IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1003762.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Collective Learning and Optimal Consensus Decisions in Social Animal Groups

Author

Listed:
  • Albert B Kao
  • Noam Miller
  • Colin Torney
  • Andrew Hartnett
  • Iain D Couzin

Abstract

Learning has been studied extensively in the context of isolated individuals. However, many organisms are social and consequently make decisions both individually and as part of a collective. Reaching consensus necessarily means that a single option is chosen by the group, even when there are dissenting opinions. This decision-making process decouples the otherwise direct relationship between animals' preferences and their experiences (the outcomes of decisions). Instead, because an individual's learned preferences influence what others experience, and therefore learn about, collective decisions couple the learning processes between social organisms. This introduces a new, and previously unexplored, dynamical relationship between preference, action, experience and learning. Here we model collective learning within animal groups that make consensus decisions. We reveal how learning as part of a collective results in behavior that is fundamentally different from that learned in isolation, allowing grouping organisms to spontaneously (and indirectly) detect correlations between group members' observations of environmental cues, adjust strategy as a function of changing group size (even if that group size is not known to the individual), and achieve a decision accuracy that is very close to that which is provably optimal, regardless of environmental contingencies. Because these properties make minimal cognitive demands on individuals, collective learning, and the capabilities it affords, may be widespread among group-living organisms. Our work emphasizes the importance and need for theoretical and experimental work that considers the mechanism and consequences of learning in a social context.Author Summary: Learning is ubiquitous among animal species, allowing individuals to adjust their behavior in response to their environment to improve their chances of survival and reproduction. However, while many animals live and make decisions within social groups, it is not well understood how associative learning functions within a social context. We describe an empirically derived model of collective learning and compare the learned performance of animals within groups to the optimal behavior for a wide range of environmental conditions and group sizes. We find that the learning rules derived from experiments with individual animals readily generalize to a social context, and these relatively simple rules result in behavior that is close to optimal, even when individuals know neither the size of their group nor the properties of environmental cues. Individuals that learn in isolation and subsequently join together as a group make substantially worse decisions. These results demonstrate the importance of learning within a collective context and highlight the need for experimental work to investigate the role of collective learning in enhancing decision accuracy in animal groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Albert B Kao & Noam Miller & Colin Torney & Andrew Hartnett & Iain D Couzin, 2014. "Collective Learning and Optimal Consensus Decisions in Social Animal Groups," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-11, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1003762
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003762
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003762
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003762&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003762?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Isabelle Coolen & Ashley J.W. Ward & Paul J.B. Hart & Kevin N. Laland, 2005. "Foraging nine-spined sticklebacks prefer to rely on public information over simpler social cues," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 16(5), pages 865-870, September.
    2. Rainer Hegselmann & Ulrich Krause, 2002. "Opinion Dynamics and Bounded Confidence Models, Analysis and Simulation," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 5(3), pages 1-2.
    3. Máté Nagy & Zsuzsa Ákos & Dora Biro & Tamás Vicsek, 2010. "Hierarchical group dynamics in pigeon flocks," Nature, Nature, vol. 464(7290), pages 890-893, April.
    4. Iain D. Couzin & Jens Krause & Nigel R. Franks & Simon A. Levin, 2005. "Effective leadership and decision-making in animal groups on the move," Nature, Nature, vol. 433(7025), pages 513-516, February.
    5. Anders Eriksson & Martin Nilsson Jacobi & Johan Nyström & Kolbjørn Tunstrøm, 2010. "Determining interaction rules in animal swarms," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 21(5), pages 1106-1111.
    6. Robert Axelrod, 1995. "The Convergence and Stability of Cultures: Local Convergence and Global Polarization," Working Papers 95-03-028, Santa Fe Institute.
    7. Guillaume Deffuant & David Neau & Frederic Amblard & Gérard Weisbuch, 2000. "Mixing beliefs among interacting agents," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(01n04), pages 87-98.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Graciano Dieck Kattas & Xiao-Ke Xu & Michael Small, 2012. "Dynamical Modeling of Collective Behavior from Pigeon Flight Data: Flock Cohesion and Dispersion," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Mohammad Komareji & Roland Bouffanais, 2013. "Resilience and Controllability of Dynamic Collective Behaviors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Shang, Lihui & Zhao, Mingming & Ai, Jun & Su, Zhan, 2021. "Opinion evolution in the Sznajd model on interdependent chains," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 565(C).
    4. Lu, Xi & Mo, Hongming & Deng, Yong, 2015. "An evidential opinion dynamics model based on heterogeneous social influential power," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 98-107.
    5. Leonie Geyer & Patrick Mellacher, 2024. "Simulating Party Competition in Dynamic Voter Distributions," Graz Economics Papers 2024-19, University of Graz, Department of Economics.
    6. Huang, Changwei & Hou, Yongzhao & Han, Wenchen, 2023. "Coevolution of consensus and cooperation in evolutionary Hegselmann–Krause dilemma with the cooperation cost," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    7. Tamás Nepusz & Tamás Vicsek, 2013. "Hierarchical Self-Organization of Non-Cooperating Individuals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-9, December.
    8. María Cecilia Gimenez & Luis Reinaudi & Ana Pamela Paz-García & Paulo Marcelo Centres & Antonio José Ramirez-Pastor, 2021. "Opinion evolution in the presence of constant propaganda: homogeneous and localized cases," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 94(1), pages 1-11, January.
    9. Guillaume Deffuant & Ilaria Bertazzi & Sylvie Huet, 2018. "The Dark Side Of Gossips: Hints From A Simple Opinion Dynamics Model," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-20, September.
    10. Toth, Gabor & Galam, Serge, 2022. "Deviations from the majority: A local flip model," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    11. Roy Harpaz & Minh Nguyet Nguyen & Armin Bahl & Florian Engert, 2021. "Precise visuomotor transformations underlying collective behavior in larval zebrafish," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-14, December.
    12. G Jordan Maclay & Moody Ahmad, 2021. "An agent based force vector model of social influence that predicts strong polarization in a connected world," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-42, November.
    13. Yao Li & Wenhao Lin & Yucheng Dong & Cong-Cong Li & Francisco Herrera, 2024. "Consensus Reaching with Dynamic Trust Relationships and Cost-Learning in Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 1269-1300, October.
    14. Li, Qing & Zhang, Lingwei & Jia, Yongnan & Lu, Tianzhao & Chen, Xiaojie, 2022. "Modeling, analysis, and optimization of three-dimensional restricted visual field metric-free swarms," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    15. Tiwari, Mukesh & Yang, Xiguang & Sen, Surajit, 2021. "Modeling the nonlinear effects of opinion kinematics in elections: A simple Ising model with random field based study," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 582(C).
    16. Fan, Kangqi & Pedrycz, Witold, 2016. "Opinion evolution influenced by informed agents," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 462(C), pages 431-441.
    17. Ding, Haixin & Xie, Li, 2024. "The applicability of positive information in negative opinion management: An attitude-laden communication perspective," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 645(C).
    18. Karataieva, Tatiana & Koshmanenko, Volodymyr & Krawczyk, Małgorzata J. & Kułakowski, Krzysztof, 2019. "Mean field model of a game for power," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 525(C), pages 535-547.
    19. Antonio Parravano & Ascensión Andina-Díaz & Miguel A Meléndez-Jiménez, 2016. "Bounded Confidence under Preferential Flip: A Coupled Dynamics of Structural Balance and Opinions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-23, October.
    20. Panpan Yang & Maode Yan & Jiacheng Song & Ye Tang, 2019. "Self-Organized Fission-Fusion Control Algorithm for Flocking Systems Based on Intermittent Selective Interaction," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-12, February.

    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:plo:pcbi00:1003762. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    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.