Vervet monkey (Chlorocebus pygerythrus) behavior in a multi-destination route: Evidence for planning ahead when heuristics fail
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal paths are analogous to intractable mathematical problems like the Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP) and the shortest path problem (SPP). Both the TSP and SPP require an individual to find the shortest path through multiple targets but the TSP demands a return to the start, while the SPP does not. Vervet monkeys are very efficient in solving TSPs but this species is a multiple central place forager that does not always return to the same sleeping site and thus theoretically should be selected to find solutions to SPPs rather than TSPs. We examined path choice by wild vervets in an SPP experimental array where the shortest paths usually differed from those consistent with common heuristic strategies, the nearest-neighbor rule (NNR-go to the closest resource that has not been visited), and the convex hull (put a mental loop around sites, adding inner targets in order of distance from the edge)-an efficient strategy for TSPs but not SPPs. In addition, humans solving SPPs use an initial segment strategy (ISS-choose the straightest path at the beginning, only turning when necessary) and we looked at vervet paths consistent with this strategy. In 615 trials by single foragers, paths usually conformed to the NNR and rarely the slightly more efficient convex hull, supporting that vervets may be selected to solve SPPs. Further, like humans solving SPPs, vervets showed a tendency to use the ISS. Paths consistent with heuristics dropped off sharply, and use of the shortest path increased, when heuristics led to longer paths showing trade-offs in efficiency versus cognitive load. Two individuals out of 17, found the shortest path most often, showing inter-individual variation in path planning. Given support for the NNR and the ISS, we propose a new rule-of-thumb termed the "region heuristic" that vervets may apply in multi-destination routes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".