Download - Ant Consumer Model
MV Sept 2002
Ant Consumer ModelAnt Consumer Model Using NetLogo
Collective informationPheromones with evaporation & diffusion
Ant/Agent internal state Current direction Have food?
Three rules of actionCarry food to nestDrop food and turnSearch for food
Collective informationPheromones with evaporation & diffusion
Ant/Agent internal state Current direction Have food?
Three rules of actionCarry food to nestDrop food and turnSearch for food
Productive collective “Salaried men”Individual/Innovator Collective structure
Productive collective “Salaried men”Individual/Innovator Collective structure
NestNest Food supplyFood supply
Norman L. [email protected]://CollectiveScience.com
Jen [email protected]://public.lanl.gov/jhwpublic.lanl.gov/jhw
Strategies in Ecological SystemsStrategies in Ecological Systems
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
MV Sept 2002
What’s different Between Ecologies & Human What’s different Between Ecologies & Human systems? systems?
Mass communicationMass communication– Greater and tighter coupling between different Greater and tighter coupling between different
“ecosystems”“ecosystems” Speeding up of processesSpeeding up of processes
– Change happens faster and fasterChange happens faster and faster
Diversity 2007
Buckley: Competitive Strategies in ecosystems
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Diversity 2007
Buckley: Competitive Strategies in ecosystems
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Diversity 2007
Buckley: Competitive Strategies in ecosystems
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Diversity 2007
Buckley: Competitive Strategies in ecosystems
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Before After no otters
Diversity 2007
Buckley: Competitive Strategies in ecosystems
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Diversity 2007
Buckley: Competitive Strategies in ecosystems
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Diversity 2007
Buckley: Competitive Strategies in ecosystems
Ecosystems are complex and difficult to anticipate
Optimal competitive strategy depends on context– Early in “development”, important to out reproduce (not
about fitness alone)– Later in development, few offspring of high fitness best
Diversity (including strategies) contributes to resilience
Intermediate divergence principle Diversity peaks at moderate disturbances Diversity also increased in long established species
Australian aboriginals have the greatest diversity
Diversity 2007
Buckley: Questions and Observations
What about diseases within ecosystems? (host-pathogen)
What is the right amount of disturbance?
Do you use agent-based models?
What’s the means for creating disturbances?
What are the different strategies?
– Ultimately: create more strategies for resilience
How can we know we have sufficient diversity?
– Follow up from Michael’s diversity talk
Do you use scenarios in your research?
Observe: Professionalism is systematic way to reduce diversity and survivability
MV Sept 2002
Lamarckian Evolution (experience is heritable )
A crisis being caused by timings of evolution based on DNA
What are the “experts” saying?What are the “experts” saying?
MV Sept 2002
Most ants foraging for food find the shortest path.Most ants foraging for food find the shortest path.
Nest
Food
Nest
Food
(Goss, et al. 1989)
•Individuals are “dumb,” chaotic, Individuals are “dumb,” chaotic,
no global perspectiveno global perspective
•No leaders or central coordinationNo leaders or central coordination
•Only works for groups of Only works for groups of diversediverse
antsants
Ants Solving “HARD” problemsAnts Solving “HARD” problems
“Normal” Technology Development Phases
How to organize a movement, that changes/coordinates 100s of organizations and impacts 700,000 physicians? How do you then build processes that support new “utility”? How do new structures then become “transparent” and the building blocks of new options and structures?
MV Sept 2002
A single stationary source of infinite supplyA single stationary source of infinite supply
Collective informationPheromones with evaporation & diffusion
Ant/Agent internal state Current direction Have food?
Three rules of actionCarry food to nestDrop food and turnSearch for food
Collective informationPheromones with evaporation & diffusion
Ant/Agent internal state Current direction Have food?
Three rules of actionCarry food to nestDrop food and turnSearch for food
Productive collective “Salaried men”Individual/Innovator Collective structure
Productive collective “Salaried men”Individual/Innovator Collective structure
NestNest Food supplyFood supply
MV Sept 2002
Define three “production” stagesDefine three “production” stages
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Fractions (dimensionless)
Time (time units)
Fraction of
population in collective
Structural efficiency
Fraction of production
by collective
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Total food (food units) orCollective age (time units)
Collective age
Total Food
Condensed
Co-Operational
Formative
Time
MV Sept 2002
Three Performance StagesThree Performance Stages
Synergy of IndividualsSynergistic
System optimizationOptimized
Forming structureFormative
Locally chaotic (agent’s path)Globally chaotic (productivity)Low and evolving “structure” – no
collective networkPerformance due to uncorrelated
diverse contributionsProduction by “innovative” agents
Growing diversity
Locally chaoticGlobally predictableAdaptive “structure” – robust
collective networkPerformance from combination of
diverse contributionsProduction by both classes High diversity of options
Locally predictableGlobally predictable Unchanging “structure” –
dominant collective networkPerformance due to optimized
population Production by collective
Low diversity of options
Connecting the stages by structure for decentralized, self-organizing collectives
Structure(the rules
required to “run” the system)
time
Structure declines because the number of new rules are limited by past rules.
