Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 261–283 | Cite as

Convention evolution in organizations and markets

  • Moshe Tennenholtz


Conventions are essential for the coordination of multi-agent systems. However, in many systems conventions can not be legislated in advance and need to emerge during the system's activity. As designers of such systems we may wish to ensure that conventions will evolve rapidly. Given a classical model for convention evolution where agents tend to mimic agents they interact with, the designer can control the organizational structure of the system in order to speedup the evolution of conventions. This paper introduces a study of convention evolution in the context of basic organizational structures. Our study sheds light on a basic aspect of organizational design which has not been discussed in the literature, and which is crucial for efficient design of non-trivial multi-agent systems.


conventions emergent behavior organizations 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Altenberg, L. and M.W. Feldman (1987), “Selection, Generalized Transmssion, and the Evolution of Modifier Genes. I. The Reduction Principle,” Genetics, 559–572.Google Scholar
  2. Axelrod, r. (1984), The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  3. Axelrod, R. (1996), “An Agent-Based Model of Social Influence: Local Convergence and Global Polarization,” To appear in Journal of Conflict Resolution.Google Scholar
  4. Baligh, H. (1986), “Decision Rules and Transactions, Organisations, and Markets,” Management Science, 32(11), 1480–1491.Google Scholar
  5. Baligh, H. (1990), “Decision Rule Theory and Its Use in the Analysis of the Organization's Performance,” Organization Science, 1(4), 360–374.Google Scholar
  6. Baligh, H. and L. Richartz (1967), Vertical Market Structures. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  7. Bergman, A. and M.W. Feldman (1990), “More on Selection for and Against Recombination,” Theoretical Population Biology, 38(1), 68–92.Google Scholar
  8. Bond, A.H. and L. Gasser (1988), Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence. San Mateo, California: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  9. Burton, R. and B. Obel (1995), Strategic Organizational Diagnosis and Design. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Carley, K. (1992), “Organizational Learning and Personnel Turnover,” Organization Science, 3(1), 20–46.Google Scholar
  11. Carley, K. (1995), “Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory: Perspective and Directions,” Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 1(1), 39–56.Google Scholar
  12. Cavalli-Sforza, L. and M. Feldman (1981), Culture Trasmission and Evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Chandler, A.D. (1962), Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprize. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, M., J. March and J. Olsen (1972), “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1–25.Google Scholar
  15. Cohen, K. and R. Cyert (1975), Theory of the Firm: Resource Allocation in a Market Economy. Englewood, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Cyert, R. (1988), The Economic Theory of Organization and the Firm. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  17. Demazeau, Y. and J. Muller (1990), Decentralized AI. North Holland/Elsevier.Google Scholar
  18. Doyle, J. (1983), “A Society of Mind: Multiple Perspectives, Reasoned Assumptions, and Virtual Copies,” in Proc. 8th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 309–314.Google Scholar
  19. Durfee, E.H., V.R. Lesser and D.D. Corkill (1987), “Coherent Cooperation Among Communicating Problem Solvers,” IEEE Transactions on Computers, 36, 1275–1291.Google Scholar
  20. Ellison, G. (1993), “Learning, Local Interaction, and Coordination,” Econometrica, 61(5), 1047–1071.Google Scholar
  21. Fox, M.S. (1981), “An Organizational View of Distributed Systems,” IEEE Trans. Sys., Man., Cyber., 11, 70–80.Google Scholar
  22. Galbriath, J. (1973), Designing Complex Organizations. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  23. Gasser, L. (1993), “Social Knowledge and Social Action: Heterogeneity in Practice,” in Proc. 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 751–757.Google Scholar
  24. Gilboa, I. and A. Matsui (1991), “Social Stability and Equilibrium,” Econometrica, 59(3), 859–867.Google Scholar
  25. Glance, N. and B. Huberman (1993), “Organizational Fluidity and Sustainable Cooperation,” in Modeling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World '93.Google Scholar
  26. Harrison, J. and G. Carroll (1991), “Keeping the Faith: A Model of Cultural Transmission in Formal Organizations,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 552–582.Google Scholar
  27. Huberman, B.A. and T. Hogg (1988), “The Behaviour of Computational Ecologies,” in B.A. Huberman (Ed.), The Ecology of Computation. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  28. Kandori, M., G. Mailath and R. rob (1991), Learning, Mutation and Long Equilibria in Games. Mimeo. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  29. Kinderman, R. and S.L. Snell (1980), Markov Random Fields and Their Applications. Providence, R.I.: American Mathematial Society.Google Scholar
  30. Kirman, A.P. (1994), “Economies with Interacting Agents,” Santa Fe Institute working paper, 94-05-030.Google Scholar
  31. Kittock, J.E. (1994), “The Impact of Locality and Authority on Emergent Conventions,” in Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI '94), pp. 420–425.Google Scholar
  32. Koza, J. (1992), “Genetic Evolution and Co-Evolution of Computer Programs,” in C. Langton, C. Taylor, J. Farmer and S. Rasmussen (Eds.), Artificial Life II. Redwood City: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  33. Lewis, D. (1969), Convention, A Philosphical Study. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Liberman, U. and M.W. Feldman (1986), “A General Reduction Principle for Genetic Modifiers of Recombination,” Theoretical Population Biology, 30(3), 341–370.Google Scholar
  35. Lindgren, K. (1992), “Evolutionary Phenomena in Simple Dynamics,” in C. Langton, C. Taylor, J. Farmer and S. Rasmussen (Eds.), Artificial Life II. Redwood City: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  36. Malone, T.W. (1986), Informationary Efficiency in Networks and Hiearchies. Sloan School of Management Working Paper 1849–86, MIT.Google Scholar
  37. Malone, T.W. (1987), “Modeling Coordination in Organisations and Markets,” Management Science, 33(10), 1317–1332.Google Scholar
  38. Marschak, J. (1955), “Elements for the Theory of Teams,” Management Science, 1, 127–137.Google Scholar
  39. Marschak, J. and S. Reichelstein (1989), Informational Efficiency in Networks and Hierarchies, Working Paper, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  40. Mataric, M.J. 1995), “Learning in Multi-Robot Systems,” in International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 95 Workshop on Learning and Adaptation in Multiagent Systems.Google Scholar
  41. Minsky, M. (1986), The Society of Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  42. Moses, Y. and M. Tennenholtz (1990), “Artificial Social Systems Part I: Basic Principles,” Tech. rep. CS90-12, Weizmann Institute.Google Scholar
  43. Moses, Y. and M. Tennenholtz (1995), “Artificial Social Systems,” Computers and Artificial Intelligence, 14(6), 533–562.Google Scholar
  44. Narendra, K. and M.A.L. Thathachar (1989), Learning Automata: An Introduction. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  45. Parker, L.E. (1993), “Learning in Cooperative Robot Teams,” in Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 93 Workshop on Dynamically Interacting Robots.Google Scholar
  46. Russell, S. and P. Norvig (1995), Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  47. Schaerf, A., Y. Shoham and M. Tennenholtz (1995), “Adaptive Load Balancing: A Study in Multi-Agent Learning,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), 2.Google Scholar
  48. Sen, S., M. Sekaran and J. Hale (1994), “Learning to Coordinate Without Sharing Information,” in Proc. of AAAI-94, pp. 426–431.Google Scholar
  49. Shoham, Y. and M. Tennenholtz (1992), “Emergent Conventions in Multi-Agent Systems: Initial Experimental Results and Observations,” in Proc. of the 3rd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 225–231.Google Scholar
  50. Shoham, Y. and M. Tennenholtz (1994), “Co-Learning and the Evolution of Social Activity,” Tech. rep. STANCS-TR-94-1511, Dept. of Computer Science, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  51. Shoham, Y. and M. Tennenholtz (1995), “Social Laws for Artificial Agent Societies: Off-line Design,” Artificial Intelligence, 73, 231–252.Google Scholar
  52. Shoham, Y. and M. Tennenholtz (1996), Convention Evolution in Game—Theoretic Setting,” Artificial Intelligence (to appear).Google Scholar
  53. Simon, H.A. (1981), The Science of the Artificial. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  54. Tan, M. (1993), “Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning: Independent vs. Cooperative Agents,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 330–337.Google Scholar
  55. Weidlich, W. and G. Hagg (1983), Concepts and Models of a Quantitative Sociology; The Dynamics of Interacting Populations. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  56. Weiss, G. (1993), “Learning to Coordinate Actions in Multi-Agent Systems,” in Proc. 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 311–316.Google Scholar
  57. Wellman, M.P. (1993), “A Market-Oriented Programming Environment and Its Application to Distributed Multi-commodity Flow Problems,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 1, 1–23.Google Scholar
  58. Williamson, O. (1975), Markets and Hierarchies. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  59. Yanco, H. and L. Stein (1993), “An Adaptive Communication Protocol for Cooperating Mobile Robots,” in From Animal to Animats: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Simulation of Adaptive Behavior, pp. 478–485.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Moshe Tennenholtz
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Industrial Engineering and ManagementTechnion-Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations