The Ising model is one of the most frequently used models of statistical mechanics. Recently, this model has also become widely studied in many other disciplines, including mathematics, statistics, biology, economy and sociology.
For this project you can hand in collaborative reports and programs. This project (together with projects 3 and 4) counts 1/3 of the final mark.
The aim of this project is to use the Ising model from project 4 and apply it to the modeling of electoral patterns and social interactions. This project aims at studying the work of Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron and Jozef Sznajd, see also their published work in Int. J. Mod. Phys. C11,(2000) 1157.
We repeat In its simplest form the energy of the Ising model from project 4 without an externally applied magnetic field, $$ E=-J\sum_{< kl >}^{N}s_ks_l $$ with \( s_k=\pm 1 \). The quantity \( N \) represents the total number of spins and \( J \) is a coupling constant expressing the strength of the interaction between neighboring spins. The symbol \( < kl> \) indicates that we sum over nearest neighbors only. ordering, viz \( J> 0 \).
We will consider as our model a community which time and again should take a stand in some matter, for example vote on a president in a two-party system. If each member of the community can take only two attitudes (\( A \) or \( B \)) then in several votes one expects some difference \( m \) of voters for \( A \) and against. We assume three limiting cases:
The aim here is to analyze the time evolution of \( m \). To model the above mentioned system we consider an Ising spins chain (\( S_i;i=1,2,\ldots N \)) with the following dynamic rules:
To investigate our model we perform a standard Monte Carlo simulation with random updating. Consider a chain of \( N \) Ising spins with free boundary conditions. In our simulation you could use values from \( N=1000 \) up to \( N=10000 \). We start from a totally random initial state i.e. to each site of the chain we assign an arrow with a randomly chosen direction: up or down (Ising spin). Show that you obtain as a state, one of the three fixed points (1-3, i.e. AAAA, BBBB, ABAB) with probability 0.25,0.25 and 0.5, respectively. The typical relaxation time for \( N=1000 \) is \( \sim 10^4 \) Monte Carlo steps (MCS). Plot the spatial distribution of spins from the initial to a steady state and compare your results with figure 1 of Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron and Jozef Sznajd. Can you see whether there is a formation of clusters? Comment your results.
Let us define the decision as a magnetization, i.e.: $$ \begin{equation} m=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N S_i. \label{em} \end{equation} $$
Compute the magnetization and compare your results with figure 2 of Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron and Jozef Sznajd.
Without any external stimulation decision can change dramatically in a relatively short time. Such strongly non-monotonic behaviour of the change of \( m \) is typically observed in the USDF-model when the system evolves towards the third steady state (total disagreement or in magnetic language the antiferromagnetic state). Comment your results.
To measure the time correlation of \( m \) one can employ the classical autocorrelation function: $$ \begin{equation} G(\Delta t) = \frac {\sum \left( m(t)- < m>\right) \left( m(t+ \Delta t)- < m>\right)} {\sum (m(t)- < m>)^2}. \label{_auto1} \end{equation} $$
In the work of Sznajd-Weron and Snajzd, there is a comparison of simulation results with empirical data as shown in their figure 3. Make a plot similar to their figure 3 and comment your results. Following the changes of one particular individual, the dynamics seem to lead to some interesting effects. If an individual changes her/his opinion at time \( t \) she/he will probably change it also at time \( t+1 \).
On the other hand an individual can stay for a long time without changing her/his decision. Let us denote by \( \tau \) the time needed by an individual to change her/his opinion. From the autocorrelation function it can be seen that \( \tau \) is usually very short, but sometimes can be very long. The distribution of \( (\tau) \) (\( P(\tau) \)) follows seeminingly a power law behavior with an exponent \( -3/2 \). Plot this distribution and compare your results with figure 4 Sznajd-Weron and Snajzd. Comment your results.
We will now study the influence of the initial conditions on the evolution of the system by considering two different ways - randomly and in clusters. In both cases you could start from an initial concentration \( c_B \) of opinion \( B \). In the random setup \( c_B*N \) individuals are randomly (uniformly) chosen out of all \( N \) individuals. In the cluster setup simply the first \( c_B*N \) individuals are chosen.
Study whether the distribution of decision time \( \tau \) still follows the power law with the same exponent as you found in the previous part. A non-monotonic behaviour of decision change is still typical and sometimes even much stronger. However, it is obvious that if initially there is more \( A \)'s then \( B \)'s the final state should be more often "all $A$" then "all $B$". Compare your results to figure 5 of Sznajd-Weron and Snajzd and comment your results.
It is well known that the changes of opinion are determined by the social impact. Till now we have considered a community in which a change of an individuals opinion is caused only by a contact with its neighbours. It was the simplest social impact one can imagine. Now, we introduce to our model noise \( p \), which is the probability that an individual, instead of following the dynamic rules, will make a random decision. We start from an "all $A$" state to investigate if there is a \( p \in (0,1) \) which does not throw the system out of this state.
See if you can reproduce figures 6 and 7 of the above authors and comment your final results. Their discussion section contains several interesting observations you may consider discussing. The text by Serge Galam contains several other interesting obeservations which can be useful in the present analysi.
Here follows a brief recipe and recommendation on how to write a report for each project.
The preferred format for the report is a PDF file. You can also use DOC or postscript formats or as an ipython notebook file. As programming language we prefer that you choose between C/C++, Fortran2008 or Python. The following prescription should be followed when preparing the report: