Spatiotemporal dynamics of animal contests arise from effective forces between contestants

Competition among animals for resources, notably food, territories, and mates, is ubiquitous at all scales of life. This competition is often resolved through contests among individuals, which are commonly understood according to their outcomes and in particular, how these outcomes depend on decision-making by the contestants. Because they are restricted to end-point predictions, these approaches cannot predict real-time or real-space dynamics of animal contest behavior. This limitation can be overcome by studying systems that feature typical contest behavior while being simple enough to track and model. Here, we propose to use such systems to construct a theoretical framework that describes real-time movements and behaviors of animal contestants. We study the spatiotemporal dynamics of contests in an orb-weaving spider, in which all the common elements of animal contests play out. The confined arena of the web, on which interactions are dominated by vibratory cues in a two-dimensional space, simplifies the analysis of interagent interactions. We ask whether these seemingly complex decision-makers can be modeled as interacting active particles responding only to effective forces of attraction and repulsion due to their interactions. By analyzing the emergent dynamics of “contestant particles,” we provide mechanistic explanations for real-time dynamical aspects of animal contests, thereby explaining competitive advantages of larger competitors and demonstrating that complex decision-making need not be invoked in animal contests to achieve adaptive outcomes. Our results demonstrate that physics-based classification and modeling, in terms of effective rules of interaction, provide a powerful framework for understanding animal contest behaviors.

Human third-party observers accurately track fighting skill and vigour along their unique paths to victory

Sexual selection via male-male contest competition has shaped the evolution of agonistic displays, weaponry, and fighting styles, and is further argued to have shaped human psychological mechanisms to detect, process, and respond appropriately to cues of fighting ability. Drawing on the largest fight-specific dataset to date across the sports and biological sciences (N = 2,765), we examined how different indicators of fighting ability in humans reflect unique paths to victory and indicate different forms of perceived and actual resource-holding power (RHP). Overall, we discovered that: (1) both striking skill and vigour, and grappling skill and vigour, individually and collectively predict RHP; (2) different RHP indicators are distinguished by a unique path to victory (e.g., striking skill is a knockout-typical strategy, whereas grappling vigour is a submission-typical strategy); and (3) third-party observers accurately track fighting skill and vigour along their unique paths to victory. Our argument that different measures of RHP are associated with unique paths to victory, and third-party observers accurately track fighting vigour and skill along their unique paths to victory, advance our understanding not only of human contest competition, but animal contest theory more broadly.

Perceived and actual fighting ability: determinants of success by decision, knockout or submission in human combat sports

Animal contest theory assumes individuals to possess accurate information about their own fighting ability or resource-holding potential (RHP) and, under some models, that of their opponent. However, owing to the difficulty of disentangling perceived and actual RHP in animals, how accurately individuals are able to assess RHP remains relatively unknown. Furthermore, it is not just individuals within a fight that evaluate RHP. Third-party observers evaluate the fight performance of conspecifics in order to make behavioural decisions. In human combat sports, when fights remain unresolved at the end of the allotted time, bystanders take a more active role, with judges assigning victory based on their assessment of each fighter's performance. Here, we use fight data from mixed martial arts in order to investigate whether perceived fighting performance (judges' decisions) and actual fighting success (fights ending in knockout or submission) are based on the same performance traits, specifically striking skill and vigour. Our results indicate that both performance traits are important for victory, but that vigour is more important for fights resolved via decision, even though the effect of vigour is enhanced by skill. These results suggest that while similar traits are important for fighting success across the board, vigour is overvalued in judges' perceptions of RHP.

Cybernetic combatants support the importance of duels in the evolution of extreme weapons

A current evolutionary hypothesis predicts that the most extreme forms of animal weaponry arise in systems where combatants fight each other one-to-one, in duels. It has also been suggested that arms races in human interstate conflicts are more likely to escalate in cases where there are only two opponents. However, directly testing whether duels matter for weapon investment is difficult in animals and impossible in interstate conflicts. Here, we test whether superior combatants experience a disproportionate advantage in duels, as compared with multi-combatant skirmishes, in a system analogous to both animal and military contests: the battles fought by artificial intelligence agents in a computer war game. We found that combatants with experimentally improved fighting power had a large advantage in duels, but that this advantage deteriorated as the complexity of the battlefield was increased by the addition of further combatants. This pattern remained under the two different forms of the advantage granted to our focal artificial intelligence (AI) combatants, and became reversed when we switched the roles to feature a weak focal AI among strong opponents. Our results suggest that one-on-one combat may trigger arms races in diverse systems. These results corroborate the outcomes of studies of both animal and interstate contests, and suggest that elements of animal contest theory may be widely applicable to arms races generally.