Dirichlet-Swing: understanding spatio-temporal aspects of political elections in heterogeneous societies through agent-based simulation

Adway Mitra

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0344018

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 27, 2025
5 Nov 2025 Decision Letter - Omar El Deeb, Editor Dear Dr. Mitra, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR:plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Omar El Deeb Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 13 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. 4. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** Reviewer #1: This manuscript presents a technically ambitious and original contribution to the study of district-based elections. It integrates agent-based modeling, Monte Carlo simulation, and Dirichlet Process–based statistical inference to examine how spatial heterogeneity, social identity, and temporal vote swings shape electoral outcomes. The study’s main contribution lies in introducing Dirichlet-based swing models for electoral dynamics, which extend existing statistical approaches to vote transitions by offering a more nuanced treatment of spatial and temporal heterogeneity. This interdisciplinary framework bridges political science, statistics, and computational modeling, providing a scalable method capable of simulating real-world multiparty elections with greater realism than conventional swing models. Moreover, it opens promising avenues for integrating survey simulations and predictive analytics in heterogeneous societies, marking an innovative direction with strong cross-disciplinary potential. Reviewer #2: In this work, the authors compare multiple election models. Finally, they use the models to reconstruct the election results in India. The authors propose two new models. The work is very extensive and references numerous works of literature. It would greatly benefit from the addition of graphics comparing models, model features, etc., as well as from greater emphasis on where the author's model is discussed. Other methods that would improve the readability of the work were also highly recommended.Works that compare methods/models are very necessary, but in such works, their usefulness to the reader is even more important. The authors should overcomplicate the work, perhaps by shortening it and making it more attractive with graphics, but also by making it more user-friendly. ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344018.r001
Revision 1
11 Jan 2026 Author Response Comments by Academic Editor: Comment: I recommend that the authors take into account the remarks of reviewer 2, especially remarks related to introducing graphics that may simplify cross-comparisons between models. Response: I already had 3 figures that demonstrate the spatial maps of district-based elections simulated by the models discussed. In addition, I have added plots to compare vote share vs seat share (Figures 4 and 5) in the proposed swing models. I have also replaced the tabular presentation of the results related to the impact of ‘district coverage’ and ‘person coverage’ parameters on the accuracy of election surveys, using plots for the same (Figure 6-8). I hope these graphics will simplify the visualization of the results. Comment: Regarding the issue of social identity and voting behavior, there are few studies that the authors may find useful - I send them few suggestions, in case they think they have relevance in this context of the literature review of this study (doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331959 & doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2023.128675). Response: I thank the editor for these suggestions; they are indeed relevant to this study. I have cited both of these papers, and also discussed the position of this paper with respect to them lines (215-218) and (316-319). Comment: Another issue raised by reviewers is the length of the manuscript. I suggest a concise writing and that redundancies be summarized to make the paper more readable and accessible for a broad audience. Response: I have removed some experimental results which I feel are less important for the main premise of the paper to an “Appendix” section. These include the complete tabular data related to simulation of swings by the proposed DSM and DSMM models (graphical description of the results has already been provided in Figures 4 and 5 in the main text). The results about spatial variation of the vote shares, and the full tabular data related to the variation of survey results based on survey parameters have also been moved to the “Appendix”. I am not sure if PLoS One allows “Appendix” sections – if not, this section can be dropped altogether. Additionally, I have modified the text to make it more concise wherever possible. Comments by Reviewer 1: This manuscript presents a technically ambitious and original contribution to the study of district-based elections. It integrates agent-based modeling, Monte Carlo simulation, and Dirichlet Process–based statistical inference to examine how spatial heterogeneity, social identity, and temporal vote swings shape electoral outcomes. The study’s main contribution lies in introducing Dirichlet-based swing models for electoral dynamics, which extend existing statistical approaches to vote transitions by offering a more nuanced treatment of spatial and temporal heterogeneity. This interdisciplinary framework bridges political science, statistics, and computational modeling, providing a scalable method capable of simulating real-world multiparty elections with greater realism than conventional swing models. Moreover, it opens promising avenues for integrating survey simulations and predictive analytics in heterogeneous societies, marking an innovative direction with strong cross-disciplinary potential. Response: I thank Reviewer 1 for their positive assessment of the work. Comments by Reviewer 2: In this work, the authors compare multiple election models. Finally, they use the models to reconstruct the election