Agents, artifacts and Agents, artifacts and innovationinnovation

David Lane, Univ Modena and Reggio Emilia David Lane, Univ Modena and Reggio Emilia and Santa Fe Instituteand Santa Fe Institute

Roberto Serra and Marco Villani, UMRERoberto Serra and Marco Villani, UMRE

ISCOM project (FET-IST)ISCOM project (FET-IST)

Premise: a theory of artifact Premise: a theory of artifact innovationinnovation

All artifacts have a history -- as do the modes of All artifacts have a history -- as do the modes of interaction among people in which artifacts figureinteraction among people in which artifacts figure

Propose to develop a theory about the processes Propose to develop a theory about the processes through which artifact histories are realizedthrough which artifact histories are realized How new artifacts come into beingHow new artifacts come into being How their tokens proliferate and become incorporated into How their tokens proliferate and become incorporated into

patterns of human interactionpatterns of human interaction How new patterns of interaction among human beings and the How new patterns of interaction among human beings and the

artifacts they create are generatedartifacts they create are generated

Primary questionsPrimary questions What kinds of social structures support the processes of artifact What kinds of social structures support the processes of artifact

innovation?innovation? How do these structures modulate the conflicting functionalities that How do these structures modulate the conflicting functionalities that

underlie proliferation of artifact tokens and generation of new artifact underlie proliferation of artifact tokens and generation of new artifact types?types?

How do these structures transform themselves as they incorporate new How do these structures transform themselves as they incorporate new kinds of functionality around new kinds of artifacts?kinds of functionality around new kinds of artifacts?

Positive feedback dynamic,Positive feedback dynamic, linking proliferation of new artifacts, new linking proliferation of new artifacts, new patterns of human activity that organize around these artifacts, patterns of human activity that organize around these artifacts, generation of new types of artifacts…generation of new types of artifacts…

Theory as ontologyTheory as ontology

““Theory of innovation” an oxymoron?Theory of innovation” an oxymoron? Aim to present an ontology for phenomena associated Aim to present an ontology for phenomena associated

with artifact innovationwith artifact innovation Kinds of entitiesKinds of entities Interaction modalitiesInteraction modalities How entity properties change as a result of interactionsHow entity properties change as a result of interactions

Value of theory established and demonstrated through Value of theory established and demonstrated through dialoguesdialogues With historical narratives With historical narratives books Lonworksbooks Lonworks With mathematical modelsWith mathematical models

Reciprocality principleReciprocality principle

Agents: human beings, or organizations “in the name of Agents: human beings, or organizations “in the name of which” human beings actwhich” human beings act

Artifacts: entities constructed by human beings, for the Artifacts: entities constructed by human beings, for the use of human beingsuse of human beings

Reciprocality principle: Reciprocality principle: the generation of new artifact types is mediated by the transformation of relationships among agents; and the generation of new artifact types mediates the transformation of relationships among agents.

Agent-artifact spaceAgent-artifact space

Horizontal and vertical relationsHorizontal and vertical relations Network tiesNetwork ties

Agent-agent: recurring patterns of interaction, directed towards Agent-agent: recurring patterns of interaction, directed towards transformations of artifacts, artifact relations, or agent-artifact transformations of artifacts, artifact relations, or agent-artifact relationsrelations

Agent-artifacts: relations of production, ownership, useAgent-artifacts: relations of production, ownership, use Artifact-artifact: functional substitutibility, complementarity (co-Artifact-artifact: functional substitutibility, complementarity (co-

use)use)

Recursive structuresRecursive structures

Agent propertiesAgent properties

Resources Resources artifactsartifacts Permissions Permissions potential field of relationshipspotential field of relationships Cognitive structures Cognitive structures shared, distributedshared, distributed

Attributions and Attributions and directednessdirectedness NarrativesNarratives

Two kinds of innovationTwo kinds of innovation

Better-faster-cheaperBetter-faster-cheaper New attributions of functionalityNew attributions of functionality

Organization of agent-artifact Organization of agent-artifact spacespace

Locus of new attributions: Locus of new attributions: generative generative relationshipsrelationships

Market systemsMarket systems Competence networksCompetence networks Scaffolding structuresScaffolding structures

Positive feedback dynamics Positive feedback dynamics

Exaptive bootstrappingExaptive bootstrapping

Model and theoryModel and theory

The theory provides The theory provides an ontology that determines the model entities and processes an ontology that determines the model entities and processes a language to describe the different “histories”a language to describe the different “histories” some specific assumptions and consequences that can be some specific assumptions and consequences that can be

tested, in a mathematical model or by confrontation with datatested, in a mathematical model or by confrontation with data The model to be described here allows a precise statement of the The model to be described here allows a precise statement of the

theory, theory, in a limited contextin a limited context Developing the model and analyzing its results can give rise to a Developing the model and analyzing its results can give rise to a

process leading to modifications of the theory itselfprocess leading to modifications of the theory itself

Constraints from the theoryConstraints from the theory

ReciprocalityReciprocality=> Agents, artifacts and relations among them must be => Agents, artifacts and relations among them must be representedrepresented

Innovation leads to modifications of the Innovation leads to modifications of the role of agents as of agents as well as of the well as of the meaning of artifacts of artifacts=> both must be endogeneously generated=> both must be endogeneously generated

External fitness functions make no senseExternal fitness functions make no sense DirectednessDirectedness (towards transformations of artifact space) (towards transformations of artifact space)

=> agents have intentionality=> agents have intentionality

Model: homo faberModel: homo faber

agents use artifacts, produced by other agents, agents use artifacts, produced by other agents, to build artifacts, which can be used by yet other to build artifacts, which can be used by yet other agentsagents

the meaning of artifacts is defined by which the meaning of artifacts is defined by which agents use them, for whatagents use them, for what

the role of agents is defined by what they make, the role of agents is defined by what they make, and by the agents with which they interactand by the agents with which they interact

gift economygift economy

ArtifactsArtifacts

Artifacts are (currently) represented by Artifacts are (currently) represented by numbersnumbers

Agents produce (numbers) by applying Agents produce (numbers) by applying functions (to numbers)functions (to numbers)

Agent propertiesAgent properties

production recipes production recipes (+ - 2 10 7) produces 5(+ - 2 10 7) produces 5

goalsgoals i.e. (roughly) what new i.e. (roughly) what new

artifacts it wants to produce artifacts it wants to produce (more precisely: from (more precisely: from which existing artifacts it which existing artifacts it wants to exapt)wants to exapt)

stocksstocks

list of artifacts known to list of artifacts known to the agent the agent

list of other agents known list of other agents known to the agentto the agent

score that it attributes to score that it attributes to its relationships with other its relationships with other agentsagents

““style” style” A set of parameters which A set of parameters which

determines the propensity determines the propensity of the agent to innovate, of the agent to innovate, etc.etc.

Standard dynamics, without Standard dynamics, without innovationinnovation

at each time step an agent at each time step an agent at random is selected for at random is selected for updatingupdating

for each recipe, it searches for each recipe, it searches (among the stocks of its (among the stocks of its suppliers) for the required suppliers) for the required inputsinputs

if the inputs are found, the if the inputs are found, the product is produced and product is produced and inserted immediately into inserted immediately into the stockthe stock

the stocks of the suppliers the stocks of the suppliers are reducedare reduced

If one of the inputs is not If one of the inputs is not found, the agent searches found, the agent searches for another artifact of the for another artifact of the same type from its same type from its acquaintancesacquaintances

If found, same as beforeIf found, same as before Otherwise, the agent Otherwise, the agent

passes to the following passes to the following reciperecipe

and the counter and the counter associated to the unused associated to the unused recipe is updatedrecipe is updated

External market

A

B

C

1

D

E

2 F

G

3H

I

J

4

K

5 L

M

6

NO

Raw

mat

eria

l

Initial conditions: external market

A

B

C

1

D

E

2 F

G

3H

4

K

5 LRaw

mat

eria

l

InnovationInnovation

an agent can modify its an agent can modify its productsproducts (by creating a (by creating a new new reciperecipe), OR), OR

it can enhance its it can enhance its knowledge of other agentsknowledge of other agents

Creating new recipes: goalsCreating new recipes: goals

the agent the agent looks at the portion of artifact space which it knowslooks at the portion of artifact space which it knows chooses a specific goal to pursue, based upon an chooses a specific goal to pursue, based upon an

artifact which it does not produceartifact which it does not produce tries to “come close” to that goal by using the tries to “come close” to that goal by using the

available operators on the available inputsavailable operators on the available inputs if the agent succeeds (within a given range), it if the agent succeeds (within a given range), it

puts the new recipe in its set of active recipesputs the new recipe in its set of active recipes

Goal setting by imitationGoal setting by imitation

A

B

C

D

E F

G

H

N

ML

J

P

O

I

K

Imitation (of a randomly selected artifact) is a simple way to sample artifact space

the clusters of artifacts are likely to be high reward zonesThe agent tries to build an artifact similar (within a given threshold) to the selected one (which represents the “goal” of the imitation)

Q

Generating a new recipeGenerating a new recipe

new recipes can be generated bynew recipes can be generated by Changing the order of the inputs (leaving the support Changing the order of the inputs (leaving the support

unaltered)unaltered) changing some inputschanging some inputs Changing the order of the operatorsChanging the order of the operators Changing the operators (eg by crossing different Changing the operators (eg by crossing different

recipes)recipes)

Imitation worldImitation world

Imitation can produce self-sustaining Imitation can produce self-sustaining loops, and the system is able to surviveloops, and the system is able to survive

Introduction of successful novelties ends Introduction of successful novelties ends after a transient period of timeafter a transient period of time

Goal setting by “jumping”Goal setting by “jumping”

A

B

C

R

Q

OF

D

I

E M

L

G

N

PSH

The jump allows The jump allows the exploration of the exploration of new regions of new regions of artifact spaceartifact space

Social innovationSocial innovation

In general, an agent has a limited knowledge of In general, an agent has a limited knowledge of artifacts and other agentsartifacts and other agents

An agent can also try to innovate together with An agent can also try to innovate together with another agent, chosen from among those it another agent, chosen from among those it knowsknows

Agents that cooperate share recipes and cross Agents that cooperate share recipes and cross them to create new onesthem to create new ones

Agents can acquire new ties, with whom they do Agents can acquire new ties, with whom they do not have a customer-supplier relationshipnot have a customer-supplier relationship

Question 1: IntentionalityQuestion 1: IntentionalityWhat difference do goals make?What difference do goals make?

This can be investigated by comparing a goal-This can be investigated by comparing a goal-directed system, with a system without goalsdirected system, with a system without goals

The non-goal-oriented system (NG) is generated The non-goal-oriented system (NG) is generated by allowing an agent to develop a new recipe by by allowing an agent to develop a new recipe by combining some of its inputs and operators combining some of its inputs and operators chosen at randomchosen at random

Diameter of artifact spaceDiameter of artifact space LEFT: WITH GOALS LEFT: WITH GOALS

RIGHT: WITHOUT GOALSRIGHT: WITHOUT GOALS

Current artifactsCurrent artifactsLeft: with goalsLeft: with goals

Right: NGRight: NG

Average number of recipes per agent, fraction of known Average number of recipes per agent, fraction of known agentsagents

What difference do goals make?What difference do goals make? Preliminary answersPreliminary answers

No-Goal world is more robust (and No-Goal world is more robust (and predictable)predictable)

Goals generate much broader and Goals generate much broader and diversified artifact space, with greater diversified artifact space, with greater diversity in agent fatesdiversity in agent fates

Question 2: Innovative activityQuestion 2: Innovative activityWhat is the relationship between agents’ propensity

to innovate and structure of artifact space?

We can vary parameters that control agents’ We can vary parameters that control agents’ innovation rate, jump frequency, jump sizeinnovation rate, jump frequency, jump size

We can compare systems in which agents all have We can compare systems in which agents all have the the samesame innovation propensities with systems in innovation propensities with systems in which they are which they are heterogeneousheterogeneous

Homogeneous agents:Homogeneous agents: left: diameter (per agent) left: diameter (per agent)

right: number of artifacts currently in systemright: number of artifacts currently in system

Innovators prevail in heterogeneous system:Innovators prevail in heterogeneous system: left: dist of innov prob; left: dist of innov prob;

right: no. of successful projects as function of innov probright: no. of successful projects as function of innov prob

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Varying jump frequency and rangeVarying jump frequency and range

High jump probability in homogeneous systems High jump probability in homogeneous systems increases the diameter of artifact space, but increases the diameter of artifact space, but makes the system more fragile (a higher makes the system more fragile (a higher proportion of agents die) -- the more agents, the proportion of agents die) -- the more agents, the more fragilemore fragile

In heterogeneous systems, the frequent jumpers In heterogeneous systems, the frequent jumpers develop fewer successful projects develop fewer successful projects

BUT if jump BUT if jump rangerange also varies, a mixture of short also varies, a mixture of short and long jumpers performs very well -- and the and long jumpers performs very well -- and the latter outperform the former! latter outperform the former!

Question 3: agent relationshipsQuestion 3: agent relationshipsWhat produces stable relationships? What produces stable relationships?

Are these generative?Are these generative?

We compare system effects when agents We compare system effects when agents choose innovating partners randomly with choose innovating partners randomly with those when agents use a criterion to those when agents use a criterion to choose partnerschoose partners

Criteria examined include: past success; Criteria examined include: past success; aligned directedness; role heterogeneityaligned directedness; role heterogeneity

Scoring relationships on the Scoring relationships on the basis of past successbasis of past success

V ij t 1 V ij t tij V ij t

tij

2 if there isa successful jo int project at time t

0 otherwise

Choosing partners accordingChoosing partners according to V to V

This criteria gives rise to reciprocal This criteria gives rise to reciprocal relationships that are very stable in time relationships that are very stable in time (though rarely last “forever”)(though rarely last “forever”)

Partnering on the basis of V gives rise to Partnering on the basis of V gives rise to substantially richer artifact spaces than substantially richer artifact spaces than does random pairingdoes random pairing

Formation of successful partnershipsFormation of successful partnershipsLeft: partnering based on VLeft: partnering based on VRight: random partneringRight: random partnering

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

20 40 60 80 100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

Number of projects per agent

Fre

qu

ency

00,050,1

0,150,2

0,250,3

0,350,4

0,450,5

20 40 60 80 100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

Number of projects per agent

Fre

qu

en

cy

Effect on artifact spaceEffect on artifact space

Generative potentialGenerative potential

Aligned directedness Aligned directedness closeness of goals Heterogeneity Heterogeneity difference between

variance of outputs -- specialists pair with generalists

Mutual directedness Mutual directedness satisfying history -- V PermissionsPermissions Action opportunitiesAction opportunities

Partnering on generative Partnering on generative potentialpotential

All three measured criterion alone produce All three measured criterion alone produce results similar to those for Vresults similar to those for V

Some combinations tend to do even better Some combinations tend to do even better than the single criteria…than the single criteria…