Social Information Quality and Environmental Volatility Shape Collective Foraging Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Collective foraging is widespread across the animal kingdom, allowing animals to more effectively discover resources. However, collective foragers need to balance a key trade off between private exploration and using social information. Social information can come in very distinct forms, ranging from simple positional cues to complex payoff information. However, how the types of available social cues and environmental volatility shape collective foraging behavior is not well understood. We address this using a spatially-explicit model in which agents track a mobile resource via multi-agent reinforcement learning. Agents choose between random exploration, private tracking, and social attraction. We systematically varied resource volatility and the type of available social cues to analyze their effect on individual and collective behavior. Our results show that the quality of social information dictates the emerging collective behavior. Low-quality social cues (e.g., positions, actions) result in a fragile strategy that is effective in stable environments but fails as volatility increases. Conversely, high-quality social information (e.g., payoffs) enables behavioral diversity: Agents selectively copy others and flexibly change between individual tracking or exploration depending on the environmental volatility. Our findings identify the interplay between information quality and ecological context as an important mechanism governing the emergence of distinct forms of collective behavior from individual decision rules.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".