Reply to "Comment on 'Phase transition in a network model of social balance with Glauber dynamics' "

Abstract

Recently, we introduced [Physical Review E 100, 022303 (2019)] a stochastic social balance model with Glauber dynamics which takes into account the role of randomness in the individual's behavior. One important finding of our study was a phase transition from a balance state to an imbalance state as the randomness crosses a critical value, which was shown to vanish in the thermodynamic limit. In a recent similar study [K. Malarz and K. Kułakowskiy, (2020), arXiv:2009.10136], it was shown that the critical randomness tends to infinity as the system size diverges. This led the authors to question our results. Here, we show that this apparent inconsistency is the results of different definitions of energy in each model. We also demonstrate that synchronous and sequential updating rules can largely affect the results, in contrast with the claims made by the aforementioned authors.

References in corpus (7)

• Multirelational Organization of Large-scale Social Networks in an Online World
• Dynamics of Social Balance on Networks
• Analysis of a continuous-time model of structural balance
• The energy landscape of social balance
• Homophily based on few attributes can impede structural balance
• Phase transition in a network model of social balance with Glauber dynamics
• Comment on `Phase transition in a network model of social balance with Glauber dynamics'

Cited by in corpus (5)

• Mean-field approximation for structural balance dynamics in heat-bath
• Thermal properties of structurally balanced systems on classical random graphs
• Thermal properties of structurally balanced systems on diluted and densified triangulations
• Dynamics of Social Balance on Networks: The Emergence of Multipolar Societies
• Heider balance on Archimedean lattices and cliques