Symmetry breaking and pivotal individuals during the reunification of ant colonies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
split among multiple sites, they can later reunify on the basis of queen location or differences in site quality. In this study, we found that colonies can reunify even without obvious cues to break the symmetry between sites. To learn how they do so, we observed both symmetric reunifications (between identical nests) and asymmetric reunifications (between nests of unequal quality) by colonies of individually marked ants. Both reunification types were accomplished by a tiny minority that carried nestmates from the 'losing' to the 'winning' site. Reunification effort was highly skewed in asymmetric splits, where the majority of the work was done by the first ant to transport, which nearly always came from the winning site. This contrasted with symmetric splits, where the initiator did not play an outsize role and was just as likely to come from the losing site. Symmetric reunifications were also characterized by high transporter attrition, which may help to prevent deadlocks. Tandem runs were abundant in both types and were typically led by transporters as they returned to the losing site to fetch another nestmate. Few tandem followers joined the transport effort, suggesting that tandem runs do not serve to recruit transporters but may have another, as yet unidentified role. Our results underscore the potentially large contribution of highly active individuals to group behaviour, even in decentralized societies such as ant colonies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".