Using Fuzzy Cognitive Maps

1. Using Fuzzy Cognitive Maps …to Model Agent Personality, Metabolism and Environment without Boundaries

2. The Challenge Intelligent agents use mental models and have various “internal” processes (physical, mental, emotional) as they interact with other agents. Many simulations ignore intra-agent life, or model intra-agent characteristics as discrete from the larger inter-agent simulation. When needed, we can use the “fuzzy cognitive map” (an iterative network) to model agent life in a unified continuous way.

3. Biologic Example • Hormones • Physical Traits • Behavior • Environment

4. A Fuzzy Cognitive Map is… • A thematic network with… • Nodes and links, that have… • Weights and states (+1, 0, -1). • We start with initial conditions, then… • Iterate the network over time to get… • Attractors (emergent system behavior). • We can test leverage points, and… • Compare & match to known systems • FCM approach by Bart Kosko

5. FCM Iterative Behavior

6. Temperament Theory Goes back 25 centuries in multiple cultures. Has clinical / OB uses. An agent’s temperament is its core needs and values. Agents engage diverse behaviors to meet their needs / values. Temperament is a cohesive dynamic pattern (a strange attractor?)

7. Core Needs and Values Temperament is the “why” behind the “why.”

8. 4 Temperament Patternsrelated core needs/values reinforce each other

9. Temperament Theory as FCM

10. Best-Case Scenario • Time 0: Context aligned with temperament, all other factors moderate • Time 1: Core needs getting met and positive behaviors • Time 2: Positive behaviors • Time 3: (quiet) • Time 4: Core needs getting met, context aligned with temperament, self-knowledge, flexing to other temperaments • Time 5: As above, plus positive behaviors • Time 6: System stays this way until environment changes

11. Worst Case Scenario • Time 0: Context UN-aligned and NO self-knowledge • Time 1: Unproductive behavior • Time 2: More unproductive behavior, environment stress (caused by this behavior) • Time 3: System stays this way until environment changes.

12. Dynamic Scenario • Time 0: Context unaligned and environment stress, but high self-knowledge • Time X and Y: Result is a repeating cycle: Context aligned with temperament, unproductive behavior, and flexing with other temperaments Alternating with… Positive behavior, self-knowledge, and environment stress Notice neither is ideal; delayed feedback in system leads to mixed situations

13. 3 Big Challenges • How to implement vague temperament concepts like a Rational core need for knowledge/competence? • How does temperament play out organizationally (couple, group, company, culture)? • How to reconnect temperament back to biologic underpinnings (hormones and behaviors)?

14. Temperament Pattern as FCM The Rational Temperament

15. Cultural Theory “New kid on the block”; Michael Thompson, et.al. Culture is shared values and beliefs; and common patterns of interaction There are 4 deep organizing principles / assumptions These 4 models exist in dynamic tension in all (sustained) cultures A geometric/spatial motif here.

16. 4 Cultural Models Egalitarian Circle Hierarchical Tree A D A M B X 4 Individualist Network Fatalist Random-Walk

17. Hierarchical Tree • Individuals organized in a tree (manager + workers, parents + children, etc) each with a rank, taking direction from those above them for the good of the group. • Focus: maintaining status-quo • Grid/Group: feel allegiant to established system but defer for choices beyond their role. • Nature is safe in a zone, outside is disaster; we can manage resources but not our needs. • Risk: okay if by leaders and does not disrupt/critique system. • “Our” traditions stabilize the system. leader follower follower follower Hierarchical tree command/control structure with assigned roles (strong Logistics)

18. Egalitarian Circle • Individuals organized in a circle (co-workers, peers, committee members, etc) each without rank and giving input with a hope for broad consensus toward a future purpose. • Focus: including everyone • Grid/Group: feel alienated from established system but activity work to change it. • Nature is fragile and precarious; we can manage our needs but not exhaustible resources. • Risk: Other cultural models sources of risk. • Outside cause/foe keeps “us” together. Circle of individuals working toward shared values (strong Diplomacy)

19. Individualist Network • Individuals organized in a network, each evaluated based on a criteria (expertise, profit, popularity); high performers capture rewards • Focus: possible situational gains • Grid/Group: feel allegiant to established system and activity improve their place in it • Nature returns to an equilibrium point; we can create new resources and manage needs • Risk: Calculated risk is necessary for progress and can learn • Invisible hand keeps the whole system running A D A M B X Network of individuals based on expertise and effectiveness (strong Dtrategy)

20. Fatalist Random-Walk • Individuals are organized randomly, not participating in a coherent way; ad-hoc structure; randomness has a very high survival value. • Focus: sudden good luck • Grid/Group: feel alienated from established system but defer to others for help and change • Nature is unpredictable and unknowable; selfish needs and resources outside our control. • “Risk” doesn’t exist; failure is bad luck; learning not possible. • Human instincts (hunger, sex) always driving us. A ? 4 Random-walk is best for survival in an unknowable world (strong Tactics)

21. Temperament + CT • Cultural Theory provides organizational metaphors for temperament-based agents to move through and interpret a physical and social landscape:

22. An Augmented Rational-Temperament FCM 1. Evaluate performance of self and other agents based on criteria. 2. Each agent’s standing is Relative to the others’. 3. Move toward agents with equal or higher standing. OR Use more sophisticated strategies. 4. Criteria, successes, failures, standing, etc link directly Into the temperament FCM regarding self-esteem etc.

23. Closing Thoughts • Agents values link to organizational choices in the larger landscape of other agents. • We can be as detailed or as broad as we like in terms of biology, personality and behavior in environment. • High computational overhead suggests restraint to only what is needed.