Regimes of Influence under Trust-Distrust Gating
Extracted source text · arXiv 2606.24095
\documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
\input{x00_macro}
% --- Metadata ---
\title{Regimes of Influence in Trust-Uncertainty Gated Networks}
% \title{From Hub Amplification to Periphery Dominance: Regime Shifts Under Trust--Uncertainty Gated Networks}
\author[1]{Razieh Masoumi}
\author[1]{Ahana Biswas}
\author[1]{Yu-Ru Lin}
\affil[1]{School of Computing and Information, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA}
\date{\today}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
\input{sections/001_abstract_yrl}
\end{abstract}
\input{sections/010_introduction_yrl}
\input{sections/020_results}
\input{sections/030_discussion_yrl}
\input{sections/050_model_yrl}
\FloatBarrier
\FloatBarrier
\bibliographystyle{unsrtnat}
\bibliography{references_main}
\end{document}
% ================================================================
% Shared packages, layout options, and project-wide macros.
% Keep package additions and macro definitions here.
% ================================================================
% --- Packages ---
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{lmodern}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{geometry}
\usepackage[numbers,sort&compress]{natbib}
\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{authblk}
\usepackage{xcolor,xspace}
\usepackage{svg}
\usepackage{placeins}
% \usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage[colorlinks=true, linkcolor=blue, citecolor=blue, urlcolor=blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{soul}
\usepackage{dblfloatfix}
\usepackage[export]{adjustbox}
\usepackage{tikz}
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage{comment}
\DeclareRobustCommand{\circnum}[1]{%
\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{
\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=0.8pt] (char) {\footnotesize #1};
}%
}
% --- Custom colors (defined after xcolor is loaded) ---
% --- Graphics setup ---
\graphicspath{{figures/}{sections/}}
\svgpath{{./}{figures/}}
\svgsetup{inkscapelatex=true}
% --- Page setup ---
\geometry{margin=0.7in}
\onehalfspacing
\setlength{\parskip}{0.7em}
% (Author review/comment system removed for submission.)
\newcommand{\method}{\textbf{Methods and Materials}\xspace}
\newcommand{\rgA}{\textbf{Pluralistic}\xspace}
\newcommand{\rgF}{\textbf{Selective}\xspace}
\newcommand{\rgG}{\textbf{Concordant}\xspace}
\newcommand{\rgE}{\textbf{Fortified}\xspace}
\newcommand{\ptA}{\textbf{A}\xspace}
\newcommand{\ptF}{\textbf{F}\xspace}
\newcommand{\ptG}{\textbf{G}\xspace}
\newcommand{\ptE}{\textbf{E}\xspace}
\newcommand{\ptB}{\textbf{B}\xspace}
\newcommand{\ptC}{\textbf{C}\xspace}
\newcommand{\ptD}{\textbf{D}\xspace}
\newcommand{\rgptA}{\textbf{Pluralistic} (\textbf{A})\xspace}
\newcommand{\rgptF}{\textbf{Selective} (\textbf{F})\xspace}
\newcommand{\rgptG}{\textbf{Concordant} (\textbf{G})\xspace}
\newcommand{\rgptE}{\textbf{Fortified} (\textbf{E})\xspace}
\newcommand{\rrptA}{\textbf{Pluralistic} regime (\textbf{A})\xspace}
\newcommand{\rrptF}{\textbf{Selective} regime (\textbf{F})\xspace}
\newcommand{\rrptG}{\textbf{Concordant} regime (\textbf{G})\xspace}
\newcommand{\rrptE}{\textbf{Fortified} regime (\textbf{E})\xspace}
\newcommand{\nameER}{{Erd\H{o}s--R\'enyi}\xspace}
\newcommand{\nameBA}{{Barab\'asi--Albert}\xspace}
\newcommand{\methods}{{\bf Methods and Materials}\xspace}
\newcommand{\pl}[1]{\texttt{#1}\xspace} %% pane
% Legacy drafts contain some explicit blue/red markup.
% Neutralize those colors in the compiled review copy.
\colorlet{blue}{black}
\colorlet{red}{black}
\colorlet{purple}{purple}
In many social communities, individuals can simultaneously trust and distrust the same source, a feature standard opinion-dynamics models often ignore. We formalize this ambivalence with \textit{Gated Network Credence}, in which each directed relationship encodes distinct trust and distrust assessments. These jointly determine ``net trust''---the willingness to rely on a source---and ``uncertainty''---the conflict between trust and distrust within the same relationship. Agents update beliefs only when net trust exceeds a threshold and uncertainty falls below another, yielding an \textit{effective influence graph} whose topology drives long-run belief states. Sweeping both thresholds uncovers four regimes---Pluralistic, Selective, Concordant, and Fortified---that differ in openness to trust and conflict. We find a consistent hub--periphery reversal: in the Selective regime, high-degree agents dominate influence, whereas in the Concordant regime, stringent uncertainty filtering disproportionately removes active influence channels associated with high-degree agents, enabling peripheral lower-degree agents to exert greater leverage over the collective equilibrium. This reversal holds across synthetic and empirical networks. Our results show that belief dynamics depend not only on network structure but also on how relational ambivalence between trust and distrust gates interpersonal influence.
\section{Introduction}
Understanding how individuals form, revise, and propagate opinions is essential for explaining collective phenomena such as polarization, echo chambers, and radicalization~\cite{noorazar2020, galesic2021, moscovici1969, sunstein2002, galam2002, castellano2009, iyengar2012, baumann2020}. Classical models of opinion dynamics such as De Groot's averaging scheme~\cite{degroot1974}, Hegselmann-Krause bounded-confidence (BC) updates~\cite{hegselmann2002, deffuant2000, bernardo2024}, or the Sznajd local-persuasion rule~\cite{sznajd2000}, capture a salient feature of human interaction: individuals revise their beliefs through social exposure, whether by averaging neighbors' states, interacting only within a confidence bound, or responding to local persuasion. Subsequent extensions have enriched these opinion-dynamics frameworks with mechanisms such as signed bounded confidence~\cite{altafini2018} and heterogeneous agent activity~\cite{li2023}. Existing models explain how consensus can arise, but they usually treat interpersonal influence as a single channel that is either active or inactive, positive or negative, or stronger or weaker, which makes it difficult to represent the possibility that the same source is simultaneously trusted and distrusted.
Such ambivalence is common in everyday life---one may respect an expert's credentials while remaining skeptical of their motives, or consider a news outlet reliable for some topics but unreliable for others. Empirical studies confirm that trust and distrust are distinct constructs that can coexist toward the same source, producing ambivalence in relationships and shaping how individuals perceive and recall information~\cite{lewicki1998, moody2014, moody2017, posten2021}. Because trust and distrust shape receptivity in different ways, distinguishing them is necessary for understanding when individuals revise their views and when they reject discordant information outright, with direct consequences for misinformation spread and the persistence of opinion clusters~\cite{lazer2018}. Yet most opinion-dynamics models collapse them into a single scalar or treat them as mutually exclusive signs. This binary representation is also reflected in widely used signed-network benchmarks: for instance, the Epinions and Slashdot networks encode each tie as either positive, indicating trust, or negative, indicating distrust, but not both~\cite{guha2004, kunegis2009, leskovec2010}. Signed-network models built on this representation often inherit the same mutual-exclusivity assumption in studies of trust prediction and consensus formation~\cite{kou2021, fang2022, zha2023, shi2020}. A few studies have attempted to incorporate trust and distrust as separate components of opinion dynamics~\cite{ishii2019gdn, ishii2019wi, ishii2020taai, taghavi2020}, but they typically map them onto opposite-valued influence parameters rather than representing trust and distrust as two independent relational attributes that can coexist within the same directed relationship. This simplification limits our ability to predict when a network will fragment into multiple opinion clusters or when strongly polarized or initially extreme belief states can spread.
To address this gap, we introduce \textit{Gated Network Credence}, an opinion-dynamics model that represents each directed relationship as a pair of relational evaluations: the trust an agent assigns to a source and the distrust the same agent assigns to that source. These two evaluations jointly determine \textit{net trust}---the willingness to rely on a source---and \textit{uncertainty}---the degree of trust--distrust conflict within the relationship. Influence is therefore gated at the relationship level: an agent incorporates a neighbor's belief only when the agent's net evaluation of that neighbor is sufficiently positive and the trust--distrust conflict in that relationship is sufficiently low. The set of active directed relationships that survive these dual filters defines an \textit{effective influence graph}; the topology of this graph governs the trajectory and equilibrium of agents' belief states.
We study this gated updating mechanism by running simulations on three synthetic networks (\nameER, \nameBA, and modular) and on two real-world empirical networks: the Bitcoin-OTC reputation network and a network of U.S. state legislators captured from social-media platform X. To systematically assess how a network responds when extreme beliefs are concentrated among visible or well-connected actors, a common concern in studies of misinformation, elite influence, and online mobilization, we conduct a {\it simulated radicalization experiment} in which the most positive initial belief states are assigned to a small set of highest-degree agents. By varying how permissive agents are toward trust and uncertainty, we uncover four distinct regimes (Fig.~\ref{fig:phase-diagram}(a)\textcircled{3}): \rgA, \rgF, \rgG, and \rgE---each producing qualitatively different collective belief outcomes. We observe a consistent \textit{hub--periphery reversal} between the \rgF and \rgG regimes. In the \rgF regime, high-degree agents selected as seeds exert strong influence: when assigned initially extreme positive belief states, their many active influence channels propagate those states across the network. Conversely, in the \rgG regime, the uncertainty filter removes many potential influence channels associated with high-degree seeded agents; influence is then carried more strongly by peripheral lower-degree agents whose remaining relationships satisfy both the trust and uncertainty filters. As a result, when the same initial extreme belief states are placed on hubs, the collective belief equilibrium can move \textit{away} from the seeded extreme position, driven instead by peripheral agents. The same patterns appear in the empirical networks, demonstrating that regimes emerge not only for synthetic but also for real social systems. Our findings suggest that interventions aimed at mitigating radical influence or reducing polarization must consider which dynamic regime a network occupies. If a system is operating in a \rgF mode, efforts should target hubs or how the source's information is generally accepted; if it is \rgG, lowering uncertainty---through transparency or cross-community dialogue---may be more effective. This work formalizes influence as a gated process, in which interpersonal ties are not simply open or closed but become active only under specific configurations of trust and uncertainty, offering a practical lens for anticipating when radical ideas spread and when they fail to take hold.
\section{Results}
\input{sections/021_ambivalent_trust_distrust_yrl}
\input{sections/022_gating_regimes_yrl}
\input{sections/023_hub_periphery_reversal_yrl}
\subsection{Ambivalent trust--distrust relationships produce qualitatively
distinct regimes of collective belief states}\label{sec:2.1}
\input{figures/phase-diagram-BA-N1000-m50}
We show that treating trust and distrust as independent dimensions of a social relationship yields qualitatively distinct regimes of collective belief dynamics that are not captured by single-scalar trust models.
We represent agents as nodes and directed edges as interpersonal relationships. Each directed relationship $(i, j)$ carries a trust assessment $\tau_{ij} \in [0,1]$ and a distrust assessment $\delta_{ij} \in [0,1]$; the procedure for generating $\tau_{ij}$ and $\delta_{ij}$, including their coupling structure, is described in \method~\ref{app:trust-distrust-coupling-definition}. We then map each pair of trust and distrust via:
\[
(T_{ij}, U_{ij}) = (\tau_{ij} - \delta_{ij}, \tau_{ij} + \delta_{ij} - 1),
\]
which defines a two-dimensional credence space: $T_{ij}$ captures the net inclination of agent $i$ toward $j$, while $U_{ij}$ quantifies how contradictory or uncertain that inclination is.
(Fig.~\ref{fig:phase-diagram}(a)\circnum{1}). The conventional one-dimensional notion of trust is recovered when trust and distrust are treated as perfectly coupled opposites, which corresponds to the horizontal line $U = 0$. Relationships with the same net trust $T$ can nevertheless differ in uncertainty $U$: for example, high trust combined with high distrust and low trust combined with low distrust can yield the same net inclination but imply different levels of relational ambivalence. This distinction is unavailable to one-dimensional trust models but consequential for influence propagation.
Under \textit{Gated Network Credence}, influence from $j$ to $i$ occurs only when agent $i$ assigns $j$ sufficient net trust and sufficiently low trust--distrust uncertainty:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:decision}
T_{ij} \ge T_T \quad \text{and} \quad U_{ij} \le U_T .
\end{equation}
Here, $T_T$ is the minimum net-trust threshold required for a belief update, and $U_T$ is the maximum uncertainty threshold an agent is willing to tolerate; in simulations, both thresholds are swept over $[-1,1]$. An agent updates its belief only when the potential influence from a neighbor satisfies both conditions, meaning that the relationship is net positive enough in trust and not too conflicted by coexisting distrust. Intuitively, the dual gate captures the idea that agents may reject a source either because they do not trust it enough or because the agent's evaluation of that source is too conflicted. Further conceptual background and connections to established trust typologies are provided in Appendix~S1.6.
The initial belief of agent $i$, $b_i(0)$, was drawn uniformly from $[-B_{\max},\, B_{\max}]$. To assess how network structure and gating jointly shape radicalization, we run a simulated experiment in which extreme positive initial beliefs are exogenously assigned to the highest-degree agents. The manipulated parameters are chosen to represent empirically common features of social influence. We vary four empirically motivated parameters capturing distinct mechanisms: the {\it promoter prevalence}, $x$, controls how widespread extreme positive beliefs are among more highly connected agents; the {\it prestige bias}, $p_s$, controls how much agents preferentially trust well-connected neighbors; the {\it trust-distrust coupling}, $\rho$, controls how strongly trust and distrust are inversely coupled within a relationship. In modular networks, the {\it level of polarization}, $\psi$, further controls the initial belief separation between the two communities. These parameters allow us to test whether prominence, ambivalence, and community separation amplify seeded extremes or redirect influence away from the seeds. Full simulation details are provided in Section~\ref{sec:simulation-setup}.
\paragraph{Consensus–-fragmentation phase transition}
Fig.~\ref{fig:phase-diagram}(a)\textcircled{2} shows the long-run outcome under \textit{Gated Network Credence} across the two-dimensional threshold space defined by $(T_T,U_T)$ for an \nameER network. Blue shading indicates threshold values that drive all agents to a single final belief state (global consensus), while red shading covers thresholds where the effective influence graph fragments and opinion clusters persist indefinitely. The white curve delineates the phase boundary between these two phases.
In the blue region, the threshold pair $(T_T, U_T)$ leaves enough links simultaneously satisfying both $T_{ij} \geq T_T$ and $U_{ij} \leq U_T$ to sustain a connected effective influence graph that drives the network to global consensus. At point $\mathbf{A}$ (permissive $T_T$, permissive $U_T$), both thresholds are highly permissive, so the vast majority of links meet both conditions, yielding a dense effective graph. Points $\mathbf{F}$ and $\mathbf{G}$ are especially informative because each is dominated by one filter while the other remains permissive. At point $\mathbf{F}$ (more restrictive $T_T$, permissive $U_T$), the trust threshold is selective: only relationships with sufficiently high net trust remain active. Because the uncertainty threshold is permissive, it removes few additional relationships, so the effective graph is sparser but still connected. At point $\mathbf{G}$ (permissive $T_T$, more restrictive $U_T$), the uncertainty threshold is selective: highly conflicted relationships are removed, while the permissive trust threshold allows most low-uncertainty relationships to remain active. Thus, comparing the \rgF and \rgG regimes isolates the effect of the uncertainty dimension---absent from standard one-dimensional models---on collective belief outcomes.
In contrast, the red region corresponds to threshold values where the effective influence graph becomes disconnected because too few relationships survive the dual gate. In this case, belief updating proceeds only within disconnected components, producing persistent belief clusters. The number of such clusters grows when either $T_T$ or $U_T$ becomes more restrictive: as fewer relationships remain active, the effective graph breaks into progressively smaller components. A very low $U_T$ as at point \ptC removes most relationships that carry even moderate uncertainty, whereas a high $T_T$ as at points \ptB and \ptD requires very strong net trust before a belief update can occur. Point \ptE($T_T=0$, $U_T=0$) lies near the consensus--fragmentation boundary, where both filters are restrictive. Because the resulting effective graph is sparse, small changes in parameters can determine whether the system reaches large-scale consensus or separates into fragmented belief clusters.
\paragraph{Prestige bias shapes the direction of collective belief change.}
We next examine how prestige bias changes belief dynamics in the trust-dominated \rgF regime and the uncertainty-dominated \rgG regime. When prestige bias is absent ($p_s=0$), trust is distributed randomly with respect to neighbor degree, and radical beliefs seeded on hubs are diluted by the moderate beliefs held elsewhere, driving the long-run collective belief toward zero in both regimes. This baseline shows that placing extreme beliefs on hubs is not sufficient for radicalization unless other agents preferentially trust those hubs. As $p_s$ increases, agents allocate more trust to well-connected neighbors, strengthening hub influence. Because the \rgF and \rgG regimes retain or remove hub-associated influence channels in different ways, increasing prestige bias produces divergent collective outcomes that are not visible when $p_s=0$.
Fig.~\ref{fig:phase-diagram}(b) shows belief trajectories when prestige bias is absent ($p_s = 0$): both regimes converge to a moderate collective equilibrium near $b^* \approx 0$, indicating that radical seeds among hubs have little effect when trust is distributed independently of degree. Introducing maximal prestige bias ($p_s = 1$) changes the long-run dynamics (Fig.~\ref{fig:phase-diagram}(c)). In the \rgF regime, the stationary belief state shifts toward the extreme positive seeds, and increasing the fraction of radical promoters magnifies this effect (Fig.~S2(e)--(h) in Appendix~S1.2). In the \rgG regime, the outcome is not merely weaker but opposite: trajectories converge to an opposite-signed consensus that moves away from the radicals' initial position (Fig.~S2(i)--(l) in Appendix~S1.2).
\paragraph{Ambivalence generates opposite radicalization outcomes.}
The reversal observed at point \ptG cannot occur in a conventional one-dimensional model, where only net trust governs interpersonal influence. Appendix~S1.1 demonstrates that when uncertainty is removed as a dimension entirely---retaining only net trust $T$ and threshold $T_T$---the reversal observed at point \ptG disappears. Thus, the uncertainty dimension is necessary to explain how identical prestige bias can produce opposite collective belief outcomes across regimes. This result shows that the uncertainty generated by conflicting trust and distrust assessments can alter which relationships survive the gating process, thus reorganizing social influence pathways in ways that one-dimensional trust models cannot predict.
\input{figures/Trends-FG-Erdos}
\input{figures/zero_left_eigenvect_FG_all}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.98\linewidth]{figures/describtive-figure-phase-diagram.pdf}
\vspace{1em}
% \caption{
% {\bf (a)}\textcircled{1} Two‑dimensional representation of coexisting trust and distrust. The coordinate $(T,U)$, indicating net trust and uncertainty, is translated by the pair $(\tau,\delta)$ via $T=\tau-\delta$ and $U=\tau+\delta-1$. The horizontal line $U=0$ recovers the traditional one‑dimensional trust.
% \textcircled{2} Phase diagram of long‑run belief dynamics on an \nameER graph $(N=5000,\ p=0.00716)$ under fixed simulated conditions. Blue indicates global consensus, red persistent fragmentation; the white curve marks the phase boundary.
% \textcircled{3} Our study identifies a ``gated credence'' structure in the phase diagram: agents are either {\it open} or {\it guarded} with respect to net trust, and simultaneously {\it rigid} or {\it fluid} when screening uncertainty. This yields four distinct regimes---\rgptA, \rgptF, \rgptG, and \rgptE.
% {\bf (b)} Belief trajectories for thresholds under prestige bias $p_s=0$; orange curves indicate radical promoters, gray other agents. The subplot of points \ptA, \ptF, and \ptG in the consensus region shows that the system converges to a moderate final belief centred near zero.
% {\bf (c)} Same conditions as (b) but with maximal prestige bias \(p_s=1\). The \rgptF regime now produces radical consensus, whereas the \rgptG regime leads to a negative stationary consensus. See \methods for study methodology.
% }
\caption{
{\bf (a)}\textcircled{1} Two-dimensional credence space for a directed relationship with separate trust $\tau$ and distrust $\delta$ assessments. The coordinate $(T,U)$, indicating net trust and uncertainty, is obtained from $(\tau,\delta)$ via $T=\tau-\delta$ and $U=\tau+\delta-1$. The horizontal line $U=0$ corresponds to the conventional one-dimensional case in which trust and distrust are treated as perfectly coupled opposites.
\textcircled{2} Phase diagram of long-run belief dynamics on an \nameER graph $(N=5000,\ p=0.01)$ under fixed simulated conditions. Blue indicates global consensus, red indicates persistent fragmentation, and the white curve marks the phase boundary.
\textcircled{3} The two gating thresholds partition the phase diagram into four regimes: agents may be more or less permissive toward net trust, and more or less tolerant of trust--distrust uncertainty. This yields four distinct regimes---\rgptA, \rgptF, \rgptG, and \rgptE.
{\bf (b)} Belief trajectories for thresholds under prestige bias $p_s=0$; orange curves indicate radical promoters, gray curves indicate other agents. The subplots for points \ptA, \ptF, and \ptG in the consensus region show that the system converges to a moderate final belief state centered near zero.
{\bf (c)} Same conditions as (b) but with maximal prestige bias \(p_s=1\). The \rgptF regime now produces consensus aligned with the positive radical seeds, whereas the \rgptG regime leads to an opposite-signed stationary consensus. Throughout, the trust--distrust coupling is fixed at $\rho=-0.4$. See \methods for study methodology.}
\label{fig:phase-diagram}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figures/Trends-FG-Erdos-combined.pdf}
% \caption{
% {\bf (a)} Long‑run consensus belief $b^{*}$ versus prestige bias $p_{s}$ on an \nameER network ($N=5000, p=7.16\times10^{-3}$). \pl{Top}: \rrptF; \pl{bottom}: \rrptG. \pl{Left} column fixes $\rho=-0.4$ and varies promoter prevalence $x$. \pl{Right} column fixes $x=0.25$ and varies coupling coupling strengths $\rho$. Shaded bands indicate variability across 100 independent realizations.
% {\bf(b)} Conditional distribution of post‑filtering in‑degree $k_{\mathrm{in}}^{\text{after}}$ as a function of pre‑filtering in-degree $k_{\mathrm{in}}^{\text{before}}$. \pl{Top} row: \rrptF; \pl{bottom}: \rrptG.
% \pl{Left} and \pl{right} columns correspond to prestige bias values $p_s=0.05$ and $p_s=0.4$, respectively. Ribbons show the $25^{th}-75^{th}$ percentile (dark) and $10^{th}-90^{th}$ percentile (light) ranges for $\rho=-1$ and $\rho=-0.01$, with the conditional median degree values marked as solid and dashed lines, respectively.
% }
\caption{
{\bf (a)} Long-run consensus belief state $b^{*}$ versus prestige bias $p_{s}$ on an \nameER network ($N=5000, p=0.01$). \pl{Top}: \rrptF; \pl{bottom}: \rrptG. \pl{Left} column fixes $\rho=-0.4$ and varies promoter prevalence $x$. \pl{Right} column fixes $x=0.25$ and varies trust--distrust coupling strength $\rho$. Shaded bands indicate variability across 100 independent realizations.
{\bf(b)} Conditional distribution of post-filtering in-degree $k_{\mathrm{in}}^{\text{after}}$ as a function of pre-filtering in-degree $k_{\mathrm{in}}^{\text{before}}$. \pl{Top} row: \rrptF; \pl{bottom}: \rrptG.
\pl{Left} and \pl{right} columns correspond to prestige bias values $p_s=0.05$ and $p_s=0.4$, respectively. Ribbons show the mean $\pm$ one standard deviation (SD) of post-filtering in-degree within each pre-filtering in-degree bin. Solid and dashed lines mark the corresponding mean post-filtering in-degree for $\rho=-1$ and $\rho=-0.01$, respectively.
}
\label{fig:Trends-FG-Erdos}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
% If the *image file itself* has a white border at the top, trim it:
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{figures/zero_left_eigenvect_FG_all_cbfrindly.pdf}
% \caption{%
% Normalised left zero eigenvector $\bar{\gamma}_i$ of the directed Laplacian
% as a function of in-degree before filtering, $k_{\rm in}^{\rm before}$.
% Each entry $\bar{\gamma}_i$ is the $i$-th component of the left eigenvector
% associated with the zero eigenvalue of the directed Laplacian, normalised to
% sum to unity, so that it represents the stationary influence weight of node~$i$.
% Main panels show results for Erd\H{o}s--R\'enyi (ER) networks
% ($N=5000$, $p=0.01$); the inset in each panel displays the corresponding results for Barab\'asi--Albert (BA, red) and Modular (green) networks on a
% separate horizontal scale, reflecting their much broader degree distributions.
% Rows distinguish the \rgptF regime (top) from the \rgptG regime (bottom).
% Columns correspond to trust--distrust coupling $\rho=-1$ (left) and
% $\rho=-0.01$ (right). Within each main panel two values of the prestige-bias probability are
% overlaid: $p_s=0.05$ (blue) and $p_s=0.4$ (orange). In the insets, line colour encodes the network topology and linestyle encodes $p_s$ (solid: $0.05$; dashed: $0.4$).
% Shaded ribbons show the 10th--90th percentile (lighter band) and the 25th--75th percentile (darker band) of $\bar{\gamma}$ across nodes sharing the same binned in-degree; smooth curves trace the binned median. The $y$-axis scale is shared within each row but differs between rows.}
\caption{%
Spectral characterization of long-run influence after filtering.
The normalized left zero eigenvector $\bar{\gamma}$ of the directed Laplacian of the filtered influence graph is plotted as a function of in-degree before filtering, $k_{in}^{before}$. Each entry $\bar{\gamma}_i$ measures how much agent $i$'s initial belief contributes to the long-run consensus or component-level equilibrium; larger values indicate greater long-run influence.
Main panels show results for \nameER (ER) networks
($N=5000$, $p=0.01$);
insets show the corresponding results for \nameBA (BA) and modular networks on separate horizontal scales to accommodate their more skewed degree distributions. Rows distinguish the \rgptF regime (top) from the \rgptG regime (bottom), and columns distinguish tightly coupled trust--distrust assessments $(\rho=-1)$ from weakly coupled assessments $(\rho=-0.01)$. Line color identifies network topology, and line style identifies prestige bias ($p_s=0.05$ solid; $p_s=0.4$ dashed). Within each pre-filtering in-degree bin, curves show the mean of $\bar{\gamma}_i$ across agents in that bin; shaded bands show one standard deviation around the bin mean. The figure shows that \rgF filtering concentrates long-run influence on higher-degree agents, whereas \rgG filtering flattens or reverses this degree--influence relationship, especially under weak trust--distrust coupling and stronger prestige bias.
\label{fig:zero_left_eigenvec_FG_all_nets}
}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Trust--uncertainty gating reverses the direction of collective belief change}
Fig.~\ref{fig:Trends-FG-Erdos}(a) displays the equilibrium collective belief state $b^{*}$ as a function of prestige bias $p_{s}$ across two regimes: the \rrptF on the top row, and the \rrptG on the bottom. The left column keeps the trust--distrust coupling $\rho$ fixed while varying promoter prevalence $x$, whereas the right column fixes $x$ and varies $\rho$.
In the \rrptF, the equilibrium response profiles are strictly increasing in $p_s$: stronger prestige bias consistently shifts the final collective belief state $b^{*}$ in the positive direction. The magnitude of this increase depends on the promoter prevalence: larger values of $x$ place more extreme positive seeds among high-degree agents, so the entire response profile shifts toward more positive equilibrium belief states
(Fig.~\ref{fig:Trends-FG-Erdos}(a)~\pl{Top-left}). When trust--distrust coupling is varied in the right column, the slopes and saturation levels change but the overall shape remains monotonic. When trust and distrust are more tightly inversely coupled ($\rho\rightarrow-1$), high trust is usually accompanied by low distrust. The net-trust filter therefore admits a broader set of relationships, so hub-directed relationships are not as selectively favored. As the coupling weakens ($\rho$ moves toward $0$), the net-trust threshold becomes more selective. Under prestige bias, the relationships that still pass this stricter filter are more often directed toward hubs, giving the positively seeded high-degree agents greater influence over $b^*$ (see Appendix~S1.4 for the analytic derivation).
%Appendix~\ref{SI:rho-role-FG}
By contrast, in the \rrptG, the equilibrium response profiles generally decrease as $p_s$ increases. Except when trust and distrust are nearly perfectly inversely coupled ($\rho\approx -1$), $b^{*}$ is negative across the examined $(p_s,x)$ combinations, and its magnitude grows with prestige bias (Fig.~\ref{fig:Trends-FG-Erdos}(a)~\pl{Bottom}). The sign and magnitude of $b^{*}$ are governed by trust--distrust coupling: when $\rho\approx-1$, trust and distrust behave almost as opposites, leaving no uncertainty and making the \rgG filter largely degree-neutral. As a result, the positively seeded high-degree agents gain little additional leverage and the equilibrium remains close to zero. As coupling weakens $(\rho\rightarrow-0.01)$, high-trust hub-directed relationships can retain substantial distrust, raising their uncertainty and causing the \rgG filter to remove them disproportionately. The remaining influence shifts away from the positively seeded hubs, yielding stronger opposite-signed equilibrium belief states.
These observations demonstrate that the two gating regimes steer collective belief equilibria toward opposite polarities: the \rgF regime amplifies the positive beliefs seeded on hubs, while the \rgG regime redirects the collective equilibrium away from those seeds and toward the opposite sign.
We next separate two mechanisms behind this reversal: which ties survive the gate, and how much long-run influence the remaining connected agents have.
\paragraph{Filtering redistributes influence between hubs and peripheral agents.}
Since radical beliefs are seeded on the highest-degree agents, the reversal in the \rgG regime suggests that uncertainty-dominated filtering reduces the effective influence of hubs. Fig.~\ref{fig:Trends-FG-Erdos}(b) shows how many incoming relationships each agent retains after filtering, plotted against that agent's original in-degree before filtering. The columns compare low and moderate prestige bias ($p_s=0.05$ and $p_s=0.4$), while the line styles compare tightly coupled and weakly coupled trust--distrust assessments ($\rho=-1$ and $\rho=-0.01$). Curves show the mean post-filtering in-degree within each pre-filtering in-degree bin, and ribbons show one standard deviation around that mean. The top row corresponds to the \rgF regime and the bottom to the \rgG regime.
In the \rgptF regime (top row), mean post-filtering in-degree increases sharply with pre-filtering in-degree: lower-degree agents retain few incoming relationships, whereas higher-degree agents preserve many of their incoming links. This pattern becomes steeper as prestige bias increases, showing that prestige-biased trust makes relationships directed toward well-connected agents more likely to survive the net-trust filter.
The \rgG regime shows a different retention pattern because uncertainty, rather than net trust, is the main constraint. For $\rho=-1$, the mean post-filtering in-degree is nearly degree-independent, indicating that filtering does not strongly distinguish between low- and high-degree agents. For $\rho=-0.01$, the mean rises at low-to-intermediate degrees but declines for high-degree agents, showing that many hub-directed relationships are removed
(Fig.~\ref{fig:Trends-FG-Erdos}(b)~\pl{Bottom}). This difference is driven by how coupling shapes uncertainty. Under strong inverse coupling ($\rho=-1$), high trust is paired with low distrust, so even hub-directed relationships remain relatively unconflicted and the uncertainty filter removes relationships without a strong degree bias. Under weak coupling ($\rho=-0.01$), distrust does not fall as reliably when trust is high; therefore, prestige-biased relationships directed toward hubs can become highly uncertain and are selectively removed by the \rgG filter. The effect is most pronounced with stronger prestige bias
(Fig.~\ref{fig:Trends-FG-Erdos}(b)~\pl{Bottom-right}), where high-degree agents retain few incoming links after filtering. Thus, the two regimes reshape the effective influence network in contrasting ways: the \rgF regime preserves hub connectivity, whereas the \rgG regime equalizes influence across degrees or shifts influence away from hubs.