results in India. The authors propose two new models. The work is very extensive and references numerous works of literature. It would greatly benefit from the addition of graphics comparing models, model features, etc., as well as from greater emphasis on where the author's model is discussed. Other methods that would improve the readability of the work were also highly recommended. Works that compare methods/models are very necessary, but in such works, their usefulness to the reader is even more important. The authors should overcomplicate the work, perhaps by shortening it and making it more attractive with graphics, but also by making it more user-friendly. Response: I thank Reviewer 2 for their assessment of the work and the suggestions. I have addressed the suggestions in my response to the Academic Editor. Other issues: I have made sure that all tables and figures provided have been referenced in the text. I have used the PLoS One Latex Template, and followed the formatting instructions as far as possible. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLoS_rebuttal.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344018.r002
3 Feb 2026 Decision Letter - Omar El Deeb, Editor Dear Dr. Mitra, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 20 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Omar El Deeb Academic Editor PLOS One Journal Requirements: 1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Overall, the author has adequately and constructively addressed the main points raised in the previous round of review, particularly those concerning clarity, presentation, and comparative readability of the models. First, in response to the request for improved graphical presentation and clearer cross-model comparisons, the revised manuscript introduces several new figures and replaces parts of the earlier tabular presentation with visualizations. In particular, the addition of plots comparing vote share and seat share under the proposed swing models (Figures 4 and 5), as well as graphical illustrations of survey parameter effects (Figures 6–8), directly responds to the editor’s and Reviewer 2’s concerns. These additions substantially improve accessibility and make it easier for readers to compare model behavior across parameter settings Second, regarding engagement with the literature on social identity and voting behavior, the author has explicitly incorporated the suggested references and clarified how the present work relates to them. The revisions include additional citations and brief positioning statements in the literature review and discussion sections, which sufficiently acknowledge and contextualize prior work without overextending the scope of the paper. Third, the concern about manuscript length and redundancy has been addressed in a reasonable manner. The author has shortened the main text by moving less central numerical results and extensive tables to an Appendix, while retaining the core analytical narrative and visual summaries in the main manuscript. This improves readability and aligns the paper more closely with PLOS ONE’s emphasis on clarity and accessibility. Although the author notes some uncertainty about the journal’s handling of appendices, the effort to streamline the manuscript is evident and effective. Finally, no new substantive issues appear to have been introduced in the revision. Formatting, figure referencing, data availability statements, and ethical declarations are now complete and consistent with journal requirements. Reviewer #2: The authors created graphs comparing the described and simulated models, but the graphs are of very poor quality. They are very difficult to read; they seem blurry. In order to make things easier for the reader, in the previous comments I suggested a flowchart for the models. It may not have been described in great detail, but in my opinion, a block diagram was best, showing which model contains which assumptions, so that it would be easy to understand the differences between the models. ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344018.r003
Revision 2
11 Feb 2026 Author Response I thank the Reviewers and the Academic Editor for their time and effort in reviewing my paper. I have highlighted the newly added text in green colour, and indicated removed text by striking through. Response to Reviewer 1: I thank Reviewer 1 for their favorable assessments. Comments by Reviewer 2: The authors created graphs comparing the described and simulated models, but the graphs are of very poor quality. They are very difficult to read; they seem blurry. In order to make things easier for the reader, in the previous comments I suggested a flowchart for the models. It may not have been described in great detail, but in my opinion, a block diagram was best, showing which model contains which assumptions, so that it would be easy to understand the differences between the models. Response to Reviewer 2: I have replaced some of the previous images to improve their sharpness and quality. I have also added two new figures – Fig 1: a block diagram showing the workflow of the paper, indicating the roles of the different models including their inputs and outputs, and Fig 2: a table listing the different models along with their inputs, outputs, parameters and assumptions. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLoS_rebuttal2.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344018.r004
15 Feb 2026 Decision Letter - Omar El Deeb, Editor Dirichlet-Swing: understanding spatio-temporal aspects of political elections in heterogeneous societies through agent-based simulation PONE-D-25-46601R2 Dear Dr. Mitra, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Omar El Deeb Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344018.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Omar El Deeb, Editor PONE-D-25-46601R2 PLOS One Dear Dr. Mitra, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Omar El Deeb Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344018.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .