2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.physleta.2016.12.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ising percolation in a three-state majority vote model

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Each individual i (i = 1, 2, ..., N) carries one of three possible opinions, represented by o i = +1, −1 or 0. This scenario mimics any polarized public debate, for example an electoral process with two different candidates A and B, where each agent (or elector) votes for the candidate A (opinion +1), for the candidate B (opinion −1) or remains undecided/neutral (opinion 0) [9,21,22]. In addition to a kinetic exchange rule of interaction, we consider a fraction a of contrarians in the population, similarly to the approach of Galam in the majority-rule model [7].…”
Section: Model I: Pairwise Interactions and Contrariansmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each individual i (i = 1, 2, ..., N) carries one of three possible opinions, represented by o i = +1, −1 or 0. This scenario mimics any polarized public debate, for example an electoral process with two different candidates A and B, where each agent (or elector) votes for the candidate A (opinion +1), for the candidate B (opinion −1) or remains undecided/neutral (opinion 0) [9,21,22]. In addition to a kinetic exchange rule of interaction, we consider a fraction a of contrarians in the population, similarly to the approach of Galam in the majority-rule model [7].…”
Section: Model I: Pairwise Interactions and Contrariansmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Modifications of the above-mentioned probabilistic rule have also been considered, consisting in, e.g., inclusion of agents with independence [15], heterogeneous agents [16], agents with more than two opinions [17], agents with inertia, which leads to the occurrence of a discontinuous FM transition [18], and anticonformist agents, which leads to antiferromagnetic (AFM) or spin-glass-like (SG) rather than FM transition [19,20]. The latter modification amounts to associating AFM-like interactions (not necessarily symmetric) with edges attached to the nodes with anticonformist agents.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To some extent, the absence of majority in groups abstracts situations of stress or frustration. Specially, 2-state MR models with updates on discussion groups of even cardinality necessarily face ties, and this feature has relevant implications into the system, by instance, in producing stable states (Balankin et al, 2017). In this work, the effects of coalition ties produced through particular rules to untie them were quantitatively analyzed.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%