J].2008, 3 (6).
[38]M. J. Wooldridge N. R. Jennings. Intelligent Agents:Theory and Theory and Practice Knowledge Engineering Review[J].1995,10 (2):115-152.
[39]Turchin F., The Phenomenon of Science. Columbia University Press:NY,1977.
[40]Albert R., Barabasi A. L. Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics[J].2002,74 (1):47-97.
[41]Newman M. E. J., Watts D. J. Renormalization group analysis of the small-world network model. Physics Letters A[J].1999,263 (4-6):341-346.
[42]Watts D. J., Strogatz S. H. Collective dynamics of'small-world'networks. Nature[J].1998,393 (6684):440-442.
[43]Dornic Ivan, Chat, eacute, Hugues, Chave J., ocirc, me, Hinrichsen Haye. Critical Coarsening without Surface Tension:The Universality Class of the Voter Model. Physical Review Letters[J].2001,87 (4):045701.
[44]Liggett T. M., Interacting Panicle Systems. Springer:New York,199-5.
[45]Sabatelli L., Richmond P. Non-monotonic spontaneous magnetization in a Sznajd-like consensus model. Physica a-Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications[J].2004, 334 (1-2):274-280.
[46]Benczik I. J., Benczik S. Z., Schmittmann B., Zia R. K. P. Opinion dynamics on an adaptive random network. Physical Review E[J].2009,79 (4).
[47]Yang H. X., Wu Z. X., Zhou C. S., Zhou T., Wang B. H. Effects of social diversity on the emergence of global consensus in opinion dynamics. Physical Review E[J]. 2009,80 (4).
[48]Shao J., Havlin S., Stanley H. E. Dynamic Opinion Model and Invasion Percolation. Physical Review Letters[J].2009,103 (1).
[49]Medeiros N. G. F., Silva A. T. C., Moreira F. G. B. Domain motion in the voter model with noise. Physical Review E[J].2006,73 (4).
[50]Lambiotte R., Redner S. Dynamics of vacillating voters. Journal of Statistical Mechanics-Theory and Experiment[J].2007.
[51]Vazquez F., Lopez C. Systems with two symmetric absorbing states:Relating the microscopic dynamics with the macroscopic behavior. Physical Review E[J].2008, 78 (6).
[52]Vazquez F., Krapivsky P. L., Redner S. Constrained opinion dynamics:freezing and slow evolution. Journal of Physics a-Mathematical and General[J].2003,36 (3): L61-L68.
[53]Mobilia Mauro. Does a Single Zealot Affect an Infinite Group of Voters? Physical Review Letters [J].2003,91 (2):028701.
[54]Mobilia M., Petersen A., Redner S. On the role of zealotry in the voter model. Journal of Statistical Mechanics-Theory and Experiment[J].2007.
[55]Stark H. U., Tessone C. J., Schweitzer F. SLOWER IS FASTER:FOSTERING CONSENSUS FORMATION BY HETEROGENEOUS INERTIA. Advances in Complex Systems [J].2008,11 (4): 551-563.
[56]Stark H. U., Tessone C. J., Schweitzer F. Decelerating microdynamics can accelerate macrodynamics in the voter model. Physical Review Letters[J].2008,101(1).
[57]Dall'Asta L., Baronchelli A., Barrat A., Loreto V. Nonequilibrium dynamics of language games on complex networks. Physical Review E[J].2006,74 (3).
[58]Dall'astas L., Baronchelli A., Barrat A., Loreto V. Agreement dynamics on small-world networks. Europhysics Letters[J].2006,73 (6):969-975.
[59]Baronchelli A., Dall'Asta L., Barrat A., Loreto V. The role of topology on the dynamics of the Naming Game. European Physical Journal-Special Topics[J].2007, 143:233-235.
[60]Barrat A., Baronchelli A., Dall'Asta L., Loreto V. Agreement dynamics on interaction networks with diverse topologies. Chaos[J].2007,17 (2).
[6l]Gianini G., Damiani E., Ceravolo P., Consensus Emergence from Naming Games in Representative Agent Semantic Overlay Networks. In On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems:Otm 2008 Workshops, Meersman, R.; Tari, Z.; Herrero, P., Eds. 2008; Vol.5333, pp 1066-1075.
[62]Ke J., Gong T., Wang W. S. Y. Language change and social networks. Communications in Computational Physics[J].2008,3 (4):935-949.
[63]Lu Q. M., Korniss G., Szymanski B. K. The Naming Game in social networks:community formation and consensus engineering. Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination[J].2009,4 (2):221-235.
[64]Baronchelli A., Dall'Asta L., Barrat A., Loreto V. Nonequilibrium phase transition in negotiation dynamics. Physical Review E[J].2007,76 (5).
[65]Lu Q., Korniss G., Szymanski B. K. Naming games in two-dimensional and small-world-connected random geometric networks. Physical Review E[J].2008,77 (1).
[66]Brigatti E. Consequence of reputation in an open-ended naming game. Physical Review E[J].2008,78 (4).
