- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review E

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Effect of higher-order interactions on noisy majority-rule dynamics with random group sizes

Roni Muslim1,2,*, Jong-Min Park1,3,†, Jihye Kim4,‡, and Rinto Anugraha NQZ5,§

  • *Contact author: roni.muslim@apctp.org
  • †Contact author: jongmin.park@apctp.org
  • ‡Contact author: arrr3755@naver.com
  • §Contact author: rinto@ugm.ac.id
PDF

Phys. Rev. E 114, 014308 – Published 8 July, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/9qxp-zv57

Abstract

We study opinion dynamics with higher-order interactions, motivated by the fact that social influence often takes place in groups rather than only through pairwise contacts. We introduce a noisy majority-rule model on annealed hypergraphs with heterogeneous group sizes and investigate how the distribution of interaction sizes affects collective ordering and relaxation. Using analytical theory and Monte Carlo simulations, we show that group-size heterogeneity strongly shapes both the transition between ordered and mixed states and the associated timescales. In particular, broader and heavier-tailed distributions make ordering more robust by enhancing the effect of rare large-group events. They also modify the finite-size scaling of relaxation, producing a crossover from the standard logarithmic behavior to faster ordering in sufficiently broad ensembles. In the pure majority-rule limit, we further show that the exit probability near coexistence obeys a universal error-function scaling form controlled by a single structural parameter. Our results demonstrate that the full distribution of group sizes is a key determinant of nonequilibrium ordering in higher-order opinion dynamics.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (51)

  1. C. Castellano, S. Fortunato, and V. Loreto, Statistical physics of social dynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 591 (2009).
  2. T. M. Liggett, Stochastic Interacting Systems: Contact, Voter and Exclusion Processes (Springer, Berlin, 2013), Vol. 324.
  3. S. Galam, Sociophysics: A Physicist's Modeling of Psycho-political Phenomena (Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 2012).
  4. S. Galam, Majority rule, hierarchical structures, and democratic totalitarianism: A statistical approach, J. Math. Psychol. 30, 426 (1986).
  5. S. Galam, Sociophysics: A review of Galam models, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 19, 409 (2008).
  6. T. Cheon and S. Galam, Dynamical Galam model, Phys. Lett. A 382, 1509 (2018).
  7. P. L. Krapivsky and S. Redner, Dynamics of majority rule in two-state interacting spin systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 238701 (2003).
  8. P. Chen and S. Redner, Majority rule dynamics in finite dimensions, Phys. Rev. E 71, 036101 (2005).
  9. R. Lambiotte, M. Ausloos, and J. A. Hołyst, Majority model on a network with communities, Phys. Rev. E 75, 030101(R) (2007).
  10. V. X. Nguyen, G. Xiao, X.-J. Xu, Q. Wu, and C.-Y. Xia, Dynamics of opinion formation under majority rules on complex social networks, Sci. Rep. 10, 456 (2020).
  11. D. A. Mulya and R. Muslim, Phase transition and universality of the majority-rule model on complex networks, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 35, 2450125 (2024).
  12. R. Muslim, D. A. Mulya, Z. Akbar, and R. A. NQZ, The impact of social noise on the majority rule model across various network topologies, Chaos Solit. Fractals 189, 115718 (2024).
  13. A. Azhari and R. Muslim, The external field effect on the opinion formation based on the majority rule and the q-voter models on the complete graph, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 34, 2350088 (2023).
  14. N. Crokidakis and P. M. C. de Oliveira, Inflexibility and independence: Phase transitions in the majority-rule model, Phys. Rev. E 92, 062122 (2015).
  15. R. Muslim, S. A. Wella, and A. R. Nugraha, Phase transition in the majority rule model with the nonconformist agents, Physica A 608, 128307 (2022).
  16. A. L. Oestereich, M. A. Pires, S. M. D. Queirós, and N. Crokidakis, Phase transition in the Galam's majority-rule model with information-mediated independence, Physics 5, 911 (2023).
  17. F. Battiston, G. Cencetti, I. Iacopini, V. Latora, M. Lucas, A. Patania, J.-G. Young, and G. Petri, Networks beyond pairwise interactions: Structure and dynamics, Phys. Rep. 874, 1 (2020).
  18. S. Boccaletti, P. De Lellis, C. Del Genio, K. Alfaro-Bittner, R. Criado, S. Jalan, and M. Romance, The structure and dynamics of networks with higher order interactions, Phys. Rep. 1018, 1 (2023).
  19. C. Bick, E. Gross, H. A. Harrington, and M. T. Schaub, What are higher-order networks? SIAM Rev. 65, 686 (2023).
  20. I. Iacopini, G. Petri, A. Barrat, and V. Latora, Simplicial models of social contagion, Nat. Commun. 10, 2485 (2019).
  21. G. F. de Arruda, G. Petri, and Y. Moreno, Social contagion models on hypergraphs, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023032 (2020).
  22. P. S. Skardal and A. Arenas, Higher order interactions in complex networks of phase oscillators promote abrupt synchronization switching, Commun. Phys. 3, 218 (2020).
  23. A. P. Millán, J. J. Torres, and G. Bianconi, Explosive higher-order Kuramoto dynamics on simplicial complexes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 218301 (2020).
  24. Y. Zhang, M. Lucas, and F. Battiston, Higher-order interactions shape collective dynamics differently in hypergraphs and simplicial complexes, Nat. Commun. 14, 1605 (2023).
  25. S. Majhi, M. Perc, and D. Ghosh, Dynamics on higher-order networks: A review, J. R. Soc. Interface 19, 20220043 (2022).
  26. J. Stehlé, N. Voirin, A. Barrat, C. Cattuto, L. Isella, J.-F. Pinton, M. Quaggiotto, W. Van den Broeck, C. Régis, B. Lina, et al., High-resolution measurements of face-to-face contact patterns in a primary school, PLoS One 6, e23176 (2011).
  27. R. Mastrandrea, J. Fournet, and A. Barrat, Contact patterns in a high school: A comparison between data collected using wearable sensors, contact diaries and friendship surveys, PLoS One 10, e0136497 (2015).
  28. A. Patania, G. Petri, and F. Vaccarino, The shape of collaborations, EPJ Data Sci. 6, 1 (2017).
  29. A. R. Benson, D. F. Gleich, and J. Leskovec, Higher-order organization of complex networks, Science 353, 163 (2016).
  30. A. R. Benson, R. Abebe, M. T. Schaub, A. Jadbabaie, and J. Kleinberg, Simplicial closure and higher-order link prediction, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115, 11221 (2018).
  31. D. Roh and K.-I. Goh, Growing hypergraphs with preferential linking, J. Korean Phys. Soc. 83, 713 (2023).
  32. K. Byrka, A. Jedrzejewski, K. Sznajd-Weron, and R. Weron, Difficulty is critical: The importance of social factors in modeling diffusion of green products and practices, Renew. Sustain. Energy 62, 723 (2016).
  33. A. Abramiuk-Szurlej, M. Szurlej, and K. Sznajd-Weron, Rigorous agent-based modeling is critical: Modeling the diffusion of green products and practices, Tech. Rep. WORMS/23/02, Department of Operations Research and Business Intelligence (Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, 2023).
  34. J. Noonan and R. Lambiotte, Dynamics of majority rule on hypergraphs, Phys. Rev. E 104, 024316 (2021).
  35. N. Lanchier and J. Neufer, Stochastic dynamics on hypergraphs and the spatial majority rule model, J. Stat. Phys. 151, 21 (2013).
  36. L. Neuhäuser, R. Lambiotte, and M. T. Schaub, Consensus dynamics and opinion formation on hypergraphs, in Higher-Order Systems (Springer, Berlin, 2022), pp. 347–376.
  37. R. Pastor-Satorras, C. Castellano, P. Van Mieghem, and A. Vespignani, Epidemic processes in complex networks, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 925 (2015).
  38. J. P. Gleeson, Binary-state dynamics on complex networks: Pair approximation and beyond, Phys. Rev. X 3, 021004 (2013).
  39. S. E. Asch, Organizational Influence Processes (Routledge, Oxford, UK, 2016), pp. 295–303.
  40. H. Mercier and O. Morin, Majority rules: How good are we at aggregating convergent opinions? Evol. Hum. Sci. 1, e6 (2019).
  41. A. T. Hartnett, E. Schertzer, S. A. Levin, and I. D. Couzin, Heterogeneous preference and local nonlinearity in consensus decision making, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 038701 (2016).
  42. M. J. de Oliveira, Isotropic majority-vote model on a square lattice, J. Stat. Phys. 66, 273 (1992).
  43. H. Chen, C. Shen, G. He, H. Zhang, and Z. Hou, Critical noise of majority-vote model on complex networks, Phys. Rev. E 91, 022816 (2015).
  44. H. Chen, S. Wang, C. Shen, H. Zhang, and G. Bianconi, Non-Markovian majority-vote model, Phys. Rev. E 102, 062311 (2020).
  45. F. L. Forgerini, N. Crokidakis, and M. A. Carvalho, Directed propaganda in the majority-rule model, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 35, 2450082 (2024).
  46. R. Muslim, J. Kim, N. Oikawa, A. R. NQZ, and Z. Akbar, Ordering-disordering dynamics of the q-voter model under random external bias, Phys. Rev. E 112, 034312 (2025).
  47. N. G. Van Kampen, Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1992), Vol. 1.
  48. C. W. Gardiner, Stochastic Methods: A Handbook for the Natural and Social Sciences, Springer Series in Synergetics, 4th ed. (Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009).
  49. H. Risken, The Fokker-Planck Equation: Methods of Solution and Applications, Springer Series in Synergetics, 2nd ed. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1996), Vol. 18.
  50. A. Carro, R. Toral, and M. San Miguel, The noisy voter model on complex networks, Sci. Rep. 6, 24775 (2016).
  51. R. Muslim, R. A. NQZ, and M. A. Khalif, Mass media and its impact on opinion dynamics of the nonlinear q-voter model, Physica A 633, 129358 (2024).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. E 114, 014308– Published 8 July, 2026
  • Received 2 February 2026
  • Accepted 17 June 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button

©2026 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation