MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164501174 · doi:10.1109/robio.2004.1521785

Collective Decision Making: A Biologically Inspired Approach to Making Up All of Your Minds

2005· article· en· W2164501174 on OpenAlexaff
Chris A. C. Parker, Hong Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCognitive scienceHuman–computer interactionData scienceArtificial intelligencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Practical collective robotic systems will be faced with decisions that have to be made in order for them to function effectively. In this paper, we present a biologically inspired algorithm that allows system level decisions to be made. Such decisions ensure consensus amongst the robots that make up a collective system. Our algorithm is based on the collective house hunting strategy of a particular species of ant. A series of experiments were conducted in simulation in order to study our algorithm’s performance. A particular variable, the quorum, was found to strongly impact decision making ability. It was found that setting the quorum as high as the robots that composed a system could reliably measure produced the best results.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.298
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.141 · 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.

Study designOther design
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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207