Coordination of Decisions in a Spatial Agent Model

For a binary choice problem, the spatial coordination of decisions in an agent community is investigated both analytically and by means of stochastic computer simulations. The individual decisions are based on different local information generated by the agents with a finite lifetime and disseminated in the system with a finite velocity. We derive critical parameters for the emergence of minorities and majorities of agents making opposite decisions and investigate their spatial organization. We find that dependent on two essential parameters describing the local impact and the spatial dissemination of information, either a definite stable minority/majority relation (single-attractor regime) or a broad range of possible values (multi-attractor regime) occurs. In the latter case, the outcome of the decision process becomes rather diverse and hard to predict, both with respect to the share of the majority and their spatial distribution. We further investigate how a dissemination of information on different time scales affects the outcome of the decision process. We find that a more “efficient” information exchange within a subpopulation provides a suitable way to stabilize their majority status and to reduce “diversity” and uncertainty in the decision process.

[1]  J. M. Sakoda The checkerboard model of social interaction , 1971 .

[2]  Bart Verspagen,et al.  Collective learning, innovation and growth in a boundedly rational, evolutionary world , 1994 .

[3]  F. Schweitzer,et al.  Modelling collective opinion formation by means of active Brownian particles , 1999, adap-org/9911005.

[4]  Gérard Weisbuch,et al.  Hits and flops dynamics , 2000 .

[5]  Andrzej Nowak,et al.  Social dilemmas exist in space , 1984 .

[6]  Andrzej Nowak,et al.  Simulating the coordination of individual economic decisions , 2000 .

[7]  A. Banerjee,et al.  A Simple Model of Herd Behavior , 1992 .

[8]  Nowak,et al.  Statistical mechanics of social impact. , 1992, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[9]  Frank Schweitzer,et al.  Communication and Self-Organisation in Complex Systems: A Basic Approach , 2001 .

[10]  Nicolaas J. Vriend,et al.  Self-organization of markets: An example of a computational approach , 1995 .

[11]  S. Solomon,et al.  Social percolation models , 1999, adap-org/9909001.

[12]  B. Latané,et al.  From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact. , 1990 .

[13]  T. Schelling Models of Segregation , 1969 .

[14]  Wolfgang Weidlich,et al.  Physics and social science — The approach of synergetics , 1991 .

[15]  E. McDonough Managing imitation strategies: How later entrants seize markets from pioneers , 1995 .

[16]  K. Kacperski,et al.  Phase transitions and hysteresis in a cellular automata-based model of opinion formation , 1996 .

[17]  F. Schweitzer,et al.  SOCIAL IMPACT MODELS OF OPINION DYNAMICS , 2001 .

[18]  B. Latané The psychology of social impact. , 1981 .

[19]  Dirk Helbing,et al.  Active Walker Model for the Formation of Human and Animal Trail Systems , 1997 .

[20]  Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron,et al.  Opinion evolution in closed community , 2000, cond-mat/0101130.

[21]  Jean-Daniel Zucker,et al.  From Individual Choice to Group Decision Making , 2000 .

[22]  S. Galam Rational group decision making: A random field Ising model at T = 0 , 1997, cond-mat/9702163.

[23]  F Schweitzer,et al.  Active random walkers simulate trunk trail formation by ants. , 1997, Bio Systems.

[24]  Werner Ebeling,et al.  Physik der Selbstorganisation und Evolution , 1984 .

[25]  G. A. Kohring,et al.  Ising Models of Social Impact: the Role of Cumulative Advantage , 1996 .

[26]  Andreas Flache,et al.  Understanding Complex Social Dynamics: A Plea For Cellular Automata Based Modelling , 1998, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[27]  Lee Alan Dugatkin The Imitation Factor: Evolution Beyond the Gene , 2000 .

[28]  J. Hołyst,et al.  Phase transitions as a persistent feature of groups with leaders in models of opinion formation , 2000 .

[29]  Frank Schweitzer Modelling Migration and Economic Agglomeration with Active Brownian Particles , 1998, Adv. Complex Syst..

[30]  Frank Schweitzer,et al.  Phase transitions in social impact models of opinion formation , 2000 .

[31]  Alan Kirman,et al.  Ants, Rationality, and Recruitment , 1993 .

[32]  James H. Liu,et al.  Distance Matters: Physical Space and Social Impact , 1995 .

[33]  Yicheng Zhang,et al.  On the minority game: Analytical and numerical studies , 1998, cond-mat/9805084.

[34]  DELPHINE M. V. PARROTT,et al.  Growth of Transplanted Leukaemic Cells in Thymectomized Mice , 1965, Nature.

[35]  B. Hillier,et al.  The Social Logic of Space , 1984 .

[36]  Lutz Schimansky-Geier,et al.  Clustering of “active” walkers in a two-component system , 1994 .

[37]  T. Lux Herd Behaviour, Bubbles and Crashes , 1995 .

[38]  F. Slanina Social organization in the Minority Game model , 2000, cond-mat/0006098.

[39]  Dietrich Stauffer,et al.  Anual Reviews of Computational Physics VII , 1994 .

[40]  Dirk Helbing,et al.  Simulating dynamical features of escape panic , 2000, Nature.

[41]  Frank Schweitzer,et al.  Self-Organization of Complex Structures: From Individual to Collective Dynamics - Some Introductory , 1997 .

[42]  Gerald Silverberg,et al.  Evolution und Selbstorganisation in der Ökonomie = Evolution and self-organization in economics , 1998 .

[43]  Wulf Albers,et al.  Social dilemmas and cooperation , 1994 .

[44]  David Lane,et al.  Decision Rules and Market Share: Aggregation in an Information Contagion Model , 1996 .

[45]  W. Arthur,et al.  The Economy as an Evolving Complex System II , 1988 .