Not your private tête-à-tête: leveraging the power of higher-order networks to study animal communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal communication is frequently studied with conventional network representations that link pairs of individuals who interact, for example, through vocalization. However, acoustic signals often have multiple simultaneous receivers, or receivers integrate information from multiple signallers, meaning these interactions are not dyadic. Additionally, non-dyadic social structures often shape an individual's behavioural response to vocal communication. Recently, major advances have been made in the study of these non-dyadic, higher-order networks (e.g. hypergraphs and simplicial complexes). Here, we show how these approaches can provide new insights into vocal communication through three case studies that illustrate how higher-order network models can: (i) alter predictions made about the outcome of vocally coordinated group departures; (ii) generate different patterns of song synchronization from models that only include dyadic interactions; and (iii) inform models of cultural evolution of vocal communication. Together, our examples highlight the potential power of higher-order networks to study animal vocal communication. We then build on our case studies to identify key challenges in applying higher-order network approaches in this context and outline important research questions that these techniques could help answer. This article is part of the theme issue 'The power of sound: unravelling how acoustic communication shapes group dynamics'.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".