Cited by 288Experimental Behavioral Economics StudiesGame Theory and ApplicationsEvolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation

Locally noisy autonomous agents improve global human coordination in network experiments

Open access
Shirado, Hirokazu, Christakis, Nicholas A.·2017·Nature

Abstract

Coordination in groups faces a sub-optimization problem and theory suggests that some randomness may help to achieve global optima. Here we performed experiments involving a networked colour coordination game in which groups of humans interacted with autonomous software agents (known as bots). Subjects (n = 4,000) were embedded in networks (n = 230) of 20 nodes, to which we sometimes added 3 bots. The bots were programmed with varying levels of behavioural randomness and different geodesic locations. We show that bots acting with small levels of random noise and placed in central locations meaningfully improve the collective performance of human groups, accelerating the median solution time by 55.6%. This is especially the case when the coordination problem is hard. Behavioural randomness worked not only by making the task of humans to whom the bots were connected easier, but also by affecting the gameplay of the humans among themselves and hence creating further cascades of benefit in global coordination in these heterogeneous systems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nature22332

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Some A/B tests on beneficial outcomes exist for interface design, content manipulations and connection recommendations, or for achieving collective outcomes with the help of random bots.

    “Some A/B tests on beneficial outcomes exist for interface design (e.g., Zhang et al., 2022), content manipulations and connection recommendations (e.g., Rajkumar et al., 2022), or for achieving collective outcomes with the help of random bots (Shirado & Christakis, 2017).”

    From Social Drivers and Algorithmic Mechanisms on Digital Media. (2024) · cites this paper as Shirado & Christakis, 2017

  • Noise can disrupt gridlock and promote cooperation.

    “Noise can disrupt gridlock and promote cooperation”

    From Stewardship of global collective behavior (2021) · cites this paper as [100]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 29 · Cited by 288

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [1]Hardin G The tragedy of the commons Science 162 1243 1248 1968 5699198
  2. [6]Van Huyck JB Battalio RC Beil RO Tacit coordination games, strategic uncertainty, and coordination failure The American Economic Review 80 234 248 1990

Authors
Shirado, H., & Christakis, N. A.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Christakis, Nicholas A.
Venue
Nature
Published
2017-05
Volume
545
Issue
7654
Pages
370-374
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2614184674
Cited by
288
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 95 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 5
FWCI
47.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (P30AG034420)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Game Theory and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
Keywords
coordination problems, human-bot interaction, autonomous software agents, noise in decision making, network centrality, collective action, solution time
MeSH terms
Color, Cooperative Behavior, Decision Making, Games, Experimental, Goals, Group Processes, Humans, Random Allocation, Software, Time Factors, Survival Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review