Literature DB >> 19013067

Consensus decision making by fish.

David J T Sumpter1, Jens Krause, Richard James, Iain D Couzin, Ashley J W Ward.   

Abstract

Decisions reached through consensus are often more accurate, because they efficiently utilize the diverse information possessed by group members [1-3]. A trust in consensus decision making underlies many of our democratic political and judicial institutions [4], as well as the design of web tools such as Google, Wikipedia, and prediction markets [5, 6]. In theory, consensus for the option favored by the majority of group members will lead to improved decision-making accuracy as group size increases [2, 4]. Although group-living animals are known to utilize social information [7-10], little is known about whether or not decision accuracy increases with group size. In order to reach consensus, group members must be able to integrate the disparate information they possess. Positive feedback, resulting from copying others, can spread information quickly through the group, but it can also result in all individuals making the same, possibly incorrect, choice [8, 11, 12]. On the other hand, if individuals never copy each other, their decision making remains independent and they fail to benefit from information exchange [4]. Here, we show how small groups of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) reach consensus when choosing which of two replica fish to follow. As group size increases, the fish make more accurate decisions, becoming better at discriminating subtle phenotypic differences of the replicas. A simple quorum rule proves sufficient to explain our observations, suggesting that animals can make accurate decisions without the need for complicated comparison of the information they possess. Furthermore, although submission to peers can lead to occasional cascades of incorrect decisions, these can be explained as a byproduct of what is usually accurate consensus decision making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19013067     DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2008.09.064

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Biol        ISSN: 0960-9822            Impact factor:   10.834


  66 in total

1.  Negative feedback from maternal signals reduces false alarms by collectively signalling offspring.

Authors:  Jennifer A Hamel; Reginald B Cocroft
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2012-07-11       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Fish in a ring: spatio-temporal pattern formation in one-dimensional animal groups.

Authors:  Nicole Abaid; Maurizio Porfiri
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2010-04-22       Impact factor: 4.118

3.  Moving calls: a vocal mechanism underlying quorum decisions in cohesive groups.

Authors:  Christophe A H Bousquet; David J T Sumpter; Marta B Manser
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2010-11-03       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Personality and collective decision-making in foraging herbivores.

Authors:  Pablo Michelena; Raphaël Jeanson; Jean-Louis Deneubourg; Angela M Sibbald
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2009-12-02       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Fast and accurate decisions through collective vigilance in fish shoals.

Authors:  Ashley J W Ward; James E Herbert-Read; David J T Sumpter; Jens Krause
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-01-24       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Personality composition is more important than group size in determining collective foraging behaviour in the wild.

Authors:  Carl N Keiser; Jonathan N Pruitt
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2014-12-07       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  How does mobility help distributed systems compute?

Authors:  William F Vining; Fernando Esponda; Melanie E Moses; Stephanie Forrest
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2019-06-10       Impact factor: 6.237

8.  Integration of Social Information by Human Groups.

Authors:  Boris Granovskiy; Jason M Gold; David J T Sumpter; Robert L Goldstone
Journal:  Top Cogn Sci       Date:  2015-07-17

9.  Both information and social cohesion determine collective decisions in animal groups.

Authors:  Noam Miller; Simon Garnier; Andrew T Hartnett; Iain D Couzin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-02-25       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Self-improvement for team-players: the effects of individual effort on aggregated group information.

Authors:  Sean A Rands
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-07-21       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.