Multi-scale resolution of neural, cognitive and social systems

  • Mark G. OrrEmail author
  • Christian Lebiere
  • Andrea Stocco
  • Peter Pirolli
  • Bianica Pires
  • William G. Kennedy
S.I.: SBP-BRiMS 2018


We recently put forth a thesis, the Resolution Thesis, that suggests that cognitive science and generative social science are interdependent and should thus be mutually informative. The thesis invokes a paradigm, the reciprocal constraints paradigm, that was designed to leverage the interdependence between the social and cognitive levels of scale for the purpose of building cognitive and social simulations with better resolution. We review our thesis here, provide the current research context, address a set of issues with the thesis, and provide some parting thoughts to provoke discussion. We see this work as an initial step to motivate both social and cognitive sciences in a new direction, one that represents unity of purpose, an interdependence of theory and methods, and a call for the careful development of new approaches for understanding human social systems, broadly construed.


Cognitive modeling Agent-based modeling Social simulation Multi-scale systems 



The Matrix Agent-Based Modeling Platform was developed by Parantapa Bhattacharya, Saliya Ekanayake, and Mandy Wilson.


  1. Anderson JR (2002) Spanning seven orders of magnitude: a challenge for cognitive modeling. Cognit Sci 26(1):85–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson JR (2007) How can the human mind occur in the physical universe?. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson PW (1972) More is different: broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical structure of science. Science 177(4047):393–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Axelrod R (1995) A model of the emergence of new political actors. The computer simulation of social life. Artificial societies, London, pp 19–39Google Scholar
  5. Blondel VD, Guillaume JL, Lambiotte R, Lefebvre E (2008) Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J Stat Mech 10:P10008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bunney BS, Chiodo LA, Grace AA (1991) Midbrain dopamine system electrophysiological functioning: a review and new hypothesis. Synapse 9(2):79–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caillou P, Gaudou B, Grignard A, Truong CQ, Taillandier P (2017) A simple-to-use bdi architecture for agent-based modeling and simulation. In: Advances in Social Simulation 2015, Springer, New York, pp 15–28Google Scholar
  8. Chi EH, Rosien A, Suppattanasiri G, Williams A, Royer C, Chow C, Cousins S (2003) The bloodhound project: automating discovery of web usability issues using the infoscent simulator. In: ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 505–512Google Scholar
  9. Croft W (2008) Evolutionary linguistics. Annu Rev Anthropol 37:219–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Epstein JM (2002) Modeling civil violence: an agent-based computational approach. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99(3):7243–7250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Epstein JM (2014) Agent\_Zero: toward neurocognitive foundations for generative social science. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fagyal Z, Swarup S, Escobar AM, Gasser L, Lakkaraju K (2010) Centers and peripheries: network roles in language change. Lingua 120(8):2061–2079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fu WT, Pirolli P (2007) Snif-act: a model of user navigation on the world wide web. Hum Comput Interact 22(4):355–412Google Scholar
  14. Gigerenzer G, Todd PM (1999) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Gonzalez C, Lerch FJ, Lebiere C (2003) Instance-based learning in dynamic decision making. Cognit Sci 27(4):591–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Griffiths TL, Kalish ML (2007) Language evolution by iterated learning with bayesian agents. Cognit Sci 31(3):441–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hare M, Elman JL (1995) Learning and morphological change. Cognition 56(1):61–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hruschka DJ, Christiansen MH, Blythe RA, Croft W, Heggarty P, Mufwene SS, Pierrehumbert JB, Poplack S (2009) Building social cognitive models of language change. Trends Cognit Sci 13(11):464–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huberman BA, Pirolli P, Pitkow JE, Lukose RM (1998) Strong regularities in world wide web surfing. Science 280(5360):95–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ke J, Gong T, Wang WS (2008) Language change and social networks. Commun Comput Phys 3(4):935–949Google Scholar
  21. Kennedy WG (2012) Modelling human behaviour in agent-based models. In: Agent-based models of geographical systems, Springer, New York, pp 167–179Google Scholar
  22. Lebiere C, Best BJ (2009) From microcognition to macrocognition: architectural support for adversarial behavior. J Cognit Eng Decis Making 3(2):176–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lebiere C, Wallach D, West R (2000) A memory-based account of the prisoners dilemma and other 2 x 2 games. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Cognitive Modeling, Universal Press, Kansas, pp 185–193Google Scholar
  24. Lebiere C, Gray R, Salvucci D, West R (2003) Choice and learning under uncertainty: A case study in baseball batting. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Mahwah, Erlbaum, pp 704–709Google Scholar
  25. Lebiere C, Archer R, Best B, Schunk D (2008) Modeling pilot performance with an integrated task network and cognitive architecture approach. Hum Perform Model AviatGoogle Scholar
  26. Lou-Magnuson M, Onnis L (2018) Social network limits language complexity. Cognit SciGoogle Scholar
  27. Malleson N, See L, Evans A, Heppenstall A (2012) Implementing comprehensive offender behaviour in a realistic agent-based model of burglary. Simulation 88(1):50–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Middleton FA, Strick PL (1996) The temporal lobe is a target of output from the basal ganglia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93(16):8683–8687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miller JH, Page SE (2009) Complex adaptive systems: an introduction to computational models of social life. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  30. Newell A (1990) Unified theories of cognition. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Nowak MA, Komarova NL, Niyogi P (2001) Evolution of universal grammar. Science 291(5501):114–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Orr MG, Lebiere C, Stocco A, Pirolli P, Pires B, Kennedy WG (2018) Multi-scale resolution of cognitive architectures: A paradigm for simulating minds and society. International conference on social computing, behavioral-cultural modeling and prediction and behavior representation in modeling and simulation. Springer, New York, pp 3–15Google Scholar
  33. Pais D, Caicedo-Nunez CH, Leonard NE (2012) Hopf bifurcations and limit cycles in evolutionary network dynamics. SIAM J Appl Dyn Syst 11(4):1754–1784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pires B, Crooks AT (2017) Modeling the emergence of riots: a geosimulation approach. Comput Environ Urb Syst 61:66–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Polinsky M, Van Everbroeck E (2003) Development of gender classifications: modeling the historical change from latin to french. Language, pp 356–390Google Scholar
  36. Prietula M, Carley K, Gasser L (1998) Simulating organizations: computational models of institutions and groups, vol 1. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Rao AS, Georgeff MP (1995) Bdi agents: from theory to practice. ICMAS 95:312–319Google Scholar
  38. Reitter D, Lebiere C (2010) Accountable modeling in act-up, a scalable, rapid-prototyping ACT-R implementation. In: Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on cognitive modelingGoogle Scholar
  39. Reitter D, Lebiere C (2012) Social cognition: Memory decay and adaptive information filtering for robust information maintenance. In: Proceedings of the twenty-sixth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI, pp 242–248Google Scholar
  40. Reynolds CW (1987) Flocks, herds and schools: a distributed behavioral model. ACM SIGGRAPH Comput Gr 21(4):25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ritter F, Haynes SR, Cohen M, Howes A, John B, Best B, Lebiere C, Jones RM, Crossman J, Lewis RL, St Amant R, McBride SP, Urbas L, Leuchter S, Vera A (2012) High-level behavior representation languages revisited. In: Proceedings of the twenty-sixth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI, pp 242–248Google Scholar
  42. Romero O, Lebiere C (2014) Simulating network behavioral dynamics by using a multi-agent approach driven by ACT-R cognitive architecture. In: Proceedings of the behavior representation in modeling and simulation conferenceGoogle Scholar
  43. Sakellariou I, Kefalas P, Stamatopoulou I (2008) Enhancing netlogo to simulate BDI communicating agents. SETN, Springer, New York, pp 263–275Google Scholar
  44. Schelling TC (1969) Models of segregation. Am Econ Rev 59(2):488–493Google Scholar
  45. Schmidt B (2000) The modelling of human behaviour: the PECS reference models. SCS-Europe BVBA, DelftGoogle Scholar
  46. Schultz W (2002) Getting formal with dopamine and reward. Neuron 36(2):241–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schultz W, Dayan P, Montague PR (1997) A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science 275(5306):1593–1599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sierhuis M, Clancey WJ, Van Hoof RJ (2007) Brahms: a multi-agent modelling environment for simulating work processes and practices. Int J Simul Process Model 3(3):134–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Simon HA (1962) The architecture of complexity. Proc Am Philos Soc 106(6):467–482Google Scholar
  50. Simon HA (1991) Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organ Sci 2(1):125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stocco A (2018) A biologically plausible action selection system for cognitive architectures: implications of basal ganglia anatomy for learning and decision-making models. Cognit Sci 42:457–490. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stocco A, Lebiere C, Anderson JR (2010) Conditional routing of information to the cortex: a model of the basal ganglias role in cognitive coordination. Psychol Rev 117(2):541–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stocco A, Murray NL, Yamasaki BL, Renno TJ, Nguyen J, Prat CS (2017) Individual differences in the simon effect are underpinned by differences in the competitive dynamics in the basal ganglia: an experimental verification and a computational model. Cognition 164:31–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sun R (2006) Cognition and multi-agent interaction: from cognitive modeling to social simulation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  55. Sutton RS (1988) Learning to predict by the methods of temporal differences. Mach Learn 3(1):9–44Google Scholar
  56. Vallacher RR, Read SJ, Nowak A (2017) Computational social psychology. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. West R, Nagy N, Karimi F, Dudzik K (2017) Detecting macro cognitive influences in micro cognition: Using micro strategies to evaluate the sgoms macro architecture as implemented in ACT-R. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on cognitive modeling, pp 235–236Google Scholar
  58. West RL, Lebiere C (2001) Simple games as dynamic, coupled systems: randomness and other emergent properties. Cognit Syst Res 1(4):221–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. West RL, Stewart TC, Lebiere C, Chandrasekharan S (2005) Stochastic resonance in human cognition: ACT-R vs. game theory, associative neural networks, recursive neural networks, q-learning, and humans. In: Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the cognitive science society, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 2353–2358Google Scholar
  60. Wilson EO (2000) Sociobiology. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark G. Orr
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christian Lebiere
    • 2
  • Andrea Stocco
    • 3
  • Peter Pirolli
    • 4
  • Bianica Pires
    • 5
  • William G. Kennedy
    • 6
  1. 1.Biocomplexity Institute & IniativeUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.University of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  4. 4.Institute for Human and Machine CognitionPensacolaUSA
  5. 5.Virginia TechArlingtonUSA
  6. 6.George Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations