A QUADRATIC LOWER BOUND FOR THE CONVERGENCE RATE IN THE ONE-DIMENSIONAL HEGSELMANN-KRAUSE BOUNDED CONFIDENCE DYNAMICS EDVIN WEDIN AND PETER HEGARTY Abstract. Let f k n) be the axiu nuber of tie steps taken to reach equilibriu by a syste of n agents obeying the k-diensional Hegselann-Krause bounded confidence dynaics. Previously, it was known that Ωn) = f 1n) = On 3 ). Here we show that f 1n) = Ωn ), which atches the best-known lower bound in all diensions k. arxiv:1406.0769v3 [cs.sy] 9 Dec 014 1. Introduction The field of opinion dynaics is concerned with how huan agents influence one another in foring opinions, say on social and political issues though in principle on anything). Matheatical odelling in this area has increased rapidly in recent years, as technology has iproved the prospects for running coputer siulations. Rigorous results reain rare, however, and ainly confined to the siplest properties of the siplest odels. One such siple odel which has proven iensely popular is the so-called Hegselann-Krause bounded confidence odel HKodel for brevity). It was introduced in [6], though the paper usually cited is [5], which at the tie of writing has 935 citations on Google scholar, ostly fro non-atheaticians. The odel works as follows. We have a finite nuber n of agents, indexed by the integers 1,,..., n. Tie is easured discretely and the opinion of agent i at tie t N {0} is represented by a real nuber x t i) R. There is a fixed paraeter r > 0 such that the dynaics are given by 1.1) x t+1 i) = 1 N t i) j N ti) x t j), where N t i) = {j : x t j) x t i) r}. Thus each agent is only willing to coproise at any tie with those whose opinions lie within his so-called confidence interval, and he updates to the average of these opinions, including his own. Moreover, the width of this interval, r, is the sae for all agents. Since the dynaics are obviously unaffected by rescaling all opinions and the confidence bound r by a coon factor, we can assue without loss of generality that r = 1. Two iportant qualitative features of the HK-odel are that agents act synchronously and in a copletely deterinistic anner. This is in contrast to soe other faous opinion dynaics odels such as voter odels 1 or the Deffuant-Weisbuch odel [3]. Its popularity is probably due to the siplicity of its forulation, which nevertheless sees natural. Matheatically, it is very tantalising. The update rule 1.1) is linear, but clearly the transition atrix is in general tie-dependent, which is the key point. The HK-odel has any elegant features which are still either partly understood or have only been observed in siulations. For a ore coprehensive survey of the theoretical challenges, see for exaple the introduction to [10]. In this paper, we will focus on one particular question which has been the subject of uch attention, naely how long it takes for opinions obeying the HK-dynaics to stabilise. First, soe notation and terinology. Let x1),..., xn)) be a configuration of opinions. We say that agents i and j agree if xi) = xj). A axial set of agents that agree is called a cluster, Date: August 0, 018. 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/voter odel 1
Figure 1. Scheatic representation of the configuration D n. Each dubbell has weight n. and the nuber of agents in a cluster is called its size. The configuration is said to be frozen if xi) xj) > 1 whenever xi) xj). Clearly, if the configuration is frozen then x t+1 i) = x t i) for all i, and it is easy to see that the converse also holds. Perhaps the ost fundaental result about the HK-dynaics is that any configuration of opinions will freeze in a finite nuber of tie steps, which oreover is universally bounded by a function of the nuber n of agents only. Indeed, the sae is true of a wide class of odels including HK as a siple prototype, see []. Let f 1 n) denote the axiu nuber of tie steps taken to freeze by a configuration of n agents obeying 1.1). For the HK-odel, the bound given in [] is f 1 n) = n On). However, it is known that f 1 n) is bounded by a polynoial function of n. The first such bound of On 5 ) was established in [9] and the current record is On 3 ), due to [1]. Lower bounds for f 1 n) have received less attention, perhaps due to the difficulty in finding explicit exaples of configurations which take a long tie to freeze. A natural exaple to look at is the configuration E n = 1,,..., n), in which opinions are equally spaced with gaps equal to the confidence bound. Thus, agents are placed as far apart as possible to begin with, without being split into two isolated groups. It is not hard to see that, as this configuration updates, if i < n/ then the opinions of agents i and n + 1) i will reain constant as long as t < i, while both will change at t = i. Hence, the tie taken for the configuration E n to freeze is at least n/. In fact, this configuration freezes in tie 5n/6 + O1), see [4]. Thus, f 1 n) = Ωn), an observation that was already ade in [9]. In this paper, we will prove that f 1 n) = Ωn ) by exhibiting an explicit sequence D n of configurations which take this long to freeze. In fact, we shall abuse notation slightly. Though we could define a suitable configuration for any nuber n of agents, in order to siplify the appearance of certain forulas we will assue that n is even and let D n denote a certain configuration on 3n + 1 agents. Our construction basically cobines the chain E n with an exaple of Kurz [7], and is defined as follows: Definition 1.1. Let n be a positive, even integer. The configuration D n consists of 3n + 1 agents whose opinions are given by 1 n, if 1 i n, 1.) xi) = i n + 1), if n + 1 i n + 1, n + 1 n, if n + i 3n + 1. The configuration is represented pictorially in Figure 1. It has the shape of a dubbell. Other ters used in the literature are in equilibriu or has converged. We think our ter captures the point with the least possible roo for isinterpretation, however.
Indeed, soeone failiar with the theory of Markov chains ight consider this a natural candidate for axiising the freezing tie 3. There is a subtlety, however. Along the bar of the dubbell, opinions are equally spaced at distance one, whereas the two dubbell clusters theselves are positioned uch closer, at distance 1/n, to the ends of the bar. The latter is what raises the freezing tie fro Θn) to Θn ), as will becoe evident fro the proof below. In fact, this is just one of at least three ways of considering our construction as a odification of others previously known which all freeze in linear tie. A second way would be to think of it as starting fro E n, which freezes in tie On), and then adding the dubbells. A third would be to start fro the configuration in [7], which consists of the two dubbells placed at distance 1/n fro their respective solitary agents, but then without the long interediate chain 4. Kurz showed that his configuration took tie Ωn) to freeze and as a by-product of our ethod, it can be easily shown to freeze in tie On). Let us now forally state our result. Theore 1.. The configuration D n freezes after tie Ωn ). The proof will be given in the next section. One iportant feature of our result is that it atches the best-known lower bound for the freezing tie of the ulti-diensional HK-odel. The latter refers to the fact that rule 1.1) akes sense if opinions x t i) are considered as vectors in R k for any fixed k and neighborhoods N t i) are defined with respect to Euclidean distance. The sociological interpretation would be that there are k issues, and that agents will coproise if and only if their opinions are sufficiently close on all issues. Let f k n) denote the axiu nuber of tie steps taken to freeze by a configuration of n agents with opinions in R k and obeying 1.1). It turns out that f k n) is bounded by a universal polynoial function of n and k. This was also established in [1], who gave the bound f k n) = On 10 k ). Note, though, that this is uch worse than the best bound On 3 ) in one diension. Indeed, the proof of the latter in [1] uses a different arguent which does not see to generalise to higher diensions 5. Already in two diensions, however, a quadratic lower bound was also proven in [1]. Their exaple, which we denote F n, places the n agents at the vertices of a regular n-gon of sidelength one, and they show that the syste requires at least n /8 steps to freeze. 6 The configuration F n sees, at least in hindsight, like a natural two-diensional version of E n. It is not really clear how far one can push this idea, however, as the upper bound of On 10 k ) for all diensions akes iediately clear. Indeed, there is no exaple known in diensions k 3 which takes longer to freeze than F n, now considered as a configuration on a plane in R k. The configurations D n discussed in this paper are also quite different fro the F n. We finish this section by giving soe ore fairly standard terinology to be used below. Let x1),..., xn)) be a configuration of one-diensional opinions, obeying the convention that xi) xj) whenever i j. We can define a receptivity graph G, whose nodes are the n agents and where an edge is placed between agents i and j whenever xi) xj) 1. We say that agents i and j are connected if they are in the sae connected coponent of the receptivity graph. Observe that every connected coponent of G is an interval of agents and that i is disconnected fro i + 1 if and only if xi + 1) > xi) + 1. 3 In the general theory of irreducible Markov chains on graphs, dubbell-like graphs are known to have the longest ixing ties. See, for exaple, [8]. 4 In fact, in the Markov chain literature, this configuration is coonly tered a dubbell, whereas ours would be referred to as a dubbell with a chain in between. We hope the reader is not confused! 5 An iportant fact which akes the one-diensional odel uch sipler to analyse is that, as soon as an agent becoes isolated, he will reain so forever. This is not always the case in higher diensions. As an exaple in R, consider three agents a, b, c initially placed at 0, 0.5), 0, 0.5) and 1, 0) respectively. At t = 0, only a and b will interact, but this first interaction will bring the both to 0, 0) where they are close enough to c to interact at t = 1. 6 By syetry, it is clear that all agents will end up in agreeent in this case. 3
. Proof of Theore 1. Lea.1. Let n and let P n denote the path on n vertices, indexed fro left-to-right by the integers 1,..., n. Let X 0, X 1,... be a rando walk on P n with transition probabilities p i, j given by.1) p i, j = /3, if i, j) = 1, 1) or n, n), 1/3, otherwise and if i j 1, 0, otherwise. For any i, j and t 0, let h i, j t) denote the expected nuber of ties a walk started at i will hit j up to and including tie t, i.e.: h i, j t) = E[#s : X s = j, 0 s t X 0 = i]. Then h 1, 1 t) c 1 t for all 1 t n, where c 1 > 0 is an absolute constant, independent of n. Proof. This result surely follows fro standard textbook facts about rando walks on graphs, but since we cannot point to a reference for the precise result, we shall outline a proof in any case. Let us consider instead a cycle C n of length n, with vertices indexed clockwise by 1,,..., n, and a rando walk on the cycle for which the transition probabilities are p i, j = 1/3 if i j od n) 1 and p i, j = 0 otherwise. Let h i, j t) denote the expected nuber of ties a walk on C n started at node i hits node j up to and including tie t. Clai 1: i) h 1, n t) h 1, 1 t). ii) h 1, 1 t) = h 1, 1 t) + h 1, n t) h 1, 1 t). To prove i) first note that, by the syetry of the transition rules on the cycle, the function h i, i t) is independent of i. Let τ be the rando tie at which a walk started at 1 first hits n. Then t t h 1, nt) = Pτ = s) h n, nt s) = Pτ = s) h 1, 1t s) s=0 s=0 t Pτ = s) h 1, 1t) h 1, 1t), where we have used the obvious fact that the functions h i, j t) are all non-decreasing in t. The right-hand inequality in ii) follows fro i). For the left-hand equality, we identify the nodes of C n in pairs as s=0 v 1 = {1, n}, v = {, n 1},..., v n = {n, n + 1}. A rando walk on C n can be identified with a rando walk on the path P n whose vertices fro left-to-right are v 1,..., v n, where any step in the forer which reains inside the sae subset v i is considered as standing still at the sae vertex in the latter. It is also easy to see that if the transition probabilities on the cycle are p i, j, then on the path they becoe p i, j. The equality in ii) follows iediately fro these observations. By Clai 1, it suffices to prove that h 1, 1 t) = O t) for all 1 t n. We go one step further. Let qt) denote the probability that the walk on C n, started at node 1, is also at node 1 at tie t. By linearity of expectation, it suffices to prove that qt) = O1/ t) for all 1 t n. So fix a tie t 1. Any walk consists of steps of three types: clockwise, anticlockwise and standing still. The walk will be back at node 1 at tie t if and only if the nubers of clockwise and anticlockwise steps aong the first t steps are congruent odulo n. The expected nuber of standing still steps is t/3 and, up to an error of order e αt, where α > 0 is an absolute 4
constant, we can ignore all walks where the nuber of standing still steps is greater than t/ say. Conditioned on the nuber l of such steps and their tiings, there are t l possible walks. The nuber of these which have c clockwise steps is ) t l c, which is less than t l t l for any c and axiised at c = t l. Since we re assuing l t/, it follows that every binoial coefficient is less than t l t. The ones that contribute to qt) are those such that c t l od n). The gap between any two such values of c is at least n which, since t n, is at least t. Clai : There is a real nuber κ 0, 1) such that, for all integers and r 1, ) ).) / + r κ r. / Once again, we will prove this directly, rather than appealing to soe textbook fact. For 0 k <, let f, k) := k+1) / ) k = k k+1. The function f, k) is decreasing in k as long as k /, thus it suffices to prove.) for r = 1. If we put k = / + 1 then, for sufficiently large, f, k) 1 1. Thus, for sufficiently large,.3) / + / ) ) = j=1 f, / + j) 1 1 ) 1 e 1/. So, for sufficiently large,.) holds with κ = e 1/ Hence it holds for soe κ < 1 and all, since for all such, the first quotient in.3) is strictly less than one. This proves Clai. Clai iplies that, conditioned on l, the contributions to qt) fro different values of c decrease exponentially as one oves away fro t l, and hence the total contribution is bounded by an absolute constant ties the largest one which, as previously stated, is at ost t. Unwinding our arguent, what we have shown is that, provided 1 t n and conditioning on the nuber and tiing of all standing still steps up to tie t, the probability of the walk being back at node 1 is O1/ t) + Oe αt ) = O1/ t). Hence, qt) = O1/ t), as desired. Lea.. Let n N, κ Q >0 and, for t 0, let δ t = δ 1, t,..., δ n, t ) be a sequence of vectors in Q n 0 defined recursively as follows: δ 0 = 0,..., 0), δ 1, t+1 = κ + 3 δ 1, t + 1 3 δ, t, δ n, t+1 = κ + 3 δ n, t + 1 3 δ n 1, t, δ i, t = 1 3 δ i 1, t + δ i, t + δ i+1, t ), i n 1. Then there is an absolute constant c > 0 such that δ i, t c κ t for all i and all t n. Proof. For any t, it is clear that δ i, t = δ n+1) i, t and that δ i, t δ i+1, t for all i < n/. It thus suffices to prove that δ 1, t = Oκ t) for all t n. The recursion can be written in atrix for as.4).5) δ 0 = 0, δ t+1 = v + P δ t, where v = κ, 0, 0,..., 0, κ) T and P = p i, j ) is the transition atrix of.1). It follows easily fro.4) and.5) that, for any t > 0, δ t = I + P + + P t 1 )v. 5
Hence,.6) δ 1, t = κ h 1, 1 t) + h 1, n t)) κ h 1, 1 t), where the last inequality can be proven in a siilar anner to part i) of Clai 1 in the proof of Lea.1. Hence, Lea. follows fro.6) and Lea.1. Proof. of Theore 1.. For siplicity see.7) below), we assue n 3. Let x 0 = D n R 3n+1 and for all t > 0 let the updates x t = x t 1),..., x t 3n + 1)) be generated according to 1.1). So x t represents the positions of the agents at tie t. We will find it ore convenient to work instead with the vectors of gaps y t = y 0, t,..., y n+1, t ) R n+ given by y i, t = x t n + 1 + i) x t n + i), 0 i n + 1. Observe that y 0 = 1 n, 1,..., 1, n) 1. Let Gt denote the receptivity graph at tie t. For as long as G t = G 0, it is easily checked that y t+1 = M y t where M = i, j ) is an n + ) n + ) atrix whose upper left 3 block is ) n n+1)n+) n n+ which is syetric about its idpoint, i.e.: and which, for 3 i n, satisfies.7) i, j = 1 n+ 0 n+1 1 3n+) 3 i, j = n+3) i, n+3) j { 1/3, if i j 1, 0, otherwise. We define auxiliary vectors δ t = δ 0, t,..., δ n+1, t ) as follows:.8) y i, t =: 1 n δ i, t, if i = 0 or i = n + 1, n.9) y i, t =: 1 δ i, t, for 1 i n. n Observe that δ 0 = 0 and δ i, t = δ n+1) i, t for all i and t. As long as G t = G 0 one checks that the following recursion is satisfied:,.10).11) 0 δ 0, t+1 1 + 1 n δ 0, t + δ 1, t ), 0 δ 1, t+1 δ 0, t + 3 δ 1, t + 1 3 δ, t,.1) 0 δ i, t+1 = 1 3 δ i 1, t + δ i, t + δ i+1, t ) for i n 1. Applying Lea. with κ = it is easy to deduce that, for soe absolute constant c 3 > 0 and all t c 3 n, the solution to.10)-.1) with initial condition δ 0 = 0 will satisfy δ 0, t, δ n+1, t, δ i, t < n for 1 i n. But this in turn iplies, fro.8) and.9), that y i, t + y i+1, t > 1 for all 0 i n and all t c 3 n, hence indeed it is true that G t = G 0 for all such t. In particular, agent n + will not be visible to the cluster on the left before tie c 3 n, which proves that the configuration will take at least this long to freeze. Reark.3. One can prove that the configuration does indeed freeze in tie Θn ). First, we can turn the above arguent around soewhat and deduce instead fro the above relations that δ 0, t 1/ for all t > 0 and hence, instead of.11), that δ 1, t+1 1 4 + 3 δ 1, t + 1 3 δ, t. The arguent in Lea. can then be turned on its head to deduce that δ 1, t = Ωh 1,1 t)), while it is alost trivial that h 1,1 t) = Ω t n ). What all of this iplies is that agent n + will 6
indeed becoe visible to the cluster on the left at tie t = Θn ), and it will then iediately disconnect fro agent n+3. We then just need to consider the subsequent evolution of the chain C of agents n + 3,..., n. Since δ i, t = On) for every i, it follows fro.8) and.9) that the gaps between consecutive agents in C are all greater than 1 O1/n). Hence the chain will freeze in tie 5n/6 + O1). This last deduction follows fro unpublished results in [4], ore precisely fro Theore 1.1 and rearks at the outset of Section 3 in that paper. Given that the configuration D n freezes in tie Θn ), one can try to copute the constant factor accurately. We have not done so, but a cobination of siulations and the Ockha s razor principle lead us to believe that the freezing tie for D n is 1 + o1)) n 4. The factor of 4 = coes fro the fact that the nubers δ 1, t in.9) see to grow like t. Note that, if our hypothesis is correct, then the freezing tie of the configuration D n still grows ore slowly, at least for n 0, than that of the two-diensional configuration F 3n+1. These are also two quite different types of configurations. It reains unclear what the right estiate for the function f k n) ight be in higher diensions. 3. Acknowledgeents We thank Sascha Kurz and Anders Martinsson for helpful discussions. References [1] A. Bhattacharya, M. Braveran, B. Chazelle and H. L. Nguyen, On the convergence of the Hegselann- Krause syste, Proceedings of the 4th Innovations in Theoretical Coputer Science conference ICTS 013), Berkeley CA, January 013. [] B. Chazelle, The total s-energy of a ultiagent syste, SIAM J. Control Opti. 49, No. 4, 1680 1706 011). [3] G. Deffuant, D. Neau, F. Ablard and G. Weisbuch, Mixing beliefs aong interacting agents, Adv. Coplex. Syst. 3, 87 98, 000). [4] P. Hegarty and E. Wedin, The Hegselann-Krause dynaics for equally spaced agents. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.0819 [5] R. Hegselann and U. Krause, Opinion dynaics and bounded confidence: odels, analysis and siulations, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Siulation 5, No. 3, 00). Fulltext at http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/5/3//.pdf [6] U. Krause, Soziale Dynaiken it vielen Interakteuren, eine Probleskizze, in: Modellierung und Siulation von Dynaiken it vielen interagierenden Akteuren, U. Krause and M. Stöckler eds., Universität Breen 1997). [7] S. Kurz, How long does it take to consensus in the Hegselann-Krause odel?. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5757 [8] D. A. Levin, Y. Peres and E. L. Wiler, Markov chains and ixing ties. With a chapter by Jaes G. Propp and David B. Wilson. Aerican Matheatical Society, RI, xviii + 371 pp, Providence, 009). [9] S. Martinez, F. Bullo, J. Cortes and E. Frazzoli, On Synchronous Robotic Networks - Part II: Tie Coplexity of Rendezvous and Deployent Algoriths, IEEE Trans. Autoat. Control 5, No. 1, 14 6, 007). [10] E. Wedin and P. Hegarty, The Hegselann-Krause dynaics for continuous agents and a regular opinion function do not always lead to consensus. To appear in IEEE Trans. Autoat. Control. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/140.7184 Matheatical Sciences, University of Gothenburg, 4196 Gothenburg, Sweden E-ail address: edvinw@student.chalers.se Matheatical Sciences, Chalers University of Technology, 4196 Gothenburg, Sweden E-ail address: hegarty@chalers.se 7