All issues

At the middle of the 2000-th, scientists studying the functioning of insect communities identified four basic patterns of the organizational structure of such communities. (i) Cooperation is more developed in groups with strong kinship. (ii) Cooperation in species with large colony sizes is often more developed than in species with small colony sizes. And small-sized colonies often exhibit greater internal reproductive conflict and less morphological and behavioral specialization. (iii) Within a single species, brood size (i. e., in a sense, efficiency) per capita usually decreases as colony size increases. (iv) Advanced cooperation tends to occur when resources are limited and intergroup competition is fierce. Thinking of the functioning of a group of organisms as a two-level competitive market in which individuals face the problem of allocating their energy between investment in intergroup competition and investment in intragroup competition, i. e., an internal struggle for the share of resources obtained through intergroup competition, we can compare such a biological situation with the economic phenomenon of “coopetition” — the cooperation of competing agents with the goal of later competitively dividing the resources won in consequence In the framework of economic researches the effects similar to (ii) — in the framework of large and small group competition the optimal strategy of large group would be complete squeezing out of the second group and monopolization of the market (i. e. large groups tend to act cooperatively) and (iii) — there are conditions, in which the size of the group has a negative impact on productivity of each of its individuals (this effect is called the paradox of group size or Ringelman effect). The general idea of modeling such effects is the idea of proportionality — each individual (an individual/rational agent) decides what share of his forces to invest in intergroup competition and what share to invest in intragroup competition. The group’s gain must be proportional to its total investment in competition, while the individual’s gain is proportional to its contribution to intra-group competition. Despite the prevalence of empirical observations, no gametheoretic model has yet been introduced in which the empirically observed effects can be confirmed. This paper proposes a model that eliminates the problems of previously existing ones and the simulation of Nash equilibrium states within the proposed model allows the above effects to be observed in numerical experiments.

Expert systems imitate professional experience and thinking process of a specialist to solve problems in various subject areas. An example of the problem that it is expedient to solve with the help of the expert system is the problem of forming a diagnosis that arises in technology, medicine, and other fields. When solving the diagnostic problem, it is necessary to anticipate the occurrence of critical or emergency situations in the future. They are situations, which require timely intervention of specialists to prevent critical aftermath. Fuzzy sets theory provides one of the approaches to solve ill-structured problems, diagnosis-making problems belong to which. The theory of fuzzy sets provides means for the formation of linguistic variables, which are helpful to describe the modeled process. Linguistic variables are elements of fuzzy logical rules that simulate the reasoning of professionals in the subject area. To develop fuzzy rules it is necessary to resort to a survey of experts. Knowledge engineers use experts’ opinion to evaluate correspondence between a typical current situation and the risk of emergency in the future. The result of knowledge extraction is a description of linguistic variables that includes a combination of signs. Experts are involved in the survey to create descriptions of linguistic variables and present a set of simulated situations.When building such systems, the main problem of the survey is laboriousness of the process of interaction of knowledge engineers with experts. The main reason is the multiplicity of questions the expert must answer. The paper represents reasoning of the method, which allows knowledge engineer to reduce the number of questions posed to the expert. The paper describes the experiments carried out to test the applicability of the proposed method. An expert system for predicting risk groups for neonatal pathologies and pregnancy pathologies using the proposed knowledge extraction method confirms the feasibility of the proposed approach.

The theoretical study of consensus makes it possible to analyze the various situations that social groups that make decisions in this way have to face in real life, abstracting from the specific characteristics of the groups. It is relevant for practice to study the dynamics of a social group consisting of loyal experts who, in the process of seeking consensus, yield to each other. In this case, psychological “traps” such as false consensus or groupthink are possible, which can sometimes lead to managerial decisions with dire consequences.

The article builds a mathematical consensus model for a group of loyal experts based on modeling using regular Markov chains. Analysis of the model showed that with an increase in the loyalty (decrease in authoritarianism) of group members, the time to reach consensus increases exponentially (the number of agreements increases), which is apparently due to the lack of desire among experts to take part of the responsibility for the decision being made. An increase in the size of such a group leads (ceteris paribus):

– to reduce the number of approvals to consensus in the conditions of striving for absolute loyalty of members, i. e. each additional loyal member adds less and less “strength” to the group;

– to a logarithmic increase in the number of approvals in the context of an increase in the average authoritarianism of members. It is shown that in a small group (two people), the time for reaching consensus can increase by more than 10 times compared to a group of 5 or more members), in the group there is a transfer of responsibility for making decisions.

It is proved that in the case of a group of two absolutely loyal members, consensus is unattainable.

A reasonable conclusion is made that consensus in a group of loyal experts is a special (special) case of consensus, since the dependence of the time until consensus is reached on the authoritarianism of experts and their number in the group is described by different curves than in the case of a regular group of experts.