Sensing Enhancement on Social Networks: The Role of Network Topology

Overview

Journal Entropy (Basel)

Publisher MDPI

Date 2022 May 28

PMID 35626621

Authors

Markus Brede

Guillermo Romero-Moreno

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Sensing and processing information from dynamically changing environments is essential for the survival of animal collectives and the functioning of human society. In this context, previous work has shown that communication between networked agents with some preference towards adopting the majority opinion can enhance the quality of error-prone individual sensing from dynamic environments. In this paper, we compare the potential of different types of complex networks for such sensing enhancement. Numerical simulations on complex networks are complemented by a mean-field approach for limited connectivity that captures essential trends in dependencies. Our results show that, whilst bestowing advantages on a small group of agents, degree heterogeneity tends to impede overall sensing enhancement. In contrast, clustering and spatial structure play a more nuanced role depending on overall connectivity. We find that ring graphs exhibit superior enhancement for large connectivity and that random graphs outperform for small connectivity. Further exploring the role of clustering and path lengths in small-world models, we find that sensing enhancement tends to be boosted in the small-world regime.

References

Talamali M, Saha A, Marshall J, Reina A . When less is more: Robot swarms adapt better to changes with constrained communication. Sci Robot. 2021; 6(56). DOI: 10.1126/scirobotics.abf1416. View

Watts D, Strogatz S . Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks. Nature. 1998; 393(6684):440-2. DOI: 10.1038/30918. View

Yang V, Galesic M, McGuinness H, Harutyunyan A . Dynamical system model predicts when social learners impair collective performance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021; 118(35). PMC: 8536379. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2106292118. View

Franks N, Dornhaus A, Fitzsimmons J, Stevens M . Speed versus accuracy in collective decision making. Proc Biol Sci. 2003; 270(1532):2457-63. PMC: 1691524. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2527. View

Conradt L, Roper T . Consensus decision making in animals. Trends Ecol Evol. 2006; 20(8):449-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.008. View

Salahshour M . Phase Diagram and Optimal Information Use in a Collective Sensing System. Phys Rev Lett. 2019; 123(6):068101. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.068101. View

Berdahl A, Torney C, Ioannou C, Faria J, Couzin I . Emergent sensing of complex environments by mobile animal groups. Science. 2013; 339(6119):574-6. DOI: 10.1126/science.1225883. View

Romero Moreno G, Chakraborty S, Brede M . Shadowing and shielding: Effective heuristics for continuous influence maximisation in the voting dynamics. PLoS One. 2021; 16(6):e0252515. PMC: 8213046. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252515. View

Brede M, Restocchi V, Stein S . Resisting Influence: How the Strength of Predispositions to Resist Control Can Change Strategies for Optimal Opinion Control in the Voter Model. Front Robot AI. 2021; 5:34. PMC: 7805989. DOI: 10.3389/frobt.2018.00034. View

10.

Barabasi , ALBERT . Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science. 1999; 286(5439):509-12. DOI: 10.1126/science.286.5439.509. View

11.

Berekmeri E, Zafeiris A . Optimal collective decision making: consensus, accuracy and the effects of limited access to information. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):16997. PMC: 7550594. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-73853-z. View

12.

Franks N, Pratt S, Mallon E, Britton N, Sumpter D . Information flow, opinion polling and collective intelligence in house-hunting social insects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2002; 357(1427):1567-83. PMC: 1693068. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1066. View

13.

Dall S, Giraldeau L, Olsson O, McNamara J, Stephens D . Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology. Trends Ecol Evol. 2006; 20(4):187-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.01.010. View

14.

Tononi G, Sporns O, Edelman G . A measure for brain complexity: relating functional segregation and integration in the nervous system. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994; 91(11):5033-7. PMC: 43925. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.91.11.5033. View

15.

Salahshour M, Rouhani S, Roudi Y . Phase transitions and asymmetry between signal comprehension and production in biological communication. Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):3428. PMC: 6401316. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-40141-4. View

16.

Olson R, Knoester D, Adami C . Evolution of Swarming Behavior Is Shaped by How Predators Attack. Artif Life. 2016; 22(3):299-318. DOI: 10.1162/ARTL_a_00206. View

17.

Mobilia M . Does a single zealot affect an infinite group of voters?. Phys Rev Lett. 2003; 91(2):028701. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.028701. View

18.

Ward A, Herbert-Read J, Sumpter D, Krause J . Fast and accurate decisions through collective vigilance in fish shoals. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011; 108(6):2312-5. PMC: 3038776. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1007102108. View

19.

Robinson E, Feinerman O, Franks N . Flexible task allocation and the organization of work in ants. Proc Biol Sci. 2009; 276(1677):4373-80. PMC: 2817103. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2009.1244. View

20.

Becker J, Brackbill D, Centola D . Network dynamics of social influence in the wisdom of crowds. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017; 114(26):E5070-E5076. PMC: 5495222. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1615978114. View