Self-reinforcing cascades: A spreading model for beliefs or products of varying intensity or quality

Paper · arXiv 2411.00714 · Published November 1, 2024
LLM ArchitectureSocial Media and AI

Models of how things spread often assume that transmission mechanisms are fixed over time. However, social contagions–the spread of ideas, beliefs, innovations–can lose or gain in momentum as they spread: ideas can get reinforced, beliefs strengthened, products refined. We study the impacts of such self-reinforcement mechanisms in cascade dynamics. We use different mathematical modeling techniques to capture the recursive, yet changing nature of the process. We find a critical regime with a range of power-law cascade size distributions with varying scaling exponents. This regime clashes with classic models, where criticality requires fine tuning at a precise critical point. Self-reinforced cascades produce critical-like behavior over a wide range of parameters, which may help explain the ubiquity of power-law distributions in empirical social data.

Imagine a cascading product like a meme, conspiracy theory, rumor, or a piece of software spreading in a population of agents. At every transmission step in the cascade, the product has the chance to independently improve with probability p or get worse with probability 1 − p. This process can stop for two reasons: either the quality of the product drops to zero, or the agents sharing it cannot find others to pass it on to (see Fig. 1).

Although cascade models vary, the vast majority of them use fixed mechanisms such that the same rules apply at every step of the cascade. For example, a new case of a disease produces infections through the same mechanism as the previous cases do. However, cascades of beliefs and ideas might be different. Beliefs can be reinforced and strengthened when instilled by a passionate teacher. Ideas or products can be refined as they are transmitted from one person to the next.

we provide an exact recursive solution, closed-form expressions for the expected cascade sizes and their critical point, and offer other new avenues of mathematical analyses.

The self-reinforcing cascade process presents key features that makes it particularly appealing for modeling contagions observed in socio-technical systems. It is a parsimonious model to capture the fact that the strength of individual beliefs or the quality of products may vary and influence the ability of an individual to further transmit the cascade. This variability is aligned with real-world phenomena, where not all individuals or contents are equally influential in the transmission of ideas or behaviors. With this simple mechanism, the SRC model can produce a wide range of scaling behaviors for cascade size distributions, whereas classic percolation is constrained by a unique and universal scaling exponent obtained only at a precise critical point.

Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24

Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.

Does language meaning require embodied interaction beyond relational structure? Why do models overthink simple problems while underthinking complex ones? Does encoded knowledge in language models actually influence their outputs? Do language models build internal models or rely on surface patterns? What information does direct speech processing preserve that transcription loses? How should test-time compute allocation adapt based on problem difficulty? How do neural networks develop compositional and modular internal structure? What are the actual limits of what prompting techniques can accomplish? What drives generalization in language models beyond scale and training data? Why do language models fail at semantic accuracy despite syntactic competence? Why do reasoning models fail on certain types of tasks? What limits the scalability of in-weight memorization in models? Why do conversational AI systems degrade in coherence over multiple turns? How do structured approaches and external tools improve language model reasoning? Can hidden capabilities in AI models evade detection during evaluation?