4.7 Article

Heterogeneous out-of-equilibrium nonlinear q-voter model with zealotry

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW E
卷 95, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.95.012104

关键词

-

资金

  1. EPSRC Industrial Case Studentship [EP/L50550X/1]
  2. Bloom Agency in Leeds U.K.
  3. US National Science Foundation [OCE-1245944, DMR-1507371]
  4. LSM
  5. London Mathematical Society [41517]
  6. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation [GBR/1119205 STP]
  7. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [1365138] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. Directorate For Geosciences
  9. Division Of Ocean Sciences [1245944] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  10. Division Of Materials Research
  11. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1507371] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We study the dynamics of the out-of-equilibrium nonlinear q-voter model with two types of susceptible voters and zealots, introduced in Mellor et al. [Europhys. Lett. 113, 48001 (2016)]. In this model, each individual supports one of two parties and is either a susceptible voter of type q(1) or q(2), or is an inflexible zealot. At each time step, a q(i)-susceptible voter (i = 1,2) consults a group of qi neighbors and adopts their opinion if all group members agree, while zealots are inflexible and never change their opinion. This model violates detailed balance whenever q(1) not equal q(2) and is characterized by two distinct regimes of low and high density of zealotry. Here, by combining analytical and numerical methods, we investigate the nonequilibrium stationary state of the system in terms of its probability distribution, nonvanishing currents, and unequal-time two-point correlation functions. We also study the switching time properties of the model by exploiting an approximate mapping onto the model of Mobilia [Phys. Rev. E 92, 012803 (2015)] that satisfies the detailed balance, and we outline some properties of the model near criticality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据