Skip to main content
Log in

Collective decision-making for dynamic environments with visual occlusions

  • Published:
Swarm Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For decades, both empirical and theoretical models have been proposed to explain the patterns and mechanisms of collective decision-making (CDM). The most-studied CDM scenario is the best-of-n problem in a static environment. However, natural environments are typically dynamic. In dynamic environments, the visual occlusions produced by other members of a large-scale group are also common. Hence, some agents of a group are less informed than others, and their state uncertainties increase. This paper develops a new model referred to as the generalized Ising model with dynamic confidence (GIM-C) to reduce the state uncertainty induced by visual occlusions. The proposed model first estimates the expected rewards of possible actions with dynamic confidence weighting. It then gives the probability of choosing each action based on the generalized Ising model with an external field defined by the last stage’s results. Numerical simulations demonstrate that GIM-C shares the key feature of social cohesion with previous CDM models. Furthermore, in order to illustrate the efficiency of the proposed GIM-C, the collecting foraging task is considered, where a large-scale group of agents is required to obtain rewards with the presence of a dynamic predator and visual occlusions. The good performance of GIM-C in the collecting foraging task demonstrates that dynamic confidence weighting is efficient in reducing the state uncertainty introduced by visual occlusions. The proposed GIM-C also demonstrates the importance of enhancing the influence of informed agents in CDM problems in a dynamic environment with visual occlusions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arganda, S., Pérez-Escudero, A., & de Polavieja, G. G. (2012). A common rule for decision making in animal collectives across species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(50), 20508–20513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvin, F., Turgut, A. E., Bazyari, F., Arikan, K. B., Bellotto, N., & Yue, S. (2014). Cue-based aggregation with a mobile robot swarm: A novel fuzzy-based method. Adaptive Behavior, 22(3), 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahrami, B., Olsen, K., Latham, P. E., Roepstorff, A., Rees, G., & Frith, C. D. (2010). Optimally interacting minds. Science, 329(5995), 1081–1085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behrend, E. R., & Bitterman, M. (1961). Probability-matching in the fish. The American Journal of Psychology, 74(4), 542–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchet, S., Clobert, J., & Danchin, E. (2010). The role of public information in ecology and conservation? An emphasis on inadvertent social information. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1195, 149–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brambilla, M., Ferrante, E., Birattari, M., & Dorigo, M. (2013). Swarm robotics: A review from the swarm engineering perspective. Swarm Intelligence, 7(1), 1–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullock, D. H., & Bitterman, M. (1962). Probability-matching in the pigeon. The American Journal of Psychology, 75(4), 634–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coifman, R. R., Lafon, S., Lee, A. B., Maggioni, M., Nadler, B., Warner, F., & Zucker, S. W. (2005). Geometric diffusions as a tool for harmonic analysis and structure definition of data: Diffusion maps. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(21), 7426–7431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conradt, L., & List, C. (2009). Group decisions in humans and animals: A survey. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364(1518), 719–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Correll, N., & Martinoli, A. (2011). Modeling and designing self-organized aggregation in a swarm of miniature robots. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 30(5), 615–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couzin, I. D. (2009). Collective cognition in animal groups. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(1), 36–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couzin, I. D., Ioannou, C. C., Demirel, G., Gross, T., Torney, C. J., Hartnett, A., et al. (2011). Uninformed individuals promote democratic consensus in animal groups. Science, 334(6062), 1578–1580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, W., & Treherne, J. (1981). Evidence for the dilution effect in the selfish herd from fish predation on a marine insect. Nature, 293(5832), 466–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greggers, U., & Menzel, R. (1993). Memory dynamics and foraging strategies of honeybees. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 32(1), 17–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handegard, N. O., Boswell, K. M., Ioannou, C. C., Leblanc, S. P., Tjøstheim, D. B., & Couzin, I. D. (2012). The dynamics of coordinated group hunting and collective information transfer among schooling prey. Current Biology, 22(13), 1213–1217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4(3), 267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kao, A. B., & Couzin, I. D. (2014). Decision accuracy in complex environments is often maximized by small group sizes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281(1784), 20133305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khaluf, Y., Pinciroli, C., Valentini, G., & Hamann, H. (2017). The impact of agent density on scalability in collective systems: Noise-induced versus majority-based bistability. Swarm Intelligence, 11(2), 155–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. J., & Cowlishaw, G. (2007). When to use social information: The advantage of large group size in individual decision making. Biology Letters, 3(2), 137–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krause, J., Ruxton, G. D., Ruxton, G., Ruxton, I. G., et al. (2002). Living in Groups. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Landau, L. D., Lifshitz, E. M., & Reichl, L. E. (1981). Statistical physics, Part 1. Physics Today, 34(1), 74.

  • Lee, C., Lawry, J., & Winfield, A. F. T. (2021). Negative updating applied to the best-of-n problem with noisy qualities. Swarm Intelligence, 15, 111–143.

  • MaBouDi, H., Marshall, J. A., & Barron, A. B. (2020). Honeybees solve a multi-comparison ranking task by probability matching. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 287(1934), 20201525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, R. P. (2018). Collective decision making by rational individuals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(44), E10387–E10396.

  • Mann, R. P. (2020). Collective decision-making by rational agents with differing preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(19), 10388–10396.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, R. P., Faria, J. J., Sumpter, D. J. T., & Krause, J. (2013). The dynamics of audience applause. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 10(85), 20130466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milinski, M. (1984). A predator\(^{\prime }\)s costs of overcoming the confusion-effect of swarming prey. Animal Behaviour, 32(4), 1157–1162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, N., Garnier, S., Hartnett, A. T., & Couzin, I. D. (2013). Both information and social cohesion determine collective decisions in animal groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(13), 5263–5268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, C. A., & Zhang, H. (2010). Collective unary decision-making by decentralized multiple-robot systems applied to the task-sequencing problem. Swarm Intelligence, 4(3), 199–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-Escudero, A. & de Polavieja, G. G. (2011). Collective animal behavior from Bayesian estimation and probability matching. Nature Preceedings. https://doi.org/10.1038/npre.2011.5939.1.

  • Pérez-Escudero, A., & de Polavieja, G. G. (2017). Adversity magnifies the importance of social information in decision-making. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 14(136), 20170748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perna, A., Granovskiy, B., Garnier, S., Nicolis, S. C., Labedan, M., Theraulaz, G., et al. (2012). Individual rules for trail pattern formation in argentine ants (Linepithema humile). PLoS Computational Biology, 8(7), e1002592.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Pike, T. W., Kendal, J. R., Rendell, L. E., & Laland, K. N. (2010). Learning by proportional observation in a species of fish. Behavioral Ecology, 21(3), 570–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prasetyo, J., De Masi, G., & Ferrante, E. (2019). Collective decision making in dynamic environments. Swarm Intelligence, 13(3–4), 217–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rausch, I., Reina, A., Simoens, P., & Khaluf, Y. (2019). Coherent collective behaviour emerging from decentralised balancing of social feedback and noise. Swarm Intelligence, 13(3), 321–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rendell, L., Boyd, R., Cownden, D., Enquist, M., Eriksson, K., Feldman, M. W., et al. (2010). Why copy others? Insights from the social learning strategies tournament. Science, 328(5975), 208–213.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Schranz, M., Di Caro, G. A., Schmickl, T., Elmenreich, W., Arvin, F., Şekercioğlu, A., & Sende, M. (2020). Swarm intelligence and cyber-physical systems: Concepts, challenges and future trends. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 60, 100762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sumpter, D. J. T., & Pratt, S. C. (2009). Quorum responses and consensus decision making. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364(1518), 743–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talamali, M. S., Saha, A., Marshall, J. A. R., & Reina, A. (2021). When less is more: Robot swarms adapt better to changes with constrained communication. Science Robotics, 6(56).

  • Valentini, G., Ferrante, E., & Dorigo, M. (2017). The best-of-n problem in robot swarms: Formalization, state of the art, and novel perspectives. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 4, 9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentini, G., & Hamann, H. (2015). Time-variant feedback processes in collective decision-making systems: Influence and effect of dynamic neighborhood sizes. Swarm Intelligence, 9(2), 153–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Bergen, Y., Coolen, I., & Laland, K. N. (2004). Nine-spined sticklebacks exploit the most reliable source when public and private information conflict. Proceedings of The Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 271(1542), 957–962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vulkan, N. (2000). An economist’s perspective on probability matching. Journal of economic surveys, 14(1), 101–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, A. J. W., Sumpter, D. J. T., Couzin, I. D., Hart, P. J. B., & Krause, J. (2008). Quorum decision-making facilitates information transfer in fish shoals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(19), 6948–6953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wozny, D. R., Beierholm, U. R., & Shams, L. (2010). Probability matching as a computational strategy used in perception. PLoS Computational Biology, 6(8), e1000871.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hui Cheng.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: The collective foraging task

Appendix: The collective foraging task

In the collective foraging task, we consider agents with three possible behaviors defined by functions that map environmental conditions and the states of neighbors to the velocity of an agent at the current time step.

  • Feeding, gathering rewards from feeding areas. With the center \(\mathbf {l}_\mathrm{fd}\) of the nearest feeding area and the location \(\mathbf {l}_i\) of agent i, the desired velocity \(\mathbf {v}_i^t\) of a feeding agent i at time t is defined as:

    $$\begin{aligned} \mathbf {v}_i^t = \varTheta \left[ \frac{\mathbf {l}_\mathrm{fd}-{\mathbf {l}_i}}{\left| \mathbf {l}_\mathrm{fd}-\mathbf {l}_i \right| } + \mathbf {v}_r + \mathbf {v}_g \right] \cdot v_\mathrm{fd} , \end{aligned}$$
    (27)

    where \(\varTheta \left[ \right] \) is the normalization operator, \(\mathbf {v}_r\) is a random vector whose norm \(|\mathbf {v}_r|=1\), \(\mathbf {v}_g\) is a component maintaining the density of agents and \(v_\mathrm{fd}\) denotes the speed of a feeding agent. With the maximum range of repulsion between agents denoted by \(r_\mathrm{rep}^\mathrm{max}\) and the intensity of repulsion by \(f_\mathrm{rep}\), \(\mathbf {v}_{g}\) is given by the following:

    $$\begin{aligned} \mathbf {v}_g = {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \sum _{j\in N_i^t} f_\mathrm{rep} \cdot \left( r_\mathrm{rep}^\mathrm{max} - \left| \mathbf {l}_{j}-\mathbf {l}_i \right| \right) \cdot \varTheta \left[ \mathbf {l}_{i}-\mathbf {l}_j \right] &{} \text {if} \left| \mathbf {l}_{i}-\mathbf {l}_j \right| < r_\mathrm{rep}^\mathrm{max} \\ 0 &{} \text {otherwise} \end{array}\right. } \end{aligned}$$
    (28)
  • Avoiding, escaping from the predator. With the location of predator denoted by \(\mathbf {l}_\mathrm{pd}\), the desired velocity \(v_i\) of an avoiding agent i is given by:

    $$\begin{aligned} \mathbf {v}_i^t = {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \varTheta \left[ \mathbf {l}_i - \mathbf {l}_\mathrm{pd} + \mathbf {v}_g \right] \cdot v_\mathrm{avd} &{} \text {if the agent observes the predator} \\ \varTheta \left[ \frac{ \sum _{j\in N_i^{t}} \mathbf {v}_j^{t-1}}{|N_i^{t}|} +\mathbf {v}_g \right] \cdot v_\mathrm{avd} &{} \text {otherwise} \end{array}\right. }, \end{aligned}$$
    (29)

    where \(v_\mathrm{avd}\) denotes the speed of an avoiding agent.

  • Foraging, approaching the nearest feeding area. The velocity of foraging agent i is given by:

    $$\begin{aligned} \mathbf {v}_i^t = \varTheta \left[ \mathbf {l}_\mathrm{fd} - \mathbf {l}_i +\mathbf {v}_g \right] \cdot v_\mathrm{fr} , \end{aligned}$$
    (30)

    where \(v_\mathrm{fr}\) is the speed of a foraging agent.

The parameters used to calculate the desired velocity are outlined in Table 3.

1.1 Expected reward estimates

The estimation of the expected reward of a possible action is defined as a function of observations. At each time step t, agent i estimates expected rewards of all possible actions with the following functions:

  • Feeding. In order to keep agents close to the center of the feeding area, the estimated expected reward \(u_i^t(a_\mathrm{fd})\) of feeding is given as follows:

    $$\begin{aligned} u_i^t(a_\mathrm{fd}) = {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} c_\mathrm{fd}\left( r_\mathrm{fd} - \left| \mathbf {l}_\mathrm{fd}-\mathbf {l}_i \right| \right) &{} \text {if} \left| \mathbf {l}_\mathrm{fd}-\mathbf {l}_i \right| < r_\mathrm{fd} \\ 0 &{} \text {otherwise} \end{array}\right. } , \end{aligned}$$
    (31)

    where \(c_\mathrm{fd}\) is a constant and \(r_\mathrm{fd}\) is the radius of a feeding area.

  • Avoiding. Denoting the location of the predator by \(\mathbf {l}_\mathrm{pd}\), the estimated expected reward \(u_i^t(a_\mathrm{avd})\) of avoiding is given by the following:

    $$\begin{aligned} u_i^t(a_\mathrm{avd}) = {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} c_\mathrm{avd}\left( u_\mathrm{avd}^\mathrm{max} - \left| \mathbf {l}_\mathrm{pd}-\mathbf {l}_i \right| \right) &{} \text {if the agent observes the predator} \\ 0 &{} \text {otherwise} \end{array}\right. }, \end{aligned}$$
    (32)

    where \(u_\mathrm{avd}^\mathrm{max}\) is the max expected reward of avoiding, \(c_\mathrm{avd}\) is a constant.

  • Foraging. The estimated expected reward of foraging \(u_i^t(a_\mathrm{fr})\) is given by the following:

    $$\begin{aligned} u_i^t(a_\mathrm{fr})={\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 10 &{} \text {if} |\mathbf {l}_\mathrm{fd} - \mathbf {l}_i| > r_\mathrm{fd} \\ 0 &{} \textit{otherwise} \end{array}\right. }. \end{aligned}$$
    (33)

The parameters used to estimates the expected reward of possible behaviors can be found in Table 3.

Table 3 Parameters used in numerical simulations

1.2 Predator

The predator randomly samples a set of locations from the map every 20 time steps and values each location \(\mathbf {l}\) as follows:

$$\begin{aligned} u_l = \frac{\rho _\mathbf {l}}{|\mathbf {l}_\mathrm{pd} - \mathbf {l}|}, \end{aligned}$$
(34)

where \(\rho _l\) is the agent density around \(\mathbf {l}\).

Then, the predator chooses the location \(\mathbf {l} = \arg \max u_l\) and moves toward it. It is assumed that the predator will be reinforced if it captures agents. Let the number of agents captured by the predator be \(n_\mathrm{prey}\), the speed \(v_p\) of predator is given by the following:

$$\begin{aligned} v_p = v_p^0 + 0.05\cdot n_\mathrm{prey}, \end{aligned}$$
(35)

where \(v_p^0\) is the initial speed of the predator. The initial speed \(v_p^0\) tested in this work is outlined in Table 3.

1.3 A.3 The reward function

The total reward of a feeding area is 1000. A feeding agent only consume 0.1 reward per time step. When the reward of a feeding area runs out, it refreshes at a random location after 20 time steps.

Denote the reward collected by all agents from the feeding areas by \(r_\mathrm{feed}\), the number of agents being preyed by \(n_\mathrm{prey}\) and the number of collisions among the agents by \(n_\mathrm{coll}\). Assume that the cost of each preyed agent is 5. Then, the total reward R of the group is given by the following:

$$\begin{aligned} R= r_\mathrm{feed} - 5n_\mathrm{prey}-n_\mathrm{coll}. \end{aligned}$$
(36)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jiang, F., Cheng, H. & Chen, G. Collective decision-making for dynamic environments with visual occlusions. Swarm Intell 16, 7–27 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11721-021-00200-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11721-021-00200-x

Keywords

Navigation