IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sce/scecf5/257.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Emergence in multi-agent systems:Cognitive hierarchy, detection, and complexity reduction

Author

Listed:
  • Jean Louis Dessalles

    (CREM CNRS UMR 6211 University of Rennes I,)

  • Denis Phan

Abstract

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 “strong emergence†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 fellows’ 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 agents’ 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

Suggested Citation

  • Jean Louis Dessalles & Denis Phan, 2005. "Emergence in multi-agent systems:Cognitive hierarchy, detection, and complexity reduction," Computing in Economics and Finance 2005 257, Society for Computational Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:sce:scecf5:257
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://perso.univ-rennes1.fr/denis.phan/worksInProgress/DessallesPhan2005.pdf
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Young H. P., 1993. "An Evolutionary Model of Bargaining," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 145-168, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Lawrence Blume, 1996. "Population Games," Game Theory and Information 9607001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. 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.
    5. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    6. S. N. Durlauf, "undated". "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.
    7. 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.
    8. Rajiv Sethi & Rohini Somanathan, 2004. "Inequality and Segregation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(6), pages 1296-1321, December.
    9. Tesfatsion, Leigh S., 2002. "Economic Agents and Markets As Emergent Phenomena," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10033, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    10. 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.
    11. Schelling, Thomas C, 1969. "Models of Segregation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(2), pages 488-493, May.
    12. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pierre Livet & Jean-Pierre Muller & Denis Phan & Lena Sanders, 2010. "Ontology, a Mediator for Agent-Based Modeling in Social Science," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 13(1), pages 1-3.
    2. Jean Louis Dessalles & Serge Galam & Denis Phan, 2006. "Emergence in multi-agent systems, part II: Axtell, Epstein and Young's revisited," Computing in Economics and Finance 2006 348, Society for Computational Economics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. 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.
    2. John Lynham & Philip R Neary, 2021. "Tiebout Meets Schelling Online: Sorting in Cybercommunities," Papers 2110.05608, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.
    3. Roy Cerqueti & Luca De Benedictis & Valerio Leone Sciabolazza, 2022. "Segregation with social linkages: Evaluating Schelling’s model with networked individuals," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(2), pages 384-440, May.
    4. Sheng Li & Kuo-Liang Chang & Lanlan Wang, 2020. "Racial residential segregation in multiple neighborhood markets: a dynamic sorting study," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 15(2), pages 363-383, April.
    5. Malone, Thom, 2020. "There goes the neighborhood does tipping exist amongst income groups?," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    6. Harting, Philipp & Radi, Davide, 2020. "Residential segregation: The role of inequality and housing subsidies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 801-819.
    7. Logan, Trevon D. & Parman, John M., 2017. "The National Rise in Residential Segregation," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 77(1), pages 127-170, March.
    8. Florence Goffette-Nagot & Pablo Jensen & Sebastian Grauwin, 2009. "Dynamic models of residential segregation: Brief review, analytical resolution and study of the introduction of coordination," Post-Print halshs-00404400, HAL.
    9. Gabriele Ruoff & Gerald Schneider, 2006. "Segregation in the Classroom," Rationality and Society, , vol. 18(1), pages 95-117, February.
    10. Tatjana Ibraimovic & Stephane Hess, 2017. "Changes in the ethnic composition of neighbourhoods: Analysis of household's response and asymmetric preference structures," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 96(4), pages 759-784, November.
    11. Itzhak Benenson & Erez Hatna & Ehud Or, 2009. "From Schelling to Spatially Explicit Modeling of Urban Ethnic and Economic Residential Dynamics," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 37(4), pages 463-497, May.
    12. Antoni Rubi-Barcelo, 2013. "Categorical Segregation from a Game Theoretical Approach," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 14(1), pages 85-120, May.
    13. Colman, Andrew M., 2006. "Thomas C. Schelling's psychological decision theory: Introduction to a special issue," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 603-608, October.
    14. H. Spencer Banzhaf & Randall P. Walsh, 2010. "Segregation and Tiebout Sorting: Investigating the Link between Investments in Public Goods and Neighborhood Tipping," NBER Working Papers 16057, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Caridi, I. & Pinasco, J.P. & Saintier, N. & Schiaffino, P., 2017. "Characterizing segregation in the Schelling–Voter model," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 487(C), pages 125-142.
    16. Daniel Richards, 2004. "Price Discrimination and the Long Boom," Discussion Papers Series, Department of Economics, Tufts University 0419, Department of Economics, Tufts University.
    17. Laura Gardini & Davide Radi, 2018. "A piecewise smooth model of evolutionary game for residential mobility and segregation," Working Papers 1802, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Department of Economics, Society & Politics - Scientific Committee - L. Stefanini & G. Travaglini, revised 2018.
    18. Calvin Cochran & Cailin O’Connor, 2019. "Inequality and inequity in the emergence of conventions," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 18(3), pages 264-281, August.
    19. H Peyton Young, 2014. "The Evolution of Social Norms," Economics Series Working Papers 726, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    20. Gandica, Yerali & Gargiulo, Floriana & Carletti, Timoteo, 2016. "Can topology reshape segregation patterns?," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 46-54.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    adaptive complex systems; agent based computational economics; behavioural learning in games; cognitive hierarchy; complexity; detection; emergence; population games; signalling; stochastic stability;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • B41 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - Economic Methodology
    • C73 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Stochastic and Dynamic Games; Evolutionary Games
    • C88 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Other Computer Software
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sce:scecf5:257. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sceeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.