Skip to main content

From Network Symmetries to Markov Projections

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Markov Chain Aggregation for Agent-Based Models

Part of the book series: Understanding Complex Systems ((UCS))

  • 2096 Accesses

Abstract

In the third chapter, we have seen that an agent-based model (ABM) defines a process of change at the individual level—a micro process—by which in each time step one configuration of individuals is transformed into another configuration. For a class of models we have shown this micro process to be a Markov chain on the space of all possible agent configurations. Moreover, we have shown that the full aggregation—that is, the re-formulation of the model by mere aggregation over the individual attributes of all agents—may give rise to a new process that is again a Markov chain, however, only under the rather restrictive assumption of homogeneous mixing. Heterogeneities in the micro description, in general, destroy the Markov property of the macro process obtained by such a full aggregation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for this formulation.

  2. 2.

    Notice that the case M = L is special because it leads to additional symmetries as the two communities are interchangeable. This is not generally the case and therefore we develop the more general case of ML here, even if the computations are mostly performed for the example \(M = L = 50\).

  3. 3.

    The reason for this is clear. The number of micro configurations x ∈ Σ mapped into the state \(\tilde{X}_{m,l}\) is \(\binom{M}{m}\binom{L}{l}\) which is a huge number for \(m \approx M/2,l \approx L/2\) but only 1 for \(m = M,l = 0\) and \(m = 0,l = L\). Because under homogeneous mixing there is no favoring of particular agent configurations with the same \(k = m + l\) the stationary probability at macro scale is proportional to the cardinality of the set \(\tilde{X}_{m,l}\).

References

  • Banisch, S. (2014). From microscopic heterogeneity to macroscopic complexity in the contrarian voter model. Advances in Complex Systems, 17, 1450025.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Banisch, S., & Lima, R. (2013). Markov chain aggregation for simple agent-based models on symmetric networks: The voter model. In CoRR. arxiv.org/abs/1209.3902 (to appear in Advances in Complex Systems).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bärwinkel, K., Schmidt, H.-J., & Schnack, J. (2000). Structure and relevant dimension of the Heisenberg model and applications to spin rings. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 212, 240–250.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Bedau, M. A. (2003). Downward causation and the autonomy of weak emergence. Principia Revista Internacional de Epistemologica, 6(1), 5–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castellano, C., Fortunato, S., & Loreto, V. (2009). Statistical physics of social dynamics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 81(2), 591–646.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Darroch, J. N., & Seneta, E. (1965). On quasi-stationary distributions in absorbing discrete-time finite Markov chains. Journal of Applied Probability, 2(1), 88–100.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Harary, F., & Palmer, E. M. (1973). Graphical enumeration (Vol. 16). New York: Academic.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Huneman, P., & Humphreys, P. (2008). Dynamical emergence and computation: An introduction. Minds and Machines, 18(4), 425–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemeny, J. G., & Snell, J. L. (1976). Finite Markov chains. Berlin: Springer.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarsfeld, P., & Merton, R. K. (1954). Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In M. Berger, T. Abel, & C. H. Page (Eds.), Freedom and control in modern society (pp. 18–66). New York: Van Nostrand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slanina, F., & Lavicka, H. (2003). Analytical results for the Sznajd model of opinion formation. The European Physical Journal B - Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, 35(2), 279–288.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Sood, V., & Redner, S. (2005). Voter model on heterogeneous graphs. Physical Review Letters, 94(17), 178701.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. (1943). Isolation by distance. Genetics, 28, 114–138.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Banisch, S. (2016). From Network Symmetries to Markov Projections. In: Markov Chain Aggregation for Agent-Based Models. Understanding Complex Systems. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24877-6_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics