ON SYMMETRIC CONTINUUM OPINION DYNAMICS

arXiv:1311.0355v4 [math.DS] 10 Aug 2016

JULIEN M. HENDRICKX∗ AND ALEX OLSHEVSKY†
Abstract. This paper investigates the asymptotic behavior of some common opinion dynamic
models in a continuum of agents. We show that as long as the interactions among the agents are
symmetric, the distribution of the agents’ opinion converges. We also investigate whether convergence occurs in a stronger sense than merely in distribution, namely, whether the opinion of almost
every agent converges. We show that while this is not the case in general, it becomes true under
plausible assumptions on inter-agent interactions, namely that agents with similar opinions exert a
non-negligible pull on each other, or that the interactions are entirely determined by their opinions
via a smooth function.
Key words. multiagent systems, opinion dynamics, consensus, Lyapunov stability.
AMS subject classifications. 93D20, 91C20, 93A14.

1. Introduction. There has been much recent interest within the control community in the study of multi-agent systems in which the agents interact according
to simple, local rules, resulting in coordinated global behavior. Unfortunately, the
dynamics describing the interactions of such systems are often time-varying and nonlinear and their analysis appears to be at present impossible without making considerably simplifying assumptions. For instance, it is a common assumption in much
of the literature on multi-agent control that the graphs governing the inter-agent interactions satisfy some sort of long-term connectivity condition. This assumption is
necessary due to the apparent intractability of analyzing the long-term connectivity
properties associated with the graph of a multi-agent system governed by time-varying
and nonlinear local interactions.
Encouraging results without long-term connectivity conditions have however been
obtained for opinion dynamics models, one of the simplest and most natural class of
multi-agent systems with time-varying interactions. These models have been recently
proposed (see [18], [20], and the survey [22]) to model opinion changes resulting from
repeated personal interactions among individuals and have attracted considerable
attention within the control community (see [21, 6, 7, 9, 10, 36]). Much of this
attention is due to the similarities between opinion dynamics models and various
dynamics arising in multi-agent control. Indeed, opinion dynamics are also nonlinear
when the inter-agent interactions change with time and depend on on the states of
the agents. Consequently, it is believed that the techniques developed to rigorously
analyze the asymptotic behavior of these models will be useful in the analysis of
more complex multi-agent systems whose nonlinearity arises from state-dependent
and time-varying inter-agent interactions.
It has recently been shown for opinion dynamics systems with finitely many agents
that the symmetry of the inter-agent interactions (or actually a weak symmetry condition called “cut-balance”) was sufficient to guarantee the convergence of all agents,
independently of any long-term connectivity condition [19], something which makes the
∗ ICTEAM

Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium, (julien.hendrickx@uclouvain
.be). His work is supported by the Belgian Network DYSCO (Dynamical Systems, Control, and
Optimization), funded by the Interuniversity Attraction Poles Program, initiated by the Belgian
Science Policy Office.
† Department of ISE, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, (aolshev2@illinois.edu).
0 A preliminary version of this paper appeared in the Proceedings of the IEEE CDC 2013.
1

2
analysis of the asymptotic behavior of numerous systems considerably easier. Related
observations for discrete-time systems were made in [5, 27, 21] (see also references in
[19] as well as [41] and [11]).
Such general results are lacking for systems involving infinitely many agents, or
a continuous mass of agents, even though partial results have been obtained under
specific assumptions on the way interactions take place [9, 6] (the authors of [36] also
consider systems involving a continuous mass of agents, but focuse on the existence
and uniqueness of solutions, and on the possibility of approximating it by finitedimensional systems). Our goal in this paper is to analyze the extent to which the
results obtained for finitely many agents [19] or for some specific models [6, 9] remain
valid for general opinion dynamics models.
1.1. Model description. We now give a precise statement of the dynamics we
will study. We consider the functions xt (α) : [0, ∞)×[0, 1] → R which are solutions of
the equation
Z 1
ẋt (α) =
w (t, α, β, xt (α), xt (β)) (xt (β) − xt (α)) dβ,
(1.1)
0

with initial condition x0 (α) = x0 . Here w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·) is a nonnegative function. The
equation has a natural interpretation: each agent α∈ [0, 1] continually adjusts its
“opinion” xt (α) to move closer to the opinions of other agents, giving to each agent
β a nonnegative weight w (t, α, β, xt (α), xt (β)), which may depend on the identities
of the two agents, their opinions, and on time.
Often, the function w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·) is taken to be 1|xt (α)−xt (β)|<r for some “opinion
radius r,” which corresponds to every agent adjusting its opinion based only on the
opinions of other like-minded agents; this is the so-called Hegselmann-Krause model.
We will not be making this assumption here and will instead study the more general
case. Thus the weight agent α accords agent β can vary based on the time t, the
indices α and β, and the values xt (α), xt (β)1 .
Several technical assumptions are necessary for Eq. (1.1) to make sense. The
function w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·) is assumed to be jointly measurable in all variables. A constraint
on w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·) is needed to ensure that the integral in Eq. (1.1) is finite; we will
assume that w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·) is bounded, i.e., there exists some constant W < ∞ so that
w(t, α, β, xt (α), xt (β)) ≤ W for all values of t, α, β, xt (α), xt (β). Since our focus in
this paper is on properties of solutions of Eq. (1.1) when they exist, we will not
analyze in detail the questions of existence and uniqueness; rather we will assume
in the body of the paper that for each α ∈ [0, 1], xt (α) is an absolutely continuous
function such that Eq. (1.1) is satisfied2 for almost all t. We will assume that the
initial distribution of opinions is bounded, i.e., x0 (α) ∈ [0, 1] for all α ∈ [0, 1], and
that solutions do not explode in finite time, in the sense that supα∈[0,1],t≤T |xt (α)|
is finite for every T ≥ 0 (We will later see that all opinions then remain in [0, 1] for
all3 t.) We will be making these assumptions throughout the remainder of this paper
(except for Appendix A on existence and uniqueness of solutions) without mention.
1 We note that it is possible to omit the dependence on x (α) and x (β) without loss of genert
t
ality by appropriately modifying w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·). Nevertheless, we will continue writing w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·) as a
function of five arguments for simplicity of presentation.
2 Note that all of our main results on properties of solutions thus hold for any solution of Eq.
(1.1) that exists. Furthermore, we prove in Appendix A that existence and uniqueness of the kind of
solutions we study does actually hold under some Lipschitz assumptions on the function w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·).
3 In essence, we are unable to rule out the possibility that Eq. (1.1) may have certain “pathological” solutions which are not absolutely continuous or explode in finite time. Thus we restrict our

3
1.2. Particular cases of (1.1) . We now present some instantiations of Eq.
(1.1), and show that our general model not only encompasses many classical models
having appeared in the literature, but also allows representing new classes of more
complex models.
Example 1. Consensus of finitely many agents. Continuous consensus dynamics have
been widely studied in multi-agent control (see e.g., [26, 29, 33, 12, 19]). These are
the dynamics given by
żi (t) =

n
X
j=1

wij (t)(zj (t) − zi (t)),

i = 1, . . . , n,

(1.2)

where wij (t) are arbitrary nonnegative numbers. Intuitively, there are n distinct
agents which run dynamics that repeatedly push the values zi closer to each other with
“interaction strengths” wij (t). Under some connectivity and regularity conditions, one
can show that each zi (t) will converge to the same number [26], which is why these
dynamics are called “consensus dynamics.”
Continuous consensus dynamics may be viewed as a special case of Eq. (1.1).
Indeed, define Γi = [(i − 1)/n, i/n], and for any α, β ∈ [0, 1], if α ∈ Γi and β ∈ Γj , set
w(α, β, xt (β), xt (α) = nwij (t). Then it is immediate that if α ∈ Γi then xt (α) = zi (t).
In other words, this particular choices of w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·) leads the agents to replicate
continuous consensus dynamics. Note that if wij (t) = wji (t), the function w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·)
is symmetric in the sense of being unaffected by the interchange of α and β.
Consensus dynamics are a common tool throughout multi-agent control. We
mention their use in coverage control [17], formation control [30, 31], distributed
estimation [39, 40], distributed task assignment [13], and distributed optimization
[37] and [28]. It is often the case that multi-agent controllers are designed either
by a direct reduction to a consensus task or by using consensus dynamics (in either
continuous or discrete time) as a subroutine.
Due to the widespread use of consensus dynamics, it is of considerable interest to
analyze their behavior in large-scale systems, i.e., in the setting when the number of
agents goes to infinity. Some initial progress on questions of this type was made in [14],
and we believe that the analysis of (1.1) could prove instrumental in understanding
the asymptotic properties of such systems.
Example 2. The Hegselmann-Krause model. The model of opinion dynamics introduces by Hegselmann and Krause [18] corresponds to
w(t, α, β, xt (α), xt (β)) = 1|xt (β)−xt (α)|<r .
Here xt (α) is usually thought of as an opinion of agent α. Intuitively, each agent
ignores all opinions which deviate from its own by more than a certain “opinion
radius” r. However, each agent does move its opinion towards the average of those
other agents whose opinions are at most r from its own. Note that Hegselmann and
Krause studied in [18] a discrete-time version of this model.
attention in this paper to study of properties of any solutions that are well-behaved, i.e., absolutely
continuous with bounded suprema. In general, whether solutions which satisfy these properties exist, or whether all solutions satisfy these properties, are open questions. However, in Appendix A
we prove that subject to some continuity and Lipschitz assumptions on the function w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·),
solutions which satisfy all the properties we have assumed here do indeed exist.

4
The original paper by Hegselmann and Krause [18] spawned a vast follow-up
literature analyzing variations of the model, some of which we discuss next. It is, in
general, not possible to relate here all the observations that have been made about
this model. Nonetheless, we’d like to take this opportunity to mention a series of
recent breakthroughs analyzing the convergence time of the (asymmetric) version of
this model in discrete-time [16, 3, 38].
Example 3. Hegselmann-Krause models with unequal radii. It was proposed in the
recent paper [24] to study the unequal radii version,
w(t, α, β, xt (α), xt (β)) = 1|xt (β)−xt (α)|<rα .
In contrast to the standard Hegselmann-Krause model, here each agent α has a potentially different opinion radius rα which determines its openness to opinions of others.
In the terminology of [24], this is a synchronized bounded confidence model. It was
also proposed in [24] to study
w(t, α, β, xt (α), xt (β)) = 1|xt (β)−xt (α)|<rβ .
This corresponds to each agent “broadcasting” its opinion to others, with different
agents having different “loudness” and consequently reaching more agents. In the
language of [24], this is a synchronized bounded influence model. We remark that [24]
studied these models in discrete, rather than continuous time (see also the related
[25]). Moreover, we note that unlike the Hegselmann-Krause models, here w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·)
may not be symmetric in the sense that the weight agent α places on β may be
different than the weight agent β places on α. The results presented in this paper do
thus not always apply to such systems.
Example 4. Some other opinion dynamics. The generality of Eq. (1.1) includes many
other models of opinion dynamics. For example, it is natural to replace the sharp
cutoff of the Hegselmann-Krause model with a smoother decline. This corresponds to
agents which take the opinions of all other agents into account, but with decreasing
strength as these opinions deviate from theirs. Such models have appeared in the
literature; for example [8] considered weight functions which are continuous functions
of xt (β) − xt (α) which drop to zero outside of a certain radius. Another possibility is
to model the decline of opinion influence with a Gaussian decay, e.g., as
w(t, α, β, xt (α), xt (β)) = e

−

(xt (α)−xt (β))2
2
σa

.

(1.3)

In other models motivated by robotic applications where sensors cannot accurately
sense robots that are too close (see e.g. [23]), weights are positive only when agents
are separated by a distance within a certain range that does not include 0, e.g.
w(t, α, β, xt (α), xt (β)) = 1 if |(xt (α) − xt (β)| ∈ [Rmin , Rmax ] and 0 else.
Alternatively, Eq. (1.1) is general enough so that the usual assumption of homogeneity in opinion dynamic models may be dispensed with: for example, we may
instead assume that agents come in k different types and w(t, α, β, xt (α), xt (β)) depends not only on the distance between xt (α) and xt (β) but also on the types of α
and β. This would allow us to model a scenario wherein agents put more weight on
the opinion of similar agents. We may also consider a model along these lines with a
continuous measure of similarity, e.g.,
w(t, α, β, xt (β), xt (α)) = 1|α−β|<r0 · 1|xt (α)−xt (β)|<r .

(1.4)

5
This corresponds to agents which ignore the opinions not only of agents whose opinions
are distant from theirs, but also agents which are not sufficiently similar. Note that
Eq. (1.4) features a w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·) which is symmetric in the sense of being unaffected
by interchange of α and β; on the other hand, the model from Eq. (1.3) described
above will not be symmetric unless all the parameters σα are identical.
Finally, we note that since w(t, α, β, xt (α), xt (β)) and w(t, α0 , β, xt (α0 ), xt (β)) can
be arbitrarily different functions whenever α 6= α0 , Eq. (1.1) can also model any
mixture of the models we have just described.
As the previous examples make clear, Eq. (1.1) captures the properties of a
number of popular opinion dynamic models, and furthermore, the generality of Eq.
(1.1) allows us to describe a wide multitude of models not yet considered in the
literature. It is therefore interesting to investigate how solutions of Eq. (1.1) behave.
We next turn to our results on this subject.
1.3. Main results. Unfortunately, in general Eq. (1.1) is not guaranteed to
converge in any meaningful sense. Indeed, as Example 2 above makes clear, consensus of finitely many agents is a special case of Eq. (1.1) and consequently all the
counterexamples to convergence of finitely many agents from, for example, [2] can be
adapted to this setting.
We briefly spell out one example. Consider the dynamic system which switches
at integer times between the following two systems:
ż1 = 0, ż2 = z1 − z2 , ż3 = 0,

and

ż1 = 0, ż2 = z3 − z2 , ż3 = 0.

This may be viewed as an instance of continuous consensus dynamics of Example 1
in Section 1.2 by defining the coefficients wij (t) appropriately. It is easy to see that
if z1 (0) < z2 (0) < z3 (0) then this dynamic leads to z2 (t) diverging as it alternates
between being pulled in the direction of z1 (0) and being “pulled” in the direction of
z3 (0).
As we discussed in Example 1 of Section 1.2, continuous consensus dynamics are
a special case of Eq. (1.1). We therefore conclude that, in general, it is not true that
if xt (α) satisfies Eq. (1.1) for some w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·) then all or almost all xt (α) converge
as t → ∞. It is not even true that the distribution of values of xt (α) converges in any
meaningful sense: we see from the above example that a mass of agents can alternate
between being close to z1 (0) and close to z2 (0).
However, we will show that under the assumption that w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·) is symmetric,
i.e.,
w(t, α, β, xt (α), xt (β)) = w(t, β, α, xt (β), xt (α))
the distribution of the agents is guaranteed to converge. We state this result formally
next.
First, we review the relevant notion of convergence of distributions. Every function xt (α) defines a measure µt on the real line in the natural way
µt (A) = L({α | xt (α) ∈ A})

(1.5)

where L(·) refers to the Lebesgue measure on the real line. These measures µt are a
natural way to summarize the concentrations of the values xt (α). The most natural
definition of convergence of distributions would be that limt µt (A) = µ∞ (A) for any
Borel measurable set A; this is referred to as strong convergence of measures and it

6
is usually too restrictive to be used in practice (under this definition, for example,
defining µy (A) = 1y∈A we have that it is not true that µ1/t converges to µ0 as
t → ∞). Consequently, the most commonly used notion is convergence in distribution
(sometime referred to in this context as weak-∗ convergence): µt approaches µ∞ in
distribution if limt µt (A) = µ∞ (A) for all sets A whose boundary Rhas measure 0
under
µ∞ . Equivalently, µt approaches µ∞ in distribution if limt→∞ η(x)dµt (x) =
R
η(x)dµ∞ for every bounded continuous function η. This equivalence is part of
Portmanteau’s theorem, see for example [4].
We can now state our first main result.
Theorem 1.1. Suppose w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·) is nonnegative and symmetric and let xt (α)
be a solution of Eq. (1.1) and µt be defined as in Eq. (1.5). Then there exists a
measure µ∞ on [0, 1] such that µt approaches µ∞ in distribution.
Theorem 1.1 states that symmetry is sufficient for convergence (though recall that
we made several assumptions in order for Eq. (1.1) to make sense which we are not
mentioning). We will see that it can directly be extended to multi-dimensional opinions. It is significantly stronger than the results previously available in the literature.
For example, [9] proves a version of Theorem 1.1 in a similar (discrete-time) model
under the additional assumptions that w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·) depends only on xt (β) − xt (α) (so
it is a function of just one argument). Similarly, [6] proves a version of Theorem 1.1
under the assumption that the solution xt (α) is monotonic.
We next turn to the question of whether it is possible to improve upon the conclusion of convergence in distribution. In fact, convergence in distribution does not
seem to be the most natural notion of convergence for this class of systems; the more
plausible notion would be convergence of almost all agents, i.e., that xt (α) converges
for almost all α. We show, however, that convergence in this sense may not occur.
Theorem 1.2. There exists a symmetric, nonnegative w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·) and bounded
functions xt satisfying Eq. (1.1) with this w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·) such that the set of α where
xt (α) does not converge has positive measure.
We believe that the contrast between Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2 is somewhat
surprising. Indeed, for opinion dynamics of finitely many agents, it is not hard to see
that convergence in distribution and of all agents are equivalent in continuous time
but not in discrete time4 . Our initial conjecture when beginning this work was that
for a continuum of agents with symmetric kernel, convergence will happen either in
both senses or not at all; however, these two theorems show this to be false.
Nevertheless, in spite of Theorem 1.2, it may be possible that a stronger form of
convergence holds in many natural settings. The extent to which this is true remains
an open question. But, we are able to show that as long as agents with similar opinions
exert a non-negligible pull on each other, almost all of the xt (α) will indeed converge.
Formally, let us define the set of functions Γ(r, ∆) for r > 0, ∆ > 0 to be the set of
w(t, α, β, xt (α), xt (β)) which satisfy the following property: if
|xt (α) − xt (β)| ≤ r
then
w(t, α, β, xt (α), xt (β)) ≥ ∆.
4 More formally, if L is a Laplacian matrix then x0 (t) = −Lx(t) converges in distribution if and
only if each xi (t) converges; on the other hand, there exist symmetric stochastic matrices A such
that x(t + 1) = Ax(t) has e the property that some xi (t) diverges while the distribution of the vector
x(t) remains fixed.

7
We then have the following theorem.
Theorem 1.3. If w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·) is symmetric, nonnegative, and belongs to some
Γ(r, ∆) for r > 0, ∆ > 0, then xt (α) converges for almost all α.
Moreover, there exist a finite number of points z1 , z2 , . . . , zk ∈ [0, 1] with |zi − zj | ≥
r for all i 6= j such that limt→∞ xt (α) ∈ {z1 , . . . , zk } for almost all α.
We can also guarantee convergence for almost all agents when the interactions
only depend on time and on the opinions via a sufficiently smooth and bounded
function.
Theorem 1.4. Suppose that the interaction weights w(., ., ., ., .) are symmetric,
nonnegative, and depend only on time and the positions:
w(t, α, β, xt (α), xt (β)) = w̃(t, xt (α), xt (β)).
If w̃ is Lipschitz continuous, i.e. |w̃(t, x, y) − w̃(t, x, z)| ≤ L |y − z| for all t, x, y, z,
and some L, then any soluton xt (α) of (1.1) converges for almost all α.
We note that as a particular case of both results above, convergence of xt (α) for
almost all α is guaranteed for the one-dimensional versions of the systems considered
in [9], where the authors proved convergence in distribution.
Outline. The rest of this paper is dedicated to providing proofs of these four
theorems. Theorem 1.1 on convergence in distribution is proved in Section 2. Theorem
1.2 on the possible absence of convergence of the opinions themselves is proved in
Section 3, while the positive convergence results, Theorems 1.3 and 1.4 are proved in
Section 4. We briefly summarize and describe some open questions in Section 5.
Finally, although a detailed analysis of questions of existence and uniqueness is outside
the scope of the present paper, we show in Appendix A that existence and uniqueness
does hold in a substantial class of models, and therefore that our convergence results
do apply to actual solutions in those cases.
2. Convergence in distribution. In this section we will prove Theorem 1.1.
Our proof is quite short and rests on a novel combination of two techniques: a simple
exchange of integrals to establish that every convex function is a Lyapunov function
(see proof of Lemma 2.3) coupled with an appeal to some results of Haussdorff about
the moment problem (see proof of Theorem 1.1 below). But first, we prove a technical
lemma stating that, consistently with the intuition, all opinions remain in [0, 1] and
their evolution is uniformly Lipschitz continuous.
Lemma 2.1. Let x be a solution of (1.1). Then xt (α) ∈ [0, 1] for all α ∈ [0, 1], t ≥
0, and |xt (α) − xs (α)| ≤ W |s − t| for all s, t ≥ 0.
Proof. Suppose, to obtain a contradiction, that there exists a time t∗ and some
agent α∗ for which xt∗ (α∗ ) < 0. Let then −m := inf β∈[0,1],t∈[0,t∗ ] xs (β) be the infimum
of all opinions that have been held until time t∗ . Our assumption that x does not
explode in finite time implies that m is finite.
Consider now an agent α. Since xt (α) is absolutely continuous with respect to t
and satisfies (1.1) for almost all t, there holds
xt (α) − x0 (α) =

Z
0

t

Z
β∈[0,1]

!
w(s, α, β, xs (α), xs (β))(xs (β) − xs (α))dβ

ds

for every t. It follows then from the definition of m and the (uniform) boundedness

8
and nonnegativity of w that for every t ∈ [0, t∗ ],
!
Z t Z
w(s, α, β, xs (α), xs (β))(−m − xs (α))dβ ds
xt (α) − x0 (α) ≥
0

≥

β∈[0,1]

t

Z
0

Z
β∈[0,1]

!
W.(−m − xs (α))dβ

Z
ds =
0

t

W.(−m − xs (α))ds,

where we have used −m − xs (α) ≤ 0 in the second inequality. An integral form of
Gronwall’s inequality (see Section 1.1 in [15]) implies then that
xt (α) ≥ −m + (x0 (α) + m)e−W t , ∀t ≤ t∗ .

∗

Remembering that x0 (α) ≥ 0, we obtain then that xt (α) ≥ −m+me−W t > −m holds
for every α and t ∈ [0, t∗ ], in contradiction with 0 > −m = inf t∈[0,t∗ ],α∈[0,1] xt (α).
Our hypothesis that xt (α) < 0 for some t∗ and α does thus never hold. A symmetric
argument shows that xt (α) ≤ 1 for every α and t ≥ 0. As a consequence we also have
|xt (α) − xt (β)| ≤ 1, and the Lipschitz continuity condition |xt (α) − xs (α)| ≤ W |s − t|
follows then directly from (1.1) and the bound w(., ., ., ., .) ≤ W .
Definition 2.2. Given a Borel measurable function f : R → R define
Z 1
Vf (t) =
f (xt (α)) dα
0

Lemma 2.3. If f : R → R is convex and differentiable everywhere then for all
t ≥ 0, V˙f (t) ≤ 0.
Proof. In what follows, we use the abbreviation w̃z,α to denote w(t, z, α, xt (z), xt (α)).
We argue as follows. First, V (t) is an absolutely continuous function which satisfies
Z
Z 1
d 1
d
V̇f (t) =
f (xt (α)) dα
f (xt (α)) dα =
dt 0
0 dt
for almost all t. We justify this as follows. Observe that (i) xt (α) is jointly measurable
in t and α because it is measurable in α for fixed t and Lipschitz continuous in t for
fixed α (by Lemma 2.1). Since f (·) is differentiable, f (xt (α)) is jointly measurable in
t and α as well. (ii) Because xt (α) is Lipschitz continuous, we have that f (xt (α)) is
integrable over α for any fixed t; moreover, for the same reason, f (xt (α)) is absolutely
continuous with respect to t for each α. (iii) The almost everywhere time derivative of
f (xt (α)) which is f 0 (xt (α))ẋt (α) is integrable over any compact subset of (0, ∞)×[0, 1].
It can then be proved (see for example Theorem 3 of [1]) that (i)-(iii) implies that the
function Vf (t) is absolutely continuous and satisfies the above equation for almost all
t.
Consequently,
Z
V̇f (t) =
f 0 (xt (α))w̃z,α (xt (z) − xt (α)) dz dα
2
[0,1]
Z
1
=
w̃z,α f 0 (xt (a))(xt (z) − xt (α)) dz dα
2 [0,1]2
Z
1
+
w̃z,α f 0 (xt (z))(xt (α) − xt (z)) dz dα
2 [0,1]2
Z
1
=
w̃z,α (f 0 (xt (α)) − f 0 (xt (z)))(xt (z) − xt (α)) dz dα
2 [0,1]2

9
Here we applied Fubini’s theorem relying on the boundedness of xt (α) for any fixed t,
the boundedness of w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·), and finally the boundedness f 0 on the closed interval
[0, 1].
Now examining the final expression, we see that since w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·) is nonnegative
and f 0 (·) is an increasing function due to the convexity of f , the integrand is always
nonpositive. The absolute continuity of Vf (t) then implies that Vf (t) is nonincreasing.
R1
Remark 2.4. As a consequence of Lemma 2.3, the functions mt (k) = 0 xt (α)k dα
are nonincreasing for each k ≥ 1. Viewing each xt as a random variable with statespace [0, 1], mt (k) has the interpretation that it is the k’th moment of this random
variable.
We can now prove the main result of this section.
Proof. [Proof of Theorem 1.1] Let us view each xt as a random variable defined
on the state-space Ω = [0, 1]. Remark 2.4 implies that the moments mt (k) are nonincreasing for k ≥ 1; consequently, limt→∞ mt (k) exists for each k ≥ 1. We next argue
that there exists a random variable x∞ whose k’th moment is limt→∞ mt (k). This
follows from a result of Haussdorff, which is that a sequence s = s0 , s1 , s2 , . . . is a valid
moment sequence for a random variable with values in [0, 1] if and only if a certain
infinite family of linear combinations of the si are nonnegative; each of these combinations has only finitely many nonzero coefficients (see [34], Theorem 1.5). Clearly, the
moments of each xt satisfy this condition since each xt defines such a random variable. Moreover, every moment remains in a compact set independent of t. Therefore
the limiting moments limt→∞ mt (k) also satisfy the condition of Haussdorff’s result.
We conclude that there is a random variable x∞ taking values in [0, 1] such that the
moments of xt converge to the moments of x∞ . Naturally, all the moments of x∞ are
in [0, 1].
Next, convergence of moments xt to the moments x∞ implies convergence in
distribution of xt to x∞ if the distribution of x∞ is uniquely defined by its moments
([4], Theorem 30.2). However, any random variable whose moments are in [0, 1] has
the property that its distribution is uniquely defined by its moments ([4], Theorem
30.1). Thus xt converges to x∞ in distribution. By the Portmanteau theorem ([32],
Section 7.1), this immediately implies the conclusion of this Theorem.
As a final remark about Theorem 1.1, we note that even though it is stated for
one-dimensional opinions (xt (α) ∈ R), it can directly be extended to opinions in
xt (α) ∈ Rq satisfying a q−dimensional version of (1.1) provided that the interactions
weights w remain scalar or q−dimensional diagonal matrices. Indeed, one can in that
case apply Theorem 1.1 to each component of xt (α) separately.
3. Absence of convergence. This section is dedicated to proving Theorem
1.2 showing that, intriguingly, there exist opinion dynamics systems converging in
distribution for which a positive measure set of agents does not converge.
3.1. Proof sketch. The proof, while somewhat technically involved, is based on
a simple idea. We consider a situation in which there is always a constant mass of
agents uniformly distributed between [−1/2, 1/2] with every agent constantly cycling
between −1/2 and 1/2. We will show that this cycling can take place at a speed v(t)
which drops to zero with time but slowly enough so that every agent makes the loop
from −1/2 to 1/2 infinitely many times.
We accomplish this in terms of Eq. (1.1) as follows. There will be a mass of

10
agents uniformly distributed in [−1/2, 1/2] moving right; and similarly mass of agents
uniformly distributed in [−1/2, 1/2] moving left. When each agent reaches ±1/2, it
switches from one mass to the other. Agents moving right put a positive weight on
agents to their right moving left while agents moving left put a positive weight on
agents on their left moving right.
Specifically, every agent moving right will put p
a constant weight on all agents
moving left and located within an interval of size O( v(t)) to its right; and similarly
every agent moving left will putpa constant weight on all agents moving right and
located in an interval of p
size O( v(t)) to its left. The idea is thatpan agent moving
right will be pulled by O( v(t)) agents at an average distance
p of O( v(t)), so that the
average pull by each of the agents will be of strength O( v(t)) because, w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·)
being constant, the pulls agents exert on each other is proportional to their distance.
Thus its velocity will comepout to be v(t). However, this will not work for those agents
which are closer than O( v(t)) to 1/2 and −1/2 which do not have enough agents
to their right and left, respectively.
We fix this by introducing a unit mass of agents CR initially located at C0 > 1/2
and a unit mass of agents
p CL initially located at −C0 < −1/2. Agents in [−1/2, 1/2]
within a distance O( v(t)) of 1/2 will put a positive weight on agents in CR while
agents in [−1/2, 1/2] within the same distance of −1/2 will put a positive weight
p on
agents in CL . The weights will be precisely chosen so that the agents within O( v(t))
of 1/2 and −1/2 will cycle with speed v(t), as the other agents in [−1/2, 1/2]. Note
that because the weights are symmetric, this has the effect of pushing the agents in
CR to the left over time and similarly pushing the agents in CL right over time. The
user may refer to Figure 3.1 for a graphical representation.
The key point is that the weights w(t, α, β, xt (α), xt (β)) between, say, α ∈ CR
and β in the right corner of [−1/2, 1/2] only need to be of magnitude O(v(t)) to make
β cycle with speed v(t). This is simply because there is a unit mass of agents in CR
and so as long as the separation between [−1/2, 1/2] and the agents in CR is bounded
away from zero, which we will show can be achieved, the weight needed to pull the
agent β with speed v(t) to the right is O(v(t)). Similarly, the weights between CL
and the left corner of [−1/2, 1/2] need to be of magnitude
p O(v(t)).
Consequently, agents in CR move left with speed O( p
v(t)) · O(v(t)) = O(v(t)1.5 ),
since they get pulled left by a mass of agents of sizeR O( v(t)) on whichR they put
∞
∞
weights of magnitude O(v(t)). If v(t) is chosen so that 0 v(t) = +∞ while 0 v(t)1.5
is finite and sufficiently small, the agents in CR do not approach +1/2 but rather
remain bounded away from it. Similarly, the agents in Cl remain bounded away from
−1/2. Thus the motion we have just described - agents in CR moving left, agents in
CL moving right, and agents between [−1/2, 1/2] cycling - goes on forever, and the
positive mass of agents cycling in [−1/2, 1/2] never converge, even though the speed
of the agents decay to 0 and the system converges in distribution consistently with
Theorem 1.1.
3.2. The proof. Without further ado, we proceed to the technical details of the
argument.
Proof. We first describe an evolution x for which a positive measure set of agents
does not converge. We then define some symmetric weights w(t, α, β), and show that
this evolution x is a solution of (1.1) for those weights.
For the clarity of exposition, the agents are separated in three distinct sets, and
x0 is bounded but its image is not included in [0, 1]. The first two sets are CR and CL ,

11
p
2 2 3/2
v
3

p
2 2 3/2
v
3

I

CL

v
v
1
2

CR

IR

IL
1
2

x

Fig. 3.1. Representation of the density of agents corresponding to the non-converging evolution
x used in the proof of Theorem 1.2. The agents in I = IR ∪ IL continuously move from left to
right, with a speed v whose integral does not converge. The clusters CL and CR on the other hand
move with a speed proportional to v 3/2 , the integral of which does converge, so that they never reach
[− 12 , 12 ].

for right and left cluster respectively, both of measure 1. The third set is I = [0, 2].
Our system can be recasted in the form (1.1) with agents indexed on [0, 1] by a simple
change of variable. Besides, when there is no risk of ambiguity, we will sometimes
refer to the agents as moving instead of as having their opinions changing, and call
“velocity” the variation rate ẋt (α) of their opinions.
A. Definition of x
The evolution x is represented in Fig. 3.1.
R∞
Formally, we select a function v : R+ → R+ such that 0 v(t)dt diverges,
R ∞ 3/2
but 0 v (t)dt < ∞ (for example v(t) = (t + 1)−3/4 ). Let then S(t) = − 12 +
|1 − (t mod 2)|, where t mod 2 denotes the unique value in [0, 2) equal to t − 2k for
some integer k. Observe that S(t) ∈ [− 21 , 12 ], and that dS
dt (t) is defined everywhere
dS
except for integer t, with dt (t) = 1 when btc is odd and −1 when btc is even. We
now define x, represented in Fig. 3.1, in the following
way:

Rt
• If α ∈ I, then xt (α) = S α + 0 v(s)ds .
• If α ∈ CL , then
Rt √
xt (α) = xt (CL ) := −C0 + 0 2 3 2 v(s)3/2 ds.
• If α ∈ CR , then
Rt √
xt (α) = xt (CR ) := C0 − 0 2 3 2 v(s)3/2 ds,
R∞ √
for some C0 > 1/2 + 0 2 3 2 v(s)3/2 ds.
Observe that x does not converge, as the agents in I keep moving with speed
v, the integral of which diverges. The evolution x converges however in distribution,
consistently with Theorem 1.1. Indeed, one can verify that the density of agents on
[−1/2, 1/2] remains constant at 2 for all t. At the same time, the opinions of the agents
in CL and CR converge monotonously to some points out of the interval [−1/2, 1/2]
due to our assumption on C0 .
In order to describe precisely the velocities and to later define the interaction
weights, it is convenient to separate I in two time-varying
R t disjoint sets. For every t,
we let IR (t) be the set of those α ∈ [0, 2] for which bα + 0 v(s)c is odd, and IL (t) the
Rt
set of those for which this expression is even. Observe that since the shift 0 v(s) is
the same for all agents, which are all initially in [0, 2], IR (t) and IL (t) both have the
same measure 1, and the “density” of agents of IR and IL on [− 21 , 12 ] are both uniform

12

✏

<✏

CR

IR

IL

↵2

↵1

x

Fig. 3.2. Representations of the interactions in the example used in the proof of Theorem 1.2.
The agent α1 moves to the right hand side, and is attracted by all the agents moving on the left
hand side that are in front of it and distant by less than  form it, guaranteeing a speed v. The
agent α2 is a distance smaller then  from the edge of the distribution, so there are not enough
agents to attract it with a speed v (if interactions have the same intensity). This is compensated by
interactions with the cluster CR .

and equal to 1 at all time. Besides, one can verify using the definition of xt (α) on I
that ẋt (α) = v(t) for every α ∈ IR (t) and ẋt (α) = −v(t) for every α ∈ IL (t) (except
Rt
for the two agents for which α + 0 v(s) is an integer, which we will neglect in this
√
√
proof). Similarly, ẋt (α) = 2 3 2 v(t)3/2 for every α ∈ CL , and ẋt (α) = − 2 3 2 v(t)3/2
if α ∈ CR . These four equalities actually entirely characterize ẋt (α) (up to the two
points where it might not be defined).
B. Interaction weights
We now define some symmetric weights w in order to later show that xt is a
solution to (1.1) for these weights. The idea is that agents in I will move thanks to
an attraction exerted by agents moving in the other direction and lying in an interval
of length (t) ahead of them, for an appropriately chosen (t). Agents at distance less
than  from the edge of the interval to which they are moving are in addition attracted
by the clusters CL or CR , as represented in Fig. 3.2. These clusters are attracted in
return, but move sufficiently slowly so that they never reach the interval [− 21 , 12 ].
The interactions between the agents of I are defined by
w(t, α, β) = 1 if α ∈ IR (t), β ∈ IL (t) and 0 < xt (β) − xt (α) < (t),
and 0 else, where we remind the reader that all weights are symmetric. In addition,
agents of IR (t) with opinions above 21 − (t) interact with those of IR (t) with weights
2
(t)2 − 21 − xt (α)
w(t, α, β) =
(3.1)
2 (xt (CL ) − xt (α))
for α ∈ IR (t), β ∈ CR and xt (α) ≥

1
2

− (t). Similarly,

2
(t)2 − 21 + xt (α)
w(t, α, β) =
2 (xt (α) − xt (CR ))
if α ∈ IL (t), β ∈ CL and xt (α) ≤ − 21 + (t).
C. x solution of (1.1) for these weights w.
To show that x is a solution of the system
R (1.1) for these weights, we just need to
show that the right-hand side term of (1.1), w(t, α, β)(xt (β) − xt (α))dβ, is equal to

13
the velocities ẋt (α) computed in part A. This expression
should thus be√equal to v(t)
√
2 2
(resp. −v(t)) for α ∈ IR (t) (resp. IL (t)), and to 3 v(t)3/2 (resp. − 2 3 2 v(t)3/2 ) for
α ∈ CL (resp. CR ), neglecting again the two agents for which ẋt (α) is not defined.
We first consider an agent α ∈ IR (t) distant from the boundary 21 by more than
(t), and interacting thus only with those agents of IL (t) having opinions between
xα (t) and xα (t) + (t). Its velocity ẋt (α) is
Z
w(α, β, t) (xt (β) − xt (α)) dβ.
β∈IL (t):xt (β)∈[xt (α),xt (α)+(t)]

Since the density of IL (t) is 1 over the whole interval (− 12 , 12 ), we have
Z

xt (α)+(t)

ẋt (α) =
y=xt (α)

(y − xt (α)) dy =

1
(t)2 = v(t),
2

(3.2)

consistently with the definition of x. Let us now consider an agent α ∈ IR (t) distant
from the boundary 12 by less than (t). Such agents interact with agent in IL (t) and
with the agents in CR . There holds thus
Z
ẋt (α) =
w(α, β, t) (xt (β) − xt (α)) dβ
β∈IL (t):xt (β)∈[xt (α),xt (α)+(t)]
Z
+
w(α, β, t) (xt (γ) − xt (α)) dγ.
γ∈CR

Taking into account that the density of IR (t) is 1 in (− 21 , 12 ), the fact that xt (α) >
1
2 − (t) and the fact that all agents in CR have the same opinion Xt (Cr ), and interact
with α according to (3.1), we obtain again
2
Z
(t)2 − 12 − xt (α)
ẋt (α) =
(y − xt (α)) dy +
(xt (CR ) − xt (α))
dγ
2 (xt (CR ) − xt (α))
γ∈Cr
y=xt (α)
!

2

2
1 1
1
1
1
− xt (α) +
(t)2 −
− xt (α)
= (t)2 = v(t).
=
2 2
2
2
2
1/2

Z

We now consider an agent α in the right cluster CR . All agents in CR have the same
opinion xt (CR ) and are interacting with agents in IR (t) at a distance less than (t)
from 1/2, with the weights (3.1), so that ẋt (α) =
Z
β∈IR (t):xt (β)≥ 21 −(t)

2
2 − 12 − xt (β)
(xt (β) − xt (CR ))dβ
2 (xt (CR ) − xt (α))

Using again the the density of IR (t) is 1 over (− 21 , 12 ), we obtain
√

2 !
Z
1 1/2
1
1
2 2
2
3
ẋt (α) = −
 −
−y
dy = (t) = −
v(t)3/2 .
2 y=1/2−
2
3
3
consistently with our definition of x. We have thus proved that x satisfies (1.1)
with the symmetric weights that we have defined for all agents in IR (t) and CR . A
symmetric argument applies to agents in IL (t) and CL , so that x is indeed a solution
of (1.1), which achieves the proof, since we have already seen that xt (α) does not
converge for any α ∈ I = IL (t) ∪ IR (t).

14
4. Convergence for almost all agents. In this section we will prove Theorems 1.3 and 1.4, providing in both theorems sufficient conditions for the convergence
of almost all agents. As we will see, proving these theorems requires us to go beyond
establishing the existence of limits for moments of xt (α). Rather, we will need to derive explicit convergence rates for these moments and argue that only certain patterns
of motion on the part of the agents are consistent with those rates.
4.1. Proof of Theorem 1.3. Our proof has two parts. First we prove that the
mass of agent opinions eventually concentrates on a finite number of points z1 , . . . , zk .
Then we will argue that no agent, except possibly those in a zero measure set, can
move from the neighborhood of one of these points to the neighborhood of another
infinitely often.
We begin with the key lemma which explores a consequence of the decay of the
second moment m2 (t). We remind the reader that all the assumptions made in the
introduction are assumed to hold in this section.
Lemma 4.1.
Z ∞Z
w(t, α, β, xt (α), xt (β))(xt (β) − xt (α))2 dα dβ dt < ∞
0

[0,1]2

R1
Proof. Recall that m2 (t) = 0 xt (α)2 dα. Using again the abbreviation w̃z,α to
denote w(t, z, α, xt (z), xt (α)), we have,
Z
ṁ2 (t) = 2
xt (α)ẋt (α) dα
[0,1]
Z
Z
=2
w̃z,α xt (α)xt (z) dz dα − 2
w̃z,α x2t (α) dz dα
2
2
[0,1]
[0,1]
Z
2
=−
w̃z,α (xt (α) − xt (z)) dz dα
[0,1]2

where the final step used the symmetry of w. We remark that this derivation closely
parallels the proof of Lemma 2.3 and the same justifications for differentiating under
the integral sign and using Fubini’s theorem apply. Now since m2 (t) ≥ 0 we have that
the the integral of the last quantity must be finite.
We now seek to convert this lemma into a slightly more convenient form. To that
end, we use the following fact, whose proof is routine.
Lemma 4.2. Let f : R → R be a Borel measurable function and let A be a set
with positive Lebesgue measure L(A). Then

2
Z
Z
Z
1
2
(f (x) − f (y)) = 2L(A)
f (x) −
f (y)
L(A) y∈A
(x,y)∈A×A
x∈A
Our next step is to combine the previous two lemmas with the assumptions on
positive interactions at distance less than r into the following result. Thus the assumptions of Theorem 1.3 will be henceforth made for all results in the remainder of
Section 4.1.
Lemma 4.3. Let I be an interval of length less than r and let B(I, t) be the set
of α such that xt (α) ∈ I. There is a function z(t) whose range lies in I such that
Z
2
lim
(xt (α) − z(t)) = 0
t→∞

α∈B(I,t)

15

Proof. We first prove that
Z
lim
t→∞

α,β∈B(I,t)

(xt (α) − xt (β))2 = 0.

(4.1)

Indeed, suppose that I = [a, b] and let I 0 = [a − , b + ] where we pick  so that
the length of I 0 is positive but less than r. Suppose, to obtain a contradiction, that
(4.1) does not hold and thus that
Z
(xtk (α) − xtk (β))2 > 0
(4.2)
α,β∈B(I,tk )

for some 0 > 0 and for a sequence of times tk which approaches infinity. Let ∆tk ⊆
B(I, tk )×B(I, tk ) be the set of ordered pairs (α, β) for which (xtk (α)−xtk (β))2 > 0 /2.
Since xt (α) ∈ [0, 1] by Lemma 2.1, it follows from Eq. (4.2) that ∆tk has measure at
least 0 /2 (else, the integral in Eq. (4.2) would be upper bounded by 0 ).
Thanks to the Lipschitz continuity of x with respect to time (Lemma 2.1 again),
we can then conclude that there exist a sequence of times t0k > tk with the property
that t0k − tk is uniformly bounded from below, and such that for all t ∈ [tk , t0k ] and
α, β ∈ ∆tk there holds (i) (xt (α) − xt (β))2 ≥ 0 /4 and xt (α), xt (β) ∈ I 0 ⊃ I. This
implies that
Z Z
(xt (α) − xt (β))2 =∞.
(4.3)
t

α,β∈B(I 0 ,t)

Recall, however, that w(t, α, β, xt (α), xt (β)) ≥ ∆ > 0 when |xt (α) − xt (β)| < r, which
is always the case if α, β ∈ B(I 0 , t). The divergence in (4.3) implies thus the divergence
of
Z Z
w(t, α, β, xt (α), xt (β))(xt (α) − xt (β))2 ,
t

α,β∈B(I 0 ,t)

in contradiction with Lemma 4.1. We conclude that (4.1) must hold.
To conclude our proof, set
Z
1
xt (α)
z(t) =
L(B(I, t)) α∈B(I,t)
and observe that
Z
2
(xt (α) − z(t)) ≤ min L(B(I, t)),
α∈B(I,t)

1
2L(B(I, t))

Z
α,β∈B(I,t)

!
(xt (α) − xt (β))

2

where we used Lemma
R 4.2. Performing some elementary manipulations on limits, this
implies that limt→∞ α,β∈B(I,t) (xt (α) − z(t))2 = 0.

We now show that z(t) in the previous lemma can actually be taken as constant
independent of t.
Definition 4.4. We call any point x with µ∞ (x) = 0 a continuity point. Note
that if x ∈
/ [0, 1] then x is automatically a continuity point. An interval [a, b] is a
continuity interval if both a and b are continuity points. Having established Theorem
1.1, we know that for any continuity interval I, µt (I) → µ∞ (I).

16

Lemma 4.5. There exist a finite sequence of points z1 , . . . , zk in [0, 1] such that:
1. If I is a closed interval not containing any of the points zi , then µ∞ (I) = 0.
2. If I is a closed interval whose interior contains at least one zi , then µ∞ (I) >
0. In fact, there exists some l > 0 such that µ∞ (I) ≥ l for any such I.
Proof. Let m be an integer larger than 1/r, and let us cover the interval [0, 1] with
m successive continuity intervals J1 , . . . , Jm of length strictly less than r (note that
the starting point of the first interval can be below zero and the endpoint of the last
interval can be above one). Since a measure can have at most countably many points
which are not continuity points, such a partition always exists. It can for example be
obtained by starting from a partition in m intervals of equal length slightly perturbing
the endpoints that would not be continuity points.
Applying Lemma 4.3, get the existence of m functions zt (i) such that for each
l = 1, . . . , m,
Z
(xt (α) − zt (i))2 = 0
(4.4)
lim
t→∞

α∈B(Ji ,t)

Note that by definition L(B(Ji , t)) = µt (Ji ). We have, therefore, the following concentration result implied by Eq. (4.4): either µt (Ji ) approaches 0 as t → ∞ or, for
any  > 0 there is a time after which the measure of the set of agents with values in
Ji ∩ [zi (t) − , zi (t) + ] is at least (1 − )µ∞ (Ji ).
We next claim that if µ∞ (Ji ) > 0 then zt (i) converges as t → ∞. Indeed, if some
such zt (i) had two distinct limit points, then the concentration result of the previous
paragraph would immediately contradict the convergence of the measures associated
to xt established in Theorem 1.1. Finally, we pick z1 , . . . , zk to be the limits of those
zt (i) with µ∞ (Ji ) > 0.
Having defined the points zi , we now turn to the statement of the lemma. Indeed,
consider some interval I. There are two possibilities considered by this lemma.
If the interior of I contains some zi , we can choose  small enough so that [zi −
, zi + ] lies strictly inside I. We can perturb the endpoints of I to bring them
closer to each other to get the interval I 0 which is a continuity interval still containing
[zi − , zi + ]. As we argued above, eventually there is always a (1 − )µ∞ (Ji ) mass
of agents in a subinterval of [zi − , zi + ], where µ∞ (Ji ) is strictly positive. This
implies that eventually µt (I 0 ) is positive and bounded from below. Moreover, since
I 0 is a continuity interval, µt (I 0 ) converges to µ∞ (I 0 ), so that µ∞ (I 0 ) > 0. Moreover,
we can further lower bound µ∞ (I 0 ) ≥ l where l is the smallest positive µ∞ (Ji ). Since
I 0 ⊂ I, these claims hold for I as well.
Suppose
now that I does not contain any zi . We may write I as a disjoint union
Sm
I = i=1 Ji ∩ I. Consider each intersection in this union. Either µ∞ (Ji ) has measure
zero, in which case so does µ∞ (Ji ∩I); or µ∞ (Ji ) > 0. In the latter case, the interval Ji
will contain an element from the set {zj }; say Ji contains zi . We can take a continuity
interval [zi − , zi + ] of small enough but positive length so that [zi − , zi + ] does
not intersect with Ji ∩ I. Moreover, in this case Ji \ (Ji ∩ [zi − , zi + ]) is either a
continuity interval or the union of two continuity intervals, because the endpoints of
Ji as well as zi − , zi +  are continuity points by construction. It follows then from
Theorem 1.1 that µt (Ji \ (Ji ∩ [zi − , zi + ]), which is no greater than µ∞ (Ji ) for
sufficiently large t, converges to µ∞ (Ji \ (Ji ∩ [zi − , zi + ]), which is thus smaller
than or equal to µ∞ (Ji ). The same is therefore true of µ∞ (Ji ∩ I). Since  could be

17
chosen arbitrarily small, we obtain that µ∞ (Ji ∩ I) = 0 in this case as well. Finally,
µ∞ (I) = 0.
The previous lemma allows us to explicitly characterize the set of continuity points
of µ∞ .
Corollary 4.6. The set [0, 1]\{zi } is the set of continuity points of the measure
µ∞ .
Proof. Any point x ∈
/ {zj } has the property that we can take an interval I
containing it with µ∞ (I) = 0 by Lemma 4.5 so that x is a continuity point of µ∞ .
Conversely, for each zi ∈ Ji , take a decreasing sequence of intervals Ik containing
it whose length approaches zero. For each such interval, by Lemma 4.5 we have
µ∞ (Ik ) ≥ l for some l > 0, and consequently µ∞ ({z}) > 0.
It is not too hard to see that the points zi cannot be too close together; this is
formally stated in the following lemma.
Lemma 4.7. For all i, j, |zi − zj | ≥ r.
Proof. If 0 < |zi − zj | < r for some i,j, then we can take a small enough interval Ii
containing zi and a small enough interval Ij containing zj such the distance between
any point in Ii and any point in Ij is in [|zi − zj |/2, r]. By Lemma 4.5 and Corollary
4.6, there exists a time t0 such that for all t ≥ t0 we have µt (Ii ) ≥ l/2, µt (Ij ) ≥ l/2.
This means that
 2 
2
Z
l
|zi − zj |
w(t, α, β, xt (α), xt (β))(xt (β) − xt (α))2 ≥ ∆
2
2
α,β∈[0,1]2
for all t ≥ t0 , which contradicts Lemma 4.1.
The proof of Theorem 1.3 will require us to apply Lemma 4.5 to various intervals.
It will be convenient to have the following definition, which implicitly defines a set of
intervals around the points zi .
Definition 4.8. A positive real number  will be called feasible if
1.  < r/2.
2. The intervals [zi − , zi + ] do not intersect.
3. For all i, zi +  is at most 2 while zi −  is at least −1.
Clearly, all small enough  are feasible.
S
Definition 4.9. Given a feasible , we define I = [−1, 2] \ i [zi − , zi + ].
Furthermore, we define B be the set of agents β such that xt (β) ∈ I for all t large
enough.
Corollary 4.10. For any feasible , L(B ) = 0.
Proof. Pick any increasing sequence tk approaching positive infinity and let
B (tk ) be the set of agents whose values lie in I for all t ≥ tk .Then the sequence
B (tk ), k = 1, 2, . . . is a nondecreasing set sequence (due to the fact that tk is increasing) that approaches B , and so B is measurable and L(B (tk )) → L(B ). However
L(B (tk )) ≤ µtk (I ) by definition of µt and µtk (I ) → 0 by Lemma 4.5 and Theorem
1.1. Consequently, L(B ) = 0.
The last corollary is a key step towards the proof of Theorem 1.3: it states that
agents which stay bounded away from any zi after a time form a measure zero set.
However, to prove Theorem 1.3 we will need something additional to rule out the
possibility that a positive measure set of agents have multiple limit points which
include zi .

18
To that end, we argue that only a set of measure zero of agents cross any small
intervals close to a point zi infinitely often. This is formalized in the next series of
definitions and lemmas.
Lemma 4.11. Let I beRa closed interval contained in some (zi , zi +) or (zi −, zi )
∞
for some feasible . Then 0 µt (I) < ∞.
Proof. Without loss of generality, suppose I = [a, b] is contained in (zi , zi + );
the other case proceeds similarly. Now by Lemma 4.1 we have that
Z ∞Z
w(t, α, β, xt (α), xt (β))(xt (β) − xt (α))2 dt < ∞
(4.5)
0

α,β∈[0,1]2

Let δ = a − zi and pick I 0 to be any interval contained within (zi − , a − δ/2) which
contains zi and let qi = µ∞ (I 0 ). By Lemma 4.5, we have that qi > 0 and by Corollary
4.6, I 0 is a continuity interval. Therefore, for large enough t, we will have
 2  
Z
qi
δ
µt (I)
w(t, α, β, xt (α), xt (β))(xt (β) − xt (α))2 ≥ ∆
2
2
2
α,β∈[0,1]
which immediately implies that the statement of the current lemma holds true, as
(4.5) could otherwise not be satisfied.
Definition 4.12. Given an interval I and α ∈ [0, 1], define T (α, I) to be the
set of times t such that xt (α) ∈ I. Moreover, define A(I) to be the set of all α such
that L(T (α, I)) = ∞, i.e. those spending an infinite amount of time in the interval
I. Because xt (α) is continuous in t for fixed α and measurable in α for fixed t, it is
jointly Borel measurable in t and α, and so these sets are measurable.
Lemma 4.13. Let I be a closed interval contained in some (zi , zi +) or (zi −, zi )
for some feasible . Then A(I) has Lebesgue measure 0.
R∞
Proof. By the previous lemma, 0 µt (I) dt < ∞. We can rewrite this as
R∞R1
1
dα dt < ∞. Note that because xt (α) is jointly measurable in t and α,
0
0 xt (α)∈I
the function 1xt (α)∈I is measurable and the above expression makes sense. Since the
function 1xt (α)∈I is nonnegative, by Tonelli’s theorem we can interchange the order
R1R∞
R1
of integration to obtain 0 0 1xt (α)∈I dt dα < ∞, or 0 L (T (α, I)) dα < ∞, which
implies that L (T (α, I)) can be infinite only on a set of α’s of measure 0.
Corollary 4.14. Let  be feasible and let I be a closed interval contained in
some (zi , zi + ) or (zi − , zi ). Then the set of agents α having the property that,
for some sequence of times tk → +∞ we have that xtk (α) ∈ I, is a subset of a
measure-zero set.
Proof. Let I 0 be a closed interval which contains I and is contained in the same
(zi , zi + ) or (zi − , zi ). Since xt (α) is Lipschitz continuous by Lemma 2.1, we have
that if agent α visits I at some sequence of times approaching infinity then α ∈ A(I 0 ),
because the time needed to go to/from I from/to outside I 0 is bounded away from 0.
Lemma 4.13 then implies the current corollary.
We are now ready to prove Theorem 1.3. Our proof will only rely on the last
Corollary 4.14 as well as Lemma 4.10 proved earlier. As we argue next, these two
facts immediately imply that only a set of measure zero fo agents does not converge
to one of the zi .
Proof. [Proof of Theorem 1.3] Without loss of generality, let us assume that zi
are sorted in increasing order, i.e., z1 < z2 < · · · < zp . Suppose agent α does not

19
converge to an element of the set {z1 , . . . , zp }, and consider the set of limit points
of xt (α) (i.e, the set of points which are limits of xtk (α) for some sequence of times
tk → +∞). There are several possibilities.
1. If xt (α) has a limit point which is zi and another limit point which is strictly
larger than this zi , then it crosses some closed interval I with rational endpoints contained in some (zi , zi + ) for a feasible  during a sequence of times
tk → +∞.
2. If xt (α) has a limit point which is zi and another limit point which is strictly
less than this zi , then it crosses some closed interval I with rational endpoints
contained in some (zi − , zi ) for a feasible  during a sequence of times
tk → +∞.
3. If xt (α) has a limit point which is strictly less than some zi and a limit point
which is strictly greater than the same zi , then it crosses some closed interval
I with rational endpoints contained in some (zi − , zi ) for a feasible  during
a sequence of times tk → +∞.
4. If all the limit points of xt (α) are contained in some (zi , zi+1 ) then xt (α)
belongs to some B1/m for a large enough m, i.e. xt (α) remains at a distance
larger than 1/m from all zi after a certain time.
5. Finally, if all the limit points of xt (α) are strictly below z1 or strictly above
zp , then just as in the previous item xt (α) belongs to some B1/m .
Now Lemma 4.10 tells us that L(B ) = 0 for all feasible . Taking a countable
union over  = 1/m with m integer gives us that the set of agents which satisfy (1)
has measure zero. The same argument coupled with Lemma 4.14 shows the set of
agents that satisfy the conditions of each of the items (2) − (4) is a subset of a set
measure zero. To summarize, if xt (α) does not converge to some zi , we have that it
lies inside a union of four measure zero sets.
It remains to argue that the set of α such that xt (α) does not converge to one
of the zi is measurable. We know the function lim supn→∞ xn/k (α) is measurable
for any fixed positive integer k; consequently, F (α) = lim supt≥0 xt (α) is measurable
since |ẋt (α)| ≤ W implies that F (α) = limk→∞ lim supn→∞ xn/2k (α). Similarly,
G(α) = lim inf t xt (α) is measurable. Then
S the set of α such that xt (α) does not
converge to one of the points zi is [0, 1] \ i F −1 (zi ) ∩ G−1 (zi ) so it is measurable.
4.2. Proof of Theorem 1.4. We will show that under the assumptions of Theorem 1.4, the order of the opinions is preserved, in the sense that the difference of
opinions between two agents never changes sign, and that together with convergence
in distribution this is sufficient to prove convergence for almost all agents.
Formally, consider the functions xt (α) : [0, 1] → < for every t ∈ <+ . We say that
the order of xt is preserved if xt (β) > xt (α) for some t implies xs (β) > xs (α) for
all s. By contraposition, it is equivalent to requiring that xt (β) ≤ xt (α) if an only if
xs (β) ≤ xs (α) for all s, and implies thus that xt (β) = xt (α) for some t if and only if
xs (β) = xs (α) for all s.
The following lemma shows that convergence in distribution implies convergence
for almost all α when the order is preserved. Intuitively, the result is quite clear: the
measure µt contains exactly the same information as xt up to possible “relabelling”
or “switching” of the agents. But when the order is preserved, no such switching can
take place, so that convergence in distribution implies convergence for almost every
α. A formal proof is presented in Appendix B.
Lemma 4.15. Suppose that xt converges in distribution: There exists a measure

20
µ∞ on [0, 1] such that µt approaches µ∞ in distribution, where µt is defined as in Eq.
(1.5).
If xt (α) ∈ [0, 1] holds for all t, α, and if the order of xt is preserved, then xt (α)
converges for almost all α.
Intuitively, the order should always be preserved if the interactions are entirely
determined by the agents’ positions and by time. Indeed, suppose that xt (β) > xt (α)
for some t, and xs (β) < xs (α) for some s > t. The continuity of x implies the existence
of a time s0 ∈ (t, s) at which the agents have the same position xs0 (β) = xs0 (α). But
since the interactions are entirely determined by the positions, the opinions of α
and β will at that point be subject to exactly the same attractions, and they thus
should remain equal forever. As a result, we could never have xs (β) < xs (α) after
xt (β) > xt (α). Similar intuitive arguments can be used to suggest that xt (β) = xt (α)
if and only if xs (β) = xs (α) for all s and that the order of x is thus preserved.
These intuitive arguments are however not formally valid, as they implicitly rely
on the uniqueness of the solution to the equation (1.1) describing the evolution of
the opinions of α and β with initial conditions xs0 (β) = xs0 (α) at time s0 , and this
uniqueness is in general not guaranteed. Different issues related to uniqueness of
solutions have been reported even for very simple models, for example in [7].
Nevertheless, preservation of the order can be established under an additional
smoothness assumption that guarantees that two agents with different positions never
reach a same point in finite time.
Lemma 4.16. Suppose that the interaction weights w(., ., ., ., .) are symmetric,
nonnegative, bounded by some W ∈ R, and only depend on time and the positions:
w(t, xt (α), xt (β), α, β) = w̃(t, xt (α), xt (β)).
If w̃ is Lipschitz continuous with respect to x, i.e. there exists a L such that |w̃(t, x, y)−
w̃(t, x, z)| ≤ L |y − z| | for all t, x, y, z, then the order of any solution xt of the system
(1.1) is preserved.
Proof. Consider two arbitrary agents α, β, and observe that
ẋt (β)−ẋt (α) =
Z 1
w̃(t, xt (β), xt (γ))(xt (γ) − xt (β))dγ − w̃(t, xt (α), xt (γ))(xt (γ) − xt (α))dγ
0

Z

1

(w̃(t, xt (β), xt (γ)) − w̃(t, xt (α), xt (γ))) (xt (γ) − xt (α)) dγ

=
0

Z
+
0

1

w̃(t, xt (β), xt (γ)) (xt (α) − xt (β)) dγ.

Using the Lipschitz constant L and the upper bound w̃ ≤ W on this inequality leads
to
Z 1
Z 1
|ẋt (β) − ẋt (α)| ≤
L |xt (β) − xt (α)| |xt (γ) − xt (α)| dγ +
W |xt (α) − xt (β)| dγ
0

0

(4.6)
Remember that x0 (α) is assumed to lie in [0, 1] throughout this paper. Moreover, we
have seen in Lemma 2.1 how this implies that xt (γ) ∈ [0, 1] for all t ≥ 0, γ ∈ [0, 1]. As
R1
a result, there holds 0 |xt (γ) − xt (α)| dγ ≤ 1, which reintroduced in (4.6) yields
|ẋt (β) − ẋt (α)| ≤ (L + W ) |xt (α) − xt (β)|

21
This last bound implies that xt (β)−xt (α) decreases or increases at most exponentially
fast, with a rate bounded in absolute value by L + W . Therefore, if xt (β) > xt (α)
for some t, then xs (β) > xs (α) for all s (The fact is obvious for s ≥ t, and can easily
be seen for s < t by reversing the time). This implication being true for any pair of
agents α, β, the order of xt is preserved.
Note
R t that the result still
R t holds if the bounds W and L depend on time, provided
that s=0 L(s)ds < ∞ and s=0 W (s)ds < ∞. The proof is exactly the same.
Since Lemma 2.1 states that xt (α) ∈ [0, 1] for all α, t, the result of Theorem 1.4
follows then directly from from the convergence in distribution of xt , guaranteed by
Theorem 1.1, and the combination of Lemma 4.16 with Lemma 4.15.

5. Conclusion. Our goal in this paper has been to analyze the asymptotic behavior of opinion dynamics. We have been able to resolve several questions implicit in
the previous literature on the subject. In Theorem 1.1 we proved that symmetry alone
appears to suffice for the convergence in distribution of such systems. Moreover, we
showed in Theorems 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 that while these systems converge in the sense of
distributions, convergence for almost all agents is not automatic but rather crucially
depends on additional assumptions, in sharp opposition with the results obtained for
systems with finitely many agents [19].
Our motivation for studying these systems has been in the similarity they share
with other multi-agent systems, namely the presence of a nonlinearity due to a timevarying update rule. in the analysis of other multi-agent systems. We note that
Theorem 1.1 was proved without precise Lyapunov estimates on the decay by instead
relying on a large class of Lyapunov functions coupled with an appeal to results
concerning the Haussdorff moment problem; to our knowledge, this is a completely
new approach.
We conclude with an open question. The contrast between Theorem 1.2 on the
one hand and Theorems 1.3 and 1.4 on the other hand leads one to wonder whether
a precise characterization of the settings in which convergence occurs for almost all
agents is possible.
Acknowledgements. The authors wish to thank Francesca Ceragioli and Paolo
Frasca for their help on the relevant assumptions needed on the solutions x.
REFERENCES
[1] “Differentiating under the integral sign,” Planet Math, http://planetmath.org/
differentiationundertheintegralsign.
[2] D.P. Bertsekas, J.N. Tsitsiklis, Parallel and Distributed Computation: Numerical Methods,
Prentice Hall, 1989.
[3] A. Bhattacharya, M. Braverman, B. Chazelle, H. L. Nguyen, On the convergence of the
Hegselmann-Krause system, Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, pp. 61-66, 2013.
[4] P. Billingsley, Probability and Measure, John Wiley, 1986.
[5] V.D. Blondel, J.M. Hendrickx, A. Olshevsky, and J.N. Tsitsiklis, “Convergence in multiagent coordination, consensus, and flocking”. In Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Conference
on Decision and Control (CDC2005), pp. 2996–3000, Seville, Spain, December 2005.
[6] V. D. Blondel, J. M. Hendrickx, and J. N. Tsitsiklis, On Krause’s multi-agent consensus
model with state-dependent connectivity, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 54(11),
pp. 2586–2597, 2009.
[7] V. D. Blondel, J. M. Hendrickx, and J. N. Tsitsiklis, Continuous-time average-preserving
opinion dynamics with opinion-dependent communications, SIAM Journal on Control and
Optimization, 48(8), pp. 5214–5240, 2010.

22
[8] C. Canuto, F. Fagnani, P. Tilli, An Eulerian approach to the analysis of Krause’s Consensus
Models, Proceedings of the 17th Annual IFAC World Congress, 2008.
[9] C. Canuto, F. Fagnani, P. Tilli, An Eulerian approach to the analysis of Krause’s Consensus
Models, SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 50(1), 243-265, 2012.
[10] F. Ceragioli and P. Frasca,Continuous and discontinuous opinion dynamics with bounded
confidence, Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications, 13(3), pp. 1239–1251, 2012.
[11] B. Chazelle, The dynamics of influence systems, Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on
Foundations of Computer Science, 2012.
[12] P. Chebotarev, R. P. Agaev, Coordination in multiagent systems and Laplacian spectra of
digraphs, Automation and Remote Control, vol. 70, pp. 128, 2009.
[13] H.-L. Choi, L. Brunet, J.P. How, Consensus-based decentralized auctions for task assignment, IEEE Transactions on Robotics, (25) (2009), pp. 912-926.
[14] G. Como, F. Fagnani, Scaling limits for continuous opinion dynamics systems, Annals of
Applied Probability, vol. 21, no. 4, 2011.
[15] S.S. Dragomir, Some Gronwall type inequalities and applications, Nova Science Publishers
2003.
[16] S. R. Etesami, T. Basar, A. Nedic, B. Touri, Termination time of the multidimensional
Hegselmann-Krause opinion dynamics, Proceedings of the American Control Conference,
pp. 1255-1260, 2013.
[17] C. Gao, J. Cortes, F. Bullo, Notes on averaging over acyclic digraphs and discrete coverage
control, Automatica 44 (2008), pp. 2120-2127.
[18] R. Hegselmann, U. Krause, Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and
simulations, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 5(3), 2002.
[19] J.M. Hendrickx and J. N. Tsitsiklis, “Convergence of type-symmetric and cut-balanced
consensus seeking systems”. In IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 58, no. 1,
pp. 214–218, 2013.
[20] U. Krause, A discrete nonlinear and non-autonomous model of consensus formation, in Communications in Difference Equations, S. Elaydi, G. Ladas, J. Popenda, and J. Rakowski,
eds., Gordon and Breach, Amsterdam, pp. 227–236, 2000.
[21] J. Lorenz, A stabilization theorem for continuous opinion dynamics, Phys. A, 355, pp. 217–
223, 2005.
[22] J. Lorenz, Continuous opinion dynamics under bounded confidence: A survey, International
Journal of Modern Physics C, 18(12), 1819–1838, 2007.
[23] S. Martin, J.M. Hendrickx, Continuous-Time Consensus under Non-Instantaneous Reciprocity, preprint arXiv:1409.8332, 2014.
[24] A. Mirtabatabaei, F. Bullo, Opinion dynamics in heterogeneous networks: convergence
conjectures and theorems, SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 50, no. 5, pp.
2763-2785, 2012.
[25] A. Mirtabatabaei, P. Jia, F. Bullo, Eulerian opinion dynamics with bounded confidence
and exogenous inputs, SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, vol. 13, no. 1, pp.
425-446, 2014.
[26] L. Moreau, Stability of continuous-time distributed consensus algorithms, Proceedings of the
43rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 3998-4003, 2004.
[27] L. Moreau, “ Stability of multiagent systems with time-dependent communication links”.
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 169–182, 2005.
[28] A. Nedic, A. Ozdaglar, Distributed subgradient methods for multi-agent optimization, IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, 54 (2009) pp. 48-61.
[29] R. Olfati-Saber, R. M. Murray, Consensus problems in networks of agents with switching
topology and time-delays, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 9, no. 9, pp.
1520-1533, 2004.
[30] R. Olfati-Saber, J.A. Fax, R. M. Murray, Consensus and cooperation in networked multiagent systems, Proceedings of the IEEE, 95 (2007) pp. 215-233.
[31] A. Olshevsky, Efficient information aggregation strategies for distributed control and signal
processing, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science,
MIT, 2010.
[32] D. Pollard, A User’s Guide to Measure-Theoretic Probability, Cambridge University Press,
2002.
[33] W. Ren, R.W. Beard, E. M. Atkins, Information consensus in multivehicle cooperative control, IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 71-82, 2007.
[34] J. Shohat, J. Tamarkin, The Problem of Moments, American Mathematical Society, 1943.
[35] T. Tao, An introduction to measure theory, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, 126, American
Mathematical Society, 2011.

23
[36] A. Tosin and P. Frasca,Existence and approximation of probability measure solutions to
models of collective behaviors, Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 6(3), pp. 561–596,
2011.
[37] J. N. Tsitsiklis, D. P. Bertsekas, and M. Athans, Distributed asynchronous deterministic
and stochastic gradient optimization algorithms, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
31 (1986) pp. pp. 803-812.
[38] E. Wedin, P. Hegarty, A quadratic lower bound for the convergence rate in the one-dimensional
Hegselmann-Krause bounded confidence dynamics, http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.0769
[39] L. Xiao, S. Boyd, S. Lall, A scheme for robust distributed sensor fusion based on average
consensus, Proceedings of International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor
Networks, 2005.
[40] L. Xiao, S. Boyd, S. Lall, A space-time diffusion scheme for peer-to-peer least-squares estimation, Proceedings of Fifth International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor
Networks, Nashville, TN, 2006.
[41] Y. Yang, D. V. Dimarogonas, X. Hu, Opinion consensus of of modified Hegselmann-Krause
models, Automatica, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 622-627, 2014.

Appendix A. A Brief Note on Existence and Uniqueness Issues.
In general, analyzing the conditions under which existence and uniqueness holds
for the integro-differential equation of Eq. (1.1) appears to be challenging, and is out
of scope of the present paper. Nevertheless, we would like to prove that existence and
uniqueness does hold in a large number of interesting cases. We now proceed to state
a theorem to this effect.
We first require some definitions. As in the body of the paper, we will use xt (α)
or yt (α) to denote functions from [0, ∞) × [0, 1] to R. For such functions, we define
the truncated infinity norm in the usual way, ||y||∞,T = maxt∈[0,T ],α∈[0,1] |yt (α)|.
Our existence and uniqueness theorem, stated next, tells us that subject to some
continuity and Lipschitz assumptions on the function w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·) in Eq. (1.1) there
exists exactly one solution of Eq. (1.1) satisfying the conditions we have assumed in
the body of the paper.
Theorem A.1. Suppose w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·) is a jointly measurable function of five arguments which is continuous in the first, fourth, and fifth argument and Lipschitz
in each of the last two arguments with Lipschitz constant L. Furthermore, suppose
w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·) also satisfies the bound |w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·)| ≤ W < +∞.
Then, given any measurable initial condition function x̃0 : [0, 1] → [0, 1], there
exists a unique function xt (α) having the following four properties:
1. xt (α) satisfies Eq. (1.1) for all t ∈ [0, ∞) and α ∈ [0, 1].
2. xt (α) has the property that x0 (α) = x̃0 (α) for all α ∈ [0, 1].
3. xt (α) is measurable in α for any fixed t ≥ 0 and continuously differentiable
in t for any fixed α ∈ [0, 1].
4.
||x||∞,T < ∞ for all T ≥ 0.
(A.1)
We prove this theorem here in order to demonstrate that the basic object of study
of this paper, namely solutions of Eq. (1.1) which do not explode in finite time, exist
for a large class of opinion dynamic models (and are unique).
Nevertheless, the assumptions under which we are able to prove the above theorem
are considerably more restrictive than the assumptions under which we can prove
Theorems 1.1-1.4 on properties of solutions that do exist. Besides the continuity
and Lipschitz assumptions on w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·), note that this theorem discusses functions
xt (α) which are continuously differentiable and for which Eq. (1.1) holds everywhere,
whereas Theorems 1.1-1.4 only require xt (α) to be absolutely continuous and Eq.
(1.1) to hold almost everywhere. Establishing existence and uniqueness of Eq. (1.1)
in more general settings is therefore an open problem.

24
We now turn to the proof, which is a variation of the usual Picard iteration
arguments. Our first lemma recasts the problem as an integral equation. This is
slightly more delicate than usual, as all our integrals are Lebesgue integrals and we
must therefore exercise some care in applying the fundamental theorems of calculus.
Lemma A.2. Consider the integral equation
Z tZ
xt (α) = x̃0 (α) +
0

0

1

w(u, α, β, xu (α), xu (β))(xu (β) − xu (α) dβ du

(A.2)

Let xt (α) be continuous in t for any fixed α ∈ [0, 1], measurable in α for any fixed
t ∈ [0, ∞), satisfying the local boundedness condition (A.1), and the initial condition
x0 (α) = x̃0 (α).
Then, xt is a solution of Eq. (A.2) if and only if it is continuously differentiable
in t for any fixed α ∈ [0, 1] and satisfies Eq. (1.1) for all t ∈ [0, ∞), α ∈ [0, 1].

Proof. We begin by supposing that xt (α) is a solution of Eq. (A.2), and first
prove that the integrand
Z
0

1

w(u, α, β, xu (α), xu (β))(xu (β) − xu (α) dβ

(A.3)

of (A.2) is in that case a continuous function of u for fixed α. Indeed, fix a time u0
and a neighborhood of u. Since |w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·)| ≤ W , and since x satisfies (A.1), the
expression inside the integral in (A.3) can be uniformly bounded on that neighborhood
by some constant C, which can also be seen as a (constant) measurable function of β
defined on [0, 1]. Moreover, the expression inside the integral in (A.3) is continuous
with respect to u, because xu (α) is continuous with respect to u, and w is continuous
with respect to its first, fourth and fifth arguments. The continuity of the integrand
(A.3) follows then from the dominated convergence theorem. We can thus now apply
the first fundamental theorem of calculus (formally, Theorem 1.6.9 in [35]), and we
have that xt (α) satisfies Eq. (1.1). Moreover, the time derivative of xt (α) is precisely
the expression of Eq. (A.3) which we have already shown to be continuous in t for
fixed α; we conclude that xt (α) is continuously differentiable in t for fixed α. This
proves the first implication of the lemma.
Conversely, suppose now xt (α) is a solution of Eq. (1.1) which is continuously
differentiable in t for fixed α. Since ẋt (α) is continuous in t for fixed α, we can apply
the second fundamental theorem of calculus (formally, Theorem 1.6.7 in [35]) to get
that xt (α) satisfies Eq. (A.2).
Proof. [Proof of Theorem A.1] By Lemma A.2, we are looking to establish existence and uniqueness for solutions of Eq. (A.2) which are continuous in t for fixed
α, measurable in α for fixed t, and satisfy Eq. (A.1). Fix b such that 0 < b <
1
min( 4W
, 2(W 1+4L) ), where recall that L is the Lipschitz constant of w(·, ·, ·, ·, ·) in
each of the last two arguments. We begin by showing that A.2 admits a unique
bounded solution on [0, b].
Define the function q : [0, b] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] by qt (α) = x̃0 (α). Let then F0 be the
set of functions yt (α) which map [0, b] × [0, 1] into R and that (i) satisfy ||y||∞,b ≤ 2
(ii) are continuous in t for each fixed α ∈ [0, 1] (iii) are measurable in α for each fixed
t ≥ 0. Standard arguments show that F0 is a Banach space for the distance induced
by the norm ||.||∞,b .

25
Next, define the operator P on F0 by
1

Z tZ
[P y]t (α) = x̃0 (α) +
0

0

w(u, α, β, yu (α), yu (β))(yu (β) − yu (α) dβ du.

(A.4)

Observe that x is a solution of (A.2) (on [0, b]) if and only if a it is a fixed point
of P , P x = x. We now show that P admits a unique fixed point. In this purpose, we
establish that P maps F0 into F0 and is a contraction mapping on F0 .
Remembering that ||x̃0 ||∞ ≤ 1 and that ||y||∞,b ≤ 2 holds for all y ∈ F0 , we
obtain from (A.4) that
||P y||∞,b ≤ ||x̃0 ||∞ + 2bW ||y||∞,b ≤ 1 + 4bW ≤ 2,
where the last inequality follows from the definition of b. P y satisfies thus condition
(i) in the definition of F0 . For condition (ii) on the continuity in t of P y, observe that
|[P y]t (α) − [P y]s (α)| ≤ 2|t − s|W ||y||∞,b ≤ 4W |t − s|.
Finally, it is a consequence of Fubini’s theorem that P y is measurable in α for fixed
t, and satisfies thus condition (iii). Thus we have shown that P maps F0 into F0 .
Let us now prove that P is a contraction on F0 . We can rewrite [P y]t (α)−[P z]t (α)
as
t

Z

1

Z

w(u, α, β, yu (α), yu (β))(yu (β) − yu (α)) − w(u, α, β, zu (α), zu (β))(zu (β) − zu (α)) dβ du
0

0
tZ

Z

1

{w(u, α, β, yu (α), yu (β)) ((yu (β) − yu (α)) − (zu (β) − zu (α)))

=
0

0

+ (w(u, α, β, yu (α), yu (β)) − w(u, α, β, zu (α), zu (β))) (zu (β) − zu (α))} dβ du

Using the uniform bound W on w and its Lipschitz continuity with respect to the
fourth and fifth argument, we obtain then that for every α and t ∈ [0, b], there holds
t

Z

1

Z

|[P y]t (α) − [P z]t (α)| ≤

{W (|yu (α) − zu (α)| + |yu (β) − zu (β)|)
0

0

+(L|yu (β) − zu (β)| + L|yu (α) − zu (α)|)(|zu (β) − zu (α)|)} dβ du
≤ 2b(W + 4L)||y − z||∞,b ,

where we have used the fact that |zu (β) − zu (α)| ≤ 2||z||∞,b ≤ 4 for every z ∈ F0
and u ∈ [0, b]. The definition of b implies then that P is a contraction from F0 to
F0 . Banach’s fixed point theorem implies then that P admits a unique fixed point
in F0 , which means (A.2) admits a unique solution in F0 on [0, b]. Since b does not
depend on time nor on the initial condition x̃0 , our result also proves the existence and
uniqueness of a solution in Ft∗ over [t∗ , t∗ + b] for any t∗ and “initial” condition x̃t∗ ,
where Ft∗ is defined analogously to F0 . Repeatingly applying our argument, we can
then construct a solution x over t ∈ [0, ∞) satisfying conditions 1-4 of the Theorem.
To prove the uniqueness, suppose that Eq. (A.2) admits a solution z with bounded
truncated infinity norm that is different from the solution x that we have constructed.
Let t∗ = sup{t ≥ 0 : xt = zt }, where that latter set is non-empty because z0 = x0 =
x̃0 . Since x and z are continuous with respect to t, there holds xt∗ = zt∗ . Moreover,
such a z would also be a solution of (1.1), and it follows then from Lemma 2.1 (which
is valid for any solution that does not explode in finite time) that zt (α) ∈ [0, 1] for
every α and t. In particular, ||zt ||∞ ≤ 2 for every t ∈ [t∗ , t∗ + b], and z would thus

26
be in Ft∗ . However, our local existence and uniqueness argument applied to t∗ and
xt∗ shows that x is the unique solution of Eq. (A.2) over [t∗ , t∗ + b] that is in Ft∗
and equal to xt∗ at time t∗ , so that xt = zt should hold for all t ∈ [t∗ , t∗ + b], in
contradiction with our assumption.
Appendix B. Proof of Lemma 4.15.
The proof relies on the following idea: if an agent opinion is “surrounded” by
a positive mass of agent opinion (as is the case for almost all of them) and does
not converge, its repeated displacement will result is repeated displacements of that
mass surrounding it, which forbids the convergence in distribution. We will need the
following technical lemma.
Lemma B.1. Suppose that the order of xt is preserved, and let A ⊆ [0, 1] be a
set of positive measure. Then there exists a γ ∈ A such that the set {β ∈ A : xt (β) ≤
xt (γ) ∀t} has a positive Lebesgue measure.
Proof. We first prove the existence of a γ ∈ A such that {β ∈ A : x0 (β) ≤ x0 (γ)}
has a positive Lebesgue measure, with the intention of showing later that this γ can
be used for establishing the statement of the lemma.
If there exists a γ ∈ A such that the set {β ∈ A : x0 (β) < x0 (γ)} (with a
strict inequality) has a positive measure, then this γ obviously satisfies our condition.
Otherwise, it means that for every γ ∈ A, there holds
L{β ∈ A : x0 (β) < x0 (γ)} = 0

(B.1)

Let then y ∗ := inf{y ∈ [0, 1] : L{β ∈ Nα+ , x0 (β) < y} > 0}. It follows from the
definition of y ∗ that the set of agents β ∈ A having a value x0 (β) < y ∗ has a zero
measure. On the other hand, there is no agent γ ∈ A for which x0 (γ) > y ∗ , for
otherwise the definition of y ∗ would imply that (B.1) is not satisfied for that γ.
Therefore, x0 (β) = y ∗ must hold for every agent β ∈ A, except possibly those in
a zero measure set (having a lower value). In particular, if we take any γ outside
that zero measure set, there holds x0 (γ) = x0 (β) for almost every β ∈ A. Since this
set has a positive measure, we have thus shown the existence of a γ ∈ A such that
L{β ∈ A : x0 (β) ≤ x0 (γ)} > 0 as in the first case treated.
Remember now that, since the order of xt is preserved, there holds xt (γ) ≥ xt (β)
for all t if and only if x0 (γ) ≥ x0 (β). In particular, we have
{β ∈ A : x0 (β) ≤ x0 (γ)} = {β ∈ A : xt (β) ≤ xt (γ)∀t},
so that our γ satisfies the condition of this lemma.
Let now N be the set of agents α ∈ [0, 1] for which limt→∞ xt (α) does not exist,
i.e. the set of the agents whose opinion does not converge, the measure of which we
intend to prove is zero.
For every α ∈ N , since xt (α) remains in [0, 1] for all t, lim inf t→∞ xt (α) and
lim supt→∞ xt (α) are well defined, and the former is strictly smaller than the latter for
otherwise limt→∞ xt (α) would exist. For every such α, we let Iα := (lim inf t→∞ xt (α),
lim supt→∞ xt (α)) be the open interval defined by the asymptotic lower and upper
bounds on xt (α). The next lemma is instrumental to our proof and shows that the set
Nα of agents β ∈ N whose intervals Iβ intersect with Iα has a zero Lebesgue measure.
Lemma B.2. For every α ∈ N , the set Nα = {β : Iβ ∩ Iα 6= ∅} has a zero
Lebesgue measure.

27
Proof. Consider an α. It is convenient to first treat the set Nα+ = {β ∈
Nα , xt (β) ≥ xt (α) ∀t}. Suppose, to obtain a contradiction, that Nα+ has a positive Lebesgue measure. Lemma B.1 implies then the existence of a γ ∈ Nα+ such that
the set {β ∈ Nα+ : xt (β) ≤ xt (γ)∀t} has a positive measure, which directly implies
that the set of agents whose opinion is between those of α and γ also has a positive
measure:
L{β : xt (α) ≤ xt (β) ≤ xt (γ), ∀t}.

(B.2)

Besides, the appartenance of γ to Nα+ implies that the open intervals Iα = (lim
inf t→∞ xt (α), lim supt→∞ xt (α)) and Iγ = (lim inf t→∞ xt (γ), lim supt→∞ xt (γ)) have
a nonempty intersection and that xt (γ) ≥ xt (α) for all t, which is only possible if
lim inf t→∞ xt (γ) < lim supt→∞ xt (α).
Take then y1 , y2 ∈ [0, 1] such that lim inf t→∞ xt (γ) < y1 < y2 < lim supt→∞ xt (α),
and let f : < → < be a function taking the value 1 for every y ≤ y1 , 0 for every y ≥ y2 ,
and decreasing linearly between 1 and 0 for y ∈ [y1 , y2 ]. This function isR continuous,
and it follows thus from the convergence of x in distribution that limt→∞ f (xt (β))dβ
exists (see Portmanteau’s Theorem, for example in [4]). We will show that this creates
a contradiction.
By definition of y1 > lim inf t→∞ xt (γ), there exists a diverging sequence of times
s̄k at which xs̄k (γ) < y1 . Consider such a time. Since f is nonnegative, there holds
Z
Z
f (xs̄k (β)) = L{β : xs̄k (β) ≤ y1 } ≥ L{β : xs̄k (β) ≤ xs̄k (γ)},
f (xs̄k (β))dβ ≥
β:xs̄k (β)≤y1

where the equality comes from the definition of f and the second inequality comes from
xs̄k (γ) < y1 . Now remember that by the order preservation property, xs̄k (β) ≤ xs̄k (γ)
if and only if xt (β) ≤ xt (γ) for all t. We have thus
Z
f (xs̄k (β))dβ ≥ L{β : xt (β) ≤ xt (γ) ∀t}
(B.3)
Similarly, there exists a diverging sequence of times sk arbitrarily large times t at
which xsk (α) > y2 . Consider such a time. Since f (y) = 0 for y > y2 and f (y) ≤ 1 for
all y, there holds
Z
Z
f (xsk (β)) ≤ L{β : xsk (β) ≤ y2 },
f (xsk (β))dβ =
β:xsk (β)≤y2

The inequality xsk (α) > y2 , and the order preservation property imply then that
Z
f (xsk (β))dβ ≤ L{β : xsk (β) < xsk (α)} = L{β : xt (β) < xt (α) ∀t}.
(B.4)
R
Now, since limt→∞ f (xt (β))dβ exists, and both sequences s̄k and sk diverges, the
lower bound in (B.3) and upper bound in (B.4) must be equal:
L{β : xt (β) ≤ xt (γ) ∀t} = L{β : xt (β) < xt (α) ∀t}.
Remembering that, due to the order preservation, either xt (β) < xt (α) for all t,
or xt (β) ≥ xt (α) for all t, the equality above implies that L{β : xt (α) ≤ xt (β) ≤
xt (γ)} = 0, in contradiction with (B.2). We must thus have L(Nα+ ) = 0.

28
A symmetric argument shows that the set Nα− = {β ∈ Nα , xt (β) ≤ xt (α) ∀t}.
Using again the fact that either xt (β) < xt (α) for all t, or xt (β) ≥ xt (α) for all t, we
obtain Nα = Nα+ ∪ Nα− , so that L(Nα ) = 0.
We can now prove Lemma 4.15

Proof. Remember that the open interval Iα := (lim inf t→∞ xt (α), lim supt→∞ xα (t))
has a positive length for every α ∈ N since xt (α) does not converge for any α ∈ N .
For every λ > 0, let N λ be the set of agents α ∈ N for which Iα has a S
length larger
than λ. Since N can be written as a countable union of N λ (just take m N 1/m for
example), it has a positive measure if and only if N λ has a positive measure for at
least one λ > 0. We show that this is impossible.
Suppose indeed that L(N λ ) > 0, and chose an α0 ∈ N λ . Let then N1λ := {β ∈
N λ : Iβ ∩ Iα0 = ∅}. It follows from Lemma B.2 that L(N1λ ) = L(N λ ) > 0. On
the other hand, since
[0, 1] for every
S Iα0 has a length at least λ, and since Iβ ⊆ S
β ∈ N , there holds β∈N λ Iβ ⊆ [0, 1] \ Iα0 , so that the measure of β∈N λ Iβ is at
1
1
most 1 − λ. Since N1λ has a positive measure, it is non-empty, and we can chose an
α1 ∈ N1λ . Let then N2λ := {β ∈ N1λ : Iβ ∩ Iα1 = ∅}. Again, it follows from Lemma
λ
λ
λ
λ
λ
B.2
S that L(N2 ) = L(N1 ) = L(N ) > 0, and from the definitions of N1 , N2 that
β∈N2λ Iβ ⊆ [0, 1]\(Iα0 ∪Iα1 ). Moreover, since Iα0 and Iα1 are disjoint by construction
S
(remember indeed that α1 ∈ N1λ ), the Lebesgue measure of β∈N λ Iβ is at most 1−2λ.
2
We can then continue defining sets Nkλ recursively, keepingSL(Nkλ ) = L(N λ ) > 0
while having a Lebesgue measure at most 1 − kλ for the set β∈N λ . This is however
k
impossible since that measure would be negative for k > 1/λ. Therefore N λ must
have a measure zero for every λ > 0, and so has thus the set N of agents whose
opinion does not converge, which achieves the proof.

