We show that a maximum likelihood approach for parameter estimation in agent-based models (ABMs) of opinion dynamics outperforms the typical simulation-based approach. Simulation-based approaches simulate the model repeatedly in search of a set of parameters that generates data similar enough to the observed one. In contrast, likelihood-based approaches derive a likelihood function that connects the unknown parameters to the observed data in a statistically principled way. We compare these two approaches on the well-known bounded-confidence model of opinion dynamics. We do so on three realistic scenarios of increasing complexity depending on data availability: (i) fully observed opinions and interactions, (ii) partially observed interactions, (iii) observed interactions with noisy proxies of the opinions. To realize the likelihood-based approach, we first cast the model into a probabilistic generative guise that supports a proper data likelihood. Then, we describe the three scenarios via probabilistic graphical models and show the nuances that go into translating the model. Finally, we implement such models in an automatic differentiation framework, thus enabling easy and efficient maximum likelihood estimation via gradient descent. These likelihood-based estimates are up to 4x more accurate and require up to 200x less computational time.

Likelihood-Based Methods Improve Parameter Estimation in Opinion Dynamics Models / Lenti, Jacopo; Monti, Corrado; De Francisci Morales, Gianmarco. - (2024), pp. 350-359. (Intervento presentato al convegno ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining tenutosi a Merida) [10.1145/3616855.3635785].

Likelihood-Based Methods Improve Parameter Estimation in Opinion Dynamics Models

Lenti, Jacopo
;
2024

Abstract

We show that a maximum likelihood approach for parameter estimation in agent-based models (ABMs) of opinion dynamics outperforms the typical simulation-based approach. Simulation-based approaches simulate the model repeatedly in search of a set of parameters that generates data similar enough to the observed one. In contrast, likelihood-based approaches derive a likelihood function that connects the unknown parameters to the observed data in a statistically principled way. We compare these two approaches on the well-known bounded-confidence model of opinion dynamics. We do so on three realistic scenarios of increasing complexity depending on data availability: (i) fully observed opinions and interactions, (ii) partially observed interactions, (iii) observed interactions with noisy proxies of the opinions. To realize the likelihood-based approach, we first cast the model into a probabilistic generative guise that supports a proper data likelihood. Then, we describe the three scenarios via probabilistic graphical models and show the nuances that go into translating the model. Finally, we implement such models in an automatic differentiation framework, thus enabling easy and efficient maximum likelihood estimation via gradient descent. These likelihood-based estimates are up to 4x more accurate and require up to 200x less computational time.
2024
ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining
Agent-based models; opinions dynamics; social media; probabilistic modeling; maximum likelihood
04 Pubblicazione in atti di convegno::04b Atto di convegno in volume
Likelihood-Based Methods Improve Parameter Estimation in Opinion Dynamics Models / Lenti, Jacopo; Monti, Corrado; De Francisci Morales, Gianmarco. - (2024), pp. 350-359. (Intervento presentato al convegno ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining tenutosi a Merida) [10.1145/3616855.3635785].
File allegati a questo prodotto
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/1717198
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact