Skip to content

complete graphs

Assume we have a directed weighted network on nn nodes that is complete including self-loops; that is, every edge has strictly positive weight. This means that the trust matrix 𝑻𝑻 has strictly positive entries.

definition

Denote the minimum entry of 𝑻𝑻

m≔min⁡i,j∈{1,…,n}tij. m ≔ \min_{i,j∈\{1,…,n\}} tᵢⱼ.

Note that row-stochasticity of 𝑻𝑻 implies m≤1/nm≤1/n.

definition

For each time tt, define the maximum and minimum opinion values U(t)=max⁡i∈{1,…,n}xi(t)U⁽ᵗ⁾=\max_{i∈\{1,…,n\}}xᵢ⁽ᵗ⁾ and L(t)=min⁡i∈{1,…,n}xi(t)L⁽ᵗ⁾=\min_{i∈\{1,…,n\}}xᵢ⁽ᵗ⁾.

claimconvergence distance bound for complete graphs

Under these conditions, total convergence distance is bounded by

D≤1−mnm(U(0)−L(0)). D ≤ \frac {1-m} {nm} (U⁽⁰⁾-L⁽⁰⁾).

Furthermore, this bound is tight—meaning, for each n∈Nn∈ℕ and m∈(0,1/n]m∈(0,1/n] there exists a network and initial state resulting in D=(1−m)/(nm)D=(1-m)/(nm).

For the next two lemmas, to ease readability we omit (t)^{(t)} denoting values at time tt, and use primes ′' instead of (t+1)^{(t+1)} to denote values at time t+1t+1.

lemmaupper-lower
U′−L′≤(1−nm)(U−L).U'-L'≤(1-nm)(U-L).
proof

Let u,l∈{1,…,n}u,l∈\{1,…,n\} be the indices of the nodes that respectively attain the maximum/minimum values at time t+1t+1; that is, U′=xu′=∑j=1ntujxjU'=xᵤ'=∑ⱼ₌₁ⁿ tᵤⱼ xⱼ and L′=xl′=∑j=1ntljxjL'=xₗ'=∑ⱼ₌₁ⁿ tₗⱼ xⱼ. Then observe by row-stochasticity that

U′=U+∑j=1ntuj⏟≥m(xj−U)⏟≤0≤U+m∑j=1n(xj−U),L′=L+∑j=1ntlj⏟≥m(xj−L)⏟≥0≥L+m∑j=1n(xj−L), \begin{aligned} U' &= U + ∑ⱼ₌₁ⁿ \underbrace{tᵤⱼ}_{≥m} \underbrace{(xⱼ-U)}_{≤0} &&≤ U + m ∑ⱼ₌₁ⁿ (xⱼ-U), \\ L' &= L + ∑ⱼ₌₁ⁿ \underbrace{tₗⱼ}_{≥m} \underbrace{(xⱼ-L)}_{≥0} &&≥ L + m ∑ⱼ₌₁ⁿ (xⱼ-L), \end{aligned}

from which it follows that U′−L′≤(1−nm)(U−L)U'-L'≤(1-nm) (U-L).

lemmahalf-step
max⁡{U′−L,U−L′}≤(1−m)(U−L).\max\{U'-L,U-L'\}≤(1-m)(U-L).
proof

Same as before, start by observing that

U′≤U+m∑j=1n(xj−U),L′≥L+m∑j=1n(xj−L). \begin{aligned} U' &≤ U + m ∑ⱼ₌₁ⁿ (xⱼ-U), \\ L' &≥ L + m ∑ⱼ₌₁ⁿ (xⱼ-L). \end{aligned}
  • In the expression for U′U', note that at least one term in the sum attains the minimum value xj=Lxⱼ=L, so discarding/ignoring all other terms (all of which are non-positive) we have U′≤U+m(L−U)U'≤U+m(L-U). Then U′−L′≤(1−m)(U−L)U'-L'≤(1-m)(U-L).

  • Likewise, in the expression for L′L' at least one term in the sum attains xj=Uxⱼ=U; discard other terms (all of which are non-negative) to obtain L′≥L+m(U−L)L'≥L+m(U-L) and so U−L′≤(1−m)(U−L)U-L'≤(1-m)(U-L) as well.


Now we prove the actual bound. Fix any node ii. Observe that on each step

L′−U≤di=xi′−xi≤U′−L L'-U ≤ dᵢ = xᵢ'-xᵢ ≤ U'-L

and so

∣di∣≤max⁡{U′−L,U−L′}≤(1−m)(U−L)\lvert dᵢ\rvert≤\max\{U'-L,U-L'\}≤(1-m)(U-L)

by the half-step lemma.

Meanwhile, the upper-lower lemma implies that U(t)−L(t)≤(1−nm)t(U(0)−L(0))U⁽ᵗ⁾-L⁽ᵗ⁾≤(1-nm)ᵗ(U⁽⁰⁾-L⁽⁰⁾), so we have

Di=∑t=0∞∣di(t)∣≤(1−m)∑t=0∞(U(t)−L(t))≤(1−m)(∑t=0∞(1−nm)t)(U(0)−L(0))≤1−mnm(U(0)−L(0))\begin{aligned} Dᵢ &= ∑ₜ₌₀^∞ \lvert dᵢ⁽ᵗ⁾ \rvert \\ &≤ (1-m) ∑ₜ₌₀^∞ (U⁽ᵗ⁾-L⁽ᵗ⁾) \\ &≤ (1-m) \left(∑ₜ₌₀^∞ (1-nm)ᵗ\right) (U⁽⁰⁾-L⁽⁰⁾) \\ &≤ \frac {1-m} {nm} (U⁽⁰⁾-L⁽⁰⁾) \end{aligned}

by the geometric series formula.


Next, we construct an example to show that this bound is tight. Fix n∈Nn∈ℕ and m∈(0,1/n]m∈(0,1/n], and consider

𝑻=[m1−(n−1)mm…m1−(n−1)mmm…m1−(n−1)mmm…m⋮⋮⋮⋱⋮1−(n−1)mmm…m] 𝑻 = \begin{bmatrix} m & 1-(n-1) m & m & … & m \\ 1-(n-1) m & m & m & … & m \\ 1-(n-1) m & m & m & … & m \\ ⋮ & ⋮ & ⋮ & ⋱ & ⋮ \\ 1-(n-1) m & m & m & … & m \end{bmatrix}

with initial condition

𝒙(0)=[10⋮0]. 𝒙(0) = \begin{bmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \\ ⋮ \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}.

Note then that at each time-step x2=⋯=xnx₂=⋯=xₙ, so to simplify calculations let A=x1A=x₁ and B=x2=⋯=xnB=x₂=⋯=xₙ. Then A,BA,B evolve as follows:

A′=mA+(1−m)B,B′=[1−(n−1)m]A+(n−1)mB.\begin{aligned} A' &= m A + (1-m) B, \\ B' &= [1-(n-1)m] A + (n-1)m B. \end{aligned}

Observe that

A′−B′=−(1−nm)(A−B),A′−A=−(1−m)(A−B),\begin{aligned} A'-B' &= -(1-nm) (A-B), \\ A'-A &= -(1-m) (A-B), \end{aligned}

so in particular

A(t)−B(t)=[−(1−nm)]t(A(0)−B(0)),d1(t)=A(t+1)−A(t)=−(1−m)(A(t)−B(t))=−(1−m)[−(1−nm)]t(A(0)−B(0)).\begin{aligned} A⁽ᵗ⁾-B⁽ᵗ⁾ &= [-(1-nm)]ᵗ (A⁽⁰⁾-B⁽⁰⁾), \\ d₁⁽ᵗ⁾ = A⁽ᵗ⁺¹⁾-A⁽ᵗ⁾ &= -(1-m) (A⁽ᵗ⁾-B⁽ᵗ⁾) \\ &= -(1-m) [-(1-nm)]ᵗ (A⁽⁰⁾-B⁽⁰⁾). \end{aligned}

Then, by the geometric series formula

D1=∑t=0∞∣d1(t)∣=1−mnm(A(0)−B(0)). D₁ = ∑ₜ₌₀^∞ \lvert d₁⁽ᵗ⁾\rvert = \frac {1-m} {nm} (A⁽⁰⁾-B⁽⁰⁾).

If we take the network defined above and discard all edges of weight mm, we’re left with a star graph, with node 11 in the center and all other agents on the spokes. So we could generalize this a little—a star graph is a special instance of bipartite graphs (also, core-periphery? hub-and-spoke?).

  • What about generalizations of this shape of graph?