Structure increases first by components developing structure
Structure increases rapidly as components build structure together
Options around Structure also change
Structure(the rules
required to “run” the system)
time
Because there is little initial structure, there are few options (“tall giraffes need tall trees”)
Options are greatest when structure connects the components
These ideas are captured by researchers studying “infodynamics”
Options are the free choices both created and limited by the structure (example: the rules of chess create an “environment” where many options are possible- while also limiting what choices are available)
Options
Options are reduced as more and more structure restricts all options
Options
Effect of Complexity in Stable Systems
Structure(the rules
required to “run” the system)
time
Options
System goes to optimization via“expert” route
“Complexity Barrier” requires
Collective Solutions
X
System goes to optimization via
“collective” route
MV Sept 2002
Ant Consumer ModelAnt Consumer Model Using NetLogo
Collective informationPheromones with evaporation & diffusion
Ant/Agent internal state Current direction Have food?
Three rules of actionCarry food to nestDrop food and turnSearch for food
Collective informationPheromones with evaporation & diffusion
Ant/Agent internal state Current direction Have food?
Three rules of actionCarry food to nestDrop food and turnSearch for food
Productive collective “Salaried men”Individual/Innovator Collective structure
Productive collective “Salaried men”Individual/Innovator Collective structure
NestNest Food supplyFood supply
MV Sept 2002
The “Herd” Effect and Rapid ChangeThe “Herd” Effect and Rapid Change
Add some food to an existing solution
Add some food to an existing solution
The prior “optimized” solution prevents the system from further optimization
The prior “optimized” solution prevents the system from further optimization
Worse for systems with that internalize optimal solutions.
Worse for systems with that internalize optimal solutions.
MV Sept 2002
Quantified Environmental ChangeQuantified Environmental Change
Moves at afixed radius and
constant angular velocity
MV Sept 2002
Slowly changing environmentSlowly changing environment
Productivity is only slightly less than an unchanging source
Productivity is only slightly less than an unchanging source
Herd effect allows for quick utilization of new resource location
Herd effect allows for quick utilization of new resource location
Innovators become important (again) by sustaining optimal performance of the collective
Innovators become important (again) by sustaining optimal performance of the collective
MV Sept 2002
Total Food ProductionTotal Food Production
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Rate of environmental change (tenth of degree/time unit)
Production rate (food units/time units)
Collective
Individual
Formative
Co-Operational
Condensed
MV Sept 2002
Faster by 1/2Faster by 1/2
Boom and bust cycleBoom and bust cycle
Equal importance of herd effect and innovators
Equal importance of herd effect and innovators
Instabilities lead to reversion to prior developmental stages.
Instabilities lead to reversion to prior developmental stages.
MV Sept 2002
Total Food ProductionTotal Food Production
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Rate of environmental change (tenth of degree/time unit)
Production rate (food units/time units)
Collective
Individual
Formative
Co-Operational
Condensed
Production can be increased 40% by doubling the evaporation rate
MV Sept 2002
Rapidly changing in environmentRapidly changing in environment
Almost all productivity is from innovators
Almost all productivity is from innovators
The herd effect can actually degrade the performance by tying up resources
The herd effect can actually degrade the performance by tying up resources
The highly productive Condensed stage is never realized
The highly productive Condensed stage is never realized
MV Sept 2002
Total Food ProductionTotal Food Production
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Rate of environmental change (tenth of degree/time unit)
Production rate (food units/time units)
Collective
Individual
Formative
Co-Operational
CondensedOptimized
Synergistic
MV Sept 2002
Structural Efficiency - Boom and BustStructural Efficiency - Boom and Bust
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Rate = 0.3
Structural efficiency
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Structural efficiency
Time (time unit)
Rate = 0.0
Rate = 0.8
Lower average production -> crash avoidance
Lower average production -> crash avoidance
Bust is proceeded by increased production
Bust is proceeded by increased production
Greater minimums and maximum when compared to extreme rates!
Greater minimums and maximum when compared to extreme rates!
MV Sept 2002
Collective efficacyCollective efficacy (structural efficiency) (structural efficiency)
MV Sept 2002
Coefficient of Variability (mean / s.d.)Coefficient of Variability (mean / s.d.)
MV Sept 2002
Collective Response to Environmental ChangeCollective Response to Environmental Change
Unimpeded development
Innovators are essential
Collective actions lead to inefficiencies
Potential system-wide
failure
OptimizedOptimized (optimization of (optimization of
collective)collective)
Synergistic (synergism from
individuals)
FormativeFormative (creation of (creation of
individual features)individual features)
Featureless
StableStable““no change”no change”
Change slower Change slower than collective than collective
responseresponse
Change faster Change faster than collective than collective
responseresponse
Change faster Change faster than individual than individual
responseresponse
Rate of Environmental Change
Sta
ges
in
Dev
elo
pm
ent
MV Sept 2002
The Structure of The Structure of StructuresStructures
Description Determinesevolutionarypath directly
Retainedonce
expressed
Alwaysexpressed
Origins:Random,
Direct,Emergent
Experiential or transient featuresLearning – Ant position
R
Shallow surface featuresColoring – Collective solution
X R
Deep surface structures (frozen ``accidents’’)Specific DNA coding
X X D,E,R
Deep system structures (frozen organization)Digital coding, nucleus formation
X X X D,E
Features reflecting fundamental lawsHydrogen bonding
X X X D
Structures direct the evolution of the system by creating and limiting potential options
MV Sept 2002
To
tal
pro
du
ctio
n (
units
of f
ood)
Time (time units)
For the slowest rate of change
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
transient structure
sustained structure
Combination of Sustained Structure and Change
How does the retention of structure change the collective response?
Suggests that fixed evolutionary adaptations lead to inefficiencies in the presence of even small rates of change
What would be the effect of a faster ant?
What would be the effect of mass communication?
See “Creative Destruction” by Foster
MV Sept 2002
Prediction: Prediction: Speed up by 10 times & change distanceSpeed up by 10 times & change distance
Almost as productive at stationary source!
Almost as productive at stationary source!
MV Sept 2002
At a later time…At a later time…
Exploits natural resonance of collective
Exploits natural resonance of collective
MV Sept 2002
Optimality of a Dynamical EnvironmentOptimality of a Dynamical Environment
Individual production rates highest
Production rates a high as a stable state
Structural efficiencyalso high
Extreme rates
MV Sept 2002
Conclusions about Collectives and Change Conclusions about Collectives and Change
Consider both competitive and synergistic strategiesConsider both competitive and synergistic strategies ““Busts” are worse than lower average performanceBusts” are worse than lower average performance Different types of structures have different reproducibilityDifferent types of structures have different reproducibility How to evolve an overly-constrained system?How to evolve an overly-constrained system?
– Either “creatively destroy” structure or build on structureEither “creatively destroy” structure or build on structure– Seek diverse strategiesSeek diverse strategies– Focus on process, instead of product (KISS)Focus on process, instead of product (KISS)– Emergent solutions can’t be planned but can be enabled by diversityEmergent solutions can’t be planned but can be enabled by diversity
Optimize structure (rules) and options based on:Optimize structure (rules) and options based on:– Required performance and robustnessRequired performance and robustness– Stage of developmentStage of development– Rate of change (internally or externally)Rate of change (internally or externally)
Use stages of development as guidepostsUse stages of development as guideposts– FormativeFormative: lots of building of structure, fragile: lots of building of structure, fragile– SynergisticSynergistic: sweet spot for resilience and change: sweet spot for resilience and change– OptimizedOptimized: only for slowly changing or stable environments: only for slowly changing or stable environments
MV Sept 2002
http://CollectiveScience.com
Rat Studies of Maximum Carrying Capacity
Social order system can carry 8 times the optimal capacity.
NIMH psychologist John B. Calhoun, 1971
Control - no imposed social structureCooperative social structure
Both systems loaded to 2 1/2 times the optimal capacity.
Environment (culture, economy, demography, technology, nature)
Network View of System of systems
Dynamics on the network performance - stability - resilience - transients
• Change of states• Creation/destruction of structure & options• Dynamics under stable conditions• Dynamics in response to change
Personal•Motivation•Sensory•…
Groups•Media•Organization•…
Personal•Motivation•Sensory•…
Regulations•Feds•Agencies•…
Personal•Motivation•Sensory•…
Personal•Motivation•Sensory•…
Social-organizational -information network
• Diversity • Connections• Strengths• Asymmetry• Change
Individual types •Peers•Bosses•Clients, …
Individual•Sensory•Memory•Motivation • …
MV Sept 2002
Levels of Social complexity
slime slime moldsmolds
““low” low” social social
insectsinsects
““high” high” social social
insectsinsects
social social mammalsmammals
““low” low” apesapes
““high” high” apesapes humanshumans
Social: diverse, decentralized, collective survival and problem solvingCollectively adaptable, self-organizing, emergent properties
IndividualSelf-awareness &
Consciousness
Collective memory, Intelligence, Deception
Individual intelligence & emotionsFrom a workshop on
“The Evolution of Social Behavior”
which covered a wide range of social organisms
From a workshop on “The Evolution of Social
Behavior” which covered a wide range
of social organisms
Diversity 2007
Cook County Hospital First blood bank Cobalt beam therapy First attachment of 4 severed fingers Inspired ER TV series Diagnosis of chest pain in ED (Goldman) -
funded by Navy => Heart attack decision tree How to catch the 10% actually having a heart attack?
Algorithm: 70% better at recognizing who’s not having an attack
Doctors: 75-89% correct on most serious patients
Algorithm: 95% correct on most serious patients
– Algorithm gives no consideration of diabetes, race, gender, age, prior
heart attack, diet, lifestyle. “this is nonsense”
What if a change happens?