IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v13y2002i6p757-765.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bees in two-armed bandit situations: foraging choices and possible decision mechanisms

Author

Listed:
  • Tamar Keasar
  • Ella Rashkovich
  • Dan Cohen
  • Avi Shmida

Abstract

In multi-armed bandit situations, gamblers must choose repeatedly between options that differ in reward probability, without prior information on the options' relative profitability. Foraging bumblebees encounter similar situations when choosing repeatedly among flower species that differ in food rewards. Unlike proficient gamblers, bumblebees do not choose the highest-rewarding option exclusively. This incomplete exclusiveness may reflect an adaptive sampling strategy. A cost--benefit analysis predicts decreased sampling levels with increasing differences in mean profitability between the available food sources. We simulated two-armed bandit situations in laboratory experiments to test this prediction. Bumblebees (Bombus terrestris L.) made 300 foraging visits to blue and yellow artificial flowers that dispensed sucrose solution according to seven probabilistic reward schedules. Reward schedules varied in profitability differences between the two feeding options. As predicted, the bees specialized more on the higher-rewarding food type (and thus sampled the alternative less) when the mean reward difference between the feeding options was larger. Choice ratios of individual bees were linearly related to the reward ratios they had experienced. It has been suggested that the behavioral mechanism underlying incomplete exclusiveness may involve simple rules of thumb that do not require long-term memory. However, the bees' response to recent foraging experience (rewarded and non-rewarded visits) differed between the beginning and the end of observation sessions and between treatments. Simulations of the Rescorla-Wagner difference learning rule reproduced the main trends of the results. These findings suggest that the observed incomplete exclusiveness results from associative learning involving long-term memory. Copyright 2002.

Suggested Citation

  • Tamar Keasar & Ella Rashkovich & Dan Cohen & Avi Shmida, 2002. "Bees in two-armed bandit situations: foraging choices and possible decision mechanisms," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 13(6), pages 757-765, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:13:y:2002:i:6:p:757-765
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thomas J Brennan & Andrew W Lo, 2012. "An Evolutionary Model of Bounded Rationality and Intelligence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-8, November.
    2. Noam Bar-Shai & Tamar Keasar & Avi Shmida, 2010. "The Use of Numerical Information by Bees in Foraging Tasks," Discussion Paper Series dp555, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    3. Mauersberger, Felix, 2019. "Thompson Sampling: Endogenously Random Behavior in Games and Markets," VfS Annual Conference 2019 (Leipzig): 30 Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall - Democracy and Market Economy 203600, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:13:y:2002:i:6:p:757-765. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.