Foraging success under uncertainty: search tradeoffs and optimal space use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the structural complexity and the main drivers of animal search behaviour is pivotal to foraging ecology. Yet, the role of uncertainty as a generative mechanism of movement patterns is poorly understood. Novel insights from search theory suggest that organisms should collect and assess new information from the environment by producing complex exploratory strategies. Based on an extension of the first passage time theory, and using simple equations and simulations, we unveil the elementary heuristics behind search behaviour. In particular, we show that normal diffusion is not enough for determining optimal exploratory behaviour but anomalous diffusion is required. Searching organisms go through two critical sequential phases (approach and detection) and experience fundamental search tradeoffs that may limit their encounter rates. Using experimental data, we show that biological search includes elements not fully considered in contemporary physical search theory. In particular, the need to consider search movement as a non-stationary process that brings the organism from one informational state to another. For example, the transition from remaining in an area to departing from it may occur through an exploratory state where cognitive search is challenged. Therefore, a more comprehensive view of foraging ecology requires including current perspectives about movement under uncertainty.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".