集体行动的力量:代理人如何摆脱无用的概念,甚至没有注意到它们的无用性

Sergio E. Chaigneau, E. Canessa
{"title":"集体行动的力量:代理人如何摆脱无用的概念,甚至没有注意到它们的无用性","authors":"Sergio E. Chaigneau, E. Canessa","doi":"10.1109/SCCC.2011.35","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We report an ABM that simulates agents that communicate and experience agreement with other agents. \"Observer\" agents carry in their minds one of several versions of the same concept, and observe the behavior of \"actor\" agents. When an actor provides evidence consistent with an observer's conceptual content, then the latter agent feels agreement. Concepts that promote agreement are useful for communication and are strengthened in agents' minds, while concepts that do not promote agreement are not useful and are weakened. Blind to individual agents, agreement may be of two kinds. True agreement (labeled p(a1)) means that actor and observer really share versions of the same concept. Illusory agreement (labeled p(a2)) means that actor and observer have different concepts and that apparent agreement occurs only due to the probabilistic nature of how conceptual content is distributed among agents. This ABM exhibits an interesting dynamical behavior for which we have developed mathematical formulations which turn out to be consistent with the system's outcomes. Several interesting conclusions were drawn from the models. Particularly, individual agents are blind to whether concepts promote true or illusory agreement among them, but even so, as a collective, the multiagent system is able to keep the concepts that generate true agreement and weed out those that promote illusory agreement. We believe that this characteristic of the ABM is an emergent property of it and its study may shed light on similar cognitive processes that occur in social groups and their results may be useful in the development of better GUI's for search engines and multiagent communication frameworks.","PeriodicalId":173639,"journal":{"name":"2011 30th International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Power of Collective Action: How Agents Get Rid of Useless Concepts without Even Noticing Their Futility\",\"authors\":\"Sergio E. Chaigneau, E. Canessa\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/SCCC.2011.35\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We report an ABM that simulates agents that communicate and experience agreement with other agents. \\\"Observer\\\" agents carry in their minds one of several versions of the same concept, and observe the behavior of \\\"actor\\\" agents. When an actor provides evidence consistent with an observer's conceptual content, then the latter agent feels agreement. Concepts that promote agreement are useful for communication and are strengthened in agents' minds, while concepts that do not promote agreement are not useful and are weakened. Blind to individual agents, agreement may be of two kinds. True agreement (labeled p(a1)) means that actor and observer really share versions of the same concept. Illusory agreement (labeled p(a2)) means that actor and observer have different concepts and that apparent agreement occurs only due to the probabilistic nature of how conceptual content is distributed among agents. This ABM exhibits an interesting dynamical behavior for which we have developed mathematical formulations which turn out to be consistent with the system's outcomes. Several interesting conclusions were drawn from the models. Particularly, individual agents are blind to whether concepts promote true or illusory agreement among them, but even so, as a collective, the multiagent system is able to keep the concepts that generate true agreement and weed out those that promote illusory agreement. We believe that this characteristic of the ABM is an emergent property of it and its study may shed light on similar cognitive processes that occur in social groups and their results may be useful in the development of better GUI's for search engines and multiagent communication frameworks.\",\"PeriodicalId\":173639,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2011 30th International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-11-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2011 30th International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/SCCC.2011.35\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2011 30th International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/SCCC.2011.35","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

我们报告了一个ABM,它模拟了与其他代理进行通信和体验协议的代理。“观察者”代理在他们的头脑中携带着同一概念的几个版本之一,并观察“行动者”代理的行为。当行为人提供的证据与观察者的概念内容一致时,后者就会感到认同。促进共识的概念对沟通有用,在主体的思想中得到加强,而不促进共识的概念没有用处,会被削弱。不考虑个别代理人,协议可能有两种。真正的一致(标记为p(a1))意味着行为者和观察者确实共享相同概念的不同版本。虚幻的一致(标记为p(a2))意味着行为者和观察者有不同的概念,而明显的一致只是由于概念内容在行为者之间分布的概率性质而发生的。这种ABM表现出一种有趣的动力学行为,我们已经开发出与系统结果一致的数学公式。从这些模型中得出了几个有趣的结论。特别是,个体智能体对概念是促进它们之间的真实协议还是虚幻协议是一无所知的,但即便如此,作为一个集体,多智能体系统能够保留产生真实协议的概念,并剔除那些促进虚幻协议的概念。我们认为,ABM的这一特性是它的一种突发性属性,它的研究可能会揭示在社会群体中发生的类似认知过程,其结果可能有助于为搜索引擎和多智能体通信框架开发更好的GUI。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Power of Collective Action: How Agents Get Rid of Useless Concepts without Even Noticing Their Futility
We report an ABM that simulates agents that communicate and experience agreement with other agents. "Observer" agents carry in their minds one of several versions of the same concept, and observe the behavior of "actor" agents. When an actor provides evidence consistent with an observer's conceptual content, then the latter agent feels agreement. Concepts that promote agreement are useful for communication and are strengthened in agents' minds, while concepts that do not promote agreement are not useful and are weakened. Blind to individual agents, agreement may be of two kinds. True agreement (labeled p(a1)) means that actor and observer really share versions of the same concept. Illusory agreement (labeled p(a2)) means that actor and observer have different concepts and that apparent agreement occurs only due to the probabilistic nature of how conceptual content is distributed among agents. This ABM exhibits an interesting dynamical behavior for which we have developed mathematical formulations which turn out to be consistent with the system's outcomes. Several interesting conclusions were drawn from the models. Particularly, individual agents are blind to whether concepts promote true or illusory agreement among them, but even so, as a collective, the multiagent system is able to keep the concepts that generate true agreement and weed out those that promote illusory agreement. We believe that this characteristic of the ABM is an emergent property of it and its study may shed light on similar cognitive processes that occur in social groups and their results may be useful in the development of better GUI's for search engines and multiagent communication frameworks.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信