Information spreading on social networks

Reju Sam John

April 11, 2023

The interactions and connections between individuals in a social network are critical for spreading in-
formation, ideas, and influence within the group. Whether it’s the latest cell phone trend among college
students, a new medication within the medical community, or a political movement in a volatile society,
these ideas can either fizzle out quickly or gain widespread acceptance.
A graph, made up of a set of nodes and edges, is used to construct a social network.

• Let’s suppose there exists a weighted, directed, and connected social network denoted by G(V, E)1 .
• The node set is represented by V = {v1 , v2 , . . . , vn }, and the edge set is represented by
E = {(vi , vj ) : there is an edge from node vi to node vj }.
• Basic graph-theoretic terminologies – a node vi ’s outgoing arc, represented as (vi , vj ) ∈ E, or its
incoming arc, represented as (vj , vi ) ∈ E. The set of incoming neighbors and outgoing neighbors of a
node vi are represented by η in (i) and η out (i), respectively.
• Each edge (vi , vj ) is considered as a channel that connects nodes vi and vj , and it can be associated
with a positive weight Wij .
• The weight Wij indicates the strength of interaction or level of trust between agents, and if (vi , vj ) ∈
/ E,
then Wij = 0.
• The state value of node vi at each discrete time step t ≥ 0 is represented by xi (t) ∈ {0, 1}.
• If xi (t) = 0, it indicates that the node is inactive, and if xi (t) = 1, it means that the node is active.

1 Review of existing spreading models

When we consider the spread of information in a network, our
first thought is to extend the Epidemic models to understand
how influence spreads. In these models, the probability of a
node becoming infected by a spreading process (such as the
spread of a disease) is determined by its neighbors or adja-
cent nodes. Goldenberg et al. (2001a,b) proposed one of the
most significant (or earliest) extensions - a discrete-time ver-
sion of the SIR model known as the Independent Cascade Model
(ICM).

1.1 Independent Cascade Model (ICM)

The ICM operates by initiating a process with a set of active
nodes A0 and proceeding in discrete steps. When node vi be-
comes active in a given step t, it has a single opportunity to
activate each of its currently inactive neighbors vj , with a suc- Figure 1: Cascade Model
cess probability of P ij. If vi is successful, then vj will become
active in step t + 1. However, vi is unable to make any addi-
tional attempts in subsequent rounds, regardless of success or
1 Note that the same approach can be taken for the cases where the network is undirected, disconnected, or unweighted.

1
failure. The process continues until no more activations are possible. If vj receives incoming edges from
multiple newly activated nodes, their attempts are sequenced arbitrarily.

• Therefore the constraint is – xi (t) ≤ xi (t + 1), ∀vi ∈ V .

• This means that nodes can switch from being inactive to being active, but not the other way around,
and once a node becomes active, it remains so for the duration of the diffusion process. As a result,
these models are commonly known as “progressive” or “monotonic.”

1.2 Generalized Independent Cascade Model (ICM)

Evidence indicates that other infected individuals around a pair of susceptible-infected individuals would
strengthen the transmission rate between them Ludlam et al. (2012). Pérez-Reche et al. (2011) proposed a
generalized SIR model, in which the transmission rate between an infected individual (donor) and one of its
susceptible neighbors (recipient) depends on the neighborhood of this donor–recipient (d-r) pair, as

λd−r (t) = max{0, α + βd−r (t)}, (1)

where α is a positive constant representing the basic rate of infection for an isolated d − r pair without
synergy effects. The rate βd−r (t) quantifies the degree of synergistic effects. In the absence of synergistic
effects, βd−r (t) = 0 and the model reduces to the simple SIR process.

Figure 2: Threshold Model

An individual may participate in a demonstration if a certain proportion of their friends also decide to take
part in the event. Threshold models refer to models that are based on the concept that an agent’s decision
to adopt a specific behavior depends on the behavior of its neighbors. Granovetter (1978) introduced the
first Threshold model, called Linear Threshold Model (LTM)

1.3 Linear Threshold Model (LTM)

• Each directed edge (j, i) ∈ E has a non-negative influence weight Wj,i ∈ [0, 1], indicating the importance
of j on influencing i. For any node vi ∈ V , the total incoming edge weights sum to less than or equal
to one. ie. LT model imposes the constraint:
X
Wji ≤ 1 (2)
j∈{η in (i)}

where η in (i) is the the set of incoming neighbors of vi .

• Each node vi selects a threshold θi uniformly at random from the range [0, 1].
• The threshold represents the critical influence weight required for node vi to be activated.
• The propagation process unfolds deterministically in discrete time steps, given a random choice of
thresholds and an initial set of active nodes A0 .
• At t > 0, all nodes that were active in step t − 1 remain active.
2
 • An inactive node vi is activated at time t if the total weight of its active neighbors is at least its
threshold θi , X
W ji ≥ θi , (3)
j∈η in (i)∩At−1

• The set At−1 refers to the collection of nodes that are active in step t − 1.

Watts (2002) conducted a study on the impact of thresholds and network structure on information diffusion,
utilizing the concepts of the Linear Threshold Model (LTM).

1.4 Generalized threshold model

Social reinforcement resulted from multiple exposures of peer influence is a key feature of social contagions. In
the above-discussed models, whether a node becomes active depends only on the number of current exposures
from its neighbors, without memory effects. However, the historical records may be relevant. In such cases,
memory plays a significant role and the dynamics become non-Markovian. To account for memory effects,
Dodds and Watts (2004, 2005) proposed a generalized threshold model, where each individual i contacts
with one other individual j drawn randomly from the population. If i is susceptible and j is infected, with
probability β, node i receives a positive dose di (t) sampled from a distribution at time step t.PEach individual
t
i maintains a memory of doses received over the previous T time steps, recorded by Di (t) = t′ =t−T +1 di (t′ ).
∗ ∗
A susceptible individual i becomes infected if Di (t) ≥ di , where di is a certain threshold initially drawn from
a distribution g(d∗ ).

1.5 Voter model

The Voter Model (VM) provides a simplified representation of the progression of opinions within a population.
Each node of an arbitrary network is occupied by an individual, referred to as a ”voter,” who may assume one
of two states (e.g., 1/0). There is no concept of a ”right” or ”wrong” opinion, and no external factors such
as media influence or other forms of interaction are considered. The fundamental update step repeats at a
unit rate until a population of N agents inevitably achieves consensus, which is one of the key characteristics
of the VM.
• In the classic Voter model N voters live at the nodes of an arbitrary static graph, with one voter per
node. The opinion evolution is simplicity itself 3:

Figure 3: Voter model update rule on a graph: a random voter is picked and adopts the state of a random
neighbor. (Figure from Redner (2019))

1. pick a voter uniformly at random;

2. voter adopts the state of a random neighbor;
3. repeat 1 & 2 until consensus is necessarily reached.
• The Voter Model (VM) assumes that each agent adopts the state of one of its neighbors and has no
self-confidence.
• The VM has two basic observables:
– the exit probability E(m) that N voters reach ↑ consensus as a function of the initial magnetization
m ≡ (N↑ − N↓ )/N , where N↑ and N↓ are the initial number of ↑ and ↓ voters, respectively.
3
 – the consensus time T (m), the average time to reach consensus as a function of m. For notational
simplicity, the N dependence is not written for E(m) and T (m)
• To mathematically express the update rule on a homogeneous graph, let σi = ±1 denote the voter state
at site i. It is easy to check that the rate wi at which this voter state σi changes is given by
1 σi X 
wi = 1− σj , (4)
2 z j

where z is the coordination number of each node and the sum runs over the j nearest neighbors of site
i.

1.6 Sznajd model (Stauffer et al., 2000)

• Consider a society consisting of N members (individuals, agents, voters, spins), each of whom has an
opinion σi = 1 or σi = −1 for i = 1, 2, ...., N .
• Individuals are placed in a one-dimensional lattice with periodic boundary conditions.
• Use a random sequential updating (RSU) scheme and an elementary update is given by the following
algorithm:
1. Pick a single agent at random (uniformly from all N individuals); denote it with i.
2. If agents i and i + 1 share the same opinion at time t, i.e. σi (t) = σ1+1 (t) = σ , they impose it on
their neighbors:

σi−1 (t + ∆t) = σ, σi+2 (t + ∆t) = σ. (5)

3. Otherwise, if σi (t) ̸= σ1+1 (t), their neighbors i − 1 and i + 2 take opposite states to their first
neighbors from the pair, i.ee σi−1 (t + ∆t) = −σ1 (t), σi+2 (t + ∆t) = −σi+1 (t).

1.7 Deffuant Model

In the Deffuant model, at each discrete time step two neighboring agents are randomly selected and interact
in a pairwise manner. Only if their opinion difference is below a given threshold, the result of the interaction
is a sort of compromise toward each other’s opinion. Otherwise, there is no modification in their opinions.
Each agent is only willing to adjust his/her opinion towards those opinions that differ less than a certain
bound of confidence d from her own opinion.

1.8 Hegselmann-Krause (HK) Model

Each agent has an opinion which is represented by a real number (xi ). The agent i interacts only with those
agents whose opinions differ from xi not more than a certain confidence level ϵ.
Assuming the existence of a set A = [1, 2, 3, . . . , i, j, N ] comprising N individuals, we assign the opinions
of individuals i and j as xti and xtj , respectively, both ∈ [0, 1]. If |xti − xtj | ≤ ϵ, then:
X
xt+1
i = αij xtj (6)
j:|xti −xtj |

here, x indicates the individual’s opinion, αij is the influence weight of individual i on individual j, αij ∈ [0, 1],
PN
and j=1 αij = 1. If αij is larger, it indicates that one individual’s influence on other individuals is more
significant; ϵ is the opinion threshold, and the smaller ϵ is, the more challenging it becomes for an individual’s
opinions to influence each other.

