Analysis and Consensus Control of Emergent Dynamic Polarization in Minimally-Nonlinear Opinion Dynamics

The analysis of collective behavior in social networks using opinion dynamics has received increasing attention [1, 2, 3]. In these settings, bounded-rational agents update their opinions based on local interactions, and collective behavior emerges from agent-level opinion updates [4, 5]. Polarization is a fundamental emergent behavior, in which agents’ opinions diverge into opposing clusters that asymptotically converge to distinct equilibria [12, 6, 7]. Beyond such static polarized states, an important question is whether disagreement can remain persistently oscillatory rather than converge to a static state. In this research, we characterize this behavior as dynamic polarization: an emergent asymptotic phenomenon in which two opposing opinion clusters exhibit bounded, synchronized oscillations, such that the shift of one cluster induces a corresponding counter-shift in the other. Understanding how dynamic polarization emerges purely from local interaction rules is essential to analyze the stability of collective opinion dynamics. As dynamic polarization represents an undesirable state of persistent oscillatory disagreement and cyclic deadlock, characterizing its emergence and stability is a critical prerequisite for designing control laws that guarantee the network’s transition back to consensus. Although prior literature primarily analyzes convergence to consensus, it generally does not characterize the asymptotic behavior that emerges when parameter variations cause the consensus equilibrium to lose stability. Consequently, few studies in opinion dynamics develop a rigorous characterization of how bounded, persistent oscillations can emerge as a polarized network state.

Classical weighted-averaging models constitute one of the most widely studied frameworks in opinion dynamics due to their analytical tractability, yet they typically predict convergence to consensus, static polarization, or fragmentation [8]. To model polarization, more recent studies rely on mechanisms such as signed graphs with negative edges [9, 10, 11], asymmetric influence and heterogeneous susceptibility [12], confirmation bias [13, 14], game-theoretic utilities [15], and epidemic-type dynamics [16]. These frameworks can only model static asymptotic states and thus cannot characterize dynamic, oscillatory polarization. Furthermore, polarization in these models is not truly emergent, as it does not arise solely from the underlying opinion-update dynamics; rather, it depends on additional mechanisms imposed a priori, such as negative interactions in signed graphs, stubborn agents, confirmation bias, or game-theoretic payoff structures.

While the aforementioned studies are restricted to static polarization, a separate class of recent frameworks has been developed to capture oscillatory opinion states and nonstationary polarization. However, these behaviors are typically sustained by external or structurally imposed mechanisms rather than emerging autonomously from purely local, agent-level opinion updates. For instance, stochastic gossip models can generate opinion fluctuations by introducing fixed stubborn agents [17], but the resulting behavior is stochastic disagreement rather than oscillatory polarization. External processes, such as delayed information and cognitive bias, can model fluctuating opinions without capturing polarization [18, 19]. Similarly, self-sustained oscillations have been observed in hypergraph-based opinion models [20], where the entire network evolves in a coherent collective pattern. Memory-based bounded-confidence models can produce oscillatory collective dynamics with polarized groups [21], although these oscillations rely on state-dependent network switching and extreme-agent influence. Models in [22, 23] predict oscillatory dynamics within polarized populations; however, these arise from external environmental feedback loops and auxiliary systems that function as engineered constructs. The closely related work in [24] studies dynamic polarization, referring to the phenomenon as nonstationary polarization, but the mechanism relies on explicit structural hostility, requiring negative edges that represent competition and partition the network into two opposing camps. Similarly, while nonlinear feedback models have captured fluctuating asymmetric polarization via bifurcations [25], these transitions remain driven by external inputs, such as shifts in public policy mood. Consequently, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the current literature lacks an analytical framework that explains the emergence of dynamic polarization from purely local, agent-level opinion-update rules. This leaves open the fundamental question of whether dynamic polarization can arise as a truly emergent phenomenon without relying on externally imposed mechanisms, motivating the need for a new analytical opinion dynamics framework capable of explaining this behavior.

Discovering such an opinion dynamics rule capable of generating dynamic polarization as a collective, network-wide emergent behavior is challenging. Such dynamics must maintain bounded opinions, preserve local interaction structure, explain how consensus loses stability, and still allow analytical characterization of nonstationary periodic attractors. Arbitrary nonlinear rules may lead to unboundedness, chaos, or analytical intractability. Consensus control is equally challenging because the network is trapped in a self-sustained periodic attractor, requiring localized agent-level interventions that destabilize the stable cyclic deadlock while guaranteeing convergence to asymptotically stable consensus.

Addressing this research gap, as the main contribution of this paper, we propose a novel minimally-nonlinear opinion dynamics (M-NOD) framework that characterizes dynamic polarization as a truly emergent collective behavior arising from local, agent-level opinion-update rules. Without relying on externally imposed mechanisms such as signed edges, we introduce a cubic nonlinearity as a minimal nonlinear representation in each individual agent’s update rule, which in turn is capable of capturing the emergence of dynamic polarization. Within this framework, we rigorously establish that under a mean-field baseline, the M-NOD framework undergoes a flip bifurcation through which the consensus equilibrium loses stability; in a high-reactivity regime, this gives rise to a period-2 orbit where the network exhibits balanced bipartite clustering, characterizing the resulting oscillatory behavior as symmetric dynamic polarization. Additionally, by establishing the structural robustness of symmetric dynamic polarization under small symmetry-breaking perturbations, we prove the existence and stability of asymmetric dynamic polarization, where two opposing opinion groups with unequal cluster sizes remain in a persistent cyclic deadlock.

Finally, leveraging the M-NOD framework’s ability to characterize dynamic polarization provides a principled basis for the transition to consensus. To prevent the network from remaining trapped in dynamic polarization, an undesirable state of sustained disagreement and cyclic deadlock, we develop consensus control strategies that progressively reduce the required intervention: first controlling one polarized cluster, then one agent from each polarized cluster, and finally controlling only a single agent in the entire network. The consensus control results show that localized opinion control can break dynamic polarization, causing the remaining agents to align with the reference over time and driving the entire network to a locally asymptotically stable consensus.

Notations: $\mathbb{R}$, $\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ and $\mathbb{N}$ denote the sets of real, nonnegative real and natural numbers, respectively. Bold lowercase (e.g., $\mathbf{v}$) and uppercase letters (e.g., $\mathbf{C}$) denote vectors and matrices, respectively. $\mathbf{I}$ and $\mathbf{J}$ represent the identity matrix and all-ones matrix of appropriate dimensions. $\mathbf{1}_{N}$ denotes the $N$-dimensional all-ones column vector. For $\mathbf{v}\!\in\!\mathbb{R}^{N}$, $\|\mathbf{v}\|$ and $\|\mathbf{v}\|_{\infty}$ denote the Euclidean ($\ell_{2}$) and infinity norms, respectively. The notation $(\mathbf{v})^{\circ 3}$ denotes the element-wise (Hadamard) cube, i.e., $[(\mathbf{v})^{\circ 3}]_{i}\!=\!v_{i}^{3}$. Equilibria are denoted by an asterisk (e.g., $y^{*}$). For a differentiable map $\mathbf{G}$, $D\mathbf{G}(\cdot)$ denotes its Jacobian.

Consider a network of $N\!\in\!2\mathbb{N}$ interacting agents over a weighted graph $\mathcal{G}\!=\!(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E},\mathbf{W})$, where $\mathcal{V}\!=\!\{1,\dots,N\}$ and $\mathcal{E}\subseteq\mathcal{V}\times\mathcal{V}$ denote the agent and edge sets, respectively. The matrix $\mathbf{W}=[w_{ij}]\in\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}^{N\times N}$ denotes the weighted adjacency matrix, where $w_{ij}>0$ indicates that agent $j$ influences agent $i$ (i.e., $(j,i)\in\mathcal{E}$), and $w_{ij}\!=\!0$ otherwise. This formulation accommodates directed communication topologies, reducing to an undirected graph if and only if $\mathbf{W}$ is symmetric. Each agent $i\!\in\!\mathcal{V}$ holds an opinion $v_{i}(t)\!\in\!\mathbb{R}$, and the collective network opinion state is $\mathbf{v}_{t}\!=\![v_{1}(t),\dots,v_{N}(t)]\!^{\top}\!\in\!\mathbb{R}^{N}$. The minimally-nonlinear opinion dynamics (M-NOD) evolve as,

$$\mathbf{v}_{t+1}=[(1-\gamma)\mathbf{I}+\gamma\mathbf{W}]\mathbf{v}_{t}+\gamma a\,(\mathbf{C}\mathbf{v}_{t})^{\circ 3},$$

(1)

where $\gamma,a\!\in\!\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ denote the reactivity rate and opinion nonlinearity strength, respectively. The matrix $\mathbf{C}\!:=\!\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{W}$ acts as the interaction-induced deviation operator, where $(\mathbf{C}\mathbf{v}_{t})_{i}\!=\!v_{i}(t)-\sum_{j=1}^{N}w_{ij}v_{j}(t)$ is the deviation of agent $i$’s opinion from the weighted aggregate opinion of its neighbors $\mathcal{N}_{i}\!:=\!\{j\in\mathcal{V}\!:\!(j,i)\in\mathcal{E}\}$. For row-stochastic $\mathbf{W}$, $\mathbf{C}$ is the normalized graph Laplacian.

M-NOD (1) models opinion evolution in a network of bounded-rational agents through linear social influence and a nonlinear deviation-driven correction. The term $((1\!-\!\gamma)\mathbf{I}\!+\!\gamma\mathbf{W})\mathbf{v}_{t}$, equivalent to $\mathbf{v}_{t}\!-\!\gamma\mathbf{C}\mathbf{v}_{t}$, represents the linear social-influence update. Here, each agent adjusts its opinion proportionally to the deviation between its current opinion and the weighted aggregate opinion of its neighbors, with $\gamma$ controlling the reactivity to this assimilation. The component $\gamma a(\mathbf{C}\mathbf{v}_{t})^{\circ 3}$ introduces a minimally nonlinear cubic correction driven by the local interaction-induced deviation $\mathbf{C}\mathbf{v}_{t}$. It produces a saturation effect that moderates the linear social influence under large disagreements, thereby introducing a nonlinear damping that prevents excessively large opinion adjustments that could otherwise induce divergent behavior. Larger deviations from the weighted neighbor aggregate produce stronger nonlinear resistance. In the absence of nonlinearity ($a\!=\!0$), M-NOD (1) reduces to the linear Rescorla–Wagner (RW) multi-agent associative learning, which follows directly from extending the single-agent RW rule in [26]. Appendix VIII-A derives (1) from the corresponding single-agent opinion update.

The selection of the cubic nonlinearity is mathematically motivated as the simplest minimal nonlinear representation capable of capturing the emergence of dynamic polarization in opinion dynamics. While purely linear error-correction models unphysically predict unbounded opinion divergence under high reactivity, any realistic update rule must incorporate a saturating mechanism to bound opinions. Rather than relying on complex, domain-specific transcendental functions (e.g., sigmoids or hyperbolic tangents), the cubic term serves as the canonical normal-form representation of a broad class of smooth, odd-symmetric saturating nonlinearities near the bifurcation point. By acting as the leading-order Taylor expansion of these bounded response functions, the cubic term isolates the minimal mathematical mechanism necessary to trigger and sustain dynamic polarization, thereby preserving both analytical tractability and theoretical generality.

To characterize the asymptotic behavior of the network under M-NOD, we formally define the emergent states as:

Problem Statement: The objective is twofold: first, to analytically characterize the emergence and stability of symmetric and asymmetric dynamic polarization in M-NOD (1); and second, to design localized agent-level control laws that guarantee the network’s transition from dynamic polarization to asymptotically stable consensus.

Having formalized the problem, Section III establishes the exact parametric conditions, specifically the critical reactivity and bifurcation thresholds, under which symmetric dynamic polarization emerges.

This section analyzes M-NOD over an undirected complete graph with uniform influence weights, representing the maximally connected mean-field baseline. This idealized setting provides the simplest analytical setting for demonstrating that dynamic polarization arises as an emergent behavior purely from the minimal nonlinearity, independently of structural graph disconnection, sign-based negative ties, or weight heterogeneity. Specifically, we consider the edge set $\mathcal{E}=\{(j,i)\mid j\neq i\}$ and uniform weights $w_{ij}=\frac{1}{N-1}$ for $j\neq i$, with $w_{ii}=0$. Hence, $\mathbf{W}=\frac{1}{N-1}(\mathbf{J}-\mathbf{I})$, which is doubly stochastic, i.e., $\mathbf{W}\mathbf{1}_{N}=\mathbf{1}_{N}$ and $\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}\mathbf{W}=\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}$.

This mean-field baseline serves as the analytical foundation for evaluating the robustness of symmetric dynamic polarization to directed graph topologies and nonuniform influence weights, as explored in Section IV.

Lemma 1 considers a necessary subspace $\mathcal{S}$ that enforces the zero-sum property of the collective network disagreement. This condition ensures that no unaccounted disagreement is introduced by any agent; instead, all disagreement remains internal to the network, with each agent’s disagreement arising solely from its interactions with other agents within the network. Crucially, the lemma establishes that any uniform disagreement state, where every agent has the same disagreement magnitude $|(\mathbf{C}\mathbf{v})_{i}|=p>0$, must lie in this subspace $\mathcal{S}$. Since the total disagreement must be balanced and sum to zero, this uniformity partitions the network into two equal-sized, balanced bipartite clusters.

Next, the uniformity of the disagreement magnitude implies that for every component $i$, we have $|y_{i}|\!=\!p$ for some constant $p>0$, and consequently $y_{i}^{2}\!=\!p^{2}$. Thus, the cubic term factors as $y_{i}^{3}\!=\!y_{i}\cdot y_{i}^{2}\!=\!p^{2}y_{i}$. In vector form, this yields the identity $(\mathbf{y})^{\circ 3}\!=\!p^{2}\mathbf{y}$. Substituting into $\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}(\mathbf{y})^{\circ 3}$ gives $\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}(\mathbf{y})^{\circ 3}\!=\!p^{2}(\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}\mathbf{y})\!=\!p^{2}(0)\!=\!0$. Hence, $\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}(\mathbf{y})^{\circ 3}\!=\!0$. Finally, substituting $\mathbf{y}\!=\!\mathbf{C}\mathbf{v}$ into the obtained identities $\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}(\mathbf{y})\!=\!0$ and $\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}(\mathbf{y})^{\circ 3}\!=\!0$ yields $\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}(\mathbf{C}\mathbf{v})\!=\!0$ and $\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}\!((\mathbf{C}\mathbf{v})^{\circ 3})\!=\!0$. Hence, any non-consensus uniform disagreement state $\mathbf{v}$ lies within the symmetric subspace $\mathcal{S}$ in (2).

Since the components of the disagreement vector $\mathbf{y}$ are restricted to the values $\pm p$ (where $p>0$ is the uniform magnitude), the mean-zero condition $\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}\mathbf{y}=0$ implies that the sum of positive disagreements must exactly offset the sum of negative disagreements. This necessitates that the number of agents holding opinion $+p$ equals the number of agents holding $-p$. Consequently, the network partitions into two opposing clusters of equal cardinality, establishing the existence of balanced bipartite clustering. $\blacksquare$

Note that for symmetric dynamic polarization, uniform disagreement is the defining structural property under which the two opposing opinion groups exhibit equal-magnitude disagreement with opposite signs. Furthermore, for uniform balanced disagreement trajectories, the subspace $\mathcal{S}$ is invariant under M-NOD (1).

The opinion state $\mathbf{v}_{t}$ in (1) can be orthogonally decomposed into an average consensus component and a global deviation component. We define the average consensus as $\bar{v}_{t}\!\coloneqq\!\tfrac{1}{N}\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}\mathbf{v}_{t}$ and the mean-zero deviation as $\mathbf{z}_{t}$, where $\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}\mathbf{z}_{t}\!=\!0$. To project the dynamics onto the consensus subspace, we multiply (1) by $\tfrac{1}{N}\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}$ and use the identity $\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}\mathbf{W}\!=\!\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}$. This yields:

	$\displaystyle\frac{1}{N}\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}\mathbf{v}_{t+1}$	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{N}\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}\!\big[(1-\gamma)\mathbf{I}+\gamma\mathbf{W}\big]\mathbf{v}_{t}+\frac{\gamma a}{N}\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}(\mathbf{y}_{t})^{\circ 3},$
	$\displaystyle\bar{v}_{t+1}$	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{N}\!\left((1-\gamma)\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}+\gamma\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}\right)\mathbf{v}_{t}+\frac{\gamma a}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}(y_{i,t})^{3},$

where the first term simplifies to $\tfrac{1}{N}\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}\mathbf{v}_{t}=\bar{v}_{t}$, and the nonlinear term $\tfrac{\gamma a}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}(y_{i,t})^{3}$ becomes zero whenever the trajectory lies in the symmetric subspace $\mathcal{S}$, as established in Lemma 1. Consequently, the network average opinion is conserved as $\bar{v}_{t+1}=\bar{v}_{t}$. Hence, the opinion state admits the decomposition as $\mathbf{v}_{t}=\bar{v}_{t}\,\mathbf{1}_{N}+\mathbf{z}_{t}$.

Applying the interaction-induced deviation operator $\mathbf{C}$ to the decomposed state $\mathbf{v}_{t}$ gives $\mathbf{y}_{t}\!=\!\mathbf{C}\mathbf{v}_{t}\!=\!\bar{v}_{t}\,\mathbf{C}\mathbf{1}_{N}\!+\!\mathbf{C}\mathbf{z}_{t}$. Since $\mathbf{W}\mathbf{1}_{N}\!=\!\mathbf{1}_{N}$, $\mathbf{C}\mathbf{1}_{N}\!=\!(\mathbf{I}\!-\!\mathbf{W})\mathbf{1}_{N}\!=\!\mathbf{1}_{N}\!-\!\mathbf{1}_{N}\!=\!\mathbf{0}$, so $\mathbf{y}_{t}\!=\!\mathbf{C}\mathbf{z}_{t}$. Substituting $\mathbf{C}\!=\!\mathbf{I}\!-\!\mathbf{W}$ yields $\mathbf{y}_{t}\!=\!(\mathbf{I}\!-\!\mathbf{W})\mathbf{z}_{t}$. For the complete graph, $\mathbf{W}\!=\!\tfrac{1}{N-1}(\mathbf{J}\!-\!\mathbf{I})$, and since $\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}\mathbf{z}_{t}\!=\!0$ implies $\mathbf{J}\mathbf{z}_{t}\!=\!\mathbf{0}$, we obtain $\mathbf{W}\mathbf{z}_{t}\!=\!\tfrac{1}{N-1}(\mathbf{0}-\mathbf{z}_{t})\!=\!-\!\tfrac{1}{N-1}\mathbf{z}_{t}$. Hence $\mathbf{y}_{t}\!=\!(\mathbf{I}\!-\!\mathbf{W})\mathbf{z}_{t}\!=\!\mathbf{z}_{t}\!-\!(-\tfrac{1}{N-1}\mathbf{z}_{t})\!=\!(1+\tfrac{1}{N-1})\mathbf{z}_{t}\!=\!\tfrac{N}{N-1}\mathbf{z}_{t}$. Defining $c\coloneqq\tfrac{N}{N-1}$, we obtain $\mathbf{y}_{t}=c\,\mathbf{z}_{t}$, which shows that the disagreement vector $\mathbf{y}_{t}$ is a scaled transformation of $\mathbf{z}_{t}$ and therefore has qualitatively identical dynamics, including the same stability and bifurcation characteristics. In the decomposed state $\mathbf{v}_{t}\!=\!\bar{v}_{t}\,\mathbf{1}_{N}\!+\!\mathbf{z}_{t}$, as established above, the average consensus opinion is conserved, and thus $\bar{v}_{t}$ remains constant along symmetric trajectories. Consequently, the asymptotic behavior of the full state $\mathbf{v}_{t}$ is governed solely by the dynamics of $\mathbf{z}_{t}$.

Using the dynamical sufficiency in Remark 1, Lemma 2 establishes the exact scalar reduction of the $N$-dimensional disagreement dynamics.

Now we analyze the nonlinear part $\gamma a\,\mathbf{C}(\mathbf{y}_{t})^{\circ 3}$. From Lemma 1, for any trajectory in the symmetric subspace $\mathcal{S}$, we have $\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}(\mathbf{y}_{t})^{\circ 3}\!=\!0$, which implies $\mathbf{J}(\mathbf{y}_{t})^{\circ 3}\!=\!\mathbf{0}$. Using $\mathbf{C}\!=\!\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{W}$ together with $\mathbf{W}\!=\!\tfrac{1}{N-1}(\mathbf{J}\!-\!\mathbf{I})$, we first obtain $\mathbf{C}(\mathbf{y}_{t})^{\circ 3}\!=\!(\mathbf{y}_{t})^{\circ 3}\!-\!\tfrac{1}{N-1}\!(\mathbf{J}(\mathbf{y}_{t})^{\circ 3}\!-\!\mathbf{I}(\mathbf{y}_{t})^{\circ 3})$. Since $\mathbf{J}(\mathbf{y}_{t})^{\circ 3}\!=\!\mathbf{0}$, this becomes $(\mathbf{y}_{t})^{\circ 3}\!-\!\tfrac{1}{N-1}\!(\mathbf{0}\!-\!(\mathbf{y}_{t})^{\circ 3})$. This expression simplifies to $(1\!+\!\tfrac{1}{N-1})(\mathbf{y}_{t})^{\circ 3}$, and ultimately evaluates to $\tfrac{N}{N-1}(\mathbf{y}_{t})^{\circ 3}$. With $\bar{\gamma}\!=\!\gamma{N}/({N-1})$, the nonlinear term becomes $\gamma a(c(\mathbf{y}_{t})^{\circ 3})\!=\!(\gamma c)a(\mathbf{y}_{t})^{\circ 3}\!=\!\bar{\gamma}\,a\,(\mathbf{y}_{t})^{\circ 3}$. Combining the reduced linear and nonlinear components and substituting back into (3), we obtain

$$\mathbf{y}_{t+1}\!=\!(1\!-\!\bar{\gamma})\,\mathbf{y}_{t}\!+\!\bar{\gamma}\,a\,(\mathbf{y}_{t})^{\circ 3}.$$

(4)

Since every agent’s disagreement opinion evolves according to the same update rule, the network dynamics reduce to the scalar recursion,

$$y_{t+1}\!=\!(1\!-\!\bar{\gamma})\,y_{t}\!+\!\bar{\gamma}\,a\,y_{t}^{3}.$$

(5)

Thus, the high-dimensional disagreement vector $\mathbf{y}_{t}$ reduces to $N$ identical scalar maps of the form (5). $\blacksquare$

Linearizing the reduced map (5) at the zero-disagreement fixed point $y=0$ establishes the local consensus stability condition presented in Proposition 1.

Substituting $\bar{\gamma}\!=\!\gamma\tfrac{N}{N-1}$ into $0\!<\!\bar{\gamma}\!<\!2$ gives $0<\gamma\tfrac{N}{N-1}\!<\!2$. Multiplying the inequality by $\tfrac{N-1}{N}\!>\!0$ (since $N\!>\!0$) produces $0\!<\!\gamma\!<\!\tfrac{2(N-1)}{N}$. This establishes the admissible reactivity-rate range for which M-NOD (1) converges asymptotically to consensus (Definition 1). Since $y_{t}\!$ goes to $0$ implies $\|\mathbf{y}_{t}\|\!$ approaches $0$, it follows from the decomposed state $\mathbf{v}_{t}\!=\!\bar{v}_{t}\mathbf{1}_{N}\!+\!\mathbf{z}_{t}$ that $\|\mathbf{v}_{t}\!-\!\bar{v}_{0}\mathbf{1}_{N}\|\!$ goes to $0$. $\blacksquare$

Exceeding the consensus stability bound in Proposition 1 marks the onset of instability. Theorem 1 establishes that crossing this threshold induces a supercritical flip bifurcation where the consensus equilibrium fractures.

For the scalar map $f(y;\bar{\gamma})\!=\!(1\!-\!\bar{\gamma})y\!+\!\bar{\gamma}ay^{3}$, we show that a flip (period-doubling) bifurcation occurs at the fixed point $y^{\ast}\!=\!0$ when the scaled reactivity rate reaches the threshold $\bar{\gamma}_{c}\!=\!2$. This is established by verifying the four formal genericity conditions for a flip bifurcation as stated in Theorem 4.3 of [27].

1) Invariance: For all $\bar{\gamma}$, we have $f(0;\bar{\gamma})=0$, so the origin $y^{\ast}=0$ remains a solution for all $\bar{\gamma}$.

