The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evolving the selfish herd: emergence of distinct aggregating strategies in an individual-based model
Abstract
From zebra to starlings, herring and even tadpoles, many creatures move in an organized group. The emergent behaviour arises from simple underlying movement rules, but the evolutionary pressure which favours these rules has not been conclusively identified. Various explanations exist for the advantage to the individual of group formation: reduction of predation risk; increased foraging efficiency or reproductive success. Here, we adopt an individual-based model for group formation and subject it to simulated predation and foraging; the haploid individuals evolve via a genetic algorithm based on their relative success under such pressure. Our work suggests that flock or herd formation is likely to be driven by predator avoidance. Individual fitness in the model is strongly dependent on the presence of other phenotypes, such that two distinct types of evolved group can be produced by the same predation or foraging conditions, each stable against individual mutation. We draw analogies with multiple Nash equilibria theory of iterated games to explain and categorize these behaviours. Our model is sufficient to capture the complex behaviour of dynamic collective groups, yet is flexible enough to manifest evolutionary behaviour.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The human need to belong, think alike, network and protect each other's beliefs and behaviours can be likened to many herd animal behaviours.
“The human need to belong, think alike, network and protect each other’s beliefs and behaviours, can be liked to many herd animal behaviours [82,83].”
From What People Really Think About Safety around Horses: The Relationship between Risk Perception, Values and Safety Behaviours (2020) · cites this paper as [82]
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
Hamilton, W. D. (1971) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-5193(71)90189-5 · Cited by 3,506
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 28
- 10.2331/suisan.48.1081 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.physa.2005.11.041 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF00300351 · DOI
- 10.1016/0040-5809(71)90012-8 · DOI
- 10.1006/jtbi.2002.3065 · DOI
- 10.1006/anbe.1994.1057 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF00397579 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.09.019 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10164-004-0124-4 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0022-5193(05)80681-2 · DOI
- 10.1006/jtbi.2001.2449 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1474-919X.1972.tb00852.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.09.009 · DOI
- 10.1016/0003-3472(95)80109-X · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1006/jtbi.1994.1051 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1474-919X.1971.tb05196.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1974.tb04385.x · DOI
- Oboshi T, 2002, Artificial life, 386
- 10.1126/science.284.5411.99 · DOI
- 10.2307/1543482 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-94-011-1578-0_12 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.11.035 · DOI
- 10.1145/37402.37406 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10710-005-7620-3 · DOI
- 10.1098/rstb.2005.1733 · DOI
- Tien J.H, 2004, Dynamics of fish shoals: identifying key decision rules, Evol. Ecol. Res, 6, 555
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.1226 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.12.025 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Inferring the structure and dynamics of interactions in schooling fish
Katz, Y., Tunstrøm, K., Ioannou, C. C., Huepe, C., & Couzin, I. D. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1107583108 · Cited by 927
Chapman, M., Thomas, M., & Thompson, K. (2020) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani10122222 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Wood, A. J., & Ackland, G. J.
- Affiliations
- School of Physics, SUPA, The University of EdinburghJames Clerk Maxwell Building, The King's Buildings, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ,UK
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2007-05
- Volume
- 274
- Issue
- 1618
- Pages
- 1637-1642
- ISSN
- 0962-8452
- 1471-2954
- Cited by
- 139
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
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