\paragraph{Spectral evidence shows how retained ties become long-run influence.}
The retention patterns in Fig.~\ref{fig:Trends-FG-Erdos}(b) show which ties survive filtering; the spectral analysis in Fig.~\ref{fig:zero_left_eigenvec_FG_all_nets} shows how those surviving ties translate into long-run influence weights. We show in the \methods that each agent's contribution to the long-run belief state is determined by the entries of $\bar{\gamma}$, the left null vector associated with the directed Laplacian of the filtered influence graph.
Intuitively, $\bar{\gamma}_i$ measures how much agent $i$'s initial belief contributes to the eventual consensus, or, when the filtered graph fragments, to the limiting belief within the influence-surviving connected component. Larger values indicate greater long-run influence. Fig.~\ref{fig:zero_left_eigenvec_FG_all_nets} plots agents' long-run influence against their raw pre-filtering in-degree for \nameER networks
(main panels), with \nameBA and Modular networks shown in the insets on a separate horizontal scale reflecting their more skewed degree distributions. The panels compare lower and higher prestige bias under tighter and weaker trust--distrust coupling.
In the \rgptF regime (top row), asymptotic influence increases with pre-filtering in-degree: higher-degree agents have a larger effect on the eventual belief state than lower-degree agents. This increasing pattern becomes stronger when prestige bias is higher and trust--distrust coupling is weaker, because the filtering process retains more relationships directed toward well-connected agents. The insets show the same qualitative increase for \nameBA and modular networks, although the shape of the increase differs because these networks have more heterogeneous degree distributions. Thus, in the \rgF regime, higher-degree agents remain the main determinants of the long-run collective belief state.
In the \rgptG regime (bottom row), the pattern changes because the uncertainty filter removes many conflicted relationships directed toward hubs. Under tighter trust--distrust coupling, long-run influence varies little by degree, indicating that high-degree agents no longer dominate the equilibrium. Under weaker coupling, high-degree agents contribute less to the eventual belief state than low- or intermediate-degree agents; with stronger prestige bias, their contribution can become close to zero. The insets show the same qualitative shift for \nameBA and Modular networks. These spectral results explain the belief reversal reported above: in the \rgF regime, positively seeded hubs strongly shape the final belief state, whereas in the \rgG regime their influence is reduced and the equilibrium is shaped more by lower-degree agents. The reversal arises because trust- and uncertainty-based filtering changes which agents remain influential in the effective influence graph, not because of a peculiarity of a single network topology.
%
\subsection{A robust hub-periphery reversal emerges across networks}\label{empirical results}
\input{figures/point-FG-Bitcoin-OTC}
\input{figures/trend-plots-legislative}
We next examine whether the hub--periphery reversal found in synthetic networks also appears in two empirical systems: the
Bitcoin-OTC reputation graph and a directed follow network of U.S. state legislators on X.
\paragraph{Evidence from the Bitcoin--OTC reputation network.}
The Bitcoin-OTC graph consists of \(\textbf{5{,}881}\) users and \(\textbf{35{,}592}\) directed rating ties in two communities (Fig.~\ref{fig:bitcoin-otc-with-network}(a)).
Trust and distrust assessments are constructed from empirical user-to-user rating scores. Because the empirical communities are unequal in size, positive promoter seeds are placed in the larger community rather than split symmetrically across both communities, as in the synthetic two-community networks. Within the seeded community, promoters are selected as in the synthetic analyses: the most positive initial beliefs are assigned to a fraction $x$ of the highest-degree users (see Appendix~S1.5.1 for data construction and initialization details).
%Appendix~\ref{app:Empirical Networks-bitcoin
Fig.~\ref{fig:bitcoin-otc-with-network}(b) shows how the long-run belief ($b^*$) varies with prestige bias $p_s$, trust--distrust coupling $\rho$, and promoter prevalence $x$. Under \rrptF (\pl{top} row), $b^*$ increases monotonically with $p_s$: stronger prestige bias shifts the long-run belief toward the positively seeded promoters. This shift is stronger when $x$ is larger, with larger promoter prevalence producing a steeper increase in $b^*$ as $p_s$ rises. For a fixed $x$, weaker trust--distrust coupling ($\rho\rightarrow 0$) produces a more positive long-run belief than tighter inverse coupling ($\rho$ closer to $-1$), because the retained high-trust relationships are more selectively directed toward hubs under prestige bias.
Under \rrptG, the trend reverses (\pl{bottom} row). With $\rho$ fixed, $b^*$ decreases as $p_s$ increases. When $x$ is fixed, the response to prestige bias depends on trust--distrust coupling: for the nearly perfectly inversely coupled case $(\rho\rightarrow-1)$, the final belief remains positive and largely insensitive to $p_s$; for weaker coupling, $b^*$ becomes negative and decreases further as $p_s$ rises. Thus, the Bitcoin-OTC network reproduces the hub--periphery reversal observed in synthetic networks: prestige bias increases the long-run influence of positively seeded hubs under \rrptF, but reduces their contribution under \rrptG.
\paragraph{Dynamics on the U.S.\ state legislators' follow network.}
The legislator graph is a directed follow network on X among U.S.\ state legislators, with \textbf{3{,}152} legislators and \textbf{107{,}785} directed follow ties (Fig.~\ref{fig:trend-legislative-with-network}(a)). Party affiliation defines two communities: blue vertices denote Democratic legislators, and red vertices denote Republican legislators. Within the two partisan communities, there are noticeable smaller clusters associated with state-level geographic proximity. Each legislator's initial belief was assigned from the Shor--McCarty ideology score (see \methods), with positive values indicating more liberal ideology. Positive promoter seeds are assigned to a fraction $x$ of high-degree legislators in the Democratic community.
Unlike the synthetic and Bitcoin-OTC networks, the regional clustering structure of this network often prevents global consensus from emerging, particularly under the \rgG regime. To facilitate comparison between regimes, Figs.~\ref{fig:trend-legislative-with-network}(b) and (c) show the final network-average belief $\langle b^* \rangle$
versus prestige bias $p_s$. In the \rgF regime (Fig.~\ref{fig:trend-legislative-with-network}(b)), $\langle b^* \rangle$ rises monotonically with $p_s$ for all $x$ examined; larger $x$ produces a steeper increase as $p_s$ rises. In the \rgG regime (Fig.~\ref{fig:trend-legislative-with-network}(c)), the trend is reversed: $\langle b^* \rangle$ falls as $p_s$ increases.
To understand which actors drive these outcomes, we examine the long-run influence vector $\bar{\gamma}$, the left null vector associated with the directed Laplacian of the filtered influence graph. Each entry $\bar{\gamma}_i$ measures how much legislator $i$'s initial belief contributes to the final belief state. Fig.~\ref{fig:trend-legislative-with-network}(d) plots binned summaries of $\bar{\gamma}$ in the \rgF regime versus legislators' pre-filtering in-degree, shown separately for the two communities. Dashed lines represent $P(\bar{\gamma}_i>0)$, the fraction of legislators with positive long-run influence. Solid lines represent $\mathrm{Median}(\bar{\gamma}_i \mid \bar{\gamma}_i>0)$, the median influence among legislators with positive long-run influence. These summaries show that, under the \rgF regime, long-run influence is concentrated among higher-degree legislators.
Under the \rgG regime, however, the effective influence graph fragments into approximately 40 isolated strongly connected components (SCCs), many of them singletons. Because no outside influence can reach these components, their members' initial beliefs alone determine the long-run outcome. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:trend-legislative-with-network}(e), these SCCs are predominantly occupied by low-degree Republican legislators, even though filtering generally reduces in-degree across the network. As a result, long-run influence under the \rgG regime comes primarily from these peripheral Republican legislators rather than from hubs. Because their initial beliefs are negative, they keep the network-average final belief $\langle b^\ast \rangle$ negative under this regime.
The two empirical networks show that the hub--periphery reversal is not limited to synthetic topologies: prestige bias makes positively seeded hubs more consequential under \rgF filtering, whereas under \rgG filtering those hubs lose long-run influence and lower-degree agents can play a larger role in shaping the final belief state.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.39\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/bitcoin_v2_f18_f16.pdf}
%\caption{}
\label{fig:bitcoin-otc-network}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.59\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/Trends-FG-Bitcoin.pdf}
%\caption{}
\label{fig:point-FG-Bitcoin}
\end{subfigure}
% \caption{%
% {\bf (a)} Bitcoin‑OTC reputation network; node color indicates community membership (larger red, smaller blue). {\bf (b)} The long‑run belief $\langle b^\ast\rangle$ versus prestige bias $p_s$ for the \rrptF
% in the \pl{top} row and the \rrptG in the \pl{bottom} row. \pl{Left} panels fix trust–distrust coupling $\rho=-0.4$; curves correspond to different radical‑promoter fractions $x$. \pl{Right} panels fix $x=0.2$; line styles represent different coupling strenths $\rho$. Error bars represent one standard deviation from 100 independent runs of random belief initialization. }
\caption{%
{\bf (a)} Bitcoin-OTC reputation network; node color indicates community membership (larger red, smaller blue).
{\bf (b)} Network-averaged long-run belief $\langle b^\ast\rangle$ versus prestige bias $p_s$ for the \rrptF
in the \pl{top} row and the \rrptG in the \pl{bottom} row.
\pl{Left} panels fix trust--distrust coupling $\rho=-0.4$; lines correspond to different positive promoter fractions $x$.
\pl{Right} panels fix $x=0.2$; line styles represent different coupling strengths $\rho$.
Error bars represent one standard deviation across 100 independent runs with randomized initial beliefs}.
\label{fig:bitcoin-otc-with-network}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.39\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/legislator_v2_f20.pdf}
%\caption{Visualization of the U.S. legislators network on X.}
\label{fig:legislator-network}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[c]{0.59\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/ensemble_mean_final_vs_ps_FG_vs_legislative_unified.pdf}
%\caption{Network outcomes across regimes and promoter prevalence levels.}
\label{fig:trend-legislative-ensemble-unified-right}
\end{subfigure}
% \caption{%
% {\bf (a)} Directed follow network of U.S. state legislators on X: node color encodes party affiliation (blue for Democrats, red for Republicans). {\bf (b-c)} Network-averaged long‑run belief $\langle b^\ast\rangle$ versus prestige bias $p_s$ under the \rrptF and \rrptG. Curves are color coded by radical‑promoter fraction $x \in \{0.05, 0.10, 0.20, 0.30, 0.40\}$.
% {\b (d)} Asymptotic influence vector $\bar{\gamma}$ plotted against pre-filtering in‑degrees for both communities under the \rgF regime. Dashed and solid lines represent, respectively, the fraction of nodes with positive asymptotic influence, $P(\bar{\gamma}_i>0)$, and the median asymptotic influence conditional on being positive, $\mathrm{Median}(\bar{\gamma}_i \mid \bar{\gamma}_i>0)$.
