Collective cooperative intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cooperation at scale is critical for achieving a sustainable future for humanity. However, achieving collective, cooperative behavior-in which intelligent actors in complex environments jointly improve their well-being-remains poorly understood. Complex systems science (CSS) provides a rich understanding of collective phenomena, the evolution of cooperation, and the institutions that can sustain both. Yet, much of the theory in this area fails to fully consider individual-level complexity and environmental context-largely for the sake of tractability and because it has not been clear how to do so rigorously. These elements are well captured in multiagent reinforcement learning (MARL), which has recently put focus on cooperative (artificial) intelligence. However, typical MARL simulations can be computationally expensive and challenging to interpret. In this perspective, we propose that bridging CSS and MARL affords new directions forward. Both fields can complement each other in their goals, methods, and scope. MARL offers CSS concrete ways to formalize cognitive processes in dynamic environments. CSS offers MARL improved qualitative insight into emergent collective phenomena. We see this approach as providing the necessary foundations for a proper science of collective, cooperative intelligence. We highlight work that is already heading in this direction and discuss concrete steps for future research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".