MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010852360 · doi:10.1093/beheco/aru175

Ants build transportation networks that optimize cost and efficiency at the expense of robustness

2014· article· en· W2010852360 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Guénaël Cabanès, Ellen van Wilgenburg, Madeleine Beekman, Tanya Latty

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Ecology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)HeuristicsBroodBiologyComputer scienceAnt colonyEcologyArtificial intelligenceAnt colony optimization algorithms

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Like modern human societies, many biological systems are dependent on transportation networks for the efficient distribution of resources and information. Network builders face the daunting challenge of optimizing conflicting network criteria such as robustness, efficiency, and cost, which cannot be optimized simultaneously. Here, we use graph and network theory to examine the trail networks of the polydomous meat ant Iridomyrmex purpureus . Meat ants build and maintain physical trails that connect their multiple nests to each other and to food resources. The resulting transportation network is used to distribute workers, brood, and food resources. We found that meat ants built low-cost trail networks that were relatively efficient. However, networks were less robust than comparable simulated networks, suggesting that meat ants prioritize cost and efficiency over robustness. Populous nests had higher connectivity than did less populous nests, implying they play a key role in resource distribution throughout the network. We propose that meat ant networks are an ideal model system for the development of network optimization heuristics.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral EcologySame topicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207