Emergence in multi-agent systems:Cognitive hierarchy, detection, and complexity reduction
This paper provides a formal definition of emergence, operative in multi-agent framework and which make sense from both a cognitive and an economics point of view. The first part discuses the ontological and epistemic dimension of emergence and provides a complementary set of definitions. Following Bonabeau, Dessalles, emergence is defined as an unexpected decrease in relative algorithmic complexity. The relative algorithmic complexity of a system measures the complexity of the shortest description that a given observer can give of the system, relative to the description tools available to that observer. Emergence occurs when RAC abruptly drops by a significant amount, i.e. the system appears much simpler than anticipated. Following Muller, we call strong emergence a situation in which the agents involved in the emerging phenomenon are able to perceive it. Strong emergence is particularly important in economic modelling, because the behaviour of agents may be recursively influenced by their perception of emerging properties. Emerging phenomena in a population of agents are expected to be richer and more complex when agents have enough cognitive abilities to perceive the emergent patterns. Our aim here is to design a minimal setting in which this kind of â€œstrong emergenceâ€ unambiguously takes place. In part II, we design a model for strong emergence as an extension of Axtell et al. In the basic model, agents tend to correlate their fellowsâ€™ behaviour with fortuitous visible but meaningless characteristics. On some occasions, these fortuitous tags turn out to be reliable indicators of dominant and submissive behaviour in an iterative Nash bargaining tournament. One limit of this model is that dominant and submissive classes remain implicit within the system. As a consequence, classes only emerge in the eye of external observers. In the enhanced model, Individuals may deliberately choose to display a tag after observing that they are regularly dominated by other agents who display that tag. Tag display is constrained by the fact that displaying agents must endure a cost. Agents get an explicit representation of the dominant class whenever that class emerges, thus implementing strong emergence. This phenomenon results from a double-level emergence. As in the initial model, dominant and submissive strategies may emerge through amplification of fortuitous differences in agentsâ€™ personal experiences. We add the possibility of a second level in emergence, where a tag is explicitly used by agents to announce their intention to adopt a dominant strategy. Costly signalling (Spence, Zahavi et al. Gintis, Smith, Bowles) is an essential feature of this extended model. Qualities are not objective, but correspond to an emerging de facto ranking of individuals. Without strong emergence, endogenous signalling allows possible inversion in the class regime, while with strong emergence class behaviour may became a stochastically stable regim
|Date of creation:||11 Nov 2005|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://comp-econ.org/|
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Lawrence Blume, 1996.
Game Theory and Information
- Young H. P., 1993. "An Evolutionary Model of Bargaining," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 145-168, February.
- Schelling, Thomas C, 1969. "Models of Segregation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(2), pages 488-93, May.
- Pancs, Romans & Vriend, Nicolaas J., 2007.
"Schelling's spatial proximity model of segregation revisited,"
Journal of Public Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 91(1-2), pages 1-24, February.
- Romans Pancs & Nicolaas J. Vriend, 2003. "Schelling's Spatial Proximity Model of Segregation Revisited," Working Papers 487, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
- Romans Pancs & Nicolaas J. Vriend, 2003. "Schelling's Spatial Proximity Model of Segregation Revisited," Computing in Economics and Finance 2003 63, Society for Computational Economics.
- Romans Pancs & Nicolaas J. Vriend, . "Schelling's Spatial Proximity Model of Segregation Revisited," Modeling, Computing, and Mastering Complexity 2003 15, Society for Computational Economics.
- Rajiv Sethi & Rohini Somanathan, 2002.
"Inequality and segregation,"
Indian Statistical Institute, Planning Unit, New Delhi Discussion Papers
02-06, Indian Statistical Institute, New Delhi, India.
- Rajiv Sethi & Rohini Somanathan, 2004. "Inequality and segregation," Indian Statistical Institute, Planning Unit, New Delhi Discussion Papers 04-03, Indian Statistical Institute, New Delhi, India.
- Rajiv Sethi & Rohini Somanathan, 2001. "Inequality and Segregation," Microeconomics 0108005, EconWPA.
- Tesfatsion, Leigh S., 2002. "Economic Agents and Markets As Emergent Phenomena," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10033, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Axtell, R. & Epstein, J.M. & Young, H.P., 2000. "The Emergence of Classes in a Multi-Agent Bargaining Model," Papers 9, Brookings Institution - Working Papers.
- Durlauf,S.N., 2000.
"A framework for the study of individual behavior and social interactions,"
16, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
- S. N. Durlauf, . "A Framework for the Study of Individual Behavior and Social Interactions," Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Papers 1220-01, University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty.
- Tesfatsion, Leigh S., 2002. "Agent-Based Computational Economics: Growing Economies from the Bottom Up," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5075, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
- W. Clark, 1991. "Residential preferences and neighborhood racial segregation: A test of the schelling segregation model," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 28(1), pages 1-19, February.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sce:scecf5:257. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.