4
1.9 Affinity and social noise Hegselmann–Krause (ASNHK) model.
According to social influence theory, people’s opinions can be significantly impacted by their proximity to
others and the social environment they inhabit. While humans require social connections to thrive, they
cannot avoid the influence of the society they are part of. As a result, both interpersonal relationships and
the broader social context can exert considerable influence on individuals’ behavior.
• “Affinity” and “social noise” are terms used to describe interpersonal relationships and the social
context, respectively.
• A positive relationship results in high affinity, while a negative relationship leads to low affinity.
• A powerful social environment leads to high social noise, while a weak social context results in low
social noise.
• Liu et al. (2022) focuses on investigating the evolution of group opinions under the framework of social
influence theory, taking into account affinity and social noise as critical factors.

Figure 4: A depiction of the Hegselmann-Krause model incorporating affinity and social noise.

t
To incorporate the notion of affinity, Liu et al. (2022) use rij to denote the degree of opinion influence:



t
max Rij − |xti − xtj | − ϵi , 0
rij =
(7)
max |xti − xtj |, ϕ

where Rij ∈ [0, 1] is a non-negative and asymmetric N × N matrix indicating the affinity degree between
people. If Rij is smaller, the relationship between them is worse; instead, if Rij is larger, the relationship
between them is good. xti is the opinion value of individual i, and xtj is the opinion value of individual j. rij
t

is the degree of opinion influence, which indicates the influence degree of individual j on i in the t round.
ϕ is a number that is not equal to 0. To avoid the denominator being equal to 0, they set ϕ as a minimal
number, here ϕ = 0.001. Especially, if |xti − xtj | > ϵi & Rij < δ, the opinion influence weight is 0. Here, the
δ is the affinity threshold, and this parameter shows that if the opinion difference between two individuals
does not exceed the opinion influence threshold.
In addition, to consider the impact of social noise on opinion dynamics, we can formulate the extended
HK equation as follows.
X
x∗i (t) = µi xi (t) + (1 − µi ) Φij xj (t) + ξi (t), (8)
j∈N (i,x(t))

where µi indicates the initial opinion persistence, Φi is the social noise, and it obeys the random uniform
distribution. (1 − µi ) indicates the sensitivity of individuals to the opinions of the public around them. The
initial persistence generally follows a normal distribution, which means that the persistence of opinions of
most people is neutral, and only a few individuals have extreme persistence. When the mean value of the
normal distribution is large, it is easy to form multiple opinion clusters but difficult to reach a consensus.
On the contrary, if the majority of people’s opinions are amiable, individuals’ opinions are easily influenced
5
by others and can form a consistent opinion. Additionally, Φij is the influence matrix between individual j
on individual i., N (i, x(t)) is the neighborhood set of individual i at time t, and ξi (t) is the noise term.

N (i, x(t)) = {j ∈ ν | |xj (t) − xi (t)| ≤ ϵ} , ϵ ∈ [0, 1] (9)

At the (t + 1), the opinion evolution equation is as follows:

1,
 x∗i (t) > 1
xi (t + 1) = x∗i (t), x∗ ∈ [0, 1], ∀i ∈ N, t ≥ 0 (10)
x∗i (t) < 0

0,


References
Dodds, P. and Watts, D. (2005). A generalized model of social and biological contagion. Journal of Theoretical
Biology, 232(4):587–604.
Dodds, P. S. and Watts, D. J. (2004). Universal Behavior in a Generalized Model of Contagion. Physical
Review Letters, 92(21):218701.

Goldenberg, J., Libai, B., and Muller, E. (2001a). Talk of the network: A complex systems look at the
underlying process of word-of-mouth. Marketing Letters, 12(3):211–223.
Goldenberg, J., Libai, B., and Muller, E. (2001b). Using complex systems analysis to advance marketing
theory development: Modeling heterogeneity effects on new product growth through stochastic cellular
automata. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 9(3):1–18.
Granovetter, M. (1978). Threshold models of collective behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 83(6):1420–
1443.
Liu, J., He, J., Qiu, Z., and He, S. (2022). An opinion dynamics model based on affinity and social noise.
Frontiers in Physics, 10:1042900.

Ludlam, J. J., Gibson, G. J., Otten, W., and Gilligan, C. A. (2012). Applications of percolation theory to
fungal spread with synergy. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 9(70):949–956.
Pérez-Reche, F. J., Ludlam, J. J., Taraskin, S. N., and Gilligan, C. A. (2011). Synergy in Spreading Processes:
From Exploitative to Explorative Foraging Strategies. Physical Review Letters, 106(21):218701.

Redner, S. (2019). Reality-inspired voter models: A mini-review. Comptes Rendus Physique, 20(4):275–292.
Stauffer, D., Sousa, A. O., and De Oliveira, S. M. (2000). GENERALIZATION TO SQUARE LATTICE OF
SZNAJD SOCIOPHYSICS MODEL. International Journal of Modern Physics C, 11(06):1239–1245.
Watts, D. J. (2002). A simple model of global cascades on random networks. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 99(9):5766–5771.