[67]石晓明,张解放.命名游戏及其进展.浙江师范大学学报(自然科学版)[J].2010,(02)：159-162.
[68]Lenaerts T., Jansen B., Tuyls K., De Vylder B. The evolutionary language game: An orthogonal approach. Journal of Theoretical Biology[J].2005,235 (4):566-582.
[69]Lei C. A., Jia J. Y., Wu T., Wang L. Coevolution with weights of names in structured language games. Physica a-Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications[J].2010,389 (24):5628-5634.
[70]Hao J. B., Yang H. X., Liu R. R., Wang B. H., Zhang Z. Y. Effect of Geometric Distance on Agreement Dynamics of Naming Game. Chinese Physics Letters[J].2010,27 (9).
[71]Baronchelli Andrea. Role of feedback and broadcasting in the naming game. Physical Review E[J].2011,83 (4):046103.
[72]Shi D. M., Zhuang Y., Wang B. H. Group diversity promotes cooperation in the spatial public goods game. Epl[J].2010,90 (5).
[73]Peter Clifford Aidan Sudbury. A model for spatial conflict Biometrika[J].1973, 60 (3):581-588.
[74]Holley Richard A., Liggett Thomas M. Ergodic Theorems for Weakly Interacting Infinite Systems and the Voter Model. The Annals of Probability[J].1975,3 (4): 643-663.
[75]Scheucher Manfred, Spohn Herbert. A soluble kinetic model for spinodal decomposition. Journal of Statistical Physics[J].1988,53 (1):279-294.
[76]Dornic Ivan, Chate Hugues, Chave Jerome, Hinrichsen Haye. Critical Coarsening without Surface Tension:The Universality Class of the Voter Model. Physical Review Letters[J].2001,87 (4):045701.
[77]Frachebourg L., Krapivsky P. L. Exact results for kinetics of catalytic reactions. Physical Review E[J].1996,53 (4):R3009-R3012.
[78]Stauffer D. How to convince others? Monte Carlo simulations of the Sznajd model. AIP Conference Proceedings[J].2003, (690):147-155.
[79]Sznajd-Weron K. Sznajd model and its applications. Acta Physica Polonica B[J]. 2005,36 (8):2537-2547.
[80]Behera L., Schweitzer F. On spatial consensus formation:Is the Sznajd Model different from a voter model? International Journal of Modern Physics C[J].2003, 14 (10):1331-1354.
[81]Stauffer D., de Oliveira P. M. C. Persistence of opinion in the Sznajd consensus model:computer simulation. European Physical Journal B[J].2002,30 (4):587-592.
[82]Slanina F., Sznajd-Weron K., Przybyla P. Some new results on one-dimensional outflow dynamics. Epl[J].2008,82 (1).
[83]Bernardes A. T., Stauffer D., Kertesz J. Election results and the Sznajd model on Barabasi network. European Physical Journal B[J].2002,25 (1):123-127.
[84]Sznajd-Weron K., Weron R. How effective is advertising in duopoly markets? Physica a-Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications[J].2003,324 (1-2):437-444.
[85]Sznajd-Weron K., Weron R. A simple model of price formation. International Journal of Modern Physics C[J].2002,13 (1):115-123.
[86]Rodrigues F. A., Costa L D. F. Surviving opinions in Sznajd models on complex networks. International Journal of Modern Physics C[J].2005,16(11):1785-1792.
[87]R. D. Friedman M. Friedman, The Tyranny of the Status Quo. Harcourt Brace:Orlando, FL,1984.
[88]Tessone C. J., Toral R., Amengual P., Wio H. S., San Miguel M. Neighborhood models of minority opinion spreading. The European Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter and Complex Systems[J].2004,39 (4):535-544.
[89]Kondrat G., Sznajd-Weron K. Spontaneous Reorientations in a Model of Opinion Dynamics with Anticonformists. International Journal of Modern Physics C[J].2010, 21 (4):559-566.
[90]Wu Z. X., Holme P. Local interaction scale controls the existence of a nontrivial optimal critical mass in opinion spreading. Physical Review E[J].2010,82 (2).
[91]Joel E Cohen John Hajnal, Charles M Newman. Approaching consensus can be delicate when positions harden. Stochastic Processes and their Applications [J].1986,22 (2):315-322.
[92]Deffuant G. Neau, D. Amblard, F. Weisbuch, G.. Mixing beliefs among interacting agents. Advances in Complex Systems [J].2000,3 (4):87-98.
[93]Rainer Hegselmann Ulrich Krause. Opinion Dynamics Driven by Various Ways of Averaging. Journal of Computational Economics [J].2005,25 (4):381-405.
[94]Baxter G. J., Blythe R. A., McKane A. J. Fixation and Consensus Times on a Network: A Unified Approach. Physical Review Letters[J].2008,101 (25).
[95]L. Steels Auton. Agents Multi-Agent syst[J].1998,1 (169).
[96]Castello X., Baronchelli A., Loreto V. Consensus and ordering in language dynamics. European Physical Journal B[J].2009,71 (4):557-564.