Heterogeneity Improves Speed and Accuracy in Social Networks.

How does temporally structured private and social information shape collective decisions? To address this question we consider a network of rational agents who independently accumulate private evidence that triggers a decision upon reaching a threshold. When seen by the whole network, the first agent's choice initiates a wave of new decisions; later decisions have less impact. In heterogeneous networks, first decisions are made quickly by impulsive individuals who need little evidence to make a choice but, even when wrong, can reveal the correct options to nearly everyone else. We conclude that groups comprised of diverse individuals can make more efficient decisions than homogenous ones.

[1]  A. J. King,et al.  Sneeze to leave: African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) use variable quorum thresholds facilitated by sneezes in collective decisions , 2017, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[2]  A. Banerjee,et al.  A Simple Model of Herd Behavior , 1992 .

[3]  Z. Schuss,et al.  Redundancy principle and the role of extreme statistics in molecular and cellular biology. , 2019, Physics of life reviews.

[4]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  The physics of optimal decision making: a formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. , 2006, Psychological review.

[5]  G. G. Stokes.  "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[6]  Katja Lindenberg,et al.  Order statistics for first passage times in one-dimensional diffusion processes , 1996 .

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

[8]  W. Edwards.  The theory of decision making. , 1954, Psychological bulletin.

[9]  Brent Doiron,et al.  Decision Dynamics in Groups with Interacting Members , 2017, SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst..

[10]  J. Herskowitz,et al.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA , 1996, Current Biology.

[11]  Damien R. Farine,et al.  Individual-level personality influences social foraging and collective behaviour in wild birds , 2014, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[12]  Duncan J Watts,et al.  A simple model of global cascades on random networks , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[13]  Alfonso Pérez-Escudero,et al.  Collective Animal Behavior from Bayesian Estimation and Probability Matching , 2011, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[14]  D. Biro,et al.  Personality and the collective: bold homing pigeons occupy higher leadership ranks in flocks , 2018, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[15]  T. Clutton‐Brock,et al.  As dusk falls: collective decisions about the return to sleeping sites in meerkats , 2017, Animal Behaviour.

[16]  Iain D. Couzin,et al.  Consistent Individual Differences Drive Collective Behavior and Group Functioning of Schooling Fish , 2017, Current Biology.

[17]  D. Sumpter,et al.  Quorum Decision-Making in Foraging Fish Shoals , 2012, PloS one.

[18]  BHARGAV KARAMCHED,et al.  Bayesian Evidence Accumulation on Social Networks , 2020, SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst..

[19]  Vaibhav Srivastava,et al.  Collective Decision-Making in Ideal Networks: The Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems.

[20]  Richard P Mann.  Collective decision making by rational individuals , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  J. Krause,et al.  Collective behavior in road crossing pedestrians: the role of social information , 2010 .

[22]  Manuel Mueller-Frank,et al.  A general framework for rational learning in social networks: Framework for rational learning , 2013 .

[23]  Jan Drugowitsch,et al.  Fast and accurate Monte Carlo sampling of first-passage times from Wiener diffusion models , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[24]  I. Couzin,et al.  Shared decision-making drives collective movement in wild baboons , 2015, Science.

[25]  Simon A Levin,et al.  Heterogeneous Preference and Local Nonlinearity in Consensus Decision Making. , 2016, Physical review letters.

[26]  Naomi Ehrich Leonard,et al.  IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems.

[27]  Alan Kirman,et al.  Ants, Rationality, and Recruitment , 1993 .

[28]  Anna Dornhaus,et al.  Speed versus accuracy in collective decision making , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[29]  L. Chalupa,et al.  The visual neurosciences , 2004 .

[30]  R. Mann.  Collective decision-making by rational agents with differing preferences , 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[31]  C. Frith,et al.  Mechanisms of social cognition. , 2012, Annual review of psychology.

[32]  David J. T. Sumpter,et al.  Individual Rules for Trail Pattern Formation in Argentine Ants (Linepithema humile) , 2012, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[33]  K. Shuler,et al.  Order statistics for first passage times in diffusion processes , 1983 .

[34]  A. Pérez-Escudero,et al.  A common rule for decision making in animal collectives across species , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[36]  David Holcman,et al.  Asymptotic Formulas for Extreme Statistics of Escape Times in 1, 2 and 3-Dimensions , 2017, J. Nonlinear Sci..

[37]  Camille Roth,et al.  Connections: An Introduction to the Economics of Networks by Sanjeev Goyal , 2010, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[38]  B. Jha,et al.  108 , 2013, Cytokine.

[39]  David R. Cox,et al.  The Theory of Stochastic Processes , 1967, The Mathematical Gazette.

[40]  N. Newman.  The Visual Neurosciences , 2005 .

[41]  Zachary P. Kilpatrick,et al.  Stochastic models of evidence accumulation in changing environments , 2015, bioRxiv.

[42]  Rubén Moreno-Bote,et al.  Decision Confidence and Uncertainty in Diffusion Models with Partially Correlated Neuronal Integrators , 2010, Neural Computation.