Advertisement

Formal Measures of Dynamical Properties: Tipping Points, Robustness, and Sustainability

  • Aaron BramsonEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Understanding Complex Systems book series (UCS)

Abstract

Complex systems are characterized by processes that exhibit feedback, nonlinearity, heterogeneity, and path dependencies, and accurately modeling such systems is becoming increasing important. To help realize the potential of complex systems modeling we need new methods that are capable of capturing the dynamical properties of such processes across disciplines and modeling frameworks. This chapter presents a portion of the methodology development that includes formal and domain-agnostic definitions of phenomena related to tipping points, criticality, robustness, and sustainability. For each included concept I provide a probabilistic definition based on a Markov model generated from time-series data in a specific way. These rigorous mathematical definitions clearly distinguish multiple distinct dynamical properties related to each concept, and they also function as measures of these properties. Though only a small portion of the methodology’s capabilities, theorems, and applications can be included in this treatment, it does include all the foundational material necessary to apply the methodology.

References

  1. 1.
    Bednar, J.: The Robust Federation: Principles of Design. Cambridge University Press (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bramson, A.L.: Measures of tipping points, robustness, and path dependence (2008). arXiv:0811.0633v1
  3. 3.
    Bramson, A.L.: Formal measures of dynamical properties: tipping points. AAAI Technical Report, vol. FS-09, pp. 2–11 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clauset, A., Moore, C., Newman, M.E.J.: Hierarchical structure and the prediction of missing links in networks. Nature 453, 98–101 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Farrell, B.: Political science . The Nation. (February 13, 2006). http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060227/farrell
  6. 6.
    Fontana, W.: The topology of the possible. Technical Report, Santa Fe Institute (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gladwell, M.: The Tipping Point. Little, Brown, and Company (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Granovetter, M.: Threshold models of collective behavior. Am. J. Sociol. 83, 1420 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grodzins, M.: Metropolitan segregation. Sci. Am. 197(4), 33–41 (1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lempert, R.: A new decision sciences for complex systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99(Suppl 3), 7309–7313 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lint, J.V., Wilson, R.: A Course in Combinatorics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rubineau, B., Fernandez, R.: Tipping points: referral homophily and job segregation (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schelling, T.C.: Dynamic models of segregation. J. Math. Sociol. 1(2), 143–186 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walker, G.: The tipping point of the iceberg. Nature 441(7065), 802–805 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wolf, E.P.: The tipping-point in racially changing neighborhoods. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 29(3), 217–222 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Young, H.P.: The diffusion of innovations in social networks. In: Blume, L.E., Durlauf, S.N. (eds.) The Economy as a Complex Evolving System, vol. III. Oxford University Press (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory for Symbolic Cognitive DevelopmentCenter for Biosystems Dynamics ResearchWako CityJapan
  2. 2.Department of General EconomicsGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations