Decision Making Problem in Division of Cognitive Labor with Parameter Inaccuracy: Case Studies

Jin Huan Zhang¹, Khin War War Htike¹, Ammar Oad¹ and Hao Zhang^1,

¹School of Information Science and Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, P.R. China

Cite this paper:
Jin Huan Zhang, Khin War War Htike, Ammar Oad and Hao Zhang. Decision Making Problem in Division of Cognitive Labor with Parameter Inaccuracy: Case Studies. American Journal of Information Systems. 2014; 2(1):6-10. doi: 10.12691/ajis-2-1-2

Abstract

Scientific communities will be more effective for society if scientists effectively divide their cognitive labor. So one way to study how scientists divide their cognitive labor has become an important area of research in science. This problem was firstly discovered and studied by Kitcher. Later on, Kleinberg and Oren pointed out that the model proposed by Kitcher might not be realistic. We investigate the impact of the imprecise parameter in project selection results. In this paper, we further our study on this issue. We study the policy of decision making problem based on the modified division of cognitive labor model with the assumption that a scientist is aware of the existence of the imprecise parameters and provide the detailed analytical results. And we provide a decision rule to minimize the possible loss based on error probability estimation.

Keywords:
cognitive labor imprecise parameters

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	P. Kitcher, “The division of cognitive labor, journal of philosophy,” The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 5-22, 1990.
[2]	P. Kitcher, “The advancement of science,” New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
[3]	M. Strevens, “The role of the priority rule in science”, Journal of Philosophy, vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 55-79, 2003.
[4]	M. Strevens, “The role of the matthew effect in science,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, vol. 37, pp. 159-170, 2006.
[5]	D. Gilbert, “Buried by bad decisions,” Nature, pp. 275-277, 2011.
[6]	V. Bala and S. Goyal, “Learning from neighbours,” Review of Economic Studies, pp. 595-621, 1998.
[7]	DL.Rogier and G.Matthias, “Standards and distribution of cognitive labor,” Logic Journal of the IGPL, 2009.
[8]	J.Kleinberg and S.Oren, “Mechanisms for (mis)allocating scientific credit,” Proceedings of the 43rd annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing, 2011.
[9]	M. Weisberg and R. Muldoon, “Epistemic landscapes and the division of cognitive labor,” Philosophy of Science, pp. 37:159-170, 2009.
[10]	K. J. Zollman, “The communication structure of epistemic communities,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 74(5), pp. 574-587, 2007.
[11]	K. J. Zollman, “The epistemic benefit of transient diveristy,” Erkenn, vol. 72, pp. 17-35, 2010.
[12]	Bala, Venkatesh and Sanjeev Goyal. "Learning from neighbours." Review of Economic Studies, pp. 595-621, 1988.
[13]	Banerjee, A. V. "A simple model of herd behavior." The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107 (3), pp. 797-817, 1992.
[14]	Welch, I. "Sequential sales, learning, and cascades." The Journal of Finance, 47(2), pp. 695-732, 1992.
[15]	M. H. DeGroot. "Reaching a consensus." J. American Statistical Association, 69, 118-121, 1974.
[16]	B. Golub and M.O. Jackson. "Naive learning in social networks: Convergence, influence and the wisdon of crowds." American Econ. J.: Microeconomics, 2000.
[17]	P. M. DeMarzo, D. Vayanos and J. Zweibel. "Persuasion bias, social influence, and unidimensional opinions." Auarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 2003.
[18]	M. O. Jackson. "Social and Economic Networks." Princeton University Press, 2008.
[19]	R. Muldoon and M.Weisberg, “Robustness and idealization in models of cognitive labor synthese,” Synthese, vol. 183, pp. 161-174, 2011.
[20]	K. W. W. Htike and H. Zhang, “Theoretical study of division of cognitive labor with imprecise model parameters,” CSSS, pp. 4094-4097, 2012.