Collective Animal Behavior from Bayesian Estimation and Probability Matching

Animals living in groups make movement decisions that depend, among other factors, on social interactions with other group members. Our present understanding of social rules in animal collectives is mainly based on empirical fits to observations, with less emphasis in obtaining first-principles approaches that allow their derivation. Here we show that patterns of collective decisions can be derived from the basic ability of animals to make probabilistic estimations in the presence of uncertainty. We build a decision-making model with two stages: Bayesian estimation and probabilistic matching. In the first stage, each animal makes a Bayesian estimation of which behavior is best to perform taking into account personal information about the environment and social information collected by observing the behaviors of other animals. In the probability matching stage, each animal chooses a behavior with a probability equal to the Bayesian-estimated probability that this behavior is the most appropriate one. This model derives very simple rules of interaction in animal collectives that depend only on two types of reliability parameters, one that each animal assigns to the other animals and another given by the quality of the non-social information. We test our model by obtaining theoretically a rich set of observed collective patterns of decisions in three-spined sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus, a shoaling fish species. The quantitative link shown between probabilistic estimation and collective rules of behavior allows a better contact with other fields such as foraging, mate selection, neurobiology and psychology, and gives predictions for experiments directly testing the relationship between estimation and collective behavior.

[1]  D. Knill,et al.  The Bayesian brain: the role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation , 2004, Trends in Neurosciences.

[2]  M E BITTERMAN,et al.  Probability-Learning by the Turtle , 1965, Science.

[3]  Robert A Jacobs,et al.  Bayesian integration of visual and auditory signals for spatial localization. , 2003, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[4]  T. Valone,et al.  Potential disadvantages of using socially acquired information. , 2002, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[5]  I. Couzin,et al.  Self-Organization and Collective Behavior in Vertebrates , 2003 .

[6]  Marta B Manser,et al.  Moving calls: a vocal mechanism underlying quorum decisions in cohesive groups , 2011, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[7]  Jean Clobert,et al.  The role of public information in ecology and conservation: an emphasis on inadvertent social information , 2010, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[8]  Thomas J. Valone,et al.  Are animals capable of Bayesian updating? An empirical review , 2006 .

[9]  J. Gold,et al.  Neural computations that underlie decisions about sensory stimuli , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[10]  R. Menzel,et al.  Memory dynamics and foraging strategies of honeybees , 2004, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[11]  D. Sumpter,et al.  Consensus Decision Making by Fish , 2008, Current Biology.

[12]  Charles Kemp,et al.  How to Grow a Mind: Statistics, Structure, and Abstraction , 2011, Science.

[13]  I. Couzin,et al.  Inferring the structure and dynamics of interactions in schooling fish , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  G. Schwarz Estimating the Dimension of a Model , 1978 .

[15]  Paul J. B. Hart,et al.  Quorum decision-making facilitates information transfer in fish shoals , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  E. S. Pearson,et al.  On the Problem of the Most Efficient Tests of Statistical Hypotheses , 1933 .

[17]  Luc-Alain Giraldeau,et al.  Vicarious sampling: the use of personal and public information by starlings foraging in a simple patchy environment , 1996, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[18]  I. Couzin,et al.  Effective leadership and decision-making in animal groups on the move , 2005, Nature.

[19]  Aaron C. Courville,et al.  Bayesian theories of conditioning in a changing world , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[20]  S. L. Lima,et al.  Collective detection of predatory attack by social foragers: fraught with ambiguity? , 1995, Animal Behaviour.

[21]  J. Saunders,et al.  Do humans optimally integrate stereo and texture information for judgments of surface slant? , 2003, Vision Research.

[22]  I. Couzin,et al.  Collective memory and spatial sorting in animal groups. , 2002, Journal of theoretical biology.

[23]  S. Fretwell,et al.  On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds , 1969 .

[24]  Nir Vulkan An Economist's Perspective on Probability Matching , 2000 .

[25]  S. D. Eneubourg Pheromone trail decay rates on different substrates in the Pharaoh’s ant, Monomorium pharaonis , 2003 .

[26]  Konrad Paul Kording,et al.  Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning , 2004, Nature.

[27]  J. Gold,et al.  The neural basis of decision making. , 2007, Annual review of neuroscience.

[28]  G. C. Tiao,et al.  Bayesian inference in statistical analysis , 1973 .

[29]  R J HERRNSTEIN,et al.  Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. , 1961, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[30]  M. E. Bitterman,et al.  Probability-Matching in the Fish , 1961 .

[31]  L. Giraldeau,et al.  Persuasive companions can be wrong: the use of misleading social information in nutmeg mannikins , 2009 .

[32]  William A Link,et al.  Model weights and the foundations of multimodel inference. , 2006, Ecology.

[33]  I. Coolen,et al.  Species difference in adaptive use of public information in sticklebacks , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[34]  Thomas J Valone,et al.  Public information for the assessment of quality: a widespread social phenomenon. , 2002, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[35]  W. Gaissmaier,et al.  The smart potential behind probability matching , 2008, Cognition.

[36]  Kevin N Laland,et al.  Nine-spined sticklebacks exploit the most reliable source when public and private information conflict , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[37]  C. Clark,et al.  The evolutionary advantages of group foraging , 1986 .

[38]  Konrad Paul Kording,et al.  Review TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.10 No.7 July 2006 Special Issue: Probabilistic models of cognition Bayesian decision theory in sensorimotor control , 2022 .

[39]  R. Jacobs,et al.  Optimal integration of texture and motion cues to depth , 1999, Vision Research.

[40]  Jean Clobert,et al.  Public Information and Breeding Habitat Selection in a Wild Bird Population , 2002, Science.

[41]  Ola Olsson,et al.  Bayes' theorem and its applications in animal behaviour , 2006 .

[42]  D. Sumpter The principles of collective animal behaviour , 2006, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[43]  Craig W. Benkman,et al.  The use and misuse of public information by foraging red crossbills , 1999 .

[44]  P.N.J. Mackintosh Adaptive Behavior and Learning, J.E.R. Staddon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1984), xiii, +555. Price £30.00 hardback, £10.95 paperback , 1984 .

[45]  M. Ernst,et al.  Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion , 2002, Nature.

[46]  D. Burr,et al.  The Ventriloquist Effect Results from Near-Optimal Bimodal Integration , 2004, Current Biology.

[47]  I. Couzin Collective cognition in animal groups , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[48]  Richard H. Wagner,et al.  A taxonomy of biological information , 2010 .

[49]  T. Valone Group foraging, public information, and patch estimation , 1989 .

[50]  Thierry Boulinier,et al.  The use of conspecific reproductive success for breeding patch selection in terrestrial migratory species , 1997, Evolutionary Ecology.

[51]  J. Biernaskie,et al.  Bumblebees Learn to Forage like Bayesians , 2009, The American Naturalist.

[52]  A. Houston,et al.  Switching between resources and the ideal free distribution , 1987, Animal Behaviour.

[53]  Nordell,et al.  Mate choice copying as public information , 1998 .

[54]  G D Ruxton,et al.  Modelling antipredator vigilance and flight response in group foragers when warning signals are ambiguous. , 2001, Journal of theoretical biology.

[55]  E. T. Jaynes,et al.  Probability Theory as Logic , 1990 .

[56]  E. S. Pearson,et al.  On the Problem of the Most Efficient Tests of Statistical Hypotheses , 1933 .

[57]  Tim Kovacs,et al.  On optimal decision-making in brains and social insect colonies , 2009, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[58]  Ulrik R. Beierholm,et al.  Probability Matching as a Computational Strategy Used in Perception , 2010, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[59]  J. Alonso,et al.  Patch use in cranes: a field test of optimal foraging predictions , 1995, Animal Behaviour.

[60]  Sasha R. X. Dall,et al.  Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology. , 2005, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[61]  A. Oaten,et al.  Optimal foraging in patches: a case for stochasticity. , 1977, Theoretical population biology.

[62]  Ernst Mach,et al.  Contributions to the Analysis of the Sensations , 1998 .

[63]  Guy Cowlishaw,et al.  When to use social information: the advantage of large group size in individual decision making , 2007, Biology Letters.

[64]  Edwin Thompson Jaynes,et al.  Probability theory , 2003 .

[65]  J. Kruschke Locally Bayesian learning with applications to retrospective revaluation and highlighting. , 2006, Psychological review.

[66]  Jennifer J. Templeton,et al.  Patch assessment in foraging flocks of European starlings: evidence for the use of public information , 1995 .

[67]  D. Sumpter,et al.  Fast and accurate decisions through collective vigilance in fish shoals , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.