Cited by 2,103Team Dynamics and PerformanceGame Theory and Voting SystemsDistributed Control Multi-Agent Systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers

Open access
Hong, Lu, Page, Scott E.·2004·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

We introduce a general framework for modeling functionally diverse problem-solving agents. In this framework, problem-solving agents possess representations of problems and algorithms that they use to locate solutions. We use this framework to establish a result relevant to group composition. We find that when selecting a problem-solving team from a diverse population of intelligent agents, a team of randomly selected agents outperforms a team comprised of the best-performing agents. This result relies on the intuition that, as the initial pool of problem solvers becomes large, the best-performing agents necessarily become similar in the space of problem solvers. Their relatively greater ability is more than offset by their lack of problem-solving diversity.

Overview

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 · 10.1073/pnas.0403723101

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 10 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Watson, W., Kumar, K. & Michaelsen, L. (1993) Acad. Manage. J. 36, 590-602. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 1,000

Metadata

Authors
Hong, L., & Page, S. E.
Affiliations
Loyola University Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Hong, Lu
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2004-11-08
Volume
101
Issue
46
Pages
16385-16389
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2158392329
Cited by
2,103
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 168 · 2025: 183 · 2024: 197 · 2023: 215 · 2022: 189 · 2021: 175 · 2020: 157 · 2019: 127 · 2018: 154 · 2017: 84 · 2016: 87 · 2015: 77 · 2014: 63 · 2013: 54 · 2012: 47
FWCI
9.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Distributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
Keywords
group composition, team performance, problem-solving agents, agent selection, problem representation, algorithmic search

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