You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Bounded Rationality’ tag.

Baudrillard Simulacra and Simulation 1981 book

According to Baudrillard, Simulacra are copies that depict things that either had no reality to begin with, or that no longer have an original. While, Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time. “Simulacres et Simulation” is a 1981 philosophical treatise by Jean Baudrillard seeking to interrogate the relationship among reality, symbols, and society:

[…] Simulacra and Simulation is most known for its discussion of symbols, signs, and how they relate to contemporaneity (simultaneous existences). Baudrillard claims that our current society has replaced all reality and meaning with symbols and signs, and that human experience is of a simulation of reality. Moreover, these simulacra are not merely mediations of reality, nor even deceptive mediations of reality; they are not based in a reality nor do they hide a reality, they simply hide that anything like reality is relevant to our current understanding of our lives. The simulacra that Baudrillard refers to are the significations and symbolism of culture and media that construct perceived reality, the acquired understanding by which our lives and shared existence is and are rendered legible; Baudrillard believed that society has become so saturated with these simulacra and our lives so saturated with the constructs of society that all meaning was being rendered meaningless by being infinitely mutable. Baudrillard called this phenomenon the “precession of simulacra”. […] (from Wikipedia)

Simulacra and Simulation” is definitely one of my best summer holiday readings I had this year. There are several connections to areas like Collective Intelligence and Perception, even Self-Organization as the dynamic and entangled use of symbols and signals, are recurrent on all these areas. Questions like the territory (cultural habitats) and metamorphose are also aborded. The book is an interesting source of new questions and thinking about our digital society, for people working on related areas such as Digital Media, Computer Simulation, Information Theory, Information and Entropy, Augmented Reality, Social Computation and related paradigms. I have read it in English for free [PDF] from a Georgetown Univ. link, here.

Advertisements

Fig. – A Symbolical Head (phrenological chart) illustrating the natural language of the faculties. At the Society pages / Economic Sociology web page.

You have much probably noticed by now how Scoop.it is emerging as a powerful platform for those collecting interesting research papers. There are several good examples, but let me stress one entitled “Bounded Rationality and Beyond” (scoop.it web page) curated by Alessandro Cerboni (blog). On a difficult research theme, Alessandro is doing a great job collecting nice essays and wonderful articles, whenever he founds them. One of those articles I really appreciated was John Conlisk‘s “Why Bounded Rationality?“, delivering into the field several important clues, for those who (like me) work in the area. What follows, is an excerpt from the article as well as part of his introductory section. The full (PDF) paper could be retrieved here:

In this survey, four reasons are given for incorporating bounded rationality in economic models. First, there is abundant empirical evidence that it is important. Second, models of bounded rationality have proved themselves in a wide range of impressive work. Third, the standard justifications for assuming unbounded rationality are unconvincing; their logic cuts both ways. Fourth, deliberation about an economic decision is a costly activity, and good economics requires that we entertain all costs. These four reasons, or categories of reasons, are developed in the following four sections. Deliberation cost will be a recurring theme.

Why bounded rationality? In four words (one for each section above): evidence, success, methodology, and scarcity. In more words: Psychology and economics provide wide-ranging evidence that bounded rationality is important (Section I). Economists who include bounds on rationality in their models have excellent success in describing economic behavior beyond the coverage of standard theory (Section II). The traditional appeals to economic methodology cut both ways; the conditions of a particular context may favor either bounded or unbounded rationality (Section III). Models of bounded rationality adhere to a fundamental tenet of economics, respect for scarcity. Human cognition, as a scarce resource, should be treated as such (Section IV). The survey stresses throughout that an appropriate rationality assumption is not something to decide once for all contexts. In principle, we might suppose there is an encompassing single theory which takes various forms of bounded and unbounded rationality as special. cases. As with other model ingredients, however, we in practice want to work directly with the most convenient special case which does justice to the context. The evidence and models surveyed suggest that a sensible rationality assumption will vary by context, depending on such conditions as deliberation cost, complexity, incentives, experience, and market discipline. Beyond the four reasons given, there is one more reason for studying bounded rationality. It is simply a fascinating thing to do. We can mix some Puck with our Hamlet.

[…] Nash: See if I derive an equilibrium (link) where prevalence is a non-singular event where nobody loses, can you imagine the effect that would have on conflict scenarios, arm negotiations… (…) currency exchange? […], in Memorable quotes for “A Beautiful Mind” (2001), movie directed by Ron Howard, starring Russell Crowe, along with Ed Harris.

Did you just mention privatization, “increase in productivity” and self-interest as a solution? Well, the answer depends a lot if you are in a pre or post equilibrium physical state. The distribution curve in question is more or less a Bell-curve. So maybe it’s time for all of us, to make a proper balance in here, having a brief look onto it from a recent scientific perspective.

Let us consider over-exploitation. Imagine a situation where multiple herders share a common parcel of land, on which they are each entitled to let their cows graze. In Hardin‘s (1968) example (check his seminal paper below), it is in each herder’s interest to put the next (and succeeding) cows he acquires onto the land, even if the quality of the common is damaged for all as a result, through overgrazing. The herder receives all of the benefits from an additional cow, while the damage to the common is shared by the entire group. If all herders make this individually rational economic decision, the common will be depleted or even destroyed, to the detriment of all, causing over-exploitation.

Video – “Balance“: Wolfgang and Christoph Lauenstein (Directors), Germany, 1989. Academy Award for Best Animated Short (1989).

This huge dilemma, know as “The tragedy of the commons” arises from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource, even when it is clear that it is not in anyone’s long-term interest for this to happen. On my own timeself-interest” allow me to start this post directly with a key passage, followed by two videos and a final abstract. First paper below, is in fact the seminal Garrett Hardin paper, an influential article titled precisely “The Tragedy of the Commons,” written in December 1968 and first published in journal Science (Science 162, 1243-1248, full PDF). One of the key passages goes on like this. Hardin asks:

[…] In a welfare state, how shall we deal with the family, the religion, the race, or the class (or indeed any distinguishable and cohesive group) that adopts overbreeding as a policy to secure its own aggrandizement (13)? To couple the concept of freedom to breed with the belief that everyone born has an equal right to the commons is to lock the world into a tragic course of action. […]

So the question is: driven by rational choice, are we as Humanity all doomed into over-exploitation in what regards our common resources? Will we all end-up in a situation where any tiny move will drive us into a disaster, as the last seconds on the animated short movie above clearly and brilliantly illustrate?

Fortunately, the answer is no, according to recent research. Besides Hardin‘s work has been criticized on the grounds of historical inaccuracy, and for failing to distinguish between common property and open access resources (Wikipedia entry), there is subsequent work by Elinor Ostrom and others suggesting that using Hardin‘s work to argue for privatization of resources is an “overstatement” of the case.

Video – Elinor Ostrom: “Beyond the tragedy of commons“. Stockholm whiteboard seminars. (video lecture, 8:26 min.)

In fact, according to Ostrom work in the study of common pool resources (CPR), awarded in 2009 for the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, there are eight design principles of stable local common pool resource management, possible to avoid the present dilemma. Among others, one of her works I definitely recommend reading is her Presidential address on the American Political Science Association, presented back in 1997, entitled, “A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action” (The American Political Science Review Journal, Vol. 92, No. 1, pp. 1-22, Mar., 1998). Her impressive paper-work starts like this:

[…] Extensive empirical evidence and theoretical developments in multiple disciplines stimulate a need to expand the range of rational choice models to be used as a foundation for the study of social dilemmas and collective action. After an introduction to the problem of overcoming social dilemmas through collective action, the remainder of this article is divided into six sections. The first briefly reviews the theoretical predictions of currently accepted rational choice theory related to social dilemmas. The second section summarizes the challenges to the sole reliance on a complete model of rationality presented by extensive experimental research. In the third section, I discuss two major empirical findings that begin to show how individuals achieve results that are “better than rational” by building conditions where reciprocity, reputation, and trust can help to overcome the strong temptations of short-run self-interest. The fourth section raises the possibility of developing second-generation models of rationality, the fifth section develops an initial theoretical scenario, and the final section concludes by examining the implications of placing reciprocity, reputation, and trust at the core of an empirically tested, behavioral theory of collective action. […]

” […] What I refused to see is what the prisoner’s dilemma teaches: anyone who plays the “All Cooperate” strategy is a sucker, and incents the other to defect on every move. I now believe that the lesson of the prisoner’s dilemma is that a robust ethic succeeds where a weak one fails. Be fair, be strong, reward cooperation and punish defection, and you will have nothing to regret. […] “, in An Ethic Based on the Prisoner’s Dilemma, The Ethical Spectacle, September, 1995.

[…] Martin Nowak is known for his many influential papers on cooperation and in theoretical biology. This book is a popular writing on his scientific adventures, personal motivations and collaborations. Given his work it is remarkable is that this book does contain nor mathematical equations neither graphical illustrations. Nowak is currently a professor of mathematics and biology at Harvard University. Moreover, he directs since 2003 his own research program on Evolutionary Dynamics. This program has been made possible by a 30 million pledge by Wall Street tycoon Jeffrey Epstein. This is just one ingredient of the remarkable story of Nowak scientific life. The book starts with laying out the puzzle of cooperation illustrated by the prisoner’s dilemma. If both players are selfish and rational they will defect. Why do we see so much cooperation in human societies and other domains of the biological world? This puzzle was introduced to Nowak by Karl Sigmund, a professor in mathematics from the University of Vienna, while Nowak was a student in biochemistry. Sigmund talked about the famous Axelrod tournament and Nowak got hooked. The tournament of Axelrod assumed that the strategies did not make errors. What if there are errors? Will Tit for Tat still be a good strategy? His analysis showed that a more promising strategy is a more Win Stay, Loose Shift. This strategy leads to cooperation if both agents do the same, and defect if not. Hence agents can forgive.

The analysis of strategies that do well in direct reciprocity is one of the five chapters in which Nowak discuss five ways in which the prisoner’s dilemma can be solved. The second chapter is on indirect reciprocity. In a landmark paper with Karl Sigmund Nowak showed that when agents derive information on their reputation (image score) cooperation can evolve in one-shot prisoner’s dilemma. The third chapter is on spatial games and features another landmark paper on spatial chaos. This paper, written with Lord Robert May, shows that cooperation can evolve if agents interact with neighbours and imitate the best strategy of their neighbours. The forth chapter is on group selection. This controversial approach is now better known as multi-level selection. Finally, the fifth chapter is on kin-selection, the first theory on cooperation based on genetic relatedness. The discussion on the five ways to overcome the prisoner’s dilemma is especially interesting due to the discussion on the scientific process. How long hikes with Sigmund let to inspirations that let Nowak drop all other activities he was working on. How chance meetings let to new ideas. How he got, to Oxford, Princeton and finally Harvard.

In the second part of the book discusses cooperation in biology. It covers his applications to the origins of life, the study of cancer and the dominance of ant colonies. This work might be less familiar to the readers of JASSS. Especially the work on cancer, defectors in our own biology, can lead to practical applications. The final part of the book focuses on human societies. Humans are called supercooperators since they are the only organism that uses all five ways to solve social dilemmas. First the evolution of language is discussed. Nowak made important contributions to the study of language by simulating agents benefiting from mutual understanding in language games. According to Nowak, the emergence of language is the most important development in life since 600 million years. It resulted to new types of cooperation. Especially in the context of indirect reciprocity it is key to have language. We need gossip and other types of information transmission to derive reliable estimates on the reputation of strangers.

Then Nowak discusses public goods and the use of costly punishment to derive cooperation. This is the only part of the book where he discusses empirical research. With two graduate students he performed experiments which showed that punishment is not something special, but in line with earlier work on reciprocity and tit for tat. Then Nowak continues with his recent work on network theory and set theory. The book closes with a reflection on the consequences of his work. Cooperation is a crucial ingredient to evolution, but there always will be cycles. The question is how to re-establish cooperation after it has been collapsed. This book provides a nice overview of the findings of Nowak’s work. Note however, that Nowak has substantial work in other areas of research not discussed in the book such as infectious diseases. Together with science writer Roger Highfield, Nowak provides an inspirational story on science in practice. This covers the importance of his mentors in his early years, and his current role of a mentor to his students at Harvard. In conclusion, this is a marvellous book. Although I may not always agree with the findings of Nowak’s research, it is a motivating account on the messy practice of science. I highly recommend this book for students and faculty in social simulation and science in general. […], Reviewed by Marco A. Janssen
(Arizona State University) on JASSS 2011 [Nowak, Martin, Supercooperators: Altruism, Evolution, and Why We Need Each Other to Succeed, ISBN 9781439100189 (pb), Free Press (The): New York, NY, 2011].

Figure – Poker final hand rankings. Poker is a typical example of bounded rationality in our daily lives. Without having all the information available, you still have to make a decision. In one of his works, Herbert Simon states: “boundedly rational agents experience limits in formulating and solving complex problems and in processing (receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting) information“.

[…] Bounded rationality is the idea that in decision making, rationality of individuals is limited by the information they have, the cognitive limitations of their minds, and the finite amount of time they have to make decisions. It was proposed by Herbert Simon as an alternative basis for the mathematical modelling of decision making, as used in economics and related disciplines; it complements rationality as optimization, which views decision making as a fully rational process of finding an optimal choice given the information available. Another way to look at bounded rationality is that, because decision-makers lack the ability and resources to arrive at the optimal solution, they instead apply their rationality only after having greatly simplified the choices available. Thus the decision-maker is a satisfier, one seeking a satisfactory solution rather than the optimal one. Simon used the analogy of a pair of scissors, where one blade is the “cognitive limitations” of actual humans and the other the “structures of the environment”; minds with limited cognitive resources can thus be successful by exploiting pre-existing structure and regularity in the environment. Some models of human behaviour in the social sciences assume that humans can be reasonably approximated or described as “rational” entities (see for example rational choice theory). Many economics models assume that people are on average rational, and can in large enough quantities be approximated to act according to their preferences. The concept of bounded rationality revises this assumption to account for the fact that perfectly rational decisions are often not feasible in practice due to the finite computational resources available for making them. […] In Wikipedia, (link).

Book cover – Herbert A. Simon. Models of Bounded Rationality, Volume 1, Economic Analysis and Public Policy, MIT Press 1984. The Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to Herbert Simon in 1978. At Carnegie-Mellon University he holds the title of Professor of Computer Science and Psychology. These two facts together delineate the range and uniqueness of his contributions in creating meaningful interactions among fields that developed in isolation but that are all concerned with human decision-making and problem-solving processes. In particular, Simon has brought the insights of decision theory, organization theory (especially as it applies to the business firm), behavior modeling, cognitive psychology, and the study of artificial intelligence to bear on economic questions. This has led not only to new conceptual dimensions for theoretical constructions, but also to a new humanizing realism in economics, a way of taking into account and dealing with human behavior and interactions that lie at the root of all economic activity. The sixty papers and essays contained in these two volumes are grouped under eight sections, each with a brief introductory essay. These are: Some Questions of Public Policy, Dynamic Programming Under Uncertainty; Technological Change; The Structure of Economic Systems; The Business Firm as an Organization; The Economics of Information Processing; Economics and Psychology; and Substantive and Procedural Reality. Most of Simon’s papers on classical and neoclassical economic theory are contained in volume one. The second volume collects his papers on behavioral theory, with some overlap between the two volumes. (from MIT).

Figure – High-Frequency Financial trading world-wide map showing optimal hotspots, from (fig.2, pp.5) in A.D. Wissner-Gross and C.E. Freer,”Relativistic Statistical Arbitrage“, Physical Review E 82, 056104, 2010. (ABS.:) Recent advances in high-frequency financial trading have made light propagation delays between geographically separated exchanges relevant. Here we show that there exist optimal locations from which to coordinate the statistical arbitrage of pairs of spacelike separated securities, and calculate a representative map of such locations on Earth. Furthermore, trading local securities along chains of such intermediate locations results in a novel econophysical effect, in which the relativistic propagation of tradable information is effectively slowed or stopped by arbitrage.

All those tiny blue circles above, come together into a real financial treasure map! In case you wonder, below is part of my own financial treasure DNA map (of course, blurred and noised on purpose. Just don’t ask me what type of noise this is. Hint: it’s not salt & pepper!). Meanwhile, check this out… and guess what? We have got company… :)

[…] Golden Networking’s High-Frequency Trading Happy Hour, December 7th, 2010, will bring the high-frequency trading community together to listen to Adam Afshar, President and CEO, Hyde Park Global Investments, Milind Sharma, CEO, QuantZ Capital Management, and Peter van Kleef, CEO, Lakeview Arbitrage, on “How to Get High-Frequency Trading Right First Time” […] Mr. Afshar is Hyde Park Global’s President and Chief Executive Officer. He has over two decades of financial industry experience including 12 years at Bear Stearns where he was a Managing Director, overseeing long/short multi asset portfolios for both onshore and offshore clients. Hyde Park Global Investments is a 100% robotic investment and trading firm based on Artificial Intelligence (AI). The system is built primarily on Genetic Algorithms (GA) and other Evolutionary models to identify mispricings, arbitrage and patterns in electronic financial markets. Additionally, Hyde Park Global Investments has developed programs applying natural language processing and sentiment analytics to trade equities based on machine readable news. Hyde Park Global employs no analysts, portfolio managers or traders, ONLY scientists and engineers. Mr. Afshar has a BA in Economics from Wofford College and received his MBA from the University of Chicago, Booth School of Business. […] Mr. Sharma is Chief Executive Officer, QuantZ Capital Management. He ran the LTMN desk in Global Arbitrage & Trading at RBC where he served as Portfolio Manager for Quant EMN, Short Term & Event Driven portfolios [up to $700mm gross]. In his capacity as Director & Senior Proprietary Trader at Deutsche, he managed Quant EMN portfolios of significant size & contributed to the broader prop mandate in Cap Structure Arb & with LBOs. Prior to that he was co-founder of Quant Strategies (previously R&P) at BlackRock (MLIM), where his investment role spanned a dozen quantitatively managed funds & separate accounts with approx $30B in AUM pegged to the models. Prior to MLIM, he was Manager of the Risk Analytics and Research Group at Ernst & Young LLP where he was co-architect of Raven (one of the earliest derivatives pricing/ validation engines) & co-created the 1st model for pricing cross-currency puttable Bermudan swaptions. […] in How to Get High-Frequency Trading Right First Time, NY, Dec.2, 2010 + www.hfthappyhour.com .

Fig. – Christ having some problems on passing the right message. Comic strip from Zach Weiner (Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal blog – smbc-comics.com ).

Social psychologists, sociologists, and economists have all proposed theories of norm emergence. In general, they views norm emergence as depending on three factors: (i) actors’ preferences regarding their own behaviour (inclinations); (ii) actors’ preferences regarding the behaviour of others (regulatory interests); and (iii) measures for enforcing norms (enforcement resources), such as access to sanctions and information. Whereas most studies of norm emergence have focused on inclinations or enforcement resources, this article analyses the role of regulatory interests in norm emergence. Specifically, it analyses systems of collective sanctions in which, when and individual violates or complies with a rule, not merely the individual but other members of that person’s group as well are collectively punished of rewarded by an external agent. These collective sanctions give individuals an incentive to regulate one another’s behaviour. This paper demonstrates that when a group is subjected to collective sanctions, a variety of responses may be rational: the group may either create a secondary sanctioning system to enforce the agent’s dictates, or it may revolt against the agent to destroy its sanctioning capacity. According to the proposed theoretic model. the optimal response depends quite sensitively on the group’s size, internal cohesion, and related factors. Abstract: D.D. Heckathorn, “Collective sanctions and the creation of prisoner’s dilemma norms“, American Journal of Sociology (1988), Volume: 94, Issue: 3, Publisher: University of Chicago Press, Pages: 535-562.

Video – […] see, in this world, there are two kinds of people, … my friend, … those with ‘loaded guns’ and those who dig. You dig. […] Last 8 minutes finale of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo), a 1966 Italian epic spaghetti western film directed by Sergio Leone, starring Lee Van Cleef, Eli Wallach and Clint Eastwood in the title roles, playing a kind of 3-agent Prisoner’s dilemma game. Now, one of them, the Good (Clint Eastwood) is the only who knows he is in fact just playing a 2-agent PD game. And that,  besides the inner non-linearity complexity of the ‘game’, makes all the difference…

It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change“. Charles Darwin (On the Origin of Species, Nov. 1859)

During the Victorian era where high prudery and morality were constant, it would be hard to imagine seeing Charles Darwin wearing a Scottish-kilt. In fact, men’s formal clothing was less colourful than it was in the previous century, while women’s tight-fitting jersey dresses of the 1880s covered the body, leaving little to the imagination (source). There is however, one beautiful – as in strict sense of delighting the senses for exciting intellectual or emotional admiration – reason, I think he should have done it (!), regardless the  obvious bearing consequences of a severe Victorian society. Surprisingly, some how, that reason is linked to cheetahs chasing gazelles, among many other things…

As the image of Charles Darwin wearing a kilt, you will probably find these awkward too, but when a cheetah chases a gazelle, banded tartan Scottish-kilt woven textile like patterns soon start to pop-up everywhere. Not at the ground terrain level, of course. Instead, they appear as a phenotype-like map between your present and the past. You may think that this banded tartans will have no significance for your life, but do mind this: crying babies do it all the time with their mommy’s and fathers, companies do it with other companies in their regular business, people commuting in large cities do it over large highways, human language, literature and culture does it, friends do it, PC virus and anti-virus software do it, birds singing do it also, … and even full countries at war do it.

One extreme example is the Cold War, where for the first time on our Human history, co-evolutionary arms-race raised to unprecedented levels. Co-Evolution is indeed the right common key-word for all these phenomena, while large white banded strips punctuated by tiny black ones (bottom-left woven kilt above), would be the perfect correspondent tartan pattern for the case of the Cold War example mentioned. But among these, there is of course, much more Scottish-kilt like patterns we could find. Ideas, like over this TV ad above, co-evolve too. Here, the marketeer decided to co-evolve with a previous popular famous meme image: Sharon Stone crossing his legs at the 1992 ‘Basic Instinctmovie. In fact, there is an authentic plethora of different possible behavioural patterns. Like a fingerprint (associated with different Gaelic clans), each of these patterns correspond to a lineage of current versus ancestral strategies, trying to solve a specific problem, or achieving one precise goal. But as the strategic landscape is dynamically changing all the time, a good question is, how can we visualize it. And, above all, what vital information and knowledge could we retrieve from this evolutionary Scottish-kilts maps.

Fig. – The frontispiece drawing to the English edition of Ernst Haeckel‘s Evolution of Man (trans. 1903) presents a skull labelled “Australian Negro” as an intervening evolutionary stage between the “Mediterranean” skull and those of the lower primates (from the 1891 ed. of the Anthropogenie).

In nature, organisms and species coexist in an ecosystem, where each species has its own place or niche in the system. The environment contains a limited number and amount of resources, and the various species must compete for access to those resources, where successive adaptations in one group put pressure on another group to catch up (e.g., the coupled phenomena of speed in the cheetah and evasive agility in the gazelle). Through these interactions, species grow and change, each influencing the others evolutionary development [7]. This process of bi-adaptive relationship (in some cases can also assume a form of cooperation and mutualism) or reciprocal adaptation is know as Co-evolution, i.e. the evolution of two or more competing populations with coupled fitness.

The phenomena has several interesting features that may potentially enhance the adaptive power of artificial evolution [7], or  other types of bio-inspired learning systems. In particular, competing populations may reciprocally drive one another to increasing levels of complexity by producing an evolutionary “arms race”, where each group may become bigger, faster, more lethal, more intelligent, etc. Co-Evolution can then happen either between a learner (e.g., single population) and its environment (i.e. based on competitions among individuals in the population) or between learning species (two populations evolving), where the fitness of individuals is based on their behaviour in the context of the individuals of the other population [7]. This latter type of co-evolutionary search is often described as “host-parasite”, or “predator-prey” co-evolution. A good example and application of co-evolutionary learning include the pioneering work by Hillis in 1990 [1] on sorting networks.

It can occur at multiple levels of biology: it can be as microscopic as correlated mutations between amino acids in a protein, or as macroscopic as co-varying traits between different species in an environment. Being biological Co-Evolution, in a broad sense, “the change of a biological object triggered by the change of a related object” [2], his visualization however, could be profoundly hard. In fact, attempting to define and monitor “progress” in the context of Co-Evolutionary systems can be a somewhat nightmarish experience , as stated in [4]. It’s exactly here where Scottish-kilts come into play.

In 1995 [3], two researchers had a simple, yet powerful idea. In order to monitor the dynamics of artificial competitive co-evolutionary systems between two populations, Dave Cliff and Geoffrey Miller [3,4,5] proposed evaluating the performance of an individual from the current population in a series of trials against opponents from all previous generations. while visualizing the results as 2D grids of shaded cells or pixels: qualitative patterns in the shading can thus indicate different classes of co-evolutionary dynamic. Since their technique involves pitting a Current Individual (CI) against Ancestral Opponents (AO), they referred to the visualizations as CIAO plots (fig. above [3]).

Important Co-Evolutionary dynamics such as limited evolutionary memory, “Red Queen” effects or intransitive dominance cycling, will then be revealed like a fingerprint as certain qualitative patterns. Dominance cycling, for instance, it’s a major factor on Co-Evolution, wish could appear or not, during the entire co-evolutionary process. Imagine, for instance, 3 individuals (A,B,C) or strategies. Like over the well known “Rock, Paper, Scissors” game, strategy B could beat strategy A, strategy C could beat B, and strategy A could beat C, over and over in an eternal cycling, where only “arms race” specialized learning will emerge, at the cost of a limited learning generalization against a possible fourth individual-strategy D. If you play poker, you certainly know what I am talking about, since 2 poker players are constantly trying to broke this behavioural cycle, or entering it, depending on their so-far success.

Above (left and right figures – [3]), two idealised typical CIAO plot patterns can be observed, where darker shading denotes higher scores. On the left figure, however, co-evolutionary intransitive dominance cycling is a constant, where current elites (population A elites) score highly against population B opponents from 3, 8 and 13 generations ago, but not so well against generations in between. On the other hand (right figure), the behavioural pattern is completely different: over here we do observe limited evolutionary memory, where the current elites do well against opponents from 3,4 and 5 generations ago, but much less well against more distant ancestral opponents.

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.” ~ Sun Tzu

Of course, in increasingly complex real-world situations Scottish-kilt like CIAO plots are much noisy than this (fig. above -[7]) where banded tartans could be less prominent, while the same could happen in irregular dominance cycling as elegantly showed by Cartlidge and Bullock in 2004 [6]. Above, some of my own experiences can be observed (submitted work). Over here I decided to co-evolve a AI agent strategy to play against a pool of 15 different strategies (6 of those confronts are presented above), and as a result, 6 different behavioural patterns emerged between them. All in all, the full spectrum of co-evolving dynamics could be observed, from the “Red Queen” effect, till alternate dominant cycles, and limited or long evolutionary memory. Even if some dynamics seem counter-productive in one-by-one confronts, in fact, all of these dynamics are useful in some way, as when you play Poker or the “Rock, Paper, Scissors” game. A typical confront between game memory (exploitation) and the ability to generalize (exploration). Where against precise opponents limited evolutionary memory was found, the same effect produced dominant cycles or long evolutionary memory against other strategies. The idea of course, is not to co-evolve a super-strategy to win all one-by-one battles (something that would be rather impossible; e.g. No free Lunch Theorem) but instead to win the whole round-robin tournament, by being highly adaptive and/or exaptive.

So next time you see someone wearing a banded tartan Scottish-kilt do remind yourself that, while getting trapped in traffic, that precise pattern could be the result of your long year co-evolved strategies to find the quickest way home, while confronting other commuters doing the same. And that, somewhere, somehow, Charles Darwin is envying your observations…

.

[1] W. Daniel Hillis (1990), “Co-Evolving Parasites improve Simulated Evolution as an Optimization Procedure”, Physica D, Vol. 42, pp. 228-234 (later in, C. Langton et al. (Eds.) (1992), Procs. Artificial Life II, Addison-Welsey, pp. 313-324).

[2] Yip et al.; Patel, P; Kim, PM; Engelman, DM; McDermott, D; Gerstein, M (2008). “An integrated system for studying residue Coevolution in Proteins“. Bioinformatics 24 (2): 290-292. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btm584. PMID 18056067.

[3] Dave Cliff, Geoffrey F. Miller, (1995), “Tracking the Red Queen: Methods for measuring co-evolutionary progress in open-ended simulations“. In F. Moran, A. Moreno, J. J. Merelo, & P. Cachon (Eds.), Advances in artificial life: Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Artificial Life (pp. 200-218). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

[4] Dave Cliff, Geoffrey F. Miller, (2006), “Visualizing Co-Evolution with CIAO plots“, Artificial Life, 12(2), 199-202

[5] Dave Cliff, Geoffrey F. Miller (1996). “Co-evolution of pursuit and evasion II: Simulation methods and results“. In P. Maes, M. J. Mataric, J.-A. Meyer, J. Pollack, & S. W. Wilson (Eds.), From Animals to Animats 4: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior (pp. 506-515). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[6] Cartlidge, J. and Bullock S., (2004), “Unpicking Tartan CIAO plots: Understanding irregular Co-Evolutionary Cycling“, Adaptive Behavior Journal, 12: 69-92, 2004.

[7] Ramos, Vitorino, (2007), “Co-Cognition, Neural Ensembles and Self-Organization“, extended abstract for a seminar talk at ISR – Institute for Systems and Robotics, Technical Univ. of Lisbon (IST), Lisbon, PORTUGAL. May 31, 2007.

Bluffing poster

On Bilateral Monopolies: […] Mary has the world’s only apple, worth fifty cents to her. John is the world’s only customer for the apple, worth a dollar to him. Mary has a monopoly on selling apples, John has a monopoly (technically, a monopsony, a buying monopoly) on buying apples. Economists describe such a situation as bilateral monopoly. What happens? Mary announces that her price is ninety cents, and if John will not pay it, she will eat the apple herself. If John believes her, he pays. Ninety cents for an apple he values at a dollar is not much of a deal but better than no apple. If, however, John announces that his maximum price is sixty cents and Mary believes him, the same logic holds. Mary accepts his price, and he gets most of the benefit from the trade. This is not a fixed-sum game. If John buys the apple from Mary, the sum of their gains is fifty cents, with the division determined by the price. If they fail to reach an agreement, the summed gain is zero. Each is using the threat of the zero outcome to try to force a fifty cent outcome as favorable to himself as possible. How successful each is depends in part on how convincingly he can commit himself, how well he can persuade the other that if he doesn’t get his way the deal will fall through. Every parent is familiar with a different example of the same game. A small child wants to get her way and will throw a tantrum if she doesn’t. The tantrum itself does her no good, since if she throws it you will refuse to do what she wants and send her to bed without dessert. But since the tantrum imposes substantial costs on you as well as on her, especially if it happens in the middle of your dinner party, it may be a sufficiently effective threat to get her at least part of what she wants. Prospective parents resolve never to give in to such threats and think they will succeed. They are wrong. You may have thought out the logic of bilateral monopoly better than your child, but she has hundreds of millions of years of evolution on her side, during which offspring who succeeded in making parents do what they want, and thus getting a larger share of parental resources devoted to them, were more likely to survive to pass on their genes to the next generation of offspring. Her commitment strategy is hardwired into her; if you call her bluff, you will frequently find that it is not a bluff. If you win more than half the games and only rarely end up with a bargaining breakdown and a tantrum, consider yourself lucky.

Herman Kahn, a writer who specialized in thinking and writing about unfashionable topics such as thermonuclear war, came up with yet another variant of the game: the Doomsday Machine. The idea was for the United States to bury lots of very dirty thermonuclear weapons under the Rocky Mountains, enough so that if they went off, their fallout would kill everyone on earth. The bombs would be attached to a fancy Geiger counter rigged to set them off if it sensed the fallout from a Russian nuclear attack. Once the Russians know we have a Doomsday Machine we are safe from attack and can safely scrap the rest of our nuclear arsenal. The idea provided the central plot device for the movie Doctor Strangelove. The Russians build a Doomsday Machine but imprudently postpone the announcement they are waiting for the premier’s birthday until just after an American Air Force officer has launched a unilateral nuclear attack on his own initiative. The mad scientist villain was presumably intended as a parody of Kahn. Kahn described a Doomsday Machine not because he thought we should build one but because he thought we already had. So had the Russians. Our nuclear arsenal and theirs were Doomsday Machines with human triggers. Once the Russians have attacked, retaliating does us no good just as, once you have finally told your daughter that she is going to bed, throwing a tantrum does her no good. But our military, knowing that the enemy has just killed most of their friends and relations, will retaliate anyway, and the knowledge that they will retaliate is a good reason for the Russians not to attack, just as the knowledge that your daughter will throw a tantrum is a good reason to let her stay up until the party is over. Fortunately, the real-world Doomsday Machines worked, with the result that neither was ever used.

Friedman's Law's Order book

For a final example, consider someone who is big, strong, and likes to get his own way. He adopts a policy of beating up anyone who does things he doesn’t like, such as paying attention to a girl he is dating or expressing insufficient deference to his views on baseball. He commits himself to that policy by persuading himself that only sissies let themselves get pushed around and that not doing what he wants counts as pushing him around. Beating someone up is costly; he might get hurt and he might end up in jail. But as long as everyone knows he is committed to that strategy, other people don’t cross him and he doesn’t have to beat them up. Think of the bully as a Doomsday Machine on an individual level. His strategy works as long as only one person is playing it. One day he sits down at a bar and starts discussing baseball with a stranger also big, strong, and committed to the same strategy. The stranger fails to show adequate deference to his opinions. When it is over, one of the two is lying dead on the floor, and the other is standing there with a broken beer bottle in his hand and a dazed expression on his face, wondering what happens next. The Doomsday Machine just went off. With only one bully the strategy is profitable: Other people do what you want and you never have to carry through on your commitment. With lots of bullies it is unprofitable: You frequently get into fights and soon end up either dead or in jail. As long as the number of bullies is low enough so that the gain of usually getting what you want is larger than the cost of occasionally having to pay for it, the strategy is profitable and the number of people adopting it increases. Equilibrium is reached when gain and loss just balance, making each of the alternative strategies, bully or pushover, equally attractive. The analysis becomes more complicated if we add additional strategies, but the logic of the situation remains the same.

