Epistemic Diversity and Explanatory Adequacy in Distributed Information Processing | SpringerLink
Skip to main content

Epistemic Diversity and Explanatory Adequacy in Distributed Information Processing

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, Norms, and Ethics for Governance of Multi-Agent Systems XV (COINE 2022)

Abstract

A common problem facing an organisation of autonomous agents is to track the dynamic value of a signal, by aggregating their individual (and possibly inaccurate or biased) observations (sensor readings) into a commonly agreed result. A meta-problem is to explain the observation of the value: to say what rules produced the signal value that has been observed. In this paper, we use the Regulatory Theory of Social Influence and self-organising multi-agent systems to simulate a Distributed Information Processing unit (DIP) trying to solve such a meta-problem. Specifically, we examine what configuration of initial conditions on the DIP produce what type of epistemic condition for the collective, and determine the explanatory adequacy of this condition, i.e. to what extent does the DIP’s explanation of the rules match the actual rules. The results offer some further insight into the need for epistemic diversity for self-improvement in dynamic self-organising systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
JPY 3498
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
JPY 7435
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
JPY 9294
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Afshar, M., Asadpour, M.: Opinion formation by informed agents. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 13(4), 5 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Airiau, St., Sen, S., Villatoro, D.: Emergence of conventions through social learning. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent 28(5), 779–804 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Asch, S.E.: Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychol. Monogr. Gen. Appl. 70(9), 1–70 (1956)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chacoma, A., Zanette, D.H.: Opinion formation by social influence: from experiments to modeling. PLoS One 10(10), e0140406 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fadda, E., He J., Tessone, Cl., Barucca, P.: Consensus formation on heterogeneous networks. CoRR abs/2111.11949 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Foucault, M.: Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews & Other Writings. Colin Gordon (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hegselmann, R., Krause, U.: Opinion formation by social influence: opinion dynamics and bounded confidence: models, analysis and simulation. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 5(3) (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Klemm, K., Eguiluz, V.M.: Growing scale-free networks with small-world behavior. Phys. Rev. E 65(5), 057102 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Liu, Y., et al.: From local to global norm emergence: dissolving self-reinforcing substructures with incremental social instruments. In: International Conference on Machine Learning (PMLR), pp. 6871–6881 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lopez-Sanchez M., Müller A.: On simulating the propagation and countermeasures of hate speech in social networks. Appl. Sci. 11(24), 12003 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Medo, M., Mariani, M.S. and Lü, L.: The fragility of opinion formation in a complex world. Commun. Phys. 4(75), 1–10 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Nowak, A., Vallacher, R., Rychwalska, A., Roszczyńska-Kurasińska, M., Ziembowicz, K., Biesaga, M., Kacprzyk-Murawska, M.: Target in Control. SC, Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30622-9

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E.: The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Kinnear, T. (ed.) NA - Advances in Consumer Research 11:673–675, Association for Consumer Research (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Pitt, J., Nowak, A., Michalak, T., Borkowski, W., Vallacher, R.: Knowing what the bits know: social influence as the source of collective knowledge. In: Second International Workshop on Agent-Based Modelling of Human Behaviour (ABMHuB) (2020). http://abmhub.cs.ucl.ac.uk/2020/papers/Pitt.pdf

  15. Pitt, J.: interactional justice and self-governance of open self-organising systems. In: 11th IEEE International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems (SASO), pp. 31–40 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pitt, J. and Ober, J.: Democracy by design: basic democracy and the self-organisation of collective governance. In: 12th IEEE International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems (SASO), pp. 20–29 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Prettejohn, B., Berryman, M., Mcdonnell, M.: Methods for generating complex networks with selected structural properties for simulations: a review and tutorial for neuroscientists. Front. Comput. Neurosc. 5 (2011). https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2011.00011. ISSN 1662-5188

  18. Rizzi, L.: The concept of explanatory adequacy. In: Roberts, I. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sen, S., Airiau, St.: Emergence of norms through social learning. In: 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), vol. 1507, pp. 1507–1512 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sîrbu, A., Pedreschi, D., Giannotti, F., Kertész, J.: Algorithmic bias amplifies opinion fragmentation and polarization: a bounded confidence model. PLoS ONE 14(3), e0213246 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Trebilcock, M., Daniels, R.: Rule of Law Reform and Development: Charting the Fragile Path of Progress. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Villatoro, D., Sabater-Mir, J., Sen, S.: Social instruments for robust convention emergence. In: 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 420–425 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wiggins, R.E.: Distributed information processing: trends and implications. In: Aslib Proceedings, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 73–90 (1985)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are particularly grateful to the three anonymous reviewers whose many insightful comments helped to revise and improve the presentation of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Asimina Mertzani .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Mertzani, A., Pitt, J., Nowak, A., Michalak, T. (2022). Epistemic Diversity and Explanatory Adequacy in Distributed Information Processing. In: Ajmeri, N., Morris Martin, A., Savarimuthu, B.T.R. (eds) Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, Norms, and Ethics for Governance of Multi-Agent Systems XV. COINE 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13549. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20845-4_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20845-4_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-20844-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-20845-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics