1 / 59

David Lazer Program on Networked Governance Harvard University

The Parable of the Hare and the Tortoise : How "Small Worlds" Reduce the Long Run Performance of Systems. David Lazer Program on Networked Governance Harvard University. Acknowledgements…. Allan Friedman NSF grant 0131923. Living in the (self-consciously) networked age.

hector
Download Presentation

David Lazer Program on Networked Governance Harvard University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Parable of the Hare and the Tortoise:How "Small Worlds" Reduce the Long Run Performance of Systems David Lazer Program on Networked Governance Harvard University

  2. Acknowledgements… • Allan Friedman • NSF grant 0131923

  3. Living in the (self-consciously) networked age • Growth of research on networks across disciplines • We live in an “smaller world” with ever-accelerating flows of information • Explosion of consultants, software, etc to make organizations “smaller”

  4. Does connecting people help an organization solve problems?

  5. The problem of parallel problem solving in human systems • Many agents working on same problem simultaneously • How is that problem solving aggregated?

  6. Brainstorming

  7. “Laboratories of democracy”

  8. Global diffusion…

  9. (Not) Re-inventing the wheel

  10. Roadmap • The role of informational diversity in systemic performance • Networks as architecture for experimentation • Description of model • Results • Conclusion

  11. Role of informational diversity • Sunstein, Nemeth, etc. • Informational diversity provides the menu of options in the system • However: pressures toward homogeneity, some of which may increase system performance (e.g., the elimination of bad solutions)

  12. Processes of emulation • Neo-institutionalism– strong pressures for conformity (DiMaggio and Powell) • Networks play a key conduit for those pressures (Lazarsfeld, Friedkin, Lazer) • Convergence often not on system “optimum”, even when emulation is driven by success (Bikhchandani, Hirshleifer, and Welch; Strang and Macy)

  13. Network structure • Cliquish • Small world– “six degrees of separation” (Milgram, Watts) • Birds of a feather (Lazarsfeld and Merton) • “Scale free” (Barabasi) • how does the architecture of the network affect balance between exploration and exploitation?

  14. Cliques

  15. Small worlds (Milgram, Watts and Strogatts) Big world Small world

  16. Birds of a feather…

  17. Scale Free networks(Barabasi)

  18. Network structure • Cliquish • Small world– “six degrees of separation” (Milgram, Watts) • Birds of a feather (Lazarsfeld and Merton) • “Scale free” (Barabasi) • how does the architecture of the network affect balance between exploration and exploitation?

  19. Computational model • KISS principle– simplest possible model that captures some essence of reality • Agent-based– decision rules dictating agent behavior based on local conditions (not analytically tractable) • “Experimentally” manipulate parameters, test for robustness • Key question: what systemic patterns emerge?

  20. Model • Problem space– what’s the problem agents are trying to solve? • Agent decision rules– how do agents seek improvements in performance? • Agent neighborhood– who do agents see (and emulate)?

  21. Problem space • Key attribute of problem space is its ruggedness

  22. Easy to find optimum…

  23. Less easy to find optimum…

  24. Problem space • NK model (Kauffman) • N dimensions (19 in these simulations) • The marginal contribution of each dimension to performance is contingent on K other dimensions • K determines the ruggedness of the problem space (5 in most of these simulations) • Scores are calculated using a rank-preserving monotonic transformation

  25. Decision rule • Capacity of agents to search problem space must be very limited

  26. Decision rule • If someone agent can see is doing better than agent at time t, copy best alternative. • Otherwise, look at impact of randomly changing one dimension. If this is an improvement, move there. If not an improvement, stay at previous solution.

  27. Informational velocity • Always looking at others? • If not: • Is communication synchronous (e.g., group meetings)? • Is communication asynchronous?

  28. Network– determines neighborhood Linear (max degrees of separation = population size – 1) Fully connected (max degrees of separation = 1)

  29. Basic model parameters • 100 agents • 200 time steps • 1000 simulations of each experiment • 20 NK spaces (N = 19, K = 5) • 50 randomly seeded starting points • Vary size, network structure, velocity, and synchronicity Code written in Java using the Repast libraries

  30. Findings • Size • Network structure • Velocity • Synchronicity

  31. Bigger is better

  32. Bigger is better

  33. Bigger is better

  34. The hare and the tortoise:Small worlds are good for a quick fix…

  35. …but not so good in the long haul

  36. Small worlds drive out variety

  37. LR Performance of random graphs

  38. Small worlds

  39. Impact of structure is contingent on problem space

  40. Impact of structure is contingent on problem space

  41. Velocity increases exploitation and decreases exploration

  42. Velocity increases exploitation and decreases exploration

  43. Synchronicity .

  44. Synchronicity .

  45. Synchronicity .

  46. Synchronicity .

More Related