JID: CHAOS

ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;October 24, 2020;12:0]

Chaos, Solitons and Fractals xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chaos, Solitons and Fractals

Nonlinear Science, and Nonequilibrium and Complex Phenomena
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/chaos

Dynamics of an opinion model with threshold-type delay

Redouane Qesmi∗
Superior School of Technology, Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University, Fez 30000, Morocco

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The process of opinion formation rarely boils down to accepting or rejecting the social consensus of oth-
Received 5 March 2020 ers, despite the considerable research (since Sch, 1956 [5]) that has been focused on such situations. In
Revised 31 May 2020
this paper, we propose a mathematical model of threshold-type delay differential equations describing
Accepted 19 October 2020
the relationship between two subpopulations with opposite opinions and the opinion spread dynam-
Available online xxx
ics. We study the quantitative as well as qualitative properties of our model, and we present results on
Keywords: positivity and boundedness, local stability of equilibria and global stability of the boundary state under
Opinion certain conditions. Further analysis of the model show that the system exhibits either a forward transcrit-
Consensus ical or a backward bifurcation. Furthermore, numerical simulations and sensitivity analysis are performed
Functional differential equation to study the impact of the relevant parameters of the model on the achievement of the consensus.
Threshold-type delay
Transcritical forward bifurcation © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Backward bifurcation

1. Introduction impose emergence of desired opinion which are not spontaneous.

An opinion is a statement describing a personal belief or
thought that cannot be tested (or has not been tested) and is un-
supported by evidence but can be socially influenced [23]. Social
influence occurs when a person’s emotions, opinions or behav-
iors are affected by others intentionally or unintentionally. Further-
more, social influence takes many forms and can be seen in con-
formity, socialization, obedience, leadership, persuasion, sales, mar-
keting, group pressures and interactions resulting from discrepan-
cies in opinion. Three distinct manifestations of pressure toward
uniformity have been observed (See [12–15]): a pressure on the
individual to alter his own opinion so as to bring it in line with
his fellows; a pressure on the individual or group to attempt to in-
fluence discrepant individuals so as to bring their opinions in line;
a pressure on the group or individuals to redefine the boundaries
of their group, increasing uniformity by rejecting discrepant indi-
viduals. The dynamics of social influence has been heavily studied
in sociological science literature (See [9,16,19,30]).
Mathematical models have proven beneficial to make long-term
predictions about the opinion spread behaviors. Opinion forma-
tion models have been extensively considered by many authors
(See [2,8,10,11,24,26,39,40] and references therein). In the context
of opinion problems in a constrained setting, Albi et al. in [1] con-
sider a microscopic model of opinion formation, representing re-
strictions in terms of economic resources and media availability, to
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: qesmir@gmail.com
The authors, compute explicit stationary solutions for the result-
ing constrained dynamic. Using graph theory, Albi et al. [3] built
a model of opinion dynamics spreading accompanied by an opti-
mal control problem on a time evolving network, where the to-
tal number of nodes and the total number of edges of the intro-
duced graph are conserved in time. The resulting model has been
numerically solved. In [2], the authors extended the kinetic model
of opinion formation introduced by Toscani et al. [37] to the case
where each agent acquires an amount of connections in the net-
work. The considered model is similar to the one in [3] but in a
mean-field setting where the number of agents is very large. In a
model of ordinary differential equations with extremist and mod-
erate opinion categories, including a fraction of zealots who hold
moderate opinion, Marvel et al. [24] showed that for a society
to adopt a moderate viewpoint, moderation by stimulus remains
an effective solution. Wang et al. [39] analyzed and extended the
model developed in [24] to include a second zealots fraction in
extremist opinion and multiple competitors. The authors showed
that there exists bistability when the fraction of committed believ-
ers in moderate opinion is less then a critical value. Furthermore,
they showed that, to achieve consensus, the fraction needs to ex-
ceed the threshold value. The model in [24] is further extended
by Bujalski et al. [8] to an ODE with zealots fraction in both ex-
tremist and moderate opinion on a graph, where the nodes cor-
respond to individual cities, and the edges correspond to reaction
rates between the cities. One of the interesting findings in that pa-
per is that increasing interaction strength between individual cities
leads to a clustering phenomena. Mathematically, the clustering
was a consequence of a saddle-node bifurcation. Another interest-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110379
0960-0779/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: R. Qesmi, Dynamics of an opinion model with threshold-type delay, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110379
JID: CHAOS
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Qesmi
ing opinion formation modelling work is the one by Tanabe et al.
[35] in which the authors consider a model of ordinary differen-
tial equations with congregator and contrarian agents who try to
run off the opinion fostered by others. Furthermore, the model in-
corporate the number of intercommunication, between individual,
that need to take place for an opinion to be changed. A bifurca-
tion study was performed and give rise to stable limit cycles when
the number interactions between people exceed a critical value.
Other generalizations of the model of Marvel [24] are considered
in [4,18,32].
However, there is evidence that many people have to make
pressure by exposing their opinion several times in order to con-
vince individuals and achieve consensus (See [29]). In fact, recur-
rent exposure to an opinion makes people believe the opinion is
more correct. Furthermore, the repetition or restatement of an idea
at intervals not only promotes clarity, but encourages the accep-
tance of the idea [25]. Accumulative-threshold models have been
successfully used in the investigation of binary opinion dynam-
ics. (See [6,11,28,32–34] and references therein). An agent-based
model for a population of interconnected individuals who partic-
ipate at the same time in an interaction process has been devel-
oped and numerically solved [6]. These artificial interactions give
rise to changes in an opinion that accumulate and create a radical
change of that opinion once the conviction becomes greater then a
given threshold. In the same work, the masters equations that gov-
ern the process of opinion formation dynamics has been derived
in terms of a system of partial differential equations of hyperbolic
type with nonlocal terms. However, due to the nonlinearities char-
acter, the non-local interactions and the coupling between popu-
lations, the obtained nonlinear model was hard to be analytically
solved. In [28] the authors reduced the complexity of the main
model in [6] to a more simple model with only one population and
succeed to develop an analytical framework. Indeed, exploiting a
method developed by Li and Toscani [20], the authors were able to
solve the partial differential equation explicitly and show that the
considered population reaches consensus in finite time. Recently,
the dynamics associated with the model introduced by Tanabe and
Masuda [35] are investigated one more time in [11] by looking at
the way the model’s parameters are involved to create stable peri-
odic solutions. Furthermore, the author in [11] modify the model in
[35] by assuming, first, that contrarians join congregators once the
proportion of the population holding an opinion exceeded a given
threshold and, second, that there is a proportion of the popula-
tion who are zealots. It was found that the spectrum of contrarian
proportions, for which periodic behavior arise, get smaller when
the threshold decreases and that a small proportion of zealots can
erase that periodic behavior.
While these models capture interesting threshold phenomena,
there are still not answered questions like how the information
amount transmitted through a direct contact or other sources af-
fect the change in opinion. Moreover, as far as we know, the study
of the effect of the necessary effective communications between
individuals with different opinions as well as the necessary full-
length time to persuade people on the achievement of the consen-
sus are not done yet. In this paper, we shall propose a model of
opinion spread dynamics which incorporates multiple ideological
contacts with an outsider opinion individuals in a given population
with a local opposite opinion. The model is a useful tool, which
will be used to predict the threshold level of convinced individuals
of one opinion that are needed to achieve consensus on the other
opinion. Furthermore, the model is able to study the impact of the
necessary effective communications between individuals with dif-
ferent opinions as well as the necessary duration to convince an
individual on the achievement of the consensus. The relationship
between the populations and the opinion spread dynamics leads
to a threshold-type delay model. To the best of our knowledge,
2
[m5G;October 24, 2020;12:0]
Chaos, Solitons and Fractals xxx (xxxx) xxx
ρe--γτ
α
A B
β
μ μ
Fig. 2.1. Flow diagram of system (2.3)
Table 1
Parameters illustration
Symbol Definition
nA Subpopulation believing in opinion A
nB Subpopulation believing in opinion B
θ Transmitted information amount
τ Period of incubation prior being convinced in opinion B
Q Threshold of information load
b Number of effective communications
c Information amount at each contact
k Saturation term
α Rate of entrance in the population believing in opinion A
β Conversion rate to opinion A
γ Leaving rate of individuals believing in opinion A
ρ Conviction rate in opinion B
μ Death rate of individuals
this is the first time such an opinion model has appeared in the
literature.
In Section 2, we formulate the opinion model with threshold-
type delay, then we reduce it to a system of differential equa-
tions with state-dependent delay. Section 3 is devoted to the well-
posedness of our model and the existence of steady states. We
then concentrate ourselves in Section 4 on the behaviour of the
boundary steady state and come up with a sufficient condition for
its global asymptotic stability using a Lyapunov-Razumikhin func-
tion. Next, we demonstrate that the model undergoes both forward
transcritical bifurcation and backward bifurcation in Section 5. De-
tailed numerical simulations and sensitivity analysis with respect
to initial data in the region of bistability of solutions, that support
our analytical results and stress the role of parameters concerned
with the system on the stability of steady states are presented in
Section 6. We conclude the paper with a brief conclusion and dis-
cussion of the results.
2. Model formulation
In this section, we will describe how an outsider opinion Bof a
subpopulation can spread in a subpopulation with a local opposite
opinion A (See Fig. 2.1 for the model illustration and Table 1 for the
parameters illustration). The population is divided into convinced
subpopulation of local opinion A and convinced subpopulation of
outsider opinion B. We assume that individuals enter the total pop-
ulation believes only in local opinion Awith constant rate α .We
also assume that the population is sufficiently large such that the
newcomers to the population with opinion Acan be approximated
as a constant. Once encountered with subpopulation B,individuals
with opinion A are constantly exposed to a huge amount of in-
formation influencing them to change their mind and converting
them to the outsider opinion B.
The information amount θ transmitted through a direct contact,
mass communication and other sources to an individual from sub-
population A is tracked by the period, a, since the first moment the
concerned individual receives an information concerning the out-
sider opinion B. Let nB denote the subpopulation believing of opin-
ion B.According to the principle of mass conservation, the dynam-
ics of the information amount, denoted θ (t, a ), is governed by the
JID: CHAOS
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;October 24, 2020;12:0]

R. Qesmi Chaos, Solitons and Fractals xxx (xxxx) xxx

partial differential equation delay equations


n A = α + β nB (t ) − ρ e−γ τ (t ) nA (t − τ (t ))nB (t − τ (t )) − μnA (t ),
∂θ ∂θ
+ = rθ (t, a ) + G(nB (t )), 0 ≤ a ≤ τ , (2.1) n B = ρ e−γ τ (t ) nA (t − τ (t ))nB (t − τ (t )) − (β + μ )nB (t ),
dt da
(τ (t ), nB,t ) = 0.
θ (t, 0 ) =c, (2.3)
Denote by Cthe space of continuous functions defined on
where r is the internal development rate of the information
[−τ ∞ , 0].The following proposition is useful in order to reduce the
amount transmitted to an individual, belonging to subpopulation
threshold-delay system (2.3) to a system of differential equations
A,expound to the outsider opinion B.The internal development rate
with state-dependent delay.
can be explained as follows (See [25] for more details): Subcon-
scious mind is absorbing constantly information that lead to draw Proposition 2. There exists a decreasing and continuously differential
conclusions and form opinions. This information is unconsciously map σ : C → R+ such that, for t ≥ 0, (σ (nB,t ), nB,t ) = 0.Moreover,
 
ruminated before being digested and assimilated to form the ap- the map σ is unique and σ (0 ) = 1r ln Qc .
propriate opinion. Moreover, there exists in all intellectual en-
deavor a period of incubation, a process in most part subconscious, The proof of Proposition 2 is similar to the one given in [36],
a slow and hidden development through absorption of suitable nu- and hence is omitted here.
trients that provides mental stimulus for thinking. Once an idea For the sake of simplicity, we shall denote by x (resp. y) the
has been accepted, it tends to remain. The longer it is held, the number of individuals in subpopulation A,nA (resp. in subpopula-
more it tends to become a fixed habit of thinking [27]. tion B, nB ). Hence, the threshold-type delay system (2.3)is topolog-
The function Gexpress the external information amount, trans- ically equivalent to the following state-dependent delay system

mitted to an individual with opinion A,due to recurrent exposures x = α + β y(t ) − ρ e−γ σ (yt ) x(t − σ (yt ))y(t − σ (yt )) − μx(t )
to the outsider opinion B.Furthermore, we suppose that, once in- y = ρ e−γ σ (yt ) x(t − σ (yt ))y(t − σ (yt )) − (β + μ )y(t ).
dividuals from A subpopulation are convinced of Bopinion, namely,
(2.4)
the information load reach an amount Qneeded for the individ-
ual from subpopulation Ato convert to opinion Bduring a period 3. Properties of the model and existence of steady states
τ ,more contact with opinion Bindividuals has no effect to increase
the information amount of the A subpopulation. Thus, θ (t, a ) will Since the functions σ is continuously differentiable on
become largely independent of the contact effect when A subpop- C,existence and uniqueness of a solution of (2.4) defined on
ulation adopt opinion B. Hence, the external information amount, [0, +∞ )for an initial condition belonging to the space of continu-
G(nB (t )),could be expressed by ously differential functions on [−σ (0 ), 0] is assured (See [21,38] for
more details). In the following, we concentrate ourselves on posi-
bcnB (t )
G(nB (t )) = . tivity and boundedness of solutions of the state-dependent delay
knB (t ) + 1 system (2.4).
with b is the number of information amounts transmitted by in- Proposition 3. The total population of system (2.4) is bounded.
dividuals from subpopulation B and absorbed by a listener from
subpopulation A (number of effective communications in short), c Proof. Since the total population N = x + y satisfies N (t ) = α −
is the information amount at each contact with opinion B and k μN (t )for all t ≥ 0then, integrating this equation, we obtain, for all
is a saturation parameter. For example, if individuals from A sub- t ≥ 0,    
α α
population are quickly convinced of Bopinion then the saturation min , N (0 ) ≤ N (t ) ≤ max , N (0 ) . (3.1)
parameter need to be high and vice versa. Once encountered with
μ μ
subpopulation B,an individual will either leave the population with This completes the proof.
rate γ or stay in the population with probability e−γ τ to become Let σ ∗ = infφ ∈C + σ (φ ). 
convinced of opinion Bat rate ρ .An Individual with outsider opin- Proposition 4. Let φ and ψ be positive functions on [−τ ∞ , 0].Assume
ion Bmay either keep his opinion or change it to convert back to that
A subpopulation with rate β .Individuals from the both subpopula-  α 2
tions A and Bdie with rate μ. α > ρ e−γ σ sup
∗
max , N (0 ) , sup φ ( θ )ψ ( θ ) .
The following lemma provides some properties of the informa- μ θ ∈[0,τ ∞ ]
tion amount governed by equation (2.1). Then solutions xφ and yψ of (2.4) are bounded and positive.

Lemma 1. There exists a bounded and positive function τ : [0.∞ ) → Proof. Our proof is split into two cases. (a) First, suppose that for
[0.∞ )such that θ (t, a ) ≤ Qfor all a ∈ [0, τ (t )],θ (t, τ (t )) = Qfor all any positive initial conditions (x0 , y0 ),we assume that t1 is the first
t ≥ 0.Furthermore, the map t → t − τ (t )is increasing and, for t ≥ 0, time such that x(t1 )y(t1 ) = 0.Thus, there are two possible cases: (i)
x(t1 ) = 0, y(t ) ≥ 0; (ii)y(t1 ) = 0, x(t ) ≥ 0,for t ≤ t1 .
 0 For case (i), from the first equation of system (2.4) and
(τ (t ), nB,t ) := cerτ (t ) + e−vr G(nB (t + v ))dv − Q = 0 Proposition 3, we have
−τ (t )
(2.2) x (t1 ) = α + β y(t1 ) − ρ e−γ σ (yt1 ) x(t1 − σ (yt1 ))y(t1 − σ (yt1 ))
 α 2
where nB,t are the history functions of the subpopulation believing −γ σ ∗
of opinion Bdefined for ξ ∈ [− maxs∈[0,∞] τ (s ), 0]by ≥ α − ρe sup max , N (0 ) , sup φ (θ )ψ (θ )
μ θ ∈[0,τ ∞ ]

nB,t (ξ ) = nB (t + ξ ). since, for t ≤ t1 ,x(t ) ≤ x(t ) + y(t ) = N (t ) and y(t ) ≤ x(t ) + y(t ) =
N (t ).It follows that x (t1 ) > 0 so that x(t ) is negative just before
The proof of Lemma 1 is similar to the one given in [36], and t1 , and this is a contradiction to the definition of t1 .
hence is omitted here. For case (ii), from the second equation of system (2.4) we
−γ σ (yt )
Let nA denote the subpopulation believing of opinion A.The have y (t1 ) = ρ e 1 x (t − σ (yt ))y (t − σ (yt )) > 0,which is
1 1 1 1
model is given, for t ≥ 0,by the following system of threshold-type contradiction to the definition of t1 .

3
JID: CHAOS
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;October 24, 2020;12:0]

R. Qesmi Chaos, Solitons and Fractals xxx (xxxx) xxx

α 
Consequently x and y are both positive and, from Proposition 3,
+  e−γ σ y(t − σ (yt )).
∗
≤ −(β + μ )y(t ) + ρ
are bounded. This completes the proof  μ
We suppose, from now on and in the following, that existence On the other hand, the trivial steady state of equation
and uniqueness of solutions of (2.4) hold for t ∈ [−σ (0 ), +∞ ). α 
+  e−γ σ y(t − σ (yt ))
∗
The model (2.4) has a boundary steady state given by, y˙ (t ) = −(β + μ )y(t ) + ρ (4.4)
α  μ
E0 = ,0 is globally asymptotically stable. Indeed, the characteristic equation
μ
around the trivial steady state y = 0of equation (4.4) is given by
in which there is no individuals believing in opinion α 
+  e−γ σ e−λσ (0) = 0.
∗
B.Furthermore, existence of positive steady states of (2.4) is (λ ) = λ + β + μ − ρ
assured by the following result. μ
Proposition 5. The system (2.4) has : Let λbe any eigenvalue associated to equation (4.4) with non-
At least one positive steady state if negative real part. From the above characteristic equation and (4.2),
we have
μ α 
( β + μ ) ≤ α e −γ σ ( 0 ) . (3.2) −γ σ − Re(λ )σ (0 )
|λ+μ+β | ρ μ + e
∗
ρ =
 e−γ σ ∗
≤ α
ρ μ + e
If μ
ρ (β + μ ) > α e
−γ σ (0 ) then

No  γ σ (y) γ σ (0)  state if, for all y > 0,μy +

positive steady < μ + β,
μ
ρ (β + μ ) e −e > 0.
which is a contradiction since Re(λ ) ≥ 0.Hence, the steady state
At least two positive steady states if there exists y > 0such that
y = 0of the linear equation (4.4) is locally asymptotically stable. It
β + μ γ σ (y )
α − μy − μ e > 0. follows immediately that y = 0of this equation is GAS. Thus, since
ρ
Moreover, the positive steady state, E ∗ = (x∗ , y∗ ),satisfies
σ is continuously differentiable and its derivative σ is bounded
on the continuous functions space C,it follows from Theorem 2.4
of [17] that the boundary steady state of equation
μ β + μ γ σ ( y∗ ) α 
(β + μ )eγ σ (y ) = 0 and x∗ =
∗
α − μy ∗ − e . (3.3) y˙ (t ) = ρ e−γ σ (0) +  y(t − σ (yt )) − (β + μ )y(t )
ρ ρ μ
Proof. Let, for y > 0,the function F defined by is GAS as well. Consequently, using comparison princi-
β + μ γ σ (y ) ple, y(t )converges to 0 as ttends to ∞for any solution of
F ( y ) = α − μy − μ e . (3.4)
ρ equation (2.4) of the form (x(t ), y(t ))with positive initial condi-
tion. Furthermore, since the total population N = x + y satisfies
Computing the equilibria of the system (2.4) we see that a pos- α
itive steady state (x∗ , y∗ )must satisfy N (t ) = α − μN (t )for all t ≥ 0then limt→∞ x(t ) = .The proof of
 μ
F ( y∗ ) = 0 Theorem 6 is complete. 
x∗ = β + μ γ σ ( y∗ )
ρ e . In the following we shall consider the local asymptotic stability
of the boundary steady state of system (2.4). The linearization of
We have F (0 ) = α − μ β+ μ γ σ (0 )
ρ e and limy→∞ F (y ) =
system (2.4) around any steady state E = (xe , ye )leads to the fol-
−∞.Moreover, for y > 0,F (y ) < F (0 ) is equivalent to lowing linear system
μ   ⎧
μy + ( β + μ ) eγ σ ( y ) − eγ σ ( 0 ) > 0. x (t ) =  β y(t ) − ρ ye e−γσ (y ) x(t − σ (ye ))
e
ρ ⎪
⎨
− ρ xe e−γ σ (y ) − A y(t − σ (ye ) ) − μx(t ),
e

This proves all the assertions of the proposition.  e −γ σ ( y e )

=  ρy e x(t − σ (ye ))
⎩y (t )
⎪
−γ σ ( y e )
In the next section, we will focus on the asymptotic stability of + ρ xe e − A y(t − σ (ye ) ) − (β + μ )y(t ),
the boundary steady state of (2.4).
such that
A := ργ σ (ye )xe ye e−γ σ (y ) .
e
4. Asymptotic Stability of the boundary Steady State

In the following, we provide a sufficient condition for the Substituting the Anstaz S0 eλt ,where S0 = (x0 , y0 ), and eliminat-
boundary steady state of (2.4), when it is unique, to be globally ing eλt ,leads to
asymptotically stable (GAS). Recall that σ ∗ = infφ ∈C + σ (φ ) ≥ 0. ⎧ e −γ σ ( y ) −σ ( y ) λ
λx β y0 −−γρσy(yee )
e e
⎪ =  e e x0
⎨ 0
Theorem 6. Assume that − ρ xe e − A e − σ ( y ) λ y 0 − μx 0 ,
= ρ ye e−γ σ (y ) e−σ (y )λ x0
⎩λy0
e e

ρα e−γ σ < μ(μ + β ).

∗
(4.1) ⎪
−γ σ ( y e )
+ ρ xe e − A e−σ (y )λ y0 − (β + μ )y0
e

Then, the boundary steady state of (2.4) is globally asymptotically

stable. Without loss of generality, we may assume y0 = 1.We obtain
α and, from
 
Proof. We have lim supt→∞ x(t ) ≤ lim supt→∞ N (t ) = μ β − ρ x e e −γ σ ( y ) − A e −σ ( y ) λ
e e

∗ x0 =
(4.1), ρα e−γ σ < μ(μ + β ).Then, for a sufficiently small  ,we ob- λ + ρ y e e −γ σ ( y e ) e −σ ( y e ) λ + μ
tain α 
where λeither takes the negative value −μor a root of the charac-
+  e −γ σ < μ + β
∗
ρ (4.2)
μ teristic function
 
and, moreover, there exists T1 > 0 such that, for t ≥ T1 + (λ ) = λ + μ + β + ρ ye e−γ σ (y ) e−σ (y )λ − ρ xe e−γ σ (y ) − A e−σ (y )λ.
e e e e

σ (0 ),x(t ) ≤ μα +  .Hence, (4.5)

α  The local behavior of the boundary steady state of system
y˙ (t ) ≤ −(β + μ )y(t ) + ρ e−γ σ (yt ) +  y(t − σ (yt )) (4.3)
μ (2.4) is given by the following theorem.

4
JID: CHAOS
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;October 24, 2020;12:0]

R. Qesmi Chaos, Solitons and Fractals xxx (xxxx) xxx

8000 8000

7000 7000

6000 6000

5000 5000

nB
nB

4000 4000

3000 3000

2000 2000

1000 1000

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Fig. 5.1. Left panel corresponds to forward transcritical bifurcation where positive steady states exist only below the critical value ν =47.48. Right panel corresponds to
backward bifurcation branch with critical value ν =47.48 and turning point at ν0 = 67.27.

α 
Theorem 7. The boundary steady state E0 = , 0 of (2.4) is unsta- We will choose the positive steady state (x∗ , y∗ )for which y∗ is
μ the first root of the function F given in (3.4). It follows that
α −γ σ (0)
ble when μ + β < e ,and locally asymptotically stable when β + μ γ σ ( y∗ )
μ F (y∗ ) = −μ − γ σ (y∗ )μ e < 0. (5.2)
α ρ
μ + β > ρ e−γ σ (0) .
μ
Condition (3.2) is equivalent to
Proof. Thecharacteristic
 equation (4.5) associated with the steady  
α 1 ρα
state E0 = , 0 is given by 0≤ν < ln := ν . (5.3)
μ γ σ˜ (0 ) μ (β + μ )
 ρα −γ σ (0) −σ (0)λ 
(λ ) = (λ + μ ) λ + μ + β − e e . (4.6) Thus, for each ν ∈ {0, ν )there exists a positive steady state
μ y∗ (ν ) satisfying
Thus, the roots of  are given by λ = −μ and the roots of the μ
(β + μ )eγ ν σ˜ (y (ν )) = 0,
∗
following equation α − μy ∗ ( ν ) − ν ∈ [0, ν ). (5.4)
ρ
ρα −γ σ (0) −σ (0)λ
ξ (λ ) = λ + μ + β − e e . Furthermore, applying the Implicit Functions Theorem, it is ob-
μ
vious that ν → y∗ (ν ) is a continuously differentiable function of ν
We have limλ→∞ ξ (λ ) = +∞, and ξ (0 ) < 0when μ + β < such that
ρ μα e−γ σ (0) .Consequently, there exists an eigenvalue with positive
γ σ˜ (y∗ (ν ) ) μρ (β + μ )eγ ν σ˜ (y (ν ))
∗
dy∗
real part and, the boundary steady state is unstable. Now as- (ν ) = − .
sume that μ + β > ρ μ α e−γ σ (0 ) .Let λbe any eigenvalue associated dν μ + γ ν σ˜ (y∗ (ν ) ) μρ (β + μ )eγ ν σ˜ (y∗ (ν ))
to equation (4.4) with nonnegative real part. From the characteris-
It follows, from (5.2), that y∗ (. ) is decreasing. Furthermore,
tic equation (4.6) we obtain
we have F (y∗ (ν )) < F (0 )for ν ∈ [0, ν ] and limν →ν F (y∗ (ν )) =
ρα −γ σ (0 ) − Re(λ )σ (0 )
|λ+μ+β | = μ e e F (0 ).Thus, using (5.3), one obtains
ρα −γ σ (0 )
≤ μ e α 1
< μ+β y∗ ( ν = 0 ) = − (β + μ ) and lim y∗ (ν ) = 0. (5.5)
μ ρ ν →ν
which is a contradiction since Re(λ ) ≥ 0. Therefore, the boundary Let us consider ν as a bifurcation parameter. Our goal is
steady state E0 is locally asymptotically stable.  to show the occurrence of forward transcritical bifurcation of
(5.1). In this case, characteristic equation (4.5) associated with
5. Bifurcation analysis
(x∗ (ν ), y∗ (ν ) )reads as follows
In what follows, we shall prove that system (2.4) produces two (λ, ν ) = λ + μ + β
  
+ ρ y∗ (ν )e−γ ν σ˜ (y (ν )) − ρ x∗ (ν )e−γ ν σ˜ (y (ν )) −A e−ν σ˜ (y (ν ))λ
∗ ∗ ∗
potential cases of bifurcation, shown in Fig. 5.1, depending on the
chosen parameter values.
(5.6)
In the rest of this section, we suppose that the delay σ can be
written as σ (φ ) = ν σ˜ (φ )with ν is a positive real parameter and where
σ˜ : C + → R+ is a bounded, decreasing and continuously differen- β + μ γ σ ( y∗ )
A := ργ ν σ˜ (y∗ (ν ) )x∗ (ν )y∗ (ν )e−γ ν σ˜ (y (ν ) ) and x∗ =
∗
tiable function. Thus, equation (2.4) reads e .
 ρ
x = α + β y(t ) − ρ e−γ ν σ˜ (yt ) x(t − ν σ˜ (yt ))y(t − ν σ˜ (yt )) − μx(t ) The forward transcritical bifurcation of the positive steady state
y = ρ e−γ ν σ˜ (yt ) x(t − ν σ˜ (yt ))y(t − ν σ˜ (yt )) − (β + μ )y(t ). as ν moves through ν is stated as follows.
(5.1)
We assume that condition (3.2) holds, to guarantee the exis- Theorem 8. When ν < ν and ν close to ν ,the positive steady state of
tence of the positive steady state (x∗ , y∗ )of (2.4). Moreover, we as- system (5.1) is locally asymptotically stable while the boundary steady
sume that state is unstable, and for ν > ν the boundary steady state is unique
μ   and locally asymptotically stable. That is, forward transcritical bifur-
μy + (β + μ ) eγ σ (y) − eγ σ (0) > 0 for all y > 0. cation occurs at ν = ν .
ρ
5
JID: CHAOS
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;October 24, 2020;12:0]

R. Qesmi Chaos, Solitons and Fractals xxx (xxxx) xxx

Proof. From Theorem 7 we deduce the local behaviour of bound- we obtain

ary steady state E0 when ν > ν . Now, we study the local asymptotic
(λ, ν0 ) = λ + μ + β − (β + μ )e−ν0 σ˜ (yM (ν0 ))λ
stability of the positive steady state (x∗ (ν ), y∗ (ν ) )when ν moves
through ν and ν < ν . First, notice that when ν is close to ν +ρ yM (ν0 )e−ν σ˜ (yM (ν0 ))λ e−γ ν0 σ˜ (yM (ν0 ))
   
and ν < ν then y∗ (ν )becomes close to zero (see (5.5)) and, there- β +μ γ ν0σ
˜ (yM (ν0 ))
∗
fore, ρ x∗ (ν )e−γ ν σ˜ (y (ν )) − Abecomes close to the positive value × 1+ γ ν0 σ˜ (yM (ν0 ) )e
γ ν σ ( )
ρ
ρμe − ˜ 0
∗
.We claim that, when ρ x∗ (ν )e−γ ν σ˜ (y (ν )) − A > 0,all = λ + μ + β − (β + μ )e−ν σ˜ (yM (ν0 ))λ
d
roots of equation (5.6) have negative real parts. In fact, in this case
Now, let λbe a root of (λ, ν0 )with nonnegative real part. Then
it is easy to see that the map R
λ → (λ, μ ) is increasing and
| e−ν0 σ˜ (yM (ν0 ))λ ≤ 1 and
limλ→+∞ (λ, ν ) = +∞.On the other hand, we have
| λ + μ + β | = (β + μ ) | e−ν0 σ˜ (yM (ν ))λ |
y∗ (ν )ρ e−γ ν σ˜ (y (ν ) )
∗

(0, ν ) = ≤ (β + μ )
μ
    which is false since λ = 0 and Re(λ ) > 0.Therefore, every root has
β + μ γ ν σ˜ (y∗ (ν ))
× μ + γ ν σ˜ (y∗ (ν ) )μ e . (5.7) negative real part and the steady state EM (ν ) is locally asymptoti-
ρ
cally stable for ν close to ν0 .
It follows from (5.2) that (0, ν ) > 0 and, consequently, there The characteristic equation associated to Em ( ν ) =
exists a unique real value λ∗ < 0 such that (λ∗ , ν ) = 0. Finally, (xm (ν ), ym (ν ) )for ν ∈]ν , ν0 [ satisfies
one can easily show, by separating real and imaginary parts in
y (ν )ρ e−γ ν σ˜ (ym (ν ) )
(5.6), that all characteristic roots λ = λ∗ satisfy Re(λ ) < λ∗ .Thus, (0, ν ) = m
the local asymptotic stability of the positive steady state, when ν
μ
   
is close to ν and ν < ν , immediately follows.  β + μ γ ν σ˜ (ym (ν ))
× μ + γ ν σ˜ (ym (ν ) )μ e .
ρ
When condition (3.2) does not hold, then there exists at
 
least two positive steady states, Em = (xm (ν ), ym (ν ) ) and EM =
However, from (5.8), μ + γ ν σ˜ (ym (ν ) )μ β + ρ
μ γ ν σ˜ (ym (ν ) )
e <
(xM (ν ), yM (ν ) ),provided that there exists y > 0 such that F (y ) >
0or equivalently ν ∈]ν , ν0 [where ν0 is given by 0 and, consequently, (0, ν ) < 0.Furthermore limλ→∞ (λ, ν ) =
  +∞.Thus, there exists λ∗ > 0 such that (λ∗ , ν ) = 0. This com-
1 ρ ( α − μy ) pletes the proof of the theorem. 
ν0 = ln .
γ σ˜ (y ) μ (β + μ )
6. Numerical simulations
The selected equilibria Em and EM we will use are such that the
first two solutions ym (ν ) and yM (ν )of equation F (y ) = 0 are given
We use MATLAB ddesd solver [31] for state-dependent delay
by (3.4) with F (ym (ν ) ) < 0 and F (yM (ν ) ) > 0,i.e.
differential equations to compute the solutions of (5.1) numerically.
β + μ γ ν σ˜ (yM (ν )) Note that simulating the behaviour of solutions of system (5.1) for
μ + γ σ ( yM )μ e
ρ the general state-dependent delay σ is a challenging task. To over-
β + μ γ ν σ˜ (ym (ν )) come this difficulty we will perform our simulations using constant
> 0 and μ + γ σ (ym )μ e < 0. (5.8) initial data. Let C˜ = {φ ∈ C : φ (s ) = φ (0 ) for all s ∈ [−τ ∞ , 0]}be the
ρ
space of constant initial data. Thus, for φ ∈ C˜,the equation
Therefore, backward bifurcation can take place for parameter (σ (φ ), φ ) = 0given by (2.2) is equivalent to
values of ν ∈ (ν , ν0 ).Moreover, when ν = ν0 ,we have F (y ) = 0 and  0
the two steady states Em and EM coincide. In particular, we obtain cerν σ˜ (φ ) + e−rs G(φ (0 ))dv − Q = 0.
F ( y M ( ν0 ) ) = F ( y m ( ν0 ) ) = 0 . −ν σ˜ (φ )
We state and prove the following theorem. Solving this equation for σ˜ (φ ),we obtain
 
Theorem 9. When condition (3.2) is not satisfied then backward bi- 1 rQ + G(φ (0 ))
furcation, for system (5.1), occurs at ν = ν0 .That is, for ν > ν0 such σ˜ (φ ) = ln . (6.1)
rν cr + G(φ (0 ))
that ν close to ν0 ,the boundary steady state is the unique equilibrium
which is locally asymptotically stable; and for ν < ν0 such that ν close We explore the behavior of the solution using the fol-
to ν0 ,the boundary steady state together with a positive steady state lowing values of relevant parameters: α = 100,β = 0.05,ρ =
are locally asymptotically stable while another positive steady state 0.0 0 07,γ = 1/17,μ = 0.0125,r = 1,c = 10,ν ∈ [0, 70],b ∈ {0, 1, ..., 5}
exists and is unstable. and k = 1.1.We show in Figs. 6.1 typical behaviors of the sub-
population Bfor different values of the parameter ν and initial
Proof. Let us show that EM (ν ) is locally asymptotically stable data. In the left panel of Fig 6.1, ν = 40 and nB (0 ) = 60,whereas
and Em (ν ) is unstable when μ ρ (β + μ ) > α e
−γ ν σ˜ (0 ) or equivalently
ν = 60 and nB (0 ) = 10 0 0in the right panel of Fig. 6.1. In particular,
ν > ν and ν close to ν0 .The characteristic equation associated to Fig. 6.1 shows that long contact periods (ν )can not help the total
EM (ν ) = (xM (ν ), yM (ν ) ) satisfies population to achieve consensus on opinion Beven if the initial
y (ν )ρ e−γ ν σ˜ (yM (ν ) ) B subpopulation is large in size. Furthermore, when ν = 60,the
(0, ν ) = M entire population reaches a consensus on opinion A.
μ
    This is meaningful since more time needed to convince indi-
β + μ γ ν σ˜ (yM (ν ))
× μ + γ ν σ˜ (yM (ν ) )μ e , viduals from subpopulation Alet more people from subpopulation
ρ Bchange their minds (with rate β ) to convert back to opinion A.
An interesting query that emanates from the backward bifurca-
Thus, from (5.8), (0, ν ) > 0 and, consequently, λ = 0 is not a
tion is “What is the maximum convinced subpopulation of the out-
root of the characteristic equation (5.6). Therefore, since
  sider opinion Bunder which the total population reaches the con-
β + μ γ ν0 σ˜ (yM (ν0 )) sensus on the local opinion A?” The parameters that lead to the
F (yM (ν0 )) = μ + γ ν0 σ˜ (yM (ν0 ) )μ e = 0,
ρ emergence of the backward bifurcation grants the determination

6
JID: CHAOS
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;October 24, 2020;12:0]

R. Qesmi Chaos, Solitons and Fractals xxx (xxxx) xxx

4500 1000

4000 900

800
3500
700
3000
600
2500
nB

nB
500
2000
400
1500
300
1000
200

500 100

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
time (days) time (days)

Fig. 6.1. Time series plot using two initial data for the initial B subpopulation (nB (0 ) ∈ {60, 10 0 0}for curves from left to right) of system (5.1). Left panel corresponds to the
stable positive steady state for ν = 40 and nB (0 ) = 60, and right panel corresponds to the stable boundary steady state for ν = 60 and nB (0 ) = 10 0 0. The parameter kwas
chosen to be 100 in this simulation.

140 delay system and one can easily show that backward bifurcation
y =126.7
M cannot occur regardless of the range of parameters considered for
120 system (5.1). In the following, we investigated the influence of the
parameter bon the achievement of consensus on opinion A.More
100 exactly, we examined how variation in bcan affect the intensity of
backward bifurcation (see Fig. 6.4).
80 y =71.24
m We found that variation in bleads to a notable change in bifur-
nB

60
40
20
0 ready shown that the upper branch EM is locally asymptotically
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
time (days)
Fig. 6.2. Time series plot, for model (5.1), using various initial data for the sub-
population B(nB ∈ {68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75}). Parameters used are given in the
text.
of a critical initial convinced subpopulation, ncB ,for which the con-
sensus on opinion A is achieved if the subpopulation B is below
ncB and lost when it becomes above this critical value. This will be
illustrated through several simulations of the state-dependent de-
lay system (5.1) with the above parameter values, ν = 67.26 and
b = 5.A time series of the convinced subpopulation nB is shown
in Fig. 6.2, showing the boundary steady state and two positive
steady states (corresponding to ym = 71.24 and yM = 126.7).
Further, Fig. 6.2 shows that one of the positive steady state
(yM = 126.7) is locally asymptotically stable for initial values larger
then ncB = 72 (the steady state moves away from the boundary
steady state), the other (ym = 71.24) is unstable (saddle), and the
boundary steady state is locally asymptotically stable for initial val-
ues lower then ncB = 72. This clearly shows that achievement of
consensus on local opinion Acould be strongly affected by the size
of the initial subpopulation B. The related bifurcation diagram is
portrayed in the right panel of Fig. 5.1.
Next we investigate the role of the rate β on the opinion behav-
ior. From Fig. 6.3 it follows that in order to achieve the consensus
on opinion A,individuals from subpopulation Bmust change their
mind to convert back to opinion Aat rates larger then β0 = 0.089.
It is obvious that in the absence of effective communications
(i.e. b = 0 ),the threshold delay system (5.1) becomes a constant
cation diagrams. Fig. 6.4 shows that when the number bof effective
communications is not less then unity, the forward bifurcation dis-
appears and the backward bifurcation appears. Moreover, the left
panel of Fig. 6.4 shows that the increase of effective communica-
tions (b = 1, b = 2, b = 3) leads to an increase of the threshold sizes
of subpopulation B(T1 = 53.33, T2 = 57.6, T3 = 70) corresponding to
the turning points of bifurcation diagrams. Thus, since it was al-
8 9 10
104
stable for ν close to ν0 ,we deduce that the more effective com-
munications, b,needed for an individual from subpopulation Ato be
convinced of opinion B,the more individuals from subpopulation B
are necessary in order to loose the consensus on opinion A. Fur-
thermore, the right panel of Fig. 6.4shows that each added neces-
sary effective contact to convince an individual from subpopulation
Aneeds between three to four days more to achieve the consensus
on opinion A.
Sensitivity analysis is used to determine how “sensitive” a
model output is to changes in the value of the model parame-
ters and to changes in the structure of the model. Here, we focus
on initial data sensitivity in the region of bistability (in the case
of a backward bifurcation) by using the Latin Hypercube Sampling
(LHS) process, which is numerically computed using the method
described in [7,22]. In the LHS method, by using a uniform dis-
tribution, values are chosen randomly without replacement from
each of the 2 initial conditions in specified ranges. Following this
procedure, for each of these initial data, a partial rank correlation
coefficient (PRCC) value is calculated. PRCC values provide a mea-
sure of the relationship between model inputs and outputs and
are particularly useful for such relationships that are nonlinear but
monotonic. PRCC values range between -1 and 1 with the sign
determining whether an increase in the parameter value will de-
crease or increase the specified model output.
The sensitivity results for opinion dynamics of the model
(2.4) are shown in Fig. 6.5. The left panel of Fig. 6.5 indicates that
the initial values of the subpopulations A and B are statistically
significant but subpopulation B is slightly more significant. Right
panel of Fig. 6.5 shows the basins of attraction by means of initial
data. The results highlight the importance of initial sizes of both

7
JID: CHAOS
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;October 24, 2020;12:0]

R. Qesmi Chaos, Solitons and Fractals xxx (xxxx) xxx

7000

6000

5000

4000
nB

3000

2000

1000

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1

Fig. 6.3. Bifurcation diagram corresponds to backward bifurcation branch with turning point at β0 = 0.089. In this simulation, ν was chosen to be 60.
8000 1000

900
7000
800
6000
700
b=0
5000
600
b=1
nB

nB

4000 500
b=2
400
3000
b=3
300 T3 =70
2000
T2 =53.33 T2 =57.6
200
1000
100

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 45 50 55 60

Fig. 6.4. Change in effective communications b. Numerical simulations show that the severity of bifurcation changes with different values of the parameter b. Right panel
represents a close-up of left panel. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

nA 700
Boubdary steady state
Positive steady state
nB (0) 600

nA (0) 500

-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 400

nB (0)

PRCC

nB 300

nB (0) 200

nA (0) 100

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0

PRCC 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
nA (0) 104

Fig. 6.5. Sensitivity analysis. Left panel: The partial rank correlation coefficients are shown using the subpopulations A and Bas index. Right panel: Basins of attraction for
system (2.4) in terms of nA (0 ) and nB (0 ).The both figures are simulated with the system in the regime of bistability. (For interpretation of the references to color in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

8
JID: CHAOS
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Qesmi
subpopulations A and B in determining the basin of attraction. In
particular, if the both subpopulations are significantly large (resp.
small), the outsider opinion B will persist (resp. disappear) and the
consensus on opinion A will never be achieved (will be achieved).
Furthermore, smaller initial B subpopulations cannot be helpful for
the total population to lose consensus on opinion A.
7. Conclusions
In this paper, we have developed a mathematical model of
threshold-type delay differential equations describing the relation-
ship between subpopulations and the opinion spread dynamics. It
is shown that all solutions are positive and, under appropriate as-
sumptions, are bounded. It is also found that there always exists
a positive steady states when the delay exceeds certain threshold,
but, unlike the constant delay case, this equilibrium may not be
unique. The analysis of the model (2.4) shows that, under certain
conditions, a backward bifurcation can take place. The existence of
a backward bifurcation is an interesting artifact since this means
that the total population cannot achieve the consensus on opinion
A (the equilibrium moves away from the boundary steady state)
when the initial subpopulation Bexceeds a critical threshold (see
Figs. 6.2 and 6.5). Furthermore, it is shown that the appearance
and the severity of the backward bifurcation depends on the ef-
fective number of contacts b (See Fig. 6.4). In particular, in order
to achieve the consensus on opinion Amore quickly, the necessary
effective number of contact need to be small. It is also shown that
shorter necessary periods (ν ), needed to convince an individual
from subpopulation Ato change his mind, lead to a stable positive
steady state and, thus, can not help the total population to achieve
consensus on opinion A.
The current opinion model ignores some limitations such as
mutual influence of opinions and undecided individuals as com-
ponents of the model. However, the incorporation of these compo-
nents lead to a model with two threshold-type delays which could
be more complicated then the current one. A major extension of
the present work would to include more then two opinions. This
will be deeply investigated in future work.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The author declare no competing interests.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Redouane Qesmi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal
analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the anonymous referees, whose careful read-
ing, insights, valuable comments, and suggestions significantly en-
abled us to improve the quality of the paper.
References
[1] Albi G, Herty M, Pareschi L. Kinetic description of optimal control
problems and applications to opinion consensus. Commun in Math Sci
2015;13(6):1407–29.
[2] Albi G, Pareschi L, Zanella M. Opinion dynamics over complex networks:
kinetic modeling and numerical methods. Kinetic and Related Models
2017;10(1):1–32.
[3] Albi G, Pareschi L, Zanella M. On the optimal control of opinion dynamics
on evolving networks. In: Bociu L, et al., editors. CSMO 2015. IFIP AICT 494.
Springer; 2016. p. 58–67. doi:10.1007/978- 3- 319- 55795- 3- 4.
[m5G;October 24, 2020;12:0]
Chaos, Solitons and Fractals xxx (xxxx) xxx
[4] Arendt D, Blaha L. Opinions, influence, and zealotry: a computational study
on stubbornness. Comput Math Organiz Theory 2015;21:184–209. doi:10.1007/
s10588-015-9181-1.
[5] Sch S. Studies in independence and conformity. Psychol Monogr 1956;70.
[6] Balenzuela P, Pinasco JP, Semeshenko V. The undecided have the key:
interaction-driven opinion dynamics in a three state model. PLoS ONE
2015;10(10):1–21. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139572.
[7] Blower SM, Dowlatabadi H. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of complex
models of disease transmission: An HIV model, as an example. International
Statistical Review/Revue Internationale de Statistique 1994;62:229–43.
[8] Bujalski J, Dwyer G, Kapitula T, Le Q-N, Malvai H, Rosental-Kay J, Ruiter J. Con-
sensus and clustering in opinion formation on networks. Phil Trans R Soc A
2018;376(2117).
[9] Castellano C, Fortunato S, Loreto V. Statistical physics of social dynamics. Rev
Mod Phys 2009;81:591.
[10] Colaiori F, Castellano C. Interplay between media and social influence in the
collective behavior of opinion dynamics. Phys Rev E 2015;92:042815.
[11] Eekhoff K. Opinion formation dynamics with contrarians and zealots. SIAM Un-
dergrad Research Online 2019;12:17–30.
[12] Festinger L. Informal social communication. Psychol Res 1950;57:271–82.
[13] Festinger L. An analysis of compliant behavior. In: Sherif M, Wilson MO, edi-
tors. Group Relations at the Crosswords. New York: Harper; 1953. p. 232–55.
[14] Festinger L. L. a theory of social comparison processes. Hum Relat
1954;7:117–40.
[15] Festinger L, Gerard HB, Hymovitch B, Kelley HH, Raven B. The influence process
in the presence of extreme deviates. Hum Relat 1952;4:327–46.
[16] Galam S. Application of statistical physics to politics. Phys A 1999;274:132–9.
[17] Győri I, Hartung F. Exponential stability of a state-dependent delay system.
Disc and Cont Dyn Sys Series A 2007;18:773–91. ISSN 1078-0947
[18] Javarone M. Network strategies in election campaigns. J Stat Mech: Theory Exp
2014:P08013. doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2014/8/P08013.
[19] Kleinberg DJ, Tardos E. Proceedings of the Ninth ACM SIGKDD International
Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD ’03). New York:
ACM; 2003. p. 137.
[20] Li H, Toscani G. Long-time asymptotics of kinetic models of granular flows.
Arch Ration Mech Anal 2004;172(3):407–28. doi:10.1007/s00205- 004- 0307- 8.
[21] Mallet-Parret J, Nussbaum RD, Paraskevopoulos P. Periodic solutions for func-
tional differential equations with multiple state-dependent time lags. Topol
Methods Nonlinear Anal 1994;3:101–62.
[22] Marino S, B Hogue I, Ray CI, Kirschner DE. A methodology for performing
global uncer-tainty and sensitivity analysis in systems biology. J Theor Biol
2008;254:178–96.
[23] Maroutian E. A Second Opinion: Theories and Observations on Life and Human
Behavior. second ed. USA: Maroutian Entertainment; 2009.
[24] Marvel SA, Hong H, Papush A, Strogatz SH. Encouraging moderation: clues
from a simple model of ideological conflict. Phys Rev Lett 2012;109:118702.
[25] Montmasson JM. Invention And The Unconscious. Routledge; 2013. ISBN
1136307664-9781136307669
[26] Nyczka P, Cislo J, Sznajd-Weron K. Opinion dynamics as a movement in a
bistable potential. Physica A 2012;391:317–27.
[27] O’Brien M. - dip.clin.hyp. references NZ school of clinical hypnotherapy. Re-
trieved from http://www.uaf.edu.
[28] Pinasco JP, Semeshenko V, Balenzuela P. Modeling opinion dynamics: Theo.
anal. and cont. approx. chaos. Solitons & Fractals 2017;98:210–15.
[29] Schacter S. Deviation, rejection, and communication. abnorm soc Psycho
1951;46:190–208.
[30] Schelling TC. Micromotives and Macrobehavior. New York: W.W. Norton; 1978.
[31] Shampine LF. Solving ODEs and DDEs with residual control. Appl Numer Math
2005;52:113–27.
[32] Singh P, Sreenivasan S, Szymanski B, Korniss G. Competing effects of social
balance and influence. Phys Rev E 2016;93:042306. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.93.
042306.
[33] Smith PL, Ratcliff R. Psychology and neurobiology of simple decisions.
Trends in Neurosciences 2004;27:161–8. doi:10.1016/j.tins.2004.01.006. PMID:
15036882
[34] Smith PL, Vickers D. The accumulator model of two-choice discrimination. J of
Math Psycho 1988;32:135–68. doi:10.1016/0 022-2496(88)90 043-0.
[35] Tanabe S, Masuda N. Complex dynamics of a nonlinear voter model with con-
trarian agents. Chaos 2013;23:043136.
[36] Teslya A, Qesmi R, Wu J, Heffernan JM. A threshold delay model of
HIV infection of newborn infants through breastfeeding. Infect Dis Model
2019;4:188–214.
[37] Toscani G. Kinetic models of opinion formation. Communications in Mathe-
matical Sciences 2006;4:481–96.
[38] Walther HO. The solution manifold and c1-smoothness of solution op-
erators for differential equations with state dependent delay. J Diff Eqs
2003;195:46–65.
[39] Wang S, Rong L, Wu J. Bistability and multistability in opinion dynamics mod-
els. App Math and Comp 2016:289–2016.
[40] Xie J, Sreenivasan S, Korniss G. Social consensus through the influence of com-
mitted minorities. Phys Rev E 2011;84:011130.