Consensus formation and relative stimulus perception in quality-sensitive, interdependent agent systems
Abstract: We perform a comprehensive analysis of a collective decision-making model inspired by honeybee behavior. This model integrates individual exploration for option discovery and social interactions for information sharing, while also considering option qualities. Our assessment of the decision process outcome employs standard consensus metrics and investigates its correlation with convergence time, revealing common trade-offs between speed and accuracy. Furthermore, we show the model's compliance with Weber's Law of relative stimulus perception, aligning with previous analysis of collective decision problems. Our study also identifies non-equilibrium critical behavior in specific limits of the model, where the highest values of consensus are achieved. This result highlights the intriguing relationship between optimal performance, critically, and the fluctuations caused by finite size effects, often seen in biological systems. Our findings are especially relevant for finite adaptive systems, as they provide insights into navigating decision-making scenarios with similar options more effectively.
- J. Krause and G. Ruxton, Living in Groups (2002).
- A. Baronchelli, Royal Society Open Science 5, 172189 (2018), publisher: Royal Society.
- T. Bose, A. Reina, and J. A. Marshall, Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 16, 30 (2017).
- D. J. T. Sumpter, Collective Animal Behavior (Princeton University Press, 2010).
- J. Smith and D. Harper, Animal Signals (2003).
- T. Sasaki and S. C. Pratt, Annual Review of Entomology 63, 259 (2018).
- R. A. Holley and T. M. Liggett, The Annals of Probability 3, 643 (1975).
- C. Castellano, S. Fortunato, and V. Loreto, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 591 (2009), publisher: American Physical Society.
- Galam, S., Eur. Phys. J. B 25, 403 (2002).
- S. Galam, International Journal of Modern Physics C 19, 409 (2008).
- S. Redner, Comptes Rendus Physique 20, 275 (2019).
- G. De Marzo, A. Zaccaria, and C. Castellano, Physical Review Research 2, 043117 (2020), publisher: American Physical Society.
- A. Bizyaeva, A. Franci, and N. E. Leonard, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 68, 1415 (2023), conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.
- C. List, C. Elsholtz, and T. D. Seeley, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364, 755 (2008).
- K. Passino, T. Seeley, and P. Visscher, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 62, 401 (2008).
- T. Galla, Journal of Theoretical Biology 262, 186 (2010).
- G. Valentini, E. Ferrante, and M. Dorigo, Frontiers in Robotics and AI 4 (2017).
- L. Chittka, P. Skorupski, and N. E. Raine, Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24, 400—407 (2009).
- H. Hinrichsen, Advances in Physics 49, 815 (2000).
- I. Jensen and R. Dickman, Phys. Rev. E 48, 1710 (1993).
- S. Lübeck and R. D. Willmann, Journal of Statistical Physics 115, 1231 (2004).
- M. A. Muñoz, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 031001 (2018).
- L. L. Thurstone, The American Journal of Psychology 38, 368 (1927), publisher: University of Illinois Press.
- S. S. Stevens, Psychological Review 64, 153 (1957), place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association.
- D. Austen-Smith and J. S. Banks, American Political Science Review 90, 34–45 (1996).
- J. Marshall, G. Brown, and A. Radford, Trends in Ecology & Evolution 32 (2017).
Paper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.
Top Community Prompts
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.