2) Critical eigen-spectrum: The first derivative w.r.t. $y$ is $f_{y}(0;\bar{\gamma})=1-\bar{\gamma}$. At $\bar{\gamma}=\bar{\gamma}_{c}=2$, we obtain $f_{y}(0;2)=1-2=-1$. Exactly at $\bar{\gamma}_{c}=2$, and hence $\gamma_{c}=\tfrac{2(N-1)}{N}$, the consensus equilibrium loses stability.

3) Transversality: Differentiating $f_{y}(0;\bar{\gamma})$ w.r.t. $\bar{\gamma}$ yields $\tfrac{\partial}{\partial\bar{\gamma}}\!\left(1-\bar{\gamma}\right)\!=\!-\!1\!\neq\!0$. The eigenvalue $\lambda(\bar{\gamma})\coloneqq f_{y}(0;\bar{\gamma})=1-\bar{\gamma}$ therefore crosses the unit-circle boundary ($\lambda=-1$) transversally with non-zero speed. This guarantees that the bifurcation is generic and not a degenerate tangency.

4) Symmetry and Non-degeneracy: The map satisfies the odd symmetry $f(-y;\bar{\gamma})\!=\!-\!f(y;\bar{\gamma})$, implying $f_{yy}(0;\bar{\gamma})\!=\!0$ for all $\bar{\gamma}$. The first non-vanishing nonlinearity is cubic: $f_{yyy}(0;\bar{\gamma})\!=\!6\bar{\gamma}a$, and hence $f_{yyy}(0;2)\!=\!12a\!\neq\!0$. This guarantees that the quadratic term in the local normal form vanishes (no fold bifurcation) and that a cubic leading nonlinearity is present.

Finally, we establish the supercritical nature of the flip bifurcation by using the odd symmetry of the map to compute the cubic normal-form coefficient, in accordance with Theorem 7.10 of [27]. Let $\mu\coloneqq\bar{\gamma}\!-\!2$ and rewrite the map near $(y,\mu)\!=\!(0,0)$ as $y_{t+1}\!=\!f(y_{t};2+\mu)\!=\!-\!(1\!+\!\mu)y_{t}\!+\!(2\!+\!\mu)a\,y_{t}^{3}$. By the standard 1D flip normal-form reduction, $f$ is locally topologically conjugate to the normal form (Theorem 7.10 of [27]) given by,

$$\xi_{t+1}=-(1+\mu)\xi_{t}+C\xi_{t}^{3}+\mathcal{O}(\xi_{t}^{5}),$$

(6)

where the cubic normal-form coefficient $C$ is determined by the Schwarzian derivative of the map at the bifurcation point. For a map with vanishing quadratic term ($f_{yy}(0;2)\!=\!0$), this coefficient is $C\!=\!\tfrac{1}{6}f_{yyy}(0;2)+\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}f_{yy}(0;2)\bigr)^{2}\!=\!\tfrac{1}{6}(12a)+0\!=\!2a$. Since $a>0$, we obtain $C=2a>0$, proving that the flip is supercritical. $\blacksquare$

As established in Theorem 1, the zero-disagreement state loses stability for $\bar{\gamma}\!>\!\bar{\gamma}_{c}$. Theorem 2 subsequently proves that this instability bifurcates into a stable, unique period-2 orbit, the discrete-time analogue of a limit cycle in continuous-time dynamical systems.

To map the scalar results back to the collective opinion state, recall the orthogonal decomposition $\mathbf{v}_{t}=\bar{v}_{0}\mathbf{1}_{N}+\mathbf{z}_{t}$. For zero invariant initial average opinion, i.e., $\bar{v}_{t}=\bar{v}_{0}=0$, we have $\mathbf{v}_{t}=\mathbf{z}_{t}$. Combining this with $\mathbf{z}_{t}=\frac{1}{c}\mathbf{y}_{t}$, established in the preceding analysis of Remark 1, yields $\mathbf{v}_{t}=\mathbf{z}_{t}=\frac{1}{c}\mathbf{y}_{t}$. Since the scalar period-2 condition is $y_{t+1}\!=-\!y_{t}$, we have the corresponding vector relation $\mathbf{y}_{t+1}\!=-\!\mathbf{y}_{t}$. For $y_{t}=\pm p$, this yields $\mathbf{v}_{t}\!=\!\tfrac{p}{c}\mathbf{u}$ and $\mathbf{v}_{t+1}\!=-\!\tfrac{p}{c}\mathbf{u}$, where $\mathbf{u}\!\in\!\{-1,+1\}^{N}$ is a balanced bipartite sign vector. Computing the second update gives $\mathbf{v}_{t+2}\!=-\!\tfrac{p}{c}(-\mathbf{u})\!=\!\tfrac{p}{c}\mathbf{u}\!=\!\mathbf{v}_{t}$, which satisfies the period-2 criterion $\mathbf{v}_{t+2}\!=\!\mathbf{v}_{t}\!\neq\!\mathbf{v}_{t+1}$ as stated in the first point of Definition 2. Thus, the scalar orbit $\mathcal{O}_{y}\!=\!\{p,-p\}$ induces a vector orbit $\mathcal{O}\!=\!\{\bar{\mathbf{v}},-\bar{\mathbf{v}}\}$ with $\bar{\mathbf{v}}\!\coloneqq\!\tfrac{p}{c}\mathbf{u}$, establishing the existence of the symmetric period-2 orbit. Since $\mathbf{u}$ is balanced, $\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}\mathbf{u}=0$, implying $\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}\bar{\mathbf{v}}=\tfrac{p}{c}\mathbf{1}_{N}^{\top}\mathbf{u}=0$. Moreover, $p>0$ implies $\bar{\mathbf{v}}\neq\mathbf{0}$. Hence, the orbit satisfies Condition 2 of Definition 2. Note that for a nonzero invariant initial average opinion, the orbit is centered at $\bar{v}_{0}\mathbf{1}_{N}$ rather than the origin. The network retains the same period-2 dynamics, with the orbit $\mathcal{O}$ shifted to $\{\bar{v}_{0}\mathbf{1}_{N}+\overline{\mathbf{z}},\,\bar{v}_{0}\mathbf{1}_{N}-\overline{\mathbf{z}}\}$.

Note that at the upper bound $\gamma\!=\!\tfrac{3(N-1)}{N}$ of (7), the Floquet multiplier of the period-2 orbit reaches $+1$. Beyond this threshold, the symmetric period-2 orbit is unstable, and the resulting dynamics are beyond the scope of this paper.

For the high-reactivity regime ($\gamma\!>\!\tfrac{2(N-1)}{N}$), Theorem 2 guarantees the existence of a unique, stable, symmetric period-2 orbit within the bounded stability interval $\tfrac{2(N-1)}{N}\!<\!\gamma\!<\!\tfrac{3(N-1)}{N}$, which directly satisfies Condition 1 of Definition 2. Additionally, Theorem 2 also shows that this orbit satisfies Condition 2 of Definition 2. Moreover, Lemma 1 ensures that the corresponding state lies in $\mathcal{S}$ and exhibits balanced bipartite clustering. Hence, the network dynamics meet the full criteria of Definition 2, establishing that the emergent behavior is precisely symmetric dynamic polarization. $\blacksquare$

Intuitively, under high reactivity rates in the post-bifurcation regime, agents’ opinions repeatedly overshoot the consensus equilibrium. Consequently, opposing clusters persistently alternate between bounded disagreement states.

In this section, we analyze the structural robustness of dynamic polarization in M-NOD under directed graph topologies with nonuniform influence weights, modeling such networks as sufficiently small symmetry-breaking perturbations of the undirected complete graph studied in Section III. To make the perturbation notation explicit, we rewrite the nominal matrices from Section III as $\mathbf{W}_{0}\!:=\!\mathbf{W}\!=\!\frac{1}{N-1}(\mathbf{J}\!-\!\mathbf{I})$ and $\mathbf{C}_{0}\!:=\!\mathbf{I}\!-\!\mathbf{W}_{0}$.

The perturbed interaction matrix and the deviation operator are $\mathbf{W}_{\epsilon}=\mathbf{W}_{0}+\epsilon\mathbf{\Delta}$ and $\mathbf{C}_{\epsilon}=\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{W}_{\epsilon}=\mathbf{C}_{0}-\epsilon\mathbf{\Delta}$, respectively, where $\mathbf{\Delta}$ encodes directed weight heterogeneity and $|\epsilon|$ controls the magnitude of the perturbation. The perturbation is constructed to satisfy the zero row-sum condition $\mathbf{\Delta}\mathbf{1}_{N}=\mathbf{0}$, ensuring that $\mathbf{W}_{\epsilon}$ remains row-stochastic. This preserves the two-cluster synchronization pattern, if agents within a cluster share the same opinion, their subsequent opinions will remain identical within that cluster. Substituting $\mathbf{W}_{\epsilon}$ and $\mathbf{C}_{\epsilon}$ in (1) yields the perturbed one-step map $\mathbf{v}_{t+1}=F_{\epsilon}(\mathbf{v}_{t})$, where

$$F_{\epsilon}(\mathbf{v})=\big[(1-\gamma)\mathbf{I}+\gamma(\mathbf{W}_{0}+\epsilon\mathbf{\Delta})\big]\mathbf{v}+\gamma a\big[(\mathbf{C}_{0}-\epsilon\mathbf{\Delta})\mathbf{v}\big]^{\circ 3}.$$

(8)

The associated two-step map is defined as $G_{\epsilon}(\mathbf{v})\coloneqq F_{\epsilon}(F_{\epsilon}(\mathbf{v}))$. Corresponding to the unique, locally asymptotically stable period-2 orbit $\mathcal{O}\coloneqq\{\bar{\mathbf{v}},-\bar{\mathbf{v}}\}$, established in Theorem 2, to establish the emergence of asymmetric dynamic polarization (Definition 3), we denote the nearby perturbed period-2 orbit by $\mathcal{O}_{\epsilon}\coloneqq\{\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon},\tilde{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon}\}$. Here, the two orbit states satisfy $\tilde{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon}=F_{\epsilon}(\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon})$ and $\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon}=F_{\epsilon}(\tilde{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon})$, or equivalently $G_{\epsilon}(\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon})=\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon}$. Thus, proving the existence of $\mathcal{O}_{\epsilon}$ reduces to proving the existence of a nearby fixed point of the two-step map $G_{\epsilon}$, which is established in Lemma 3 below.

This formulation allows us to evaluate whether dynamic polarization persists when exact anti-symmetry, uniform weights, and undirected communication are slightly broken. Specifically, we analytically bound the perturbation magnitude $\epsilon$ and the local error radius required to guarantee the persistence of dynamic polarization under directed graphs with nonuniform influence weights.

Because $G_{\epsilon}$ is smooth, in a local neighborhood of $(\bar{\mathbf{v}},0)$, we can express the perturbed map as $G_{\epsilon}(\mathbf{v})=G_{0}(\mathbf{v})+\epsilon S(\mathbf{v},\epsilon)$, where $S$ is smooth and locally bounded. Although $\bar{\mathbf{v}}$ is a fixed point of the nominal map $G_{0}$, it need not remain a fixed point of $G_{\epsilon}$ for $\epsilon\neq 0$. We therefore define the fixed-point residual $H(\mathbf{v},\epsilon)\coloneqq G_{\epsilon}(\mathbf{v})-\mathbf{v}$. Since $G_{0}(\bar{\mathbf{v}})=\bar{\mathbf{v}}$, we have $H(\bar{\mathbf{v}},0)=\mathbf{0}$. Moreover, differentiating $H$ with respect to $\mathbf{v}$ at $(\bar{\mathbf{v}},0)$ yields $D_{\mathbf{v}}H(\bar{\mathbf{v}},0)=DG_{0}(\bar{\mathbf{v}})-\mathbf{I}=A_{0}-\mathbf{I}$. Because $\rho(A_{0})<1$, the eigenvalue $1$ is not in the spectrum of $A_{0}$; hence $A_{0}-\mathbf{I}$ is non-singular. By the Implicit Function Theorem, there exists $\bar{\epsilon}>0$ and a unique fixed point $\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon}$ depending smoothly on $\epsilon$ for $|\epsilon|<\bar{\epsilon}$ such that $H(\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon},\epsilon)=\mathbf{0}$, with $\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon}$ approaching $\bar{\mathbf{v}}$ as $\epsilon$ approaches $0$. Equivalently, $G_{\epsilon}(\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon})=\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon}$. Finally, since $G_{\epsilon}(\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon})=\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon}$, the fixed point $\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon}$ generates the two-point orbit $\{\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon},F_{\epsilon}(\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon})\}$. By continuity, and since $F_{0}(\bar{\mathbf{v}})=-\bar{\mathbf{v}}\neq\bar{\mathbf{v}}$, these two points remain distinct for all sufficiently small $|\epsilon|$.

Therefore, $\mathcal{O}_{\epsilon}=\{\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon},\tilde{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon}\}$, with $\tilde{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon}=F_{\epsilon}(\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon})$, constitutes a nontrivial period-2 orbit of the perturbed M-NOD map (8). $\blacksquare$

Lemma 3 established the existence and continuation of a nearby asymmetric period-2 orbit $\mathcal{O}_{\epsilon}$, with $\mathcal{O}_{\epsilon}$ approaching the nominal symmetric orbit $\mathcal{O}_{0}=\{\bar{\mathbf{v}},-\bar{\mathbf{v}}\}$ as $\epsilon$ approaches $0$. Theorem 4 establishes its local asymptotic stability and derives explicit bounds guaranteeing the structural robustness of dynamic polarization under directed graphs with nonuniform influence weights.

Let $A_{0}\coloneqq DG_{0}(\bar{\mathbf{v}})$. Since the nominal period-2 orbit $\mathcal{O}_{0}=\{\bar{\mathbf{v}},-\bar{\mathbf{v}}\}$ is locally asymptotically stable by Theorem 2, $A_{0}$ is Schur stable, i.e., $\rho(A_{0})<1$. Hence, for any $Q=Q^{\top}>0$, there exists $P=P^{\top}>0$ satisfying

$$A_{0}^{\top}PA_{0}-P=-Q.$$

(9)

Let $\lambda_{Q}\coloneqq\lambda_{\min}(Q)>0$. Define the perturbation error by $\mathbf{e}_{t}\coloneqq\mathbf{v}_{t}-\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon}$. Since $\mathbf{v}_{t+2}=G_{\epsilon}(\mathbf{v}_{t})$ and $G_{\epsilon}(\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon})=\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon}$, we obtain $\mathbf{e}_{t+2}=G_{\epsilon}(\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon}+\mathbf{e}_{t})-G_{\epsilon}(\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon})$. A first-order Taylor expansion of $G_{\epsilon}$ around $\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon}$ gives

$$\mathbf{e}_{t+2}=A_{\epsilon}^{\star}\mathbf{e}_{t}+\mathbf{r}_{t},$$

(10)

where $A_{\epsilon}^{\star}\coloneqq DG_{\epsilon}(\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{\epsilon})$ and the remainder satisfies $\|\mathbf{r}_{t}\|\!\leq\!c_{r}\|\mathbf{e}_{t}\|^{2}$ for some local constant $c_{r}>0$.