This particular example of bilateral monopoly is relevant to one of the central disputes over criminal law in general and the death penalty in particular: Do penalties deter? One reason to think they might not is that the sort of crime I have just described, a barroom brawl ending in a killing more generally, a crime of passion seems to be an irrational act, one the perpetrator regrets as soon as it happens. How then can it be deterred by punishment? The economist’s answer is that the brawl was not chosen rationally but the strategy that led to it was. The higher the penalty for such acts, the less profitable the bully strategy. The result will be fewer bullies, fewer barroom brawls, and fewer “irrational” killings. How much deterrence that implies is an empirical question, but thinking through the logic of bilateral monopoly shows us why crimes of passion are not necessarily undeterrable. […]

in Chapter 8, David D. Friedman, “Law’s Order: What Economics Has to Do With Law and Why it Matters“, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 2000.

Note – Further reading should include David D. Friedman’s “Price Theory and Hidden Order“. Also, a more extensive treatment could be found on “Game Theory and the Law“, by Douglas G. Baird, Robert H. Gertner and Randal C. Picker, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1994.

“[…] QUESTION_HUMAN > If Control’s control is absolute, why does Control need to control?
ANSWER_CONTROL > Control…, needs time.
QUESTION_HUMAN > Is Control controlled by his need to control ?
ANSWER_CONTROL > Yes.
QUESTION_HUMAN > Why is Control need Humans, has you call them ?
ANSWER_CONTROL > Wait ! Wait…! Time are lending me…; Death needs time like a Junkie… needs Junk.
QUESTION_HUMAN > And what does Death need time for ?
ANSWER_CONTROL > The answer is so simple ! Death needs time for what it kills to grow in ! […]”, in Dead City Radio, William S. Burroughs / John Cale , 1990.

After the Portuguese President invented a new problem for our country (has we had not enough), here’s a brilliant and genius blog post counter response:

[…] Now only an expert can deal with the problem, Because half the problem is seeing the problem, And only an expert can deal with the problem, Only an expert can deal with the problem […] So if there’s no expert dealing with the problem, It’s really actually twice the problem, Cause only an expert can deal with the problem, Only an expert can deal with the problem […] Now in America we like solutions, We like solutions to problems, And there’s so many companies that offer solutions, Companies with names like Pet Solution, The Hair Solution. The Debt Solution. The World Solution. The Sushi Solution. Companies with experts ready to solve the problems. Cause only an expert can see there’s a problem. And only an expert can deal with the problem […] Laurie Anderson, ‘Only an Expert’ lyrics.

Out of ControlThe New Biology of Machines, Social Systems, and the Economic World, 1994’s Book (from Kevin Kelly web site) is a summary of what we know about self-sustaining systems, both living ones such as a tropical wetland, or an artificial one, such as a computer simulation of our planet. The last chapter of the book, “The Nine Laws of God,” is a distillation of the nine common principles that all life-like systems share. The major themes of the book are:

1) As we make our machines and institutions more complex, we have to make them more biological in order to manage them. 2) The most potent force in technology will be artificial evolution. We are already evolving software and drugs instead of engineering them. 3) Organic life is the ultimate technology, and all technology will improve towards biology. 4) The main thing computers are good for is creating little worlds so that we can try out the Great Questions. Online communities let us ask the question “what is a democracy; what do you need for it?” by trying to wire a democracy up, and re-wire it if it doesn’t work. Virtual reality lets us ask “what is reality?” by trying to synthesize it. And computers give us room to ask “what is life?” by providing a universe in which to create computer viruses and artificial creatures of increasing complexity. Philosophers sitting in academies used to ask the Great Questions; now they are asked by experimentalists creating worlds. 5) As we shape technology, it shapes us. We are connecting everything to everything, and so our entire culture is migrating to a “network culture” and a new network economics. 6) In order to harvest the power of organic machines, we have to instill in them guidelines and self-governance, and relinquish some of our total control.

The world of our own making has become so complicated that we must turn to the world of the born to understand how to manage it.

From left to rigth, Nelson Minar, JJ Merelo (one of my co-authors), Manor Askenazi and Chris Langton (founding father of Artificial Life) at the El Farol Bar, Santa Fe, New Mexico, during summer 1995.

From left to rigth, Nelson Minar, JJ Merelo (one of my co-authors), Manor Askenazi and Chris Langton (founding father of Artificial Life) at the El Farol Bar, Santa Fe, New Mexico, during summer 1995. At the same year, Chris was the editor of the well-know Artificial Life book, by MIT Press, and JJ for the 3rd European Conference on Artificial Life, Granada, Spain.

In case you do not have a clue what the El Farol Bar meant to the Santa Fe Institute (SFI), have a read here to Brian Arthur‘s paper “Inductive Reasoning and Bounded Rationality: The El Farol bar problem“, American Economic Review, 84, 406-411, 1994 (or check previous posts). I am happy to say that I was also there, visiting Santa Fe back in 2000, speaking with, among other people with Cosma Shalizi, as well as having a cigar and a beer at the El Farol. Much probably at this table, which was near the front door window, one of my favourite ones during my two week stay.

Finally, and in what regards the ongoing present financial world crisis, here’s a quote from 1994’s Arthur’s paper:

[…] Economists have long been uneasy with the assumption of perfect, deductive rationality in decision contexts that are complicated and potentially ill-defined. The level at which humans can apply perfect rationality is surprisingly modest. Yet it has not been clear how to deal with imperfect or bounded rationality. From the reasoning given above, I believe that as humans in these contexts we use inductive reasoning: we induce a variety of working hypotheses, act upon the most credible, and replace hypotheses with new ones if they cease to work. Such reasoning can be modeled in a variety of ways. Usually this leads to a rich psychological world in which agents’ ideas or mental models compete for survival against other agents’ ideas or mental models–a world that is both evolutionary and complex. […]

[…] The type of rationality we assume in economics – perfect, logical, deductive rationality–is extremely useful in generating solutions to theoretical problems. But it demands much of human behavior – much more in fact than it can usually deliver. If we were to imagine the vast collection of decision problems economic agents might conceivably deal with as a sea or an ocean, with the easier problems on top and more complicated ones at increasing depth, then deductive rationality would describe human behavior accurately only within a few feet of the surface. For example, the game Tic-Tac-Toe is simple, and we can readily find a perfectly rational, minimax solution to it. But we do not find rational “solutions” at the depth of Checkers; and certainly not at the still modest depths of Chess and Go.

There are two reasons for perfect or deductive rationality to break down under complication. The obvious one is that beyond a certain complicatedness, our logical apparatus ceases to cope – our rationality is bounded. The other is that in interactive situations of complication, agents can not rely upon the other agents they are dealing with to behave under perfect rationality, and so they are forced to guess their behavior. This lands them in a world of subjective beliefs, and subjective beliefs about subjective beliefs. Objective, well-defined, shared assumptions then cease to apply. In turn, rational, deductive reasoning–deriving a conclusion by perfect logical processes from well-defined premises – itself cannot apply. The problem becomes ill-defined.

As economists, of course, we are well aware of this. The question is not whether perfect rationality works, but rather what to put in its place. How do we model bounded rationality in economics? Many ideas have been suggested in the small but growing literature on bounded rationality; but there is not yet much convergence among them. In the behavioral sciences this is not the case. Modern psychologists are in reasonable agreement that in situations that are complicated or ill-defined, humans use characteristic and predictable methods of reasoning. These methods are not deductive, but inductive. […] The system that emerges under inductive reasoning will have connections both with evolution and complexity. […]

in, Inductive Reasoning and Bounded Rationality (The El Farol Problem), by W. Brian Arthur, 1994.

Thursday night attendance at the El Farol Bar in Santa Fe, New Mexico - The El Farol bar problem is a problem in game theory. Based on a bar in Santa Fe, New Mexico, it was created in 1994 by W. Brian Arthur.

Thursday night attendance at the El Farol Bar in Santa Fe, New Mexico - The El Farol bar problem is a problem in game theory. Based on a bar in Santa Fe, New Mexico, it was created in 1994 by W. Brian Arthur.

This is something that you face it in everyday life, be it on bars, restaurants, supermarket cues or in highways. Buying a house or selling it. So, have a look and decide for yourself! The problem is as follows: There is a particular, finite population of people. Every Thursday night, all of these people want to go to the El Farol Bar. However, the El Farol is quite small, and it’s no fun to go there if it’s too crowded. So much so, in fact, that the following rules are in place:

  • If less than 60% of the population go to the bar, they’ll all have a better time than if they stayed at home.
  • If more than 60% of the population go to the bar, they’ll all have a worse time than if they stayed at home.

Unfortunately, it is necessary for everyone to decide at the same time whether they will go to the bar or not. They cannot wait and see how many others go on a particular Thursday before deciding to go themselves on that Thursday.

One aspect of the problem is that, no matter what method each person uses to decide if they will go to the bar or not, if everyone uses the same method it is guaranteed to fail. If everyone uses the same deterministic method, then if that method suggests that the bar will not be crowded, everyone will go, and thus it will be crowded; likewise, if that method suggests that the bar will be crowded, nobody will go, and thus it will not be crowded. Often the solution to such problems in game theory is to permit each player to use a mixed strategy, where a choice is made with a particular probability. In the case of the El Farol Bar problem, however, no mixed strategy exists that all players may use in equilibrium.

[…] Consider now a problem I will construct to illustrate inductive reasoning and how it might be modeled. N people decide independently each week whether to go to a bar that offers entertainment on a certain night. For concreteness, let us set N at 100. Space is limited, and the evening is enjoyable if things are not too crowded–specifically, if fewer than 60% of the possible 100 are present. There is no way to tell the numbers coming for sure in advance, therefore a person or agent: goes–deems it worth going–if he expects fewer than 60 to show up, or stays home if he expects more than 60 to go. (There is no need that utility differ much above and below 60.) Choices are unaffected by previous visits; there is no collusion or prior communication among the agents; and the only information available is the numbers who came in past weeks. (The problem was inspired by the bar El Farol in Santa Fe which offers Irish music on Thursday nights; but the reader may recognize it as applying to noontime lunch-room crowding, and to other coordination problems with limits to desired coordination.) Of interest is the dynamics of the numbers attending from week to week.

Notice two interesting features of this problem. First, if there were an obvious model that all agents could use to forecast attendance and base their decisions on, then a deductive solution would be possible. But this is not the case here. Given the numbers attending in the recent past, a large number of expectational models might be reasonable and defensible. Thus, not knowing which model other agents might choose, a reference agent cannot choose his in a well-defined way. There is no deductively rational solution–no “correct” expectational model. From the agents’ viewpoint, the problem is ill-defined and they are propelled into a world of induction. Second, and diabolically, any commonalty of expectations gets broken up: If all believe few will go, all will go. But this would invalidate that belief. Similarly, if all believe most will go, nobody will go, invalidating that belief. Expectations will be forced to differ.

At this stage, I invite the reader to pause and ponder how attendance might behave dynamically over time. Will it converge, and if so to what? Will it become chaotic? How might predictions be arrived at? […]

in “Inductive Reasoning and Bounded Rationality” (The El Farol Problem), by W. Brian Arthur, 1994.

[...] People should learn how to play Lego with their minds. Concepts are building bricks [...] V. Ramos, 2002.

@ViRAms on Twitter

Archives

Blog Stats

  • 246,812 hits