Effect of Correlations in Swarms on Collective Response

Social interaction increases significantly the performance of a wide range of cooperative systems. However, evidence that natural swarms limit the number of interactions suggests potentially detrimental consequences of excessive interaction. Using a canonical model of collective motion, we find that the collective response to a dynamic localized perturbation–emulating a predator attack–is hindered when the number of interacting neighbors exceeds a certain threshold. Specifically, the effectiveness in avoiding the predator is enhanced by large integrated correlations, which are known to peak at a given level of interagent interaction. From the network-theoretic perspective, we uncover the same interplay between number of connections and effectiveness in group-level response for two distinct decision-making models of distributed consensus operating over a range of static networks. The effect of the number of connections on the collective response critically depends on the dynamics of the perturbation. While adding more connections improves the response to slow perturbations, the opposite is true for fast ones. These results have far-reaching implications for the design of artificial swarms or interaction networks.

[1]  James G. Puckett,et al.  Intrinsic fluctuations and driven response of insect swarms. , 2015, Physical review letters.

[2]  Alessandro Flammini,et al.  Optimal network clustering for information diffusion , 2014, Physical review letters.

[3]  K. Khunti,et al.  Methods Used in Economic Evaluations of Chronic Kidney Disease Testing — A Systematic Review , 2015, PloS one.

[4]  Jacques Gautrais,et al.  Imitation Combined with a Characteristic Stimulus Duration Results in Robust Collective Decision-Making , 2015, PloS one.

[5]  Magnus Egerstedt,et al.  Manipulability of leader-follower networks with the rigid-link approximation , 2014, Autom..

[6]  Kristina Lerman,et al.  The Simple Rules of Social Contagion , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[7]  Ofer Feinerman,et al.  Ant groups optimally amplify the effect of transiently informed individuals , 2015, Nature Communications.

[8]  David J. T. Sumpter,et al.  Initiation and spread of escape waves within animal groups , 2014, Royal Society Open Science.

[9]  Roland Bouffanais,et al.  Controllability of a swarm of topologically interacting autonomous agents , 2013 .

[10]  Jie Lin,et al.  Coordination of groups of mobile autonomous agents using nearest neighbor rules , 2003, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control..

[11]  Damon Centola,et al.  The Spread of Behavior in an Online Social Network Experiment , 2010, Science.

[12]  Guy Theraulaz,et al.  Collective response to perturbations in a data-driven fish school model , 2014, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[13]  David A. Siegel Social Networks and Collective Action , 2009 .

[14]  Thierry Mora,et al.  Local equilibrium in bird flocks , 2015, Nature Physics.

[15]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[16]  Radhika Nagpal,et al.  Programmable self-assembly in a thousand-robot swarm , 2014, Science.

[17]  Charlotte K. Hemelrijk,et al.  Scale-Free Correlations, Influential Neighbours and Speed Control in Flocks of Birds , 2015 .

[18]  Andrea Cavagna,et al.  Information transfer and behavioural inertia in starling flocks , 2013, Nature Physics.

[19]  Yilun Shang,et al.  Influence of the number of topologically interacting neighbors on swarm dynamics , 2014, Scientific Reports.

[20]  Anna Scaglione,et al.  Demand-Side Management in the Smart Grid: Information Processing for the Power Switch , 2012, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine.

[21]  A. Czirók,et al.  Collective Motion , 1999, physics/9902023.

[22]  Andrea Cavagna,et al.  Collective Behaviour without Collective Order in Wild Swarms of Midges , 2013, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[23]  Nicholas A. Christakis,et al.  Cooperative behavior cascades in human social networks , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  Albert B. Kao,et al.  Decision accuracy in complex environments is often maximized by small group sizes , 2014, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[25]  Maximino Aldana,et al.  Phase transitions in scale-free neural networks: departure from the standard mean-field universality class. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[26]  Danielle S. Bassett,et al.  Collective Decision Dynamics in the Presence of External Drivers , 2012, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[27]  William L. Romey,et al.  Flash Expansion Threshold in Whirligig Swarms , 2015, PloS one.

[28]  Albert Díaz-Guilera,et al.  Consensus in networks of mobile communicating agents. , 2011, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[29]  Reza Olfati-Saber,et al.  Consensus and Cooperation in Networked Multi-Agent Systems , 2007, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[30]  Colin R. Twomey,et al.  Visual sensory networks and effective information transfer in animal groups , 2013, Current Biology.

[31]  Mark S. Granovetter Threshold Models of Collective Behavior , 1978, American Journal of Sociology.

[32]  A. Cavagna,et al.  Finite-size scaling as a way to probe near-criticality in natural swarms. , 2014, Physical review letters.

[33]  D. Helbing,et al.  The Walking Behaviour of Pedestrian Social Groups and Its Impact on Crowd Dynamics , 2010, PloS one.

[34]  Roland Bouffanais,et al.  Resilience and Controllability of Dynamic Collective Behaviors , 2013, PloS one.

[35]  G. Parisi,et al.  Scale-free correlations in starling flocks , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[36]  M. Macy,et al.  Complex Contagions and the Weakness of Long Ties1 , 2007, American Journal of Sociology.

[37]  R. R. Krausz Living in Groups , 2013 .

[38]  H. Chaté,et al.  Relevance of metric-free interactions in flocking phenomena. , 2010, Physical review letters.

[39]  Colin R. Twomey,et al.  Revealing the hidden networks of interaction in mobile animal groups allows prediction of complex behavioral contagion , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[40]  Naomi Ehrich Leonard,et al.  Starling Flock Networks Manage Uncertainty in Consensus at Low Cost , 2013, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[41]  D. Gordon,et al.  What is the function of encounter patterns in ant colonies? , 1993, Animal Behaviour.

[42]  Yilun Shang,et al.  Consensus reaching in swarms ruled by a hybrid metric-topological distance , 2014, The European Physical Journal B.

[43]  Vicsek,et al.  Novel type of phase transition in a system of self-driven particles. , 1995, Physical review letters.

[44]  Mark S. Granovetter,et al.  Threshold models of diffusion and collective behavior , 1983 .

[45]  David J. T. Sumpter,et al.  Information transfer in moving animal groups , 2008, Theory in Biosciences.

[46]  Gerardo Iñiguez,et al.  Complex contagion process in spreading of online innovation , 2014, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[47]  G. Parisi,et al.  Interaction ruling animal collective behavior depends on topological rather than metric distance: Evidence from a field study , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[48]  Simon A Levin,et al.  Social information use and the evolution of unresponsiveness in collective systems , 2015, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[49]  Roland Bouffanais,et al.  Interplay between signaling network design and swarm dynamics , 2016, Network Science.

[50]  Johan Driesen,et al.  Multiagent Charging of Electric Vehicles Respecting Distribution Transformer Loading and Voltage Limits , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid.