scholarly journals Discrete collective estimation in swarm robotics with distributed Bayesian belief sharing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qihao Shan ◽  
Sanaz Mostaghim
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Communication Complexity ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
Estimation Problem ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Fill Ratio ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Decision Speed

AbstractMulti-option collective decision-making is a challenging task in the context of swarm intelligence. In this paper, we extend the problem of collective perception from simple binary decision-making of choosing the color in majority to estimating the most likely fill ratio from a series of discrete fill ratio hypotheses. We have applied direct comparison (DC) and direct modulation of voter-based decisions (DMVD) to this scenario to observe their performances in a discrete collective estimation problem. We have also compared their performances against an Individual Exploration baseline. Additionally, we propose a novel collective decision-making strategy called distributed Bayesian belief sharing (DBBS) and apply it to the above discrete collective estimation problem. In the experiments, we explore the performances of considered collective decision-making algorithms in various parameter settings to determine the trade-off among accuracy, speed, message transfer and reliability in the decision-making process. Our results show that both DC and DMVD outperform the Individual Exploration baseline, but both algorithms exhibit different trade-offs with respect to accuracy and decision speed. On the other hand, DBBS exceeds the performances of all other considered algorithms in all four metrics, at the cost of higher communication complexity.

scholarly journals Quorums enable optimal pooling of independent judgements

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Marshall ◽  
Ralf H.J.M. Kurvers ◽  
Jens Krause ◽  
Max Wolf
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Signal Detection ◽  
Signal Detection Theory ◽  
Detection Theory ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
Majority Voting ◽  
Single Shot ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Speed Accuracy

Majority-voting and the Condorcet Jury Theorem pervade thinking about collective decision-making. Thus, it is typically assumed that majority-voting is the best possible decision mechanism, and that scenarios exist where individually-weak decision-makers should not pool information. Condorcet and its applications implicitly assume that only one kind of error can be made, yet signal detection theory shows two kinds of errors exist, ‘false positives’ and ‘false negatives’. We apply signal detection theory to collective decision-making to show that majority voting is frequently sub-optimal, and can be optimally replaced by quorum decision-making. While quorums have been proposed to resolve within-group conflicts, or manage speed-accuracy trade-offs, our analysis applies to groups with aligned interests undertaking single-shot decisions. Our results help explain the ubiquity of quorum decision-making in nature, relate the use of sub- and super-majority quorums to decision ecology, and may inform the design of artificial decision-making systems.Impact StatementTheory typically assumes that majority voting is optimal; this is incorrect – majority voting is typically sub-optimal, and should be replaced by sub-majority or super-majority quorum voting. This helps explain the prevalence of quorum-sensing in even the simplest collective systems, such as bacterial communities.

Speed–cohesion trade-offs in collective decision making in ants and the concept of precision in animal behaviour

2013 ◽  
Vol 85 (6) ◽  
pp. 1233-1244 ◽  
Author(s):  
N.R. Franks ◽  
T.O. Richardson ◽  
N. Stroeymeyt ◽  
R.W. Kirby ◽  
W.M.D. Amos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Animal Behaviour ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Trade Offs

Aggregation of Information by Binary Voting Rules

2019 ◽  
pp. 126-144
Author(s):  
Shmuel Nitzan ◽  
Jacob Paroush
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
Aggregation Rule ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Main Question ◽  
Relevant Variables ◽  
Aggregation Of Information ◽  
Group Members ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Relationship

A group of individuals faces the choice of an alternative out of a set of alternatives. Each member of the group holds an opinion regarding the most suitable (best) alternative for which he or she votes. In this setting, the individual votes are based on their decisional competencies, which hinge on the information to which they are exposed and on their ability to make use of that information. The main question is how to translate the group members’ voting profile to a single collective choice. This chapter studies different aspects of this question in the context of binary voting where the group faces only two alternatives. The selection of an appropriate aggregation rule is a central issue in the fields of social choice, public choice, voting theory, and collective decision making. Since the votes are based on the individual competencies, the applied aggregation rule should take into account not only the voting profile but also the competency profile. In fact, it should also take into consideration any other relevant environmental information such as the asymmetry between the feasible alternatives, the dependence between individual votes, decision-making costs, and the available past record of the voters’ decisions. The chapter focuses on the clarification of the relationship between the performance of binary aggregation rules and the relevant variables and parameters. This has direct normative implications regarding the desirable mode of collective decision making and, in particular, regarding the desirable aggregation rule and the size and the composition of the decision-making body.

scholarly journals Speed versus accuracy in decision-making ants: expediting politics and policy implementation

2008 ◽  
Vol 364 (1518) ◽  
pp. 845-852 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel R Franks ◽  
François-Xavier Dechaume-Moncharmont ◽  
Emma Hanmore ◽  
Jocelyn K Reynolds
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Quorum Sensing ◽  
Policy Implementation ◽  
Positive Feedback ◽  
High Speed ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Tandem Running ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Speed Accuracy

Compromises between speed and accuracy are seemingly inevitable in decision-making when accuracy depends on time-consuming information gathering. In collective decision-making, such compromises are especially likely because information is shared to determine corporate policy. This political process will also take time. Speed–accuracy trade-offs occur among house-hunting rock ants, Temnothorax albipennis . A key aspect of their decision-making is quorum sensing in a potential new nest. Finding a sufficient number of nest-mates, i.e. a quorum threshold (QT), in a potential nest site indicates that many ants find it suitable. Quorum sensing collates information. However, the QT is also used as a switch, from recruitment of nest-mates to their new home by slow tandem running, to recruitment by carrying, which is three times faster. Although tandem running is slow, it effectively enables one successful ant to lead and teach another the route between the nests. Tandem running creates positive feedback; more and more ants are shown the way, as tandem followers become, in turn, tandem leaders. The resulting corps of trained ants can then quickly carry their nest-mates; but carried ants do not learn the route. Therefore, the QT seems to set both the amount of information gathered and the speed of the emigration. Low QTs might cause more errors and a slower emigration—the worst possible outcome. This possible paradox of quick decisions leading to slow implementation might be resolved if the ants could deploy another positive-feedback recruitment process when they have used a low QT. Reverse tandem runs occur after carrying has begun and lead ants back from the new nest to the old one. Here we show experimentally that reverse tandem runs can bring lost scouts into an active role in emigrations and can help to maintain high-speed emigrations. Thus, in rock ants, although quick decision-making and rapid implementation of choices are initially in opposition, a third recruitment method can restore rapid implementation after a snap decision. This work reveals a principle of widespread importance: the dynamics of collective decision-making (i.e. the politics) and the dynamics of policy implementation are sometimes intertwined, and only by analysing the mechanisms of both can we understand certain forms of adaptive organization.

Democratic Reason

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hélène Landemore
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Majority Rule ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Wisdom Of Crowds ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Form Of Government ◽  
The Many ◽  
Selection Of

Individual decision making can often be wrong due to misinformation, impulses, or biases. Collective decision making, on the other hand, can be surprisingly accurate. This book demonstrates that the very factors behind the superiority of collective decision making add up to a strong case for democracy. The book shows that the processes and procedures of democratic decision making form a cognitive system that ensures that decisions taken by the many are more likely to be right than decisions taken by the few. Democracy as a form of government is therefore valuable not only because it is legitimate and just, but also because it is smart. The book considers how the argument plays out with respect to two main mechanisms of democratic politics: inclusive deliberation and majority rule. In deliberative settings, the truth-tracking properties of deliberation are enhanced more by inclusiveness than by individual competence. The book explores this idea in the contexts of representative democracy and the selection of representatives. It also discusses several models for the “wisdom of crowds” channeled by majority rule, examining the trade-offs between inclusiveness and individual competence in voting. When inclusive deliberation and majority rule are combined, they beat less inclusive methods, in which one person or a small group decides. The book thus establishes the superiority of democracy as a way of making decisions for the common good.

scholarly journals Models in animal collective decision-making: information uncertainty and conflicting preferences

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 226-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larissa Conradt
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Cohesion ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
Fine Tuning ◽  
Physiological Status ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Information Uncertainty ◽  
Decision Accuracy ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Wide Range

Collective decision-making plays a central part in the lives of many social animals. Two important factors that influence collective decision-making are information uncertainty and conflicting preferences. Here, I bring together, and briefly review, basic models relating to animal collective decision-making in situations with information uncertainty and in situations with conflicting preferences between group members. The intention is to give an overview about the different types of modelling approaches that have been employed and the questions that they address and raise. Despite the use of a wide range of different modelling techniques, results show a coherent picture, as follows. Relatively simple cognitive mechanisms can lead to effective information pooling. Groups often face a trade-off between decision accuracy and speed, but appropriate fine-tuning of behavioural parameters could achieve high accuracy while maintaining reasonable speed. The right balance of interdependence and independence between animals is crucial for maintaining group cohesion and achieving high decision accuracy. In conflict situations, a high degree of decision-sharing between individuals is predicted, as well as transient leadership and leadership according to needs and physiological status. Animals often face crucial trade-offs between maintaining group cohesion and influencing the decision outcome in their own favour. Despite the great progress that has been made, there remains one big gap in our knowledge: how do animals make collective decisions in situations when information uncertainty and conflict of interest operate simultaneously?

scholarly journals Wisdom of crowds benefits perceptual decision making across difficulty levels

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiasha Saha Roy ◽  
Satyaki Mazumder ◽  
Koel Das
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
Difficulty Level ◽  
Classification Error ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Perceptual Decision Making ◽  
Group Aggregation ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Random Target

AbstractDecades of research on collective decision making has claimed that aggregated judgment of multiple individuals is more accurate than expert individual judgement. A longstanding problem in this regard has been to determine how decisions of individuals can be combined to form intelligent group decisions. Our study consisted of a random target detection task in natural scenes, where human subjects (18 subjects, 7 female) detected the presence or absence of a random target as indicated by the cue word displayed prior to stimulus display. Concurrently the neural activities (EEG signals) were recorded. A separate behavioural experiment was performed by different subjects (20 subjects, 11 female) on the same set of images to categorize the tasks according to their difficulty levels. We demonstrate that the weighted average of individual decision confidence/neural decision variables produces significantly better performance than the frequently used majority pooling algorithm. Further, the classification error rates from individual judgement were found to increase with increasing task difficulty. This error could be significantly reduced upon combining the individual decisions using group aggregation rules. Using statistical tests, we show that combining all available participants is unnecessary to achieve minimum classification error rate. We also try to explore if group aggregation benefits depend on the correlation between the individual judgements of the group and our results seem to suggest that reduced inter-subject correlation can improve collective decision making for a fixed difficulty level.

scholarly journals Jean-Jacques Rousseau on the Separation of Powers in Federal Polity and “Wills of Nation”

2021 ◽  
Vol V (4) ◽  
pp. 201-226
Author(s):  
Anton Shablinsky
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Citizen Participation ◽  
Collective Identity ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Popular Participation ◽  
The People ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Democracy Theory

The problem of this article is built around the tension between the concept of organ sovereignty and democracy theory. First of all, this vision of sovereignty fails to describe the diverse forms of popular participation in collective decision-making. It speaks very sparingly of the people as a political actor. Moreover, the concept of organ sovereignty does not provide the theoretical resources to describe the intermediary bodies in the space between the state and the individual. The tradition of liberal democracy emphasises the importance of such bodies for maintaining popular control over state. Also, the idea of organ sovereignty, by reducing all power to a single legislature, ignores the demand for self-government coming from communities located within the same state and yet united by a certain collective identity. Today, democracy theorists are turning to the concepts of federalism in order to overcome the above-mentioned limitations set by the concept of organ sovereignty. So far, however, the concepts of federalism have not been very convincing in describing the various forms of popular participation in collective decision-making. Above all, they have failed to consistently justify the existence of multiple decision-making centres within a single polity. The article argues that the model of the federal polity proposed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his later work “Considerations on the mode of government in Poland” explains how within one polity multiple centres of collective decision-making can coexist. The model also provides an understanding of how citizen participation in multiple decision-making centres can be organised.

Islands of Stability: Engaging Emergence from Cellular Automata to the Occupy Movement

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Pickering
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cellular Automata ◽  
Black Box ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Occupy Movement ◽  
History Of ◽  
The 1960S

"Instead of considering »being with« in terms of non-problematic, machine-like places, where reliable entities assemble in stable relationships, STS conjures up a world where the achievement of chancy stabilisations and synchronisations is local.We have to analyse how and where a certain regularity and predictability in the intersection of scientists and their instruments, say, or of human individuals and groups, is produced.The paper reviews models of emergence drawn from the history of cybernetics—the canonical »black box,« homeostats, and cellular automata—to enrich our imagination of the stabilisation process, and discusses the concept of »variety« as a way of clarifying its difficulty, with the antiuniversities of the 1960s and the Occupy movement as examples. Failures of »being with« are expectable. In conclusion, the paper reviews approaches to collective decision-making that reduce variety without imposing a neoliberal hierarchy. "

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document