% (e) Post-filtering versus pre‑filtering in-degrees for nodes in sink SCCs under the \rgG regime; the distribution is skewed toward red nodes. }
\caption{%
{\bf (a)} Directed follow network of U.S. state legislators on X: node color encodes legislators' party affiliation (blue for Democrats, red for Republicans).
{\bf (b-c)} Network-averaged long-run belief $\langle b^\ast\rangle$ versus prestige bias $p_s$ under the \rgptF and \rgptG regimes. Lines are color coded by positive promoter fraction $x \in \{0.05, 0.10, 0.20, 0.30, 0.40\}$.
{\bf (d)} Binned summaries of the long-run influence vector $\bar{\gamma}$ plotted against pre-filtering in-degree for both communities under the \rgF regime.
Dashed and solid lines represent, respectively, the fraction of legislators with positive long-run influence, $P(\bar{\gamma}_i>0)$, and the median long-run influence conditional on being positive, $\mathrm{Median}(\bar{\gamma}_i \mid \bar{\gamma}_i>0)$. Both quantities are computed within pre-filtering in-degree bins and smoothed across bins.
{\bf (e)} Pre- and post-filtering in-degree for legislators in isolated strongly connected components under the \rgG regime; the distribution is skewed toward low-degree Republican legislators. Panels {\bf (d)} and {\bf (e)} use $p_s = 1$.}
\label{fig:trend-legislative-with-network}
\end{figure*}
\section{Discussion}
This work shows that collective belief dynamics depend on how communities evaluate ambivalent sources of influence. By representing trust and distrust as separable dimensions of the same directed relationship, Gated Network Credence identifies regimes in which the same network can support different long-run belief outcomes. Across synthetic networks and two empirical systems, prestige-biased trust amplifies high-degree agents under \rgF filtering, whereas uncertainty-sensitive \rgG filtering suppresses many hub-directed influence channels and shifts long-run influence toward lower-degree agents. The resulting hub--periphery reversal shows that influence is produced jointly by network position and by the relational criteria through which agents decide whose beliefs are admissible. Because the experimental parameters are anchored in empirically common features of information environments--ambivalent source evaluation, prestige-biased attention, varying prevalence of extreme beliefs among highly connected actors, and community polarization--the simulations clarify how these features can combine to transform prominence from a source of amplification into a pathway for influence loss under uncertainty-dominated filtering.
This result clarifies why one-dimensional trust models capture only part of the dynamics. Classical consensus, bounded-confidence, and persuasion models explain how beliefs evolve through averaging, selective interaction, or local influence, yet they typically represent interpersonal influence through a single scalar channel \cite{degroot1974,bernardo2024}. When trust and distrust are collapsed into one scale, relational conflict is removed from the model, and high-degree actors tend to retain the influence predicted by standard diffusion and opinion-dynamics frameworks. Allowing trust and distrust to coexist changes this picture. A highly visible source may be regarded as knowledgeable, familiar, or socially important while also being viewed as biased, strategic, or institutionally suspect. In communities that reject conflicted relationships, these mixed evaluations reshape the effective influence graph by removing otherwise central channels of influence. The reversal therefore arises from a social-evaluative mechanism that transforms the network through which beliefs actually move.
\paragraph{Regime-dependent influence and the limits of centrality.}
High-degree and centrally embedded actors are often treated as privileged sites of diffusion and social influence \cite{kitsak2010,centola2010}. Our results qualify this interpretation by showing that centrality predicts influence only after the community's filtering rule is specified. In the \rgF regime, where sufficiently trusted sources remain admissible even when relationships are conflicted, hubs retain their conventional role as amplifiers. In the \rgG regime, where agents require low relational uncertainty, prominence can generate mixed evaluations that remove hub-directed ties from the effective influence graph. This mechanism is especially relevant for contemporary epistemic environments, where public institutions, media organizations, political elites, and platform influencers often combine high visibility with contested credibility \cite{cologna2025,lazer2018}. A source may be widely recognized and still fail to shape belief if audiences experience it as too conflicted, strategically motivated, or institutionally distrusted. The paper therefore extends recent work on polarization, digital media, and misinformation by showing how the social interpretation of a tie can reorganize the structural channels through which beliefs move \cite{finkel2020,lorenzspreen2023}.
\paragraph{From targeting actors to diagnosing filtering regimes.}
The framework suggests that interventions should begin by diagnosing how a community filters influence, rather than assuming that prominent actors are always the most consequential targets. The relevant quantities are relational evaluations and behavioral thresholds: separate assessments of trust and distrust toward the same source, together with the level of coexisting trust--distrust conflict at which agents stop admitting that source's influence. These quantities can be estimated through survey instruments, platform experiments, exposure-response studies, or behavioral proxies for selective attention and source avoidance. In \rgF settings, interventions aimed at prominent sources, endorsement chains, or prestige cues may be effective because hubs remain structurally influential. In \rgG settings, strategies centered on suppressing, correcting, or counter-messaging hubs may have limited impact because the community's uncertainty filter has already weakened those channels. In such cases, interventions may need to address the sources of ambivalence itself---for example through institutional transparency, accountability, credibility repair, cross-community dialogue, or clearer separation between expertise, interest, and motive. This connects the model to research showing that misinformation response depends on credibility, attention, and the social setting in which information is received \cite{ecker2022,pennycook2021}.
\paragraph{Ambivalence as an empirical object.}
The findings also identify a measurement challenge for empirical network science. Signed-network datasets encode ties as positive or negative, an approach that has been productive for studying balance, trust prediction, and signed consensus \cite{leskovec2010,zha2023}. However, such representations compress relationships that may be behaviorally distinct: weak trust with weak distrust, strong trust with strong distrust, and moderate evaluations along both dimensions can all appear similar once reduced to a single sign or scalar. Our results indicate that these distinctions can determine whether influence remains concentrated around hubs or shifts toward peripheral actors. Future datasets should therefore capture conflicting relational constructs directly---for example, separable measures of trust and distrust, confidence and suspicion, expertise and motive, or institutional reliability and skepticism---rather than compressing ambivalence into a single edge sign. The Bitcoin-OTC and legislator analyses illustrate two possible routes toward this goal: preserving graded evaluations when actors explicitly rate one another, and constructing separate relational measures when trust and distrust must be inferred from behavioral or contextual data. These examples are not exhaustive, but they show how empirical designs can retain ambivalence rather than reducing it to a single signed edge \cite{lewicki1998,moody2014}.
\paragraph{From individual ties to group-mediated credibility.}
The hub--periphery reversal also raises a broader question about how credibility operates when influence is shaped by groups, institutions, collective identities, and other information channels rather than only by individual sources. In many contemporary settings, people evaluate information through multiple cues, including institutional affiliation, community membership, platform visibility, prior reputation, and perceived independence. These cues can strengthen trust by signaling expertise, reliability, or shared identity, but they can also increase distrust when they evoke concerns about bias, incentives, strategic communication, or group interests. As a result, the same forms of embeddedness that make a source visible or credible in one regime may make it vulnerable to uncertainty-based rejection in another. This suggests a broader extension of the present findings: ambivalence may redirect influence not only from hubs to peripheral individuals, but also from highly embedded actors to sources perceived as less conflicted, more independent, or more locally credible. Higher-order and group-based network models provide one way to study this possibility because they represent influence as mediated by shared memberships and collective contexts rather than only by dyadic ties \cite{battiston2020,iacopini2019}. The key question is whether uncertainty-sensitive filtering changes which forms of social embeddedness support credibility, and which forms undermine it.
Two additional directions should be considered. First, real populations are unlikely to share a single filtering style. Some agents may accept high-trust sources despite conflict, whereas others may reject sources whenever trust and distrust coexist. Future work should examine whether mixed populations interpolate between the regimes identified here or generate qualitatively new dynamics. Second, belief and credibility are often multidimensional. People may trust a source on one topic while distrusting it on another, or accept an institution's competence while questioning its motives. Extending the framework to multidimensional beliefs and topic-specific trust would clarify whether regime-dependent influence reversal persists across domains of expertise, ideology, and public controversy.
This paper shows that the path from social structure to collective belief runs through relational evaluation. Network position matters, but its effect depends on whether a community admits, tolerates, or rejects ambivalent sources. When trust and distrust are allowed to coexist, structurally central actors may lose influence, and peripheral actors may become decisive. Ambivalence is therefore a mechanism through which communities determine who is permitted to shape belief.
\section{Methods and Materials}
\subsection{Gated Network Credence Belief Dynamics}\label{sec:belief-model}
We consider a society of $N$ agents connected by a fixed directed social network with adjacency matrix $A \in \{0,1\}^{N \times N}$, where $A_{ij}=1$ if agent $i$ regards agent $j$ as a potential source of influence and $A_{ij}=0$ otherwise. Throughout, the row index denotes the receiver of influence and the column index denotes the source. Each agent $i$ holds a continuous belief $b_i(t) \in \mathbb{R}$.
For each directed relationship, the trust--distrust pair $(\tau_{ij},\delta_{ij})$ is mapped to net trust and uncertainty as
\[
T_{ij}=\tau_{ij}-\delta_{ij}, \qquad U_{ij}=\tau_{ij}+\delta_{ij}-1.
\]
Net trust captures whether the receiver is inclined to rely on the source, while uncertainty captures the degree of internal conflict between trust and distrust in the same relationship. Under the dual-threshold rule of Eq.~\eqref{eq:decision}, influence from $j$ to $i$ is admitted only when both conditions are simultaneously satisfied. Retaining only these admissible ties defines the masked adjacency matrix $A^{\mathrm{IN}}$:
\[
A^{\mathrm{IN}}_{ij} =
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{if } A_{ij}=1 \ \text{and} \ T_{ij}\ge T_T \ \text{and} \
U_{ij}\le U_T,\\
0, & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\]
Beliefs then evolve as
\begin{align}\label{eq:dynamics}
\frac{db_i(t)}{dt} &= \sum_j A^{\mathrm{IN}}_{ij}\bigl(b_j(t)-b_i(t)\bigr) \notag\\
&= \sum_j A^{\mathrm{IN}}_{ij}\,b_j(t)
- b_i(t)\sum_j A^{\mathrm{IN}}_{ij}.
\end{align}
This equation states that agent $i$ is pulled toward the beliefs of the sources that survive its trust--uncertainty gate. We use an unnormalized continuous-time Laplacian formulation: the diagonal term below is the self-decay term that balances the total influence entering from admitted sources\footnote{A row-normalized alternative would impose a fixed attention budget on each receiver and redistribute weight among surviving sources after filtering; this corresponds to a different behavioral assumption than the additive influence process modeled here.}. Under this formulation, each surviving tie contributes additively to the receiver's update, so filtering changes both the composition of influence and the total amount of social pull.
Letting
\[
D^{\mathrm{row}}=\operatorname{diag}\!\bigl(k^{\mathrm{row}}_1,\ldots,k^{\mathrm{row}}_N\bigr),
\qquad
k_i^{\mathrm{row}}=\sum_j A^{\mathrm{IN}}_{ij},
\]
denote the diagonal matrix of admitted-source counts for each receiver, Eq.~\eqref{eq:dynamics} takes the compact form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:laplacian_dynamics}
\dot{b}(t)=-L\,b(t), \qquad L=D^{\mathrm{row}}-A^{\mathrm{IN}}.
\end{equation}
Unlike the Laplacian of an undirected graph, here $L$ is generally non-Hermitian, so its eigenvectors do not form a complete basis of orthonormal eigenvectors, and $L$ may not be diagonalizable. Nevertheless, the left and right null spaces of $L$ determine the long-run belief dynamics, identifying which parts of the admissible-influence network remain effective in shaping the final collective belief~\cite{veerman2019}.
The next subsection describes this spectral structure and shows how the trust--uncertainty-filtered graph determines the consensus, fragmentation, and hub--periphery patterns reported in the Results.
\subsection{Spectral characterization of long-run beliefs}\label{sec:null-space}
The Results section uses long-run influence weights to explain why hubs dominate in the Selective regime but lose influence in the Concordant regime. These weights are obtained from the null space of the filtered Laplacian. Once the trust--uncertainty gate fixes $A^{\mathrm{IN}}$, the directed Laplacian $L$ determines which initial beliefs persist, which agents inherit those beliefs, and whether the network reaches consensus or fragments into multiple limiting belief components. The left null space identifies the agents whose initial beliefs influence the limiting belief values, while the right null space determines how those limiting belief values are distributed across the network.
The graph induced by $A^{\mathrm{IN}}$ contains $K$ reaches: maximal subsets of nodes $R_1,\ldots,R_K$ such that each $R_m$ is the set of all nodes reachable from some root, and no strictly larger such set exists. Reachability is defined in the influence direction: source $j$ points to receiver $i$ whenever $A^{\mathrm{IN}}_{ij}=1$. Within each reach $R_m$ there is a unique cabal $B_m$: a source strongly connected component in the influence direction that receives no influence from outside itself and from which every node in $R_m$ is reachable. The long-run belief vector is then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:longrun}
\lim_{t\to\infty} b(t)=\sum_{m=1}^{K}\bigl(\bar{\gamma}_m^\top b(0)\bigr)\gamma_m,
\end{equation}
where $\bar{\gamma}_m$ is the left null vector of $L$ associated with $R_m$, normalized so that its entries are nonnegative, sum to one, and are strictly positive only on the cabal $B_m$~\cite{veerman2019}. Consequently, only the initial beliefs of cabal nodes contribute directly to the composition of the long-run belief components. The entries of $\bar{\gamma}_m$ provide an asymptotic influence measure: larger entries indicate that an agent's initial belief receives greater weight in the limiting belief state. This is the quantity used in the Results to diagnose whether influence is concentrated on hubs or redistributed toward lower-degree agents after filtering.
Global consensus arises if and only if the filtered graph has exactly one reach ($K=1$); in this case the asymptotic influence vector $\bar{\gamma}$ reduces to the unique cabal-supported left null vector $\bar{\gamma}_1$. When $K>1$, different reaches contribute separate limiting belief components, corresponding to the fragmentation outcomes shown in the threshold phase diagrams. Thus, the same spectral representation links the consensus--fragmentation transition to the hub--periphery reversal: the thresholds determine the filtered graph, the filtered graph determines the cabals and null vectors, and the null vectors determine which agents shape the long-run belief state.
\paragraph{\textbf{Modeling note: unnormalized updating.}}
We use the unnormalized Laplacian $L=D^{\mathrm{row}}-A^{\mathrm{IN}}$ because the number of admitted sources is part of the mechanism under study. Each surviving tie contributes additively to the receiver's update, so trust--uncertainty filtering changes both who can influence a receiver and how much total social pull reaches that receiver. A row-normalized alternative, $I-(D^{\mathrm{row}})^{-1}A^{\mathrm{IN}}$, would instead impose a fixed attention budget and redistribute weight over the surviving sources. That alternative is useful as a robustness check, but it corresponds to a different behavioral assumption. The topology of the filtered graph determines whether consensus or fragmentation is possible, while the normalization affects convergence rates and the relative magnitudes of the asymptotic influence weights.
\subsection{Experimental Design and Parameterization}\label{sec:simulation-setup}
The simulations operationalize the mechanisms introduced in the Introduction and evaluated in the Results:
ambivalent trust--distrust ties, dual trust--uncertainty filtering, prestige-biased trust
allocation, positive extreme seeding on prominent agents, and community-level polarization.
We run a parameterized experiment on three synthetic network topologies: \nameER (ER) random networks, \nameBA (BA) scale-free networks, and modular networks with explicit community structure. We then repeat the analysis on two empirical networks. The synthetic networks isolate how the mechanism behaves under random mixing, degree heterogeneity, and community structure, while the empirical networks test whether the same regime-dependent reversal appears in observed social systems.
The four experimental parameters are designed as stylized counterparts of empirical features that often co-occur in social information environments. At the edge level, the trust--distrust coupling $\rho$ captures whether trust and distrust operate as opposite ends of a single scale or as separable evaluations that can coexist within the same relationship, consistent with prior work on relational ambivalence~\cite{lewicki1998,moody2014}. The prestige bias $p_s$ controls how strongly trust is aligned with source prominence, reflecting the role of visibility, status, and network position in social influence and diffusion~\cite{kitsak2010,centola2010}. At the node level, the promoter prevalence $x$ controls how widely extreme positive initial beliefs are assigned among more highly connected actors, allowing us to test whether seeded prominence is amplified or suppressed under different filtering regimes.
In modular networks, the polarization parameter $\psi$ controls the initial separation between communities, reflecting the role of homophily, partisan sorting, and community structure in polarized information environments. These four experiment parameters are used to assess how empirically motivated forms of ambivalence, prominence, concentrated seeding, and community separation interact to determine whether hubs are amplified or sidelined.
\subsubsection{Trust--Distrust Coupling}\label{app:trust-distrust-coupling-definition}
To capture the empirically motivated negative association between trust and distrust, we model $\delta_{ij}$ as a noisy linear function of $\tau_{ij}$:
\begin{equation}
\delta_{ij}=\rho\left(\tau_{ij}-\frac{1}{2}\right)+\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon,
\label{eq:trust_distrust}
\end{equation}
where $\rho\in[-1,0]$ controls the strength of the coupling, and $\epsilon\sim\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_\epsilon^2)$ is a zero-mean Gaussian noise term with variance $\sigma_\epsilon^2$. More negative values of $\rho$ correspond to stronger inverse coupling, so that larger values of $\tau_{ij}$ are more strongly associated with smaller values of $\delta_{ij}$. For each directed edge $(i,j)$, the trust value is first sampled as $\tau_{ij}\sim\mathcal{U}(0,1)$. Next, $\epsilon$ is sampled and $\delta_{ij}$ is computed from Eq.~\eqref{eq:trust_distrust}. Because $\delta_{ij}$ is required to remain in $[0,1]$, any draw of $\epsilon$ that yields $\delta_{ij}\notin[0,1]$ is rejected and resampled until a valid value is obtained. Thus, $\rho$ interpolates between a nearly one-dimensional trust--distrust relation and a weakly coupled relation in which ambivalence can occur more frequently.
\subsubsection{Prestige-Biased Trust Assignment}\label{prestige-bias-rule}
Source prominence is measured by the pre-filtering degree of the potential source node. In the directed network convention used here, this is the degree of node $j$ as a source of influence before the trust--uncertainty mask is applied. Node degree $k_j$ is used as a proxy for perceived prestige, so that neighbors with larger degree are treated as more prestigious. For each agent $i$, let $\mathcal{N}(i)$ denote the set of potential sources of $i$. The values $\{(\tau_{ij},\delta_{ij})\}_{j\in\mathcal{N}(i)}$ are first generated according to Eq.~\eqref{eq:trust_distrust}.
To make the assignment reproducible while preserving the marginal trust and distrust distributions, trust--distrust pairs are then permuted across the potential sources of each receiver. Specifically, sources are ranked by a prestige-biased score
\[
s_{ij}=p_s\,\widetilde{k}_j+(1-p_s)\eta_{ij},
\]
where $\widetilde{k}_j$ is the normalized pre-filtering degree of source $j$ among $i$'s potential sources and $\eta_{ij}$ is an independent random score. The sampled trust--distrust pairs are sorted by $\tau_{ij}$ and assigned in descending order to sources sorted by $s_{ij}$. Because this procedure only permutes the existing $\tau$ and $\delta$ values across $\mathcal{N}(i)$, their marginal distributions are preserved. When $p_s=0$, assignment is random with respect to source degree; when $p_s=1$, trust is maximally aligned with source prestige. Intermediate values of $p_s$ generate partial rank alignment between trust and source prominence.
\subsubsection{Promoter Prevalence: Degree-Biased Positive Seeding}\label{app:radicalization}
To control promoter prevalence, we introduce a parameter $x\in[0,1]$, representing the fraction of highest-degree nodes that are assigned the most positive initial beliefs. Initial beliefs are first sampled independently as $b_i(0)\sim\mathcal{U}(-B_{\max},B_{\max})$.
Let $\mathcal{H}_x$ be the set of nodes in the top fraction $x$ of the degree ranking, and let $\mathcal{P}_x$ be the set of nodes in the top fraction $x$ ranked by initial belief value $b_i(0)$. Thus, $\mathcal{P}_x$ contains the most positive initial beliefs, rather than the largest absolute-magnitude beliefs. We sort $\mathcal{H}_x$ in descending order by degree and $\mathcal{P}_x$ in descending order by belief value. Beliefs are reassigned pairwise so that the highest-degree node in $\mathcal{H}_x$ receives the most positive belief in $\mathcal{P}_x$, the second-highest-degree node receives the second-most positive belief, and so on. Equivalently, if a high-degree node does not already hold the corresponding positive extreme belief, its belief is swapped with that of the matched node in $\mathcal{P}_x$. This preserves the overall belief distribution while concentrating the most positive initial beliefs among high-degree nodes, with positivity increasing with degree.
\subsubsection{Inter-Community Polarization}\label{polarization}
To model inter-community polarization in a modular network, we consider two communities, $C_1$ and $C_2$, with $C_1$ initialized as the positively oriented community and $C_2$ as the negatively oriented community. Initial beliefs are sampled independently as $b_i(0)\sim\mathcal{U}(-B_{\max},B_{\max})$, irrespective of community membership. Polarization is then introduced through an iterative swapping procedure controlled by $\psi\in[0,1]$. At each update, a pair $(i,j)$ is selected uniformly at random from $C_1\times C_2$. If $b_i<b_j$, meaning that the node in $C_1$ holds a lower belief than the node in $C_2$, the two beliefs are swapped with probability $\psi$; otherwise, they are left unchanged. This procedure is repeated over randomly selected inter-community pairs, progressively shifting larger belief values toward $C_1$ and smaller belief values toward $C_2$, while preserving the overall belief distribution. When $\psi=0$, no inter-community polarization is introduced. When $\psi=1$, repeated application of the rule drives the system toward the maximally polarized configuration achievable under this swapping mechanism, with beliefs in $C_1$ becoming as positive as possible and beliefs in $C_2$ as negative as possible.
\subsubsection{Experimental Factors and Parameter Ranges}
The parameter ranges are chosen to span substantively distinct cases of these mechanisms: nearly one-dimensional versus weakly coupled trust--distrust evaluations, low versus high prestige bias, sparse versus widespread assignment of positive promoters among more highly connected agents, and low versus high inter-community belief separation. Holding the noise level fixed at $\sigma_\epsilon=0.05$, we vary
\[
\rho\in\{-1,\,-0.7,\,-0.4,\,-0.01\},\qquad
p_s\in\{0.05,\,0.10,\,0.40,\,0.60,\,0.80,\,1\}.
\]
Agent beliefs are initialized independently as
\[
b_i(0)\sim\mathcal{U}(-B_{\max},B_{\max}), \qquad B_{\max}=5.
\]
To vary the prevalence of positive promoters among high-degree nodes, we use
\[
x\in\{0.05,\,0.10,\,0.15,\,0.20,\,0.25,\,0.30,\,0.35,\,0.40\}.
\]
In modular networks, positive promoters are seeded within one community so that the simulations test whether regime-dependent influence remains localized, crosses communities, or is counteracted by the opposite community. We examine inter-community polarization in Appendix~S1.3.1 using $\psi\in\{0,\,0.4,\,1\}$, corresponding to unpolarized, intermediate, and strongly polarized initial belief configurations. Prestige bias is applied within modules in the modular simulations, reflecting the assumption that prestige is evaluated primarily within community boundaries rather than across weak inter-community ties.
\subsubsection{Network Topologies and Empirical Data}\label{Networks}
\paragraph{Synthetic networks.}
The synthetic networks are selected to isolate three structural conditions relevant to the hub--periphery reversal: random mixing, heterogeneous degree, and community structure. The three synthetic topologies have $N=5000$ nodes each. The \nameER (ER) network connects every directed pair independently with probability $p=0.01$, providing a random-mixing baseline with relatively homogeneous degree. The \nameBA (BA) network is grown by preferential attachment with $m=25$ links per arriving node, producing a heavy-tailed degree distribution in which hub effects are expected to be strongest. The modular network consists of two equal-size communities ($N_1=N_2=2500$), each generated independently as a BA network with $m_1=m_2=21$, with inter-community edges added stochastically to attain modularity $Q=0.33$. This topology tests whether the regime-dependent reversal persists when influence is constrained by community boundaries.
\paragraph{Empirical networks.}
The empirical analyses test the same mechanism in two observed settings with different sources of relational evaluation. The Bitcoin-OTC reputation graph ($N=5{,}881$ users, $35{,}592$ directed ratings) provides a directed online marketplace network in which users assign graded reputational scores to one another. These ratings preserve more information than binary positive/negative ties and allow trust values to be anchored in observed evaluations. For each directed rating $i\to j$, the empirical score $\mathrm{Sign}_{ij}\in[-10,10]$ is rescaled to
\[
m_{ij}=\frac{\mathrm{Sign}_{ij}+10}{20}\in[0,1].
\]
We use $m_{ij}$ to construct the empirical trust value for that directed relationship. Because independent distrust is not directly observed in this dataset, distrust is generated using the same controlled trust--distrust coupling in Eq.~\eqref{eq:trust_distrust}; this allows us to examine how varying ambivalence changes influence on a real reputation network while keeping trust anchored in observed ratings.
The second empirical system is a directed follow network of U.S. state legislators on X ($N=3{,}152$ accounts, $107{,}785$ follows). This network provides a polarized institutional communication setting in which structural affinity, partisan organization, and ideological separation can be measured separately. It is therefore useful for testing whether the hub--periphery reversal persists when trust and distrust are inferred from distinct observed signals rather than generated through a synthetic coupling process.
For the legislator network, trust and distrust weights are inferred directly from observed relational and ideological signals. Trust is operationalized as structural proximity in the intra-legislator follower network, measured by the cosine similarity of each legislator pair's node2vec embedding vectors~\cite{grover2016node2vec}. This captures the extent to which two legislators occupy similar positions in the elite communication network. Distrust is operationalized as ideological divergence in audience composition: each legislator's audience ideology is summarized as the median leaning score of their followers, where each follower's leaning is inferred from their co-following pattern across Democratic and Republican legislators~\cite{barbera2015birds}; distrust between two legislators is then the normalized absolute difference between their median audience scores. This captures a source of relational conflict that can coexist with structural proximity; two legislators may occupy nearby positions in the communication network while appealing to ideologically different audiences. Following theoretical arguments that trust and distrust are separable dimensions rather than opposite poles~\cite{lewicki1998}, we treat them as distinct edge weights. The two measures exhibit the expected negative association and are validated against Shor--McCarty ideological distance, retweet amplification behavior, and sentiment patterns in reply and mention networks. Because trust and distrust are derived from observed relational and ideological data in this network, the legislator analysis does not require the synthetic trust--distrust coupling parameter $\rho$.
Full construction details and validation statistics are provided in Appendix~S1.5.
\begin{thebibliography}{43}
\providecommand{\natexlab}[1]{#1}
\providecommand{\url}[1]{\texttt{#1}}
\expandafter\ifx\csname urlstyle\endcsname\relax
\providecommand{\doi}[1]{doi: #1}\else
\providecommand{\doi}{doi: \begingroup \urlstyle{rm}\Url}\fi
\bibitem[Noorazar(2020)]{noorazar2020}
H.~Noorazar.
\newblock Recent advances in opinion propagation dynamics: A 2020 survey.
\newblock \emph{The European Physical Journal Plus}, 135:\penalty0 1--20, 2020.
\bibitem[Galesic et~al.(2021)Galesic, Olsson, Dalege, Van Der~Does, and
Stein]{galesic2021}
M.~Galesic, H.~Olsson, J.~Dalege, T.~Van Der~Does, and D.~L. Stein.
\newblock Integrating social and cognitive aspects of belief dynamics: towards
a unifying framework.
\newblock \emph{Journal of the Royal Society Interface}, 18:\penalty0 20200857,
2021.
\bibitem[Moscovici and Zavalloni(1969)]{moscovici1969}
Serge Moscovici and Marisa Zavalloni.
\newblock The group as a polarizer of attitudes.
\newblock \emph{Journal of Personality and Social Psychology}, 12\penalty0
(2):\penalty0 125--135, 1969.
\bibitem[Sunstein(2002)]{sunstein2002}
Cass~R. Sunstein.
\newblock The law of group polarization.
\newblock \emph{Journal of Political Philosophy}, 10\penalty0 (2):\penalty0
175--195, 2002.
\bibitem[Galam(2002)]{galam2002}
Serge Galam.
\newblock Minority opinion spreading in random geometry.
\newblock \emph{The European Physical Journal B}, 25\penalty0 (4):\penalty0
403--406, 2002.
\bibitem[Castellano et~al.(2009)Castellano, Fortunato, and
Loreto]{castellano2009}
C.~Castellano, S.~Fortunato, and V.~Loreto.
\newblock Statistical physics of social dynamics.
\newblock \emph{Reviews of Modern Physics}, 81\penalty0 (2):\penalty0 591--646,
2009.
\bibitem[Iyengar et~al.(2012)Iyengar, Sood, and Lelkes]{iyengar2012}
Shanto Iyengar, Gaurav Sood, and Yphtach Lelkes.
\newblock Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization.
\newblock \emph{Public Opinion Quarterly}, 76\penalty0 (3):\penalty0 405--431,
2012.
\bibitem[Baumann et~al.(2020)Baumann, Lorenz-Spreen, Sokolov, and
Starnini]{baumann2020}
Fabian Baumann, Philipp Lorenz-Spreen, Igor~M. Sokolov, and Michele Starnini.
\newblock Modeling echo chambers and polarization dynamics in social networks.
\newblock \emph{Physical Review Letters}, 124\penalty0 (4):\penalty0 048301,
2020.
\bibitem[DeGroot(1974)]{degroot1974}
Morris~H. DeGroot.
\newblock Reaching a consensus.
\newblock \emph{Journal of the American Statistical Association}, 69\penalty0
(345):\penalty0 118--121, 1974.
\bibitem[Hegselmann and Krause(2002)]{hegselmann2002}
Rainer Hegselmann and Ulrich Krause.
\newblock Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence: Models, analysis and
simulation.
\newblock \emph{Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation},
5\penalty0 (3), 2002.
\bibitem[Deffuant et~al.(2000)Deffuant, Neau, Amblard, and
Weisbuch]{deffuant2000}
G.~Deffuant, D.~Neau, F.~Amblard, and G.~Weisbuch.
\newblock Mixing beliefs among interacting agents.
\newblock \emph{Advances in Complex Systems}, 3:\penalty0 87--98, 2000.
\bibitem[Bernardo et~al.(2024)Bernardo, Altafini, Proskurnikov, and
Vasca]{bernardo2024}
C.~Bernardo, C.~Altafini, A.~Proskurnikov, and F.~Vasca.
\newblock Bounded confidence opinion dynamics: A survey.
\newblock \emph{Automatica}, 159:\penalty0 111302, 2024.
\bibitem[Sznajd-Weron and Sznajd(2000)]{sznajd2000}
Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron and J{\'o}zef Sznajd.
\newblock Opinion evolution in closed community.
\newblock \emph{International Journal of Modern Physics C}, 11\penalty0
(6):\penalty0 1157--1165, 2000.
\bibitem[Altafini and Ceragioli(2018)]{altafini2018}
Claudio Altafini and Francesca Ceragioli.
\newblock Signed bounded confidence models for opinion dynamics.
\newblock \emph{Automatica}, 93:\penalty0 114--125, 2018.
\bibitem[Li and Porter(2023)]{li2023}
G.~J. Li and M.~A. Porter.
\newblock Bounded-confidence model of opinion dynamics with heterogeneous
node-activity levels.
\newblock \emph{Physical Review Research}, 5:\penalty0 023179, 2023.
\bibitem[Lewicki et~al.(1998)Lewicki, McAllister, and Bies]{lewicki1998}
Roy~J. Lewicki, Daniel~J. McAllister, and Robert~J. Bies.
\newblock Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities.
\newblock \emph{Academy of Management Review}, 23\penalty0 (3):\penalty0
438--458, 1998.
\bibitem[Moody et~al.(2014)Moody, Galletta, and Lowry]{moody2014}
G.~D. Moody, D.~F. Galletta, and P.~B. Lowry.
\newblock When trust and distrust collide online: The engenderment and role of
consumer ambivalence in online consumer behavior.
\newblock \emph{Electronic Commerce Research and Applications}, 13\penalty0
(4):\penalty0 266--282, 2014.
\bibitem[Moody et~al.(2017)Moody, Lowry, and Galletta]{moody2017}
G.~D. Moody, P.~B. Lowry, and D.~F. Galletta.
\newblock It's complicated: Explaining the relationship between trust,
distrust, and ambivalence in online transaction relationships using
polynomial regression analysis and response surface analysis.
\newblock \emph{European Journal of Information Systems}, 26\penalty0
(4):\penalty0 379--413, 2017.
\bibitem[Posten and Gino(2021)]{posten2021}
A.-C. Posten and F.~Gino.
\newblock How trust and distrust shape perception and memory.
\newblock \emph{Journal of Personality and Social Psychology}, 121:\penalty0
43, 2021.
\bibitem[Lazer et~al.(2018)]{lazer2018}
D.~M. Lazer et~al.
\newblock The science of fake news.
\newblock \emph{Science}, 359:\penalty0 1094--1096, 2018.
\bibitem[Guha et~al.(2004)Guha, Kumar, Raghavan, and Tomkins]{guha2004}
Ramanathan~V. Guha, Ravi Kumar, Prabhakar Raghavan, and Andrew Tomkins.
\newblock Propagation of trust and distrust.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World
Wide Web}, pages 403--412. ACM, 2004.
\bibitem[Kunegis et~al.(2009)Kunegis, Lommatzsch, and Bauckhage]{kunegis2009}
J\'{e}r\^{o}me Kunegis, Andreas Lommatzsch, and Christian Bauckhage.
\newblock The {Slashdot} {Zoo}: Mining a social network with negative edges.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on World
Wide Web}, pages 741--750. ACM, 2009.
\bibitem[Leskovec et~al.(2010)Leskovec, Huttenlocher, and
Kleinberg]{leskovec2010}
Jure Leskovec, Daniel Huttenlocher, and Jon Kleinberg.
\newblock Signed networks in social media.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the {SIGCHI} Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems}, pages 1361--1370, New York, NY, USA, 2010. Association
for Computing Machinery.
\newblock \doi{10.1145/1753326.1753532}.
\bibitem[Kou et~al.(2021)]{kou2021}
H.~Kou et~al.
\newblock Building trust/distrust relationships on signed social service
network through privacy-aware link prediction process.
\newblock \emph{Applied Soft Computing}, 100:\penalty0 106942, 2021.
\bibitem[Fang et~al.(2022)Fang, Li, and Zhang]{fang2022}
H.~Fang, X.~Li, and J.~Zhang.
\newblock Integrating social influence modeling and user modeling for trust
prediction in signed networks.
\newblock \emph{Artificial Intelligence}, 302:\penalty0 103628, 2022.
\bibitem[Zha et~al.(2023)Zha, He, Zhan, and Lang]{zha2023}
Qian Zha, Xiaoyu He, Ming Zhan, and Ningning Lang.
\newblock Managing consensus in balanced networks based on opinion and
trust/distrust evolutions.
\newblock \emph{Information Sciences}, 643:\penalty0 119223, 2023.
\newblock \doi{10.1016/j.ins.2023.119223}.
\bibitem[Shi et~al.(2020)Shi, Cheng, Shao, Wang, and Sheng]{shi2020}
L.~Shi, Y.~Cheng, J.~Shao, X.~Wang, and H.~Sheng.
\newblock Leader-driven opinion dynamics in signed social networks with
asynchronous trust/distrust level evolution.
\newblock arXiv preprint, 2020.
\bibitem[Ishii(2019)]{ishii2019gdn}
A.~Ishii.
\newblock Opinion dynamics theory considering trust and suspicion in human
relations.
\newblock In \emph{Group Decision and Negotiation: Behavior, Models, and
Support: 19th International Conference, GDN 2019, Loughborough, UK, June
11--15, 2019, Proceedings}, pages 193--204. Springer, 2019.
\bibitem[Ishii and Kawahata(2019)]{ishii2019wi}
A.~Ishii and Y.~Kawahata.
\newblock New opinion dynamics theory considering interpersonal relationship of
both trust and distrust.
\newblock In \emph{IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence -
Companion Volume}, pages 43--50, 2019.
\bibitem[Ishii et~al.(2020)Ishii, Yomura, and Okano]{ishii2020taai}
A.~Ishii, I.~Yomura, and N.~Okano.
\newblock Opinion dynamics including both trust and distrust in human relation
for various network structure.
\newblock In \emph{2020 International Conference on Technologies and
Applications of Artificial Intelligence (TAAI)}, pages 131--135. IEEE, 2020.
\bibitem[Taghavi et~al.(2020)Taghavi, Eslami, Herrera-Viedma, and
Ure{\~n}a]{taghavi2020}
A.~Taghavi, E.~Eslami, E.~Herrera-Viedma, and R.~Ure{\~n}a.
\newblock Trust based group decision making in environments with extreme
uncertainty.
\newblock \emph{Knowledge-Based Systems}, 191:\penalty0 105168, 2020.
\bibitem[Kitsak et~al.(2010)Kitsak, Gallos, Havlin, Liljeros, Muchnik, Stanley,
and Makse]{kitsak2010}
Maksim Kitsak, Lazaros~K. Gallos, Shlomo Havlin, Fredrik Liljeros, Lev Muchnik,
H.~Eugene Stanley, and Hern{\'a}n~A. Makse.
\newblock Identification of influential spreaders in complex networks.
\newblock \emph{Nature Physics}, 6:\penalty0 888--893, 2010.
\newblock \doi{10.1038/nphys1746}.
\bibitem[Centola(2010)]{centola2010}
Damon Centola.
\newblock The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment.
\newblock \emph{Science}, 329\penalty0 (5996):\penalty0 1194--1197, 2010.
\newblock \doi{10.1126/science.1185231}.
\bibitem[Cologna et~al.(2025)Cologna, Mede, Berger, Besley, Brick, Joubert,
Maibach, Mihelj, Oreskes, Sch{\"a}fer, van~der Linden, et~al.]{cologna2025}
Viktoria Cologna, Niels~G. Mede, Sebastian Berger, John Besley, Cameron Brick,
Marina Joubert, Edward~W. Maibach, Sabina Mihelj, Naomi Oreskes, Mike~S.
Sch{\"a}fer, Sander van~der Linden, et~al.
\newblock Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries.
\newblock \emph{Nature Human Behaviour}, 9:\penalty0 713--730, 2025.
\newblock \doi{10.1038/s41562-024-02090-5}.
\bibitem[Finkel et~al.(2020)Finkel, Bail, Cikara, Ditto, Iyengar, Klar, Mason,
McGrath, Nyhan, Rand, Skitka, Tucker, Van~Bavel, Wang, and
Druckman]{finkel2020}
Eli~J. Finkel, Christopher~A. Bail, Mina Cikara, Peter~H. Ditto, Shanto
Iyengar, Samara Klar, Lilliana Mason, Mary~C. McGrath, Brendan Nyhan,
David~G. Rand, Linda~J. Skitka, Joshua~A. Tucker, Jay~J. Van~Bavel,
Cynthia~S. Wang, and James~N. Druckman.
\newblock Political sectarianism in america.
\newblock \emph{Science}, 370\penalty0 (6516):\penalty0 533--536, 2020.
\newblock \doi{10.1126/science.abe1715}.
\bibitem[Lorenz-Spreen et~al.(2023)Lorenz-Spreen, Oswald, Lewandowsky, and
Hertwig]{lorenzspreen2023}
Philipp Lorenz-Spreen, Lisa Oswald, Stephan Lewandowsky, and Ralph Hertwig.
\newblock A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on
digital media and democracy.
\newblock \emph{Nature Human Behaviour}, 7:\penalty0 74--101, 2023.
\newblock \doi{10.1038/s41562-022-01460-1}.
\bibitem[Ecker et~al.(2022)Ecker, Lewandowsky, Cook, Schmid, Fazio, Brashier,
Kendeou, Vraga, and Amazeen]{ecker2022}
Ullrich K.~H. Ecker, Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook, Philipp Schmid, Lisa~K.
Fazio, Nadia~M. Brashier, Panayiota Kendeou, Emily~K. Vraga, and Michelle~A.
Amazeen.
\newblock The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance
to correction.
\newblock \emph{Nature Reviews Psychology}, 1:\penalty0 13--29, 2022.
\newblock \doi{10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y}.
\bibitem[Pennycook et~al.(2021)Pennycook, Epstein, Mosleh, Arechar, Eckles, and
Rand]{pennycook2021}
Gordon Pennycook, Ziv Epstein, Mohsen Mosleh, Antonio~A. Arechar, Dean Eckles,
and David~G. Rand.
\newblock Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online.
\newblock \emph{Nature}, 592:\penalty0 590--595, 2021.
\newblock \doi{10.1038/s41586-021-03344-2}.
\bibitem[Battiston et~al.(2020)Battiston, Cencetti, Iacopini, Latora, Lucas,
Patania, Young, and Petri]{battiston2020}
Federico Battiston, Giulia Cencetti, Iacopo Iacopini, Vito Latora, Maxime
Lucas, Alice Patania, Jean-Gabriel Young, and Giovanni Petri.
\newblock Networks beyond pairwise interactions: Structure and dynamics.
\newblock \emph{Physics Reports}, 874:\penalty0 1--92, 2020.
\newblock \doi{10.1016/j.physrep.2020.05.004}.
\bibitem[Iacopini et~al.(2019)Iacopini, Petri, Barrat, and
Latora]{iacopini2019}
Iacopo Iacopini, Giovanni Petri, Alain Barrat, and Vito Latora.
\newblock Simplicial models of social contagion.
\newblock \emph{Nature Communications}, 10\penalty0 (1):\penalty0 2485, 2019.
\newblock \doi{10.1038/s41467-019-10431-6}.
\bibitem[Veerman and Kummel(2019)]{veerman2019}
J.J.P. Veerman and Ewan Kummel.
\newblock Diffusion and consensus on weakly connected directed graphs.
\newblock \emph{Linear Algebra and its Applications}, 578:\penalty0 184--206,
2019.
\bibitem[Grover and Leskovec(2016)]{grover2016node2vec}
Aditya Grover and Jure Leskovec.
\newblock node2vec: {S}calable feature learning for networks.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference
on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining}, pages 855--864, 2016.
\bibitem[Barber{\'a}(2015)]{barbera2015birds}
Pablo Barber{\'a}.
\newblock Birds of the same feather tweet together: {B}ayesian ideal point
estimation using {T}witter data.
\newblock \emph{Political Analysis}, 23\penalty0 (1):\penalty0 76--91, 2015.
\end{thebibliography}