论文标题
回复“在社会平衡网络模型中使用Glauber Dynamics的网络模型中的评论”
Reply to "Comment on 'Phase transition in a network model of social balance with Glauber dynamics' "
论文作者
论文摘要
最近，我们介绍了[物理评论E 100，022303（2019）]一种具有Glauber动态的随机社会平衡模型，该模型考虑了随机性在个人行为中的作用。我们研究的一个重要发现是从平衡状态到不平衡状态的相过渡，因为随机性越过临界值，该值已显示在热力学极限中消失。在最近的类似研究中[K. Malarz和K.Kułakowskiy，（2020年），Arxiv：2009.10136]，结果表明，随着系统大小的差异，临界随机性往往无穷大。这使作者质疑我们的结果。在这里，我们表明这种明显的不一致是每个模型中能量定义不同定义的结果。我们还证明，与上述作者的主张相比，同步和顺序更新规则可能会在很大程度上影响结果。
Recently, we introduced [Physical Review E 100, 022303 (2019)] a stochastic social balance model with Glauber dynamics which takes into account the role of randomness in the individual's behavior. One important finding of our study was a phase transition from a balance state to an imbalance state as the randomness crosses a critical value, which was shown to vanish in the thermodynamic limit. In a recent similar study [K. Malarz and K. Kułakowskiy, (2020), arXiv:2009.10136], it was shown that the critical randomness tends to infinity as the system size diverges. This led the authors to question our results. Here, we show that this apparent inconsistency is the results of different definitions of energy in each model. We also demonstrate that synchronous and sequential updating rules can largely affect the results, in contrast with the claims made by the aforementioned authors.
