Towards Cognitive Models of Communication and Group Intelligence

Expanding the Space of Cognitive Science - Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2011

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 734-739

  Reitter, David ^a   Lebiere, Christian ^a  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Belief Propagation; Cognitive Modeling; Communication Networks

Indexed keywords

COOPERATIVE COMMUNICATION; DECISION MAKING; DECISION THEORY; GAME THEORY;

BELIEF PROPAGATION; COGNITIVE MODEL; COLLABORATIVE GAMES; COMMUNICATION INTELLIGENCE; COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS; COMPETITIVE GAMES; GROUP INTELLIGENCE; PERFORMANCE; SMALL WORLD GRAPHS; TASK EXECUTIONS;

BELIEF PROPAGATION;

EID: 85139256900     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Anderson, J. R. (2007). How can the human mind occur in the physical universe? Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
2. Bavelas, A. (1950). Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. J. Acoustical Soc. America, 22, 725-730.
3. Bhattacharyya, S., & Ohlsson, S. (2010). Social creativity as a function of agent cognition and network properties: A computer model. Social Networks, 32(4), 263-278.
4. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (1997). Teamwork competencies: The interaction of team member knowledge, skills, and attitudes. In J. H. F. O’Neil (Ed.), Workforce readiness: Competencies and assessment (p. 151-174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Guetzkow, H., & Simon, H. A. (1955). The impact of certain communication nets upon organization and performance in task-oriented groups. Management Sciences(233-250).
6. Judd, S., Kearns, M., & Vorobeychik, Y. (2010). Behavioral dynamics and influence in networked coloring and consensus. PNAS, 107(34).
7. Kennedy, J. (1999). Small worlds and mega-minds: effects of neighborhood topology on particle swarm performance. In Proc. evolutionary computation.
8. Klimt, B., & Yang, Y. (2004). The enron corpus: A new dataset for email classification research. In J.-F. Boulicaut, F. Esposito, F. Giannotti, & D. Pedreschi (Eds.), Machine learning: Ecml 2004 (Vol. 3201, p. 217-226). Springer Berlin / Heidelberg.
9. Leavitt, H. (1951). Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 38-50.
10. Lebiere, C. (2005). Constrained functionality: Application of the act-r cognitive architecture to the ambr modeling comparison. In K. A. Gluck & R. Pew (Eds.), Modeling human behavior with integrated cognitive architectures. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (Eds.). (1999). Rational models of cognition. Oxford University Press.
12. Pickard, G., Rahwan, I., Pan, W., Cebrián, M., Crane, R., Madan, A., et al. (2010). Time critical social mobilization: The DARPA network challenge winning strategy. CoRR, abs/1008.3172.
13. Reitter, D., & Lebiere, C. (2010a). Accountable modeling in ACT-UP, a scalable, rapid-prototyping ACT-R implementation. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on cognitive modeling (iccm) (p. 199-204). Philadelphia, PA.
14. Reitter, D., & Lebiere, C. (2010b). Did social networks shape language evolution? A multi-agent cognitive simulation. In Proc. cognitive modeling and computational linguistics workshop (cmcl). Uppsala, Sweden: Association for Computational Linguistics.
15. Reitter, D., & Lebiere, C. (2011). How groups develop a specialized domain vocabulary: A cognitive multi-agent model. Cognitive Systems Research, 12(2), 175-185.
16. Reitter, D., Sycara, K., Lebiere, C., Vinokurov, Y., Juarez, A., & Lewis, M. (2011). How teams benefit from communication policies: information flow in human peer-to-peer networks. In Proc. behavior representation in modeling and simulation (brims).
17. Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440–442.