Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

A mathematical analysis of collective cognitive convergence

https://doi.org/10.1145/1558013.1558078

Abstract

Multi-agent systems are an attractive approach to modeling systems of interacting entities, but in some cases mathematical models of these systems can offer complementary benefits. We report a case study of how the two modeling methods can profitably engage one another. The system we study (12) is an agent-based simulation of how groups of interacting entities can come to think alike. Though formal analysis of most of the models in that paper is intractable, a mean field analysis can be performed for the simplest case. On the one hand, while the formal analysis captures some of the basic features of that model, other features remain analytically elusive, reinforcing the benefits of agent- based over equation-based modeling. On the other hand, the mathematical analysis draws our attention to certain interesting features of the model that we might not have considered if we had not performed it. Responsible modeling of a domain should include both approaches.

References (19)

  1. REFERENCES
  2. R. Axelrod. The Dissemination of Culture: A Model with Local Convergence and Global Polarization. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(2 (April)):203-226, 1997. http://www- personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/Dissemination.pdf.
  3. R. Axtell, R. Axelrod, J. M. Epstein, and M. D. Cohen. Aligning Simulation Models: A Case Study and Results. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 1(2):123-141, 1996.
  4. J. Bednar, S. Page, A. Bramson, and A. Jones-Rooy. Conformity, Consistency, and Cultural Heterogeneity. In Proceedings of Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott, Loews Philadelphia, and the Pennsylvania Convention Center, Philadelphia, PA, American Political Science Association, 2006. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p150817_index.html.
  5. G. Deffuant, D. Neau, F. Amblard, and G. Weisbuch. Mixing beliefs among interacting agents. Advances in Complex Systems, 3(1-4):87-98, 2000. http://www.lps.ens.fr/~weisbuch/mixbel.ps.
  6. J. M. Epstein. Generative Social Science. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2006.
  7. W. Feller. An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications, Volumes 1 and 2. Addison-Wesley, 1968, 1971.
  8. J. R. P. French. A formal theory of social power. Psychological Review, 63:181-194, 1956.
  9. R. Hegselmann and U. Krause. Opinion Dynamics and Bounded Confidence Models, Analysis, and Simulation. Journal of Artifical Societies and Social Simulation, 5(3), 2002. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/5/3/2.html.
  10. H. Kantz and T. Schreiber. Nonlinear Time Series Analysis. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1997.
  11. U. Krause. A Discrete Nonlinear and Non-autonomous Model of Consensus Formation. In S. Elaydi, G. Ladas, J. Popenda, and J. Rakowski, Editors, Communications in Difference Equations, Gordon and Breach Science Publ., 2000. http://www.informatik.uni- bremen.de/~krause/download/ConsensusFormation.pdf.
  12. R. Olfati-Saber, J. A. Fax, and R. M. Murray. Consensus and Cooperation in Networked Multi-Agent Systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, 95(1 (Jan)):215-233, 2007.
  13. H. V. D. Parunak, T. C. Belding, R. Hilscher, and S. Brueckner. Modeling and Managing Collective Cognitive Convergence. In Proceedings of The Seventh International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, Estoril, Portugal, pages 1505-1508, International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2008. http://www.newvectors.net/staff/parunakv/AAMAS08M2C3.p df.
  14. H. V. D. Parunak, R. Savit, and R. L. Riolo. Agent- Based Modeling vs. Equation-Based Modeling: A Case Study and Users' Guide. In Proceedings of Multi-agent systems and Agent-based Simulation (MABS'98), Paris, FR, pages 10-25, Springer, 1998. http://www.newvectors.net/staff/parunakv/mabs98.pdf.
  15. N. M. Shnerb, Y. Louzoun, E. Bettelheim, and S. Solomon. The importance of being discrete: Life always wins on the surface. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 97(19 (September 12)):10322-10324, 2000. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/97/19/10322.
  16. C. R. Sunstein. The Law of Group Polarization. 91, University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, IL, 1999. http://ssrn.com/paper=199668
  17. K. Sznajd-Weron and J. O. Sznajd. Opinion Evolution in Closed Community. International Journal of Modern Physics C, 11(6):1157-1165, 2000. http://www.ift.uni.wroc.pl/~kweron/articles/Sznajd- WeronSznajd00_IJMPC.pdf.
  18. J. W. Tukey. Exploratory Data Analysis. Addison- Wesley, 1977.
  19. W. G. Wilson. Resolving Discrepancies between Deterministic Population Models and Individual-Based Simulations. American Naturalist, 151(2):116-134, 1998.