Simple Autonomous Agents Can Enhance Creative Semantic Discovery by Human Groups

Overview

Journal Nat Commun

Specialty Biology

Date 2024 Jun 18

PMID 38890368

Authors

Atsushi Ueshima

Matthew I Jones

Nicholas A Christakis

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Innovation is challenging, and theory and experiments indicate that groups may be better able to identify and preserve innovations than individuals. But innovation within groups faces its own challenges, including groupthink and truncated diffusion. We performed experiments involving a game in which people search for ideas in various conditions: alone, in networked social groups, or in networked groups featuring autonomous agents (bots). The objective was to search a semantic space of 20,000 nouns with defined similarities for an arbitrary noun with the highest point value. Participants (N = 1875) were embedded in networks (n = 125) of 15 nodes to which we sometimes added 2 bots. The bots had 3 possible strategies: they shared a random noun generated by their immediate neighbors, or a noun most similar from among those identified, or a noun least similar. We first confirm that groups are better able to explore a semantic space than isolated individuals. Then we show that when bots that share the most similar noun operate in groups facing a semantic space that is relatively easy to navigate, group performance is superior. Simple autonomous agents with interpretable behavior can affect the capacity for creative discovery of human groups.

References

Hills T, Todd P, Lazer D, Redish A, Couzin I . Exploration versus exploitation in space, mind, and society. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014; 19(1):46-54. PMC: 4410143. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.10.004. View

Woolley A, Chabris C, Pentland A, Hashmi N, Malone T . Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science. 2010; 330(6004):686-8. DOI: 10.1126/science.1193147. View

Raafat R, Chater N, Frith C . Herding in humans. Trends Cogn Sci. 2009; 13(10):420-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.08.002. View

Gunther F, Rinaldi L, Marelli M . Vector-Space Models of Semantic Representation From a Cognitive Perspective: A Discussion of Common Misconceptions. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2019; 14(6):1006-1033. DOI: 10.1177/1745691619861372. View

Shirado H, Christakis N . Locally noisy autonomous agents improve global human coordination in network experiments. Nature. 2017; 545(7654):370-374. PMC: 5912653. DOI: 10.1038/nature22332. View

McKee K, Tacchetti A, Bakker M, Balaguer J, Campbell-Gillingham L, Everett R . Scaffolding cooperation in human groups with deep reinforcement learning. Nat Hum Behav. 2023; 7(10):1787-1796. PMC: 10593606. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-023-01686-7. View

Centola D . The network science of collective intelligence. Trends Cogn Sci. 2022; 26(11):923-941. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2022.08.009. View

Simmons J, Nelson L, Simonsohn U . False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci. 2011; 22(11):1359-66. DOI: 10.1177/0956797611417632. View

Brackbill D, Centola D . Impact of network structure on collective learning: An experimental study in a data science competition. PLoS One. 2020; 15(9):e0237978. PMC: 7473554. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237978. View

10.

Olson J, Nahas J, Chmoulevitch D, Cropper S, Webb M . Naming unrelated words predicts creativity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021; 118(25). PMC: 8237676. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2022340118. View

11.

Shirado H, Christakis N . Network Engineering Using Autonomous Agents Increases Cooperation in Human Groups. iScience. 2020; 23(9):101438. PMC: 7452167. DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2020.101438. View

12.

Bhatia S . Associative judgment and vector space semantics. Psychol Rev. 2016; 124(1):1-20. DOI: 10.1037/rev0000047. View

13.

Kline M, Boyd R . Population size predicts technological complexity in Oceania. Proc Biol Sci. 2010; 277(1693):2559-64. PMC: 2894932. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2010.0452. View

14.

Mason W, Jones A, Goldstone R . Propagation of innovations in networked groups. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2008; 137(3):422-33. DOI: 10.1037/a0012798. View

15.

Wu C, Schulz E, Speekenbrink M, Nelson J, Meder B . Generalization guides human exploration in vast decision spaces. Nat Hum Behav. 2019; 2(12):915-924. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-018-0467-4. View

16.

Shirado H, Crawford F, Christakis N . Collective communication and behaviour in response to uncertain 'Danger' in network experiments. Proc Math Phys Eng Sci. 2020; 476(2237):20190685. PMC: 7277132. DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2019.0685. View

17.

Nastase S, Goldstein A, Hasson U . Keep it real: rethinking the primacy of experimental control in cognitive neuroscience. Neuroimage. 2020; 222:117254. PMC: 7789034. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117254. View

18.

Lorenz J, Rauhut H, Schweitzer F, Helbing D . How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011; 108(22):9020-5. PMC: 3107299. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1008636108. View

19.

Laland K . Social learning strategies. Learn Behav. 2004; 32(1):4-14. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196002. View

20.

Derex M, Beugin M, Godelle B, Raymond M . Experimental evidence for the influence of group size on cultural complexity. Nature. 2013; 503(7476):389-91. DOI: 10.1038/nature12774. View