Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2509.14411

How Bad Is Forming Your Own Multidimensional Opinion?

Kiarash Banihashem·MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi·Mahdi JafariRaviz·Danny Mittal·Alipasha Montaseri
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Understanding the formation of opinions on interconnected topics within social networks is of significant importance. It offers insights into collective behavior and decision-making, with applications in Graph Neural Networks. Existing models propose that individuals form opinions based on a weighted average of their peers' opinions and their own beliefs. This averaging process, viewed as a best-response game, can be seen as an individual minimizing disagreements with peers, defined by a quadratic penalty, leading to an equilibrium. Bindel, Kleinberg, and Oren (FOCS 2011) provided tight bounds on the "price of anarchy" defined as the maximum overall disagreement at equilibrium relative to a social optimum. Bhawalkar, Gollapudi, and Munagala (STOC 2013) generalized the penalty function to non-quadratic penalties and provided tight bounds on the price of anarchy. When considering multiple topics, an individual's opinions can be represented as a vector. Parsegov, Proskurnikov, Tempo, and Friedkin (2016) proposed a multidimensional model using the weighted averaging process, but with constant interdependencies between topics. However, the question of the price of anarchy for this model remained open. We address this by providing tight bounds on the multidimensional model, while also generalizing it to more complex interdependencies. Following the work of Bhawalkar, Gollapudi, and Munagala, we provide tight bounds on the price of anarchy under non-quadratic penalties. Surprisingly, these bounds match the scalar model. We further demonstrate that the bounds remain unchanged even when adding another layer of complexity, involving groups of individuals minimizing their overall internal and external disagreement penalty, a common occurrence in real-life scenarios.

Explore related subjects

cs.GT

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Kiarash Banihashem, MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi, Mahdi JafariRaviz, Danny Mittal, Alipasha Montaseri. 2025-09-17. How Bad Is Forming Your Own Multidimensional Opinion?. https://doi.org/10.1145/3736252.3742669

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

MMS Allocation for Chores with Online Agent Arrivals

We study the fair allocation of $m$ indivisible chores to $n$ agents with subadditive cost functions arriving online in an arbitrary order. Upon an agent's arrival, we are informed of her cost function and must irrevocably assign her a set of chores. We focus on the Maximin Share (MMS) fairness notion and aim to compute an allocation in which all items are assigned, and no agent incurs a cost more than $\alpha$ times her MMS. Without any prior information about the instance (other than $n$ and $m$), we design an algorithm with a competitive ratio of $O(\min\{n, k\log^{1+\epsilon}k, \log m\})$ for any constant $\epsilon > 0$, where $k$ denotes the number of cost function types. Our bound matches the best known offline approximation guarantees for MMS under subadditive costs and is nearly optimal with respect to all three parameters: we show that even for binary additive cost functions, no online algorithm can achieve a competitive ratio of $o(\min\{n, k\log k, \log m\})$. We then consider the setting in which the $k$ cost function types are known in advance (though the realized types of arriving agents are not). For additive cost functions, we provide an algorithm with a competitive ratio of $O(\min\{\log k, \log(kn)/\log\log(kn)\})$, and show that constant-competitive algorithms do not exist for general $k$, even for the binary additive setting. For binary additive functions when $k \le n$, we propose a $3$-competitive algorithm and establish a lower bound of $2$.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Truncated Noisy Best-Response Algorithms: Toward Game Theoretic Learning with Safety Guarantees

We consider a game theoretic approach to solve multi-agent coordination problems with submodular maximization objectives. It is known for such problems that the Nash equilibria for the corresponding game are always within 50% of the optimal, but that the equilibria which achieve this worst-case bound are not stable. To exploit this instability, we propose a family of algorithms which we call Truncated Noisy Best-Response (TNBR) Algorithms. These algorithms are flexibly characterized by agents asynchronously and stochastically selecting actions from a neighbourhood of their best response payoffs. We compute bounds on the recurrent classes of TNBR algorithms' associated Markov chains. Our bounds fall into two categories: first, "Performance" bounds ensure that TNBR algorithms always have a high-value recurrent state; second, "Safety" bounds ensure that TNBR algorithms never have arbitrarily-bad recurrent states. Furthermore, these two types of bounds are linked by a waterbed-like effect: every game with a poor Safety guarantee necessarily has a favorable Performance guarantee.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Existence of the Core in Approval-Based Committee Elections

We settle the main open question in the theory of approval-based multi-winner elections: we show that there always exists a committee in the core. The core is a stability and group fairness concept. The proof introduces a new voting rule that optimizes an entropy-like objective function over committees and payment systems. All local optima of this objective function lie in the core, which implies that a core committee can be found in polynomial time.

cs.GT↗