Abstract
For decades, both empirical and theoretical models have been proposed to explain the patterns and mechanisms of collective decision-making (CDM). The most-studied CDM scenario is the best-of-n problem in a static environment. However, natural environments are typically dynamic. In dynamic environments, the visual occlusions produced by other members of a large-scale group are also common. Hence, some agents of a group are less informed than others, and their state uncertainties increase. This paper develops a new model referred to as the generalized Ising model with dynamic confidence (GIM-C) to reduce the state uncertainty induced by visual occlusions. The proposed model first estimates the expected rewards of possible actions with dynamic confidence weighting. It then gives the probability of choosing each action based on the generalized Ising model with an external field defined by the last stage’s results. Numerical simulations demonstrate that GIM-C shares the key feature of social cohesion with previous CDM models. Furthermore, in order to illustrate the efficiency of the proposed GIM-C, the collecting foraging task is considered, where a large-scale group of agents is required to obtain rewards with the presence of a dynamic predator and visual occlusions. The good performance of GIM-C in the collecting foraging task demonstrates that dynamic confidence weighting is efficient in reducing the state uncertainty introduced by visual occlusions. The proposed GIM-C also demonstrates the importance of enhancing the influence of informed agents in CDM problems in a dynamic environment with visual occlusions.







Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Arganda, S., Pérez-Escudero, A., & de Polavieja, G. G. (2012). A common rule for decision making in animal collectives across species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(50), 20508–20513.
Arvin, F., Turgut, A. E., Bazyari, F., Arikan, K. B., Bellotto, N., & Yue, S. (2014). Cue-based aggregation with a mobile robot swarm: A novel fuzzy-based method. Adaptive Behavior, 22(3), 189–206.
Bahrami, B., Olsen, K., Latham, P. E., Roepstorff, A., Rees, G., & Frith, C. D. (2010). Optimally interacting minds. Science, 329(5995), 1081–1085.
Behrend, E. R., & Bitterman, M. (1961). Probability-matching in the fish. The American Journal of Psychology, 74(4), 542–551.
Blanchet, S., Clobert, J., & Danchin, E. (2010). The role of public information in ecology and conservation? An emphasis on inadvertent social information. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1195, 149–168.
Brambilla, M., Ferrante, E., Birattari, M., & Dorigo, M. (2013). Swarm robotics: A review from the swarm engineering perspective. Swarm Intelligence, 7(1), 1–41.
Bullock, D. H., & Bitterman, M. (1962). Probability-matching in the pigeon. The American Journal of Psychology, 75(4), 634–639.
Coifman, R. R., Lafon, S., Lee, A. B., Maggioni, M., Nadler, B., Warner, F., & Zucker, S. W. (2005). Geometric diffusions as a tool for harmonic analysis and structure definition of data: Diffusion maps. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(21), 7426–7431.
Conradt, L., & List, C. (2009). Group decisions in humans and animals: A survey. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364(1518), 719–742.
Correll, N., & Martinoli, A. (2011). Modeling and designing self-organized aggregation in a swarm of miniature robots. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 30(5), 615–626.
Couzin, I. D. (2009). Collective cognition in animal groups. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(1), 36–43.
Couzin, I. D., Ioannou, C. C., Demirel, G., Gross, T., Torney, C. J., Hartnett, A., et al. (2011). Uninformed individuals promote democratic consensus in animal groups. Science, 334(6062), 1578–1580.
Foster, W., & Treherne, J. (1981). Evidence for the dilution effect in the selfish herd from fish predation on a marine insect. Nature, 293(5832), 466–467.
Greggers, U., & Menzel, R. (1993). Memory dynamics and foraging strategies of honeybees. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 32(1), 17–29.
Handegard, N. O., Boswell, K. M., Ioannou, C. C., Leblanc, S. P., Tjøstheim, D. B., & Couzin, I. D. (2012). The dynamics of coordinated group hunting and collective information transfer among schooling prey. Current Biology, 22(13), 1213–1217.
Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4(3), 267.
Kao, A. B., & Couzin, I. D. (2014). Decision accuracy in complex environments is often maximized by small group sizes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281(1784), 20133305.
Khaluf, Y., Pinciroli, C., Valentini, G., & Hamann, H. (2017). The impact of agent density on scalability in collective systems: Noise-induced versus majority-based bistability. Swarm Intelligence, 11(2), 155–179.
King, A. J., & Cowlishaw, G. (2007). When to use social information: The advantage of large group size in individual decision making. Biology Letters, 3(2), 137–139.
Krause, J., Ruxton, G. D., Ruxton, G., Ruxton, I. G., et al. (2002). Living in Groups. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Landau, L. D., Lifshitz, E. M., & Reichl, L. E. (1981). Statistical physics, Part 1. Physics Today, 34(1), 74.
Lee, C., Lawry, J., & Winfield, A. F. T. (2021). Negative updating applied to the best-of-n problem with noisy qualities. Swarm Intelligence, 15, 111–143.
MaBouDi, H., Marshall, J. A., & Barron, A. B. (2020). Honeybees solve a multi-comparison ranking task by probability matching. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 287(1934), 20201525.
Mann, R. P. (2018). Collective decision making by rational individuals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(44), E10387–E10396.
Mann, R. P. (2020). Collective decision-making by rational agents with differing preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(19), 10388–10396.
Mann, R. P., Faria, J. J., Sumpter, D. J. T., & Krause, J. (2013). The dynamics of audience applause. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 10(85), 20130466.
Milinski, M. (1984). A predator\(^{\prime }\)s costs of overcoming the confusion-effect of swarming prey. Animal Behaviour, 32(4), 1157–1162.
Miller, N., Garnier, S., Hartnett, A. T., & Couzin, I. D. (2013). Both information and social cohesion determine collective decisions in animal groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(13), 5263–5268.
Parker, C. A., & Zhang, H. (2010). Collective unary decision-making by decentralized multiple-robot systems applied to the task-sequencing problem. Swarm Intelligence, 4(3), 199–220.
Pérez-Escudero, A. & de Polavieja, G. G. (2011). Collective animal behavior from Bayesian estimation and probability matching. Nature Preceedings. https://doi.org/10.1038/npre.2011.5939.1.
Pérez-Escudero, A., & de Polavieja, G. G. (2017). Adversity magnifies the importance of social information in decision-making. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 14(136), 20170748.
Perna, A., Granovskiy, B., Garnier, S., Nicolis, S. C., Labedan, M., Theraulaz, G., et al. (2012). Individual rules for trail pattern formation in argentine ants (Linepithema humile). PLoS Computational Biology, 8(7), e1002592.
Pike, T. W., Kendal, J. R., Rendell, L. E., & Laland, K. N. (2010). Learning by proportional observation in a species of fish. Behavioral Ecology, 21(3), 570–575.
Prasetyo, J., De Masi, G., & Ferrante, E. (2019). Collective decision making in dynamic environments. Swarm Intelligence, 13(3–4), 217–243.
Rausch, I., Reina, A., Simoens, P., & Khaluf, Y. (2019). Coherent collective behaviour emerging from decentralised balancing of social feedback and noise. Swarm Intelligence, 13(3), 321–345.
Rendell, L., Boyd, R., Cownden, D., Enquist, M., Eriksson, K., Feldman, M. W., et al. (2010). Why copy others? Insights from the social learning strategies tournament. Science, 328(5975), 208–213.
Schranz, M., Di Caro, G. A., Schmickl, T., Elmenreich, W., Arvin, F., Şekercioğlu, A., & Sende, M. (2020). Swarm intelligence and cyber-physical systems: Concepts, challenges and future trends. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 60, 100762.
Sumpter, D. J. T., & Pratt, S. C. (2009). Quorum responses and consensus decision making. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364(1518), 743–753.
Talamali, M. S., Saha, A., Marshall, J. A. R., & Reina, A. (2021). When less is more: Robot swarms adapt better to changes with constrained communication. Science Robotics, 6(56).
Valentini, G., Ferrante, E., & Dorigo, M. (2017). The best-of-n problem in robot swarms: Formalization, state of the art, and novel perspectives. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 4, 9.
Valentini, G., & Hamann, H. (2015). Time-variant feedback processes in collective decision-making systems: Influence and effect of dynamic neighborhood sizes. Swarm Intelligence, 9(2), 153–176.
Van Bergen, Y., Coolen, I., & Laland, K. N. (2004). Nine-spined sticklebacks exploit the most reliable source when public and private information conflict. Proceedings of The Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 271(1542), 957–962.
Vulkan, N. (2000). An economist’s perspective on probability matching. Journal of economic surveys, 14(1), 101–118.
Ward, A. J. W., Sumpter, D. J. T., Couzin, I. D., Hart, P. J. B., & Krause, J. (2008). Quorum decision-making facilitates information transfer in fish shoals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(19), 6948–6953.
Wozny, D. R., Beierholm, U. R., & Shams, L. (2010). Probability matching as a computational strategy used in perception. PLoS Computational Biology, 6(8), e1000871.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: The collective foraging task
Appendix: The collective foraging task
In the collective foraging task, we consider agents with three possible behaviors defined by functions that map environmental conditions and the states of neighbors to the velocity of an agent at the current time step.
-
Feeding, gathering rewards from feeding areas. With the center \(\mathbf {l}_\mathrm{fd}\) of the nearest feeding area and the location \(\mathbf {l}_i\) of agent i, the desired velocity \(\mathbf {v}_i^t\) of a feeding agent i at time t is defined as:
$$\begin{aligned} \mathbf {v}_i^t = \varTheta \left[ \frac{\mathbf {l}_\mathrm{fd}-{\mathbf {l}_i}}{\left| \mathbf {l}_\mathrm{fd}-\mathbf {l}_i \right| } + \mathbf {v}_r + \mathbf {v}_g \right] \cdot v_\mathrm{fd} , \end{aligned}$$(27)where \(\varTheta \left[ \right] \) is the normalization operator, \(\mathbf {v}_r\) is a random vector whose norm \(|\mathbf {v}_r|=1\), \(\mathbf {v}_g\) is a component maintaining the density of agents and \(v_\mathrm{fd}\) denotes the speed of a feeding agent. With the maximum range of repulsion between agents denoted by \(r_\mathrm{rep}^\mathrm{max}\) and the intensity of repulsion by \(f_\mathrm{rep}\), \(\mathbf {v}_{g}\) is given by the following:
$$\begin{aligned} \mathbf {v}_g = {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \sum _{j\in N_i^t} f_\mathrm{rep} \cdot \left( r_\mathrm{rep}^\mathrm{max} - \left| \mathbf {l}_{j}-\mathbf {l}_i \right| \right) \cdot \varTheta \left[ \mathbf {l}_{i}-\mathbf {l}_j \right] &{} \text {if} \left| \mathbf {l}_{i}-\mathbf {l}_j \right| < r_\mathrm{rep}^\mathrm{max} \\ 0 &{} \text {otherwise} \end{array}\right. } \end{aligned}$$(28) -
Avoiding, escaping from the predator. With the location of predator denoted by \(\mathbf {l}_\mathrm{pd}\), the desired velocity \(v_i\) of an avoiding agent i is given by:
$$\begin{aligned} \mathbf {v}_i^t = {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \varTheta \left[ \mathbf {l}_i - \mathbf {l}_\mathrm{pd} + \mathbf {v}_g \right] \cdot v_\mathrm{avd} &{} \text {if the agent observes the predator} \\ \varTheta \left[ \frac{ \sum _{j\in N_i^{t}} \mathbf {v}_j^{t-1}}{|N_i^{t}|} +\mathbf {v}_g \right] \cdot v_\mathrm{avd} &{} \text {otherwise} \end{array}\right. }, \end{aligned}$$(29)where \(v_\mathrm{avd}\) denotes the speed of an avoiding agent.
-
Foraging, approaching the nearest feeding area. The velocity of foraging agent i is given by:
$$\begin{aligned} \mathbf {v}_i^t = \varTheta \left[ \mathbf {l}_\mathrm{fd} - \mathbf {l}_i +\mathbf {v}_g \right] \cdot v_\mathrm{fr} , \end{aligned}$$(30)where \(v_\mathrm{fr}\) is the speed of a foraging agent.
The parameters used to calculate the desired velocity are outlined in Table 3.
1.1 Expected reward estimates
The estimation of the expected reward of a possible action is defined as a function of observations. At each time step t, agent i estimates expected rewards of all possible actions with the following functions:
-
Feeding. In order to keep agents close to the center of the feeding area, the estimated expected reward \(u_i^t(a_\mathrm{fd})\) of feeding is given as follows:
$$\begin{aligned} u_i^t(a_\mathrm{fd}) = {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} c_\mathrm{fd}\left( r_\mathrm{fd} - \left| \mathbf {l}_\mathrm{fd}-\mathbf {l}_i \right| \right) &{} \text {if} \left| \mathbf {l}_\mathrm{fd}-\mathbf {l}_i \right| < r_\mathrm{fd} \\ 0 &{} \text {otherwise} \end{array}\right. } , \end{aligned}$$(31)where \(c_\mathrm{fd}\) is a constant and \(r_\mathrm{fd}\) is the radius of a feeding area.
-
Avoiding. Denoting the location of the predator by \(\mathbf {l}_\mathrm{pd}\), the estimated expected reward \(u_i^t(a_\mathrm{avd})\) of avoiding is given by the following:
$$\begin{aligned} u_i^t(a_\mathrm{avd}) = {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} c_\mathrm{avd}\left( u_\mathrm{avd}^\mathrm{max} - \left| \mathbf {l}_\mathrm{pd}-\mathbf {l}_i \right| \right) &{} \text {if the agent observes the predator} \\ 0 &{} \text {otherwise} \end{array}\right. }, \end{aligned}$$(32)where \(u_\mathrm{avd}^\mathrm{max}\) is the max expected reward of avoiding, \(c_\mathrm{avd}\) is a constant.
-
Foraging. The estimated expected reward of foraging \(u_i^t(a_\mathrm{fr})\) is given by the following:
$$\begin{aligned} u_i^t(a_\mathrm{fr})={\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 10 &{} \text {if} |\mathbf {l}_\mathrm{fd} - \mathbf {l}_i| > r_\mathrm{fd} \\ 0 &{} \textit{otherwise} \end{array}\right. }. \end{aligned}$$(33)
The parameters used to estimates the expected reward of possible behaviors can be found in Table 3.
1.2 Predator
The predator randomly samples a set of locations from the map every 20 time steps and values each location \(\mathbf {l}\) as follows:
where \(\rho _l\) is the agent density around \(\mathbf {l}\).
Then, the predator chooses the location \(\mathbf {l} = \arg \max u_l\) and moves toward it. It is assumed that the predator will be reinforced if it captures agents. Let the number of agents captured by the predator be \(n_\mathrm{prey}\), the speed \(v_p\) of predator is given by the following:
where \(v_p^0\) is the initial speed of the predator. The initial speed \(v_p^0\) tested in this work is outlined in Table 3.
1.3 A.3 The reward function
The total reward of a feeding area is 1000. A feeding agent only consume 0.1 reward per time step. When the reward of a feeding area runs out, it refreshes at a random location after 20 time steps.
Denote the reward collected by all agents from the feeding areas by \(r_\mathrm{feed}\), the number of agents being preyed by \(n_\mathrm{prey}\) and the number of collisions among the agents by \(n_\mathrm{coll}\). Assume that the cost of each preyed agent is 5. Then, the total reward R of the group is given by the following:
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jiang, F., Cheng, H. & Chen, G. Collective decision-making for dynamic environments with visual occlusions. Swarm Intell 16, 7–27 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11721-021-00200-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11721-021-00200-x