Collective decision making by embodied neural agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Collective decision making using simple social interactions has been studied in many types of multiagent systems, including robot swarms and human social networks. However, existing multiagent studies have rarely modeled the neural dynamics that underlie sensorimotor coordination in embodied biological agents. In this study, we investigated collective decisions that resulted from sensorimotor coordination among agents with simple neural dynamics. We equipped our agents with a model of minimal neural dynamics based on the coordination dynamics framework, and embedded them in an environment with a stimulus gradient. In our single-agent setup, the decision between two stimulus sources depends solely on the coordination of the agent’s neural dynamics with its environment. In our multiagent setup, that same decision also depends on the sensorimotor coordination between agents, via their simple social interactions. Our results show that the success of collective decisions depended on a balance of intra-agent, interagent, and agent–environment coupling, and we use these results to identify the influences of environmental factors on decision difficulty. More generally, our results illustrate how collective behaviors can be analyzed in terms of the neural dynamics of the participating agents. This can contribute to ongoing developments in neuro-AI and self-organized multiagent systems.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".