pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.03061 · v1 · pith:RPDZSOTTnew · submitted 2019-07-06 · 🧬 q-bio.PE · math.DS

Social inhibition maintains adaptivity and consensus of foraging honeybee swarms in dynamic environments

Subekshya Bidari , Orit Peleg , Zachary P Kilpatrick This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 01:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.PE math.DS
keywords honeybee foragingsocial inhibitioncollective decision makingdynamic environmentsadaptivityconsensusmathematical modelnutrition yield
0
0 comments X

The pith

Inhibitory social interactions among honeybees improve group foraging yield by raising both the speed of adaptation and the level of consensus when food sources switch in quality.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Honeybee swarms forage from feeders whose quality changes over time and must balance private observations with neighbor opinions to maintain nutrition yield. A mathematical model of the swarm demonstrates that social inhibition raises yield from a single feeder when switches occur rapidly or quality differences are small. For multiple feeders the strongest benefit comes from direct switching, in which bees at poorer sites persuade others to abandon them. Linearization of the model shows these interactions simultaneously increase the fraction of the swarm at the best feeder and the rate at which bees arrive there. The framework thereby identifies which inhibition rules support effective collective foraging under temporal variation.

Core claim

The central claim is that social inhibition maintains both adaptivity and consensus in honeybee swarms foraging in dynamic environments. Individual observations and social interactions together determine nutrition yield; social interactions improve performance from a single feeder under fast temporal switching or low feeder quality, while direct switching is the most effective mechanism when the swarm must select among multiple feeders. Linearization analysis establishes that effective social interactions raise both the equilibrium fraction of bees at the correct feeder (consensus) and the rate at which that equilibrium is approached (adaptivity).

What carries the argument

A mathematical swarm model in which individual observations and social inhibition terms jointly determine the fraction of bees at each feeder, with linearization used to extract consensus level and adaptation rate.

If this is right

  • Social interactions raise nutrition yield from a single feeder when temporal switching is fast or quality differences are low.
  • Direct switching, in which bees at inferior feeders flip the opinions of nestmates, produces the largest gain when multiple feeders are available.
  • Effective social interactions increase the equilibrium fraction of the swarm at the best feeder.
  • Effective social interactions also increase the rate at which bees reach the best feeder.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same model structure could be used to test whether other social insects achieve comparable gains through analogous inhibition rules.
  • If direct switching proves dominant in real colonies, targeted disruption of that interaction could be tested as a way to reduce foraging efficiency under rapid environmental change.
  • The linearization approach supplies quantitative predictions that could be checked by tracking individual bee trajectories in controlled arenas with switching feeders.

Load-bearing premise

The specific observation and inhibition rules chosen in the model match the information flow and decision rules used by real honeybees.

What would settle it

An experiment that measures the fraction of bees at the highest-yield feeder and the time to reach that fraction in live swarms under temporally switching feeders, comparing colonies allowed direct switching interactions against colonies prevented from such interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.03061 by Orit Peleg, Subekshya Bidari, Zachary P Kilpatrick.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) Schematic of swarm foraging model with two feeding sites (e.g., flowers or feeder boxes), Eq. (1). Bees move along arrows between different opinions (uncommitted or committed); arrow labels indicate interactions that provoke those opinion switches. (b) Example feeder quality time series αA,B(t), which switch with period T minutes. abandon a feeder3 ; and S(x, y) is a nonlinear function describing inhib… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Swarm dynamics in the single feeding site model. (a) Schematic of swarm foraging single site, Eq. (3). (b) Food availability α(t) switches on ¯α and off 0 at time intervals T (min). (c) Phase line plots: Equilibria of Eq. (3) within each food quality epoch are marked as dots. Dynamic increases/decreases of the foraging fraction are indicated by right/left arrows. Bees forage when food becomes available (α … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Optimal reward rates across forms of social inhibition. (a) Reward rate (RR) increases as the interval between feeder quality switches T increases for all social inhibition strategies. Across most param￾eter sets, direct switching is the most robust strategy, yielding the highest RRs. In rapid environments, self-inhibition can be slightly better. (b) For T = 5 min fixed and maximal food quality ¯α varied, … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Tuning (a) recruitment β; (b) abandonment γ; and (c) social inhibition ρ to maximize RR in the direct switching model (Fig. 3a). See Appendix B.3 for methods. (a) The best tunings of recruitment vary considerably for rapid (low T) and low quality ¯α environments, but recruitment appears to be less essential for slow (high T) and high quality ¯α environments. (b) The rate of abandonment that best suits the … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Foraging yield varies with consensus (¯u) and adaptivity (λ) when T = 100 min. Tradeoff between consensus and adaptivity in the linearized model for (b) abandonment, γ between [0, 20] min−1 (c) social inhibition, ρ between [0, 20] min−1 . Switching time T = 100 min, food quality ¯α = 2, and other parameters are fixed at their optimal level. 3 Discussion Foraging animals constantly encounter temporal an… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Reward rate, Eq. (4), maximizing values of abandonment (γ) parameter for a given food quality (α) and switching period (T) in the single feeder model. Swarm can maximize the reward J by calibrating the level of abandonment with the switching rate and feeder quality, discounting faster as the environment changes more quickly. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Tuning (a) recruitment β; (b) abandonment γ; and (c) social inhibition ρ to maximize the reward rate (RR), Eq. (2) in the discriminate stop signaling model. (a) Recruitment and (b) abandonment should be made weak whereas (c) social inhibition should be made strong except for in slow (high T) and high quality ¯α environments. a. b. c. uU ￾ Abandonment: ￾! Stop signal: uB uU ⇢/2 ￾! uU ⇢/2 uA ￾! 10 1 0.1 0.01… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Tuning (a) recruitment β; (b) abandonemnt γ; and (c) social inhibition ρ to maximize the reward rate (RR) in the indiscriminate stop signaling model. The best tunings of parameters vary considerably with the recruitment being mostly low. There is no clear preferred interaction profile for maximizing RR across environments (¯α, T) in the case of indiscriminate stop signaling ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Linear approximation of the switch induced periodic solutions is generally good in (a) the single feeder choice model ( ¯α = 2, T = 50 min, γ = 2.8, and β = 3) and (b) two feeder choice model (direct switching here with model parameters ¯α = 2, T = 100 min, γ = .01, β = 0.1 and ρ = 10). (c) However, when studying the discriminate stop-signaling model close to the saddle-node bifurcation, nonlinear effects… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Consensus ¯u and adaptivity λ computed as described in Sections B.2 and B.4, as abandonment rate γ is increased between [0, 20] min−1 (along the direction of the arrows) for all models. Other parameters are fixed at their optimum level. C.3 Accuracy of linear approximations of periodic solutions Linear approximations of the periodic solutions to the single feeder Eq. (3) and two feeder Eq. (1) match the e… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Consensus ¯u and adaptivity λ computed as described in Sections B.2 and B.4, as social inhibition strength ρ is increased between [0, 20] min−1 (along the direction of the arrows) for all models. Other parameters are fixed at their optimal level. example Fig. 10a,b). If the system not poised close to a bifurcation, the dynamics between switches roughly linearly decays to the stable equilibrium. However, i… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Mean and standard deviation of stochastic simulations of the single feeder Eq. (17) and two feeder Eq. (18) in the case of temporal switching of feeder quality occurring at T = 50 min intervals. In the single feeder model for (a) N = 100 and (b) N = 1000, near periodic switching of the mean trajectory of simulations (lines) is not far from the behavior of the mean field system Eq. (3). Other model paramet… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

To effectively forage in natural environments, organisms must adapt to changes in the quality and yield of food sources across multiple timescales. Individuals foraging in groups act based on both their private observations and the opinions of their neighbors. How do these information sources interact in changing environments? We address this problem in the context of honeybee swarms, showing inhibitory social interactions help maintain adaptivity and consensus needed for effective foraging. Individual and social interactions of a mathematical swarm model shape the nutrition yield of a group foraging from feeders with temporally switching food quality. Social interactions improve foraging from a single feeder if temporal switching is fast or feeder quality is low. When the swarm chooses from multiple feeders, the most effective form of social interaction is direct switching, whereby bees flip the opinion of nestmates foraging at lower yielding feeders. Model linearization shows that effective social interactions increase the fraction of the swarm at the correct feeder (consensus) and the rate at which bees reach that feeder (adaptivity). Our mathematical framework allows us to compare a suite of social inhibition mechanisms, suggesting experimental protocols for revealing effective swarm foraging strategies in dynamic environments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper develops a mathematical model of honeybee swarms foraging from feeders whose quality switches over time. Individual observation and several forms of social inhibition (including direct switching) are incorporated into the governing equations; linearization and numerical simulations then show that these interactions raise the equilibrium fraction of the swarm at the higher-yielding feeder (consensus) and the rate at which the swarm tracks quality changes (adaptivity), with the largest gains occurring under fast switching or low feeder quality. When multiple feeders are present, direct switching is ranked as the most effective mechanism. The framework is used to compare interaction rules and to propose experimental tests.

Significance. If the model results hold under the stated assumptions, the work supplies an analytically tractable framework for ranking social-inhibition mechanisms in dynamic environments and isolates the conditions (fast switching, low quality) under which inhibition is most beneficial. The explicit linearization that yields closed-form expressions for consensus fraction and adaptation rate is a clear methodological strength, as is the systematic comparison across interaction kernels.

major comments (2)
  1. [Model-definition section] Model-definition section: the functional forms chosen for the social-inhibition kernels (including the dependence of inhibition strength on feeder quality) are introduced by assertion rather than by calibration to measured recruitment or stop-signaling rates; because these kernels directly determine both the ranking of mechanisms and the predicted yield gains, the absence of either empirical grounding or a sensitivity analysis to alternative kernels makes the biological interpretation of the headline results load-bearing on an untested modeling choice.
  2. [Linearization paragraph] Linearization paragraph: the abstract and main text state that linearization produces the claimed increases in consensus and adaptivity, yet the explicit Jacobian, the resulting eigenvalues, and the numerical values of the parameters at which the stability or speed-up occurs are not displayed; without these the reader cannot verify the conditions (fast switching, low quality) under which the analytic result holds or check for post-hoc parameter selection.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would be strengthened by a single sentence that points the reader to the specific equations or supplementary material containing the linearized system.
  2. Notation for the different inhibition mechanisms should be made consistent between the text, equations, and any summary table.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate where revisions will be made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Model-definition section] Model-definition section: the functional forms chosen for the social-inhibition kernels (including the dependence of inhibition strength on feeder quality) are introduced by assertion rather than by calibration to measured recruitment or stop-signaling rates; because these kernels directly determine both the ranking of mechanisms and the predicted yield gains, the absence of either empirical grounding or a sensitivity analysis to alternative kernels makes the biological interpretation of the headline results load-bearing on an untested modeling choice.

    Authors: We agree that the kernels were selected to represent distinct biological mechanisms (direct switching, stop-signaling, etc.) drawn from the honeybee literature rather than fitted to new data. To strengthen the results, the revised manuscript will include a sensitivity analysis across a range of alternative functional forms and parameter values for the inhibition kernels. This will demonstrate the robustness of the ranking of mechanisms and the conditions under which inhibition is most beneficial. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Linearization paragraph] Linearization paragraph: the abstract and main text state that linearization produces the claimed increases in consensus and adaptivity, yet the explicit Jacobian, the resulting eigenvalues, and the numerical values of the parameters at which the stability or speed-up occurs are not displayed; without these the reader cannot verify the conditions (fast switching, low quality) under which the analytic result holds or check for post-hoc parameter selection.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the explicit Jacobian matrix and eigenvalue expressions were omitted from the main text. In the revision we will add these derivations (including the closed-form expressions for consensus fraction and adaptation rate) either in the main text or as a dedicated supplementary section, together with the specific parameter thresholds at which the speed-up occurs. This will allow direct verification of the analytic claims. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation proceeds from model equations via linearization without reduction to inputs

full rationale

The paper defines a mathematical model of foraging with explicit interaction terms, then uses linearization of the governing equations to obtain expressions for consensus fraction and adaptation rate. These quantities are computed directly from the model dynamics rather than fitted to data or imported via self-citation. No step equates a prediction to a fitted parameter by construction, and the provided text contains no load-bearing self-citations or ansatzes smuggled from prior author work. The mapping from model rules to real bees is an external assumption, not a circularity within the derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about how bees combine private observations with social signals; no free parameters or invented entities are mentioned in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Bees act based on both their private observations and the opinions of their neighbors.
    Stated explicitly in the abstract as the premise for the swarm model.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5734 in / 1233 out tokens · 21606 ms · 2026-05-25T01:54:36.732149+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A modelling framework for understanding social insect foraging

    D Sumpter and Stephen Pratt. A modelling framework for understanding social insect foraging. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology , 53(3):131–144, 2003

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Group decision making in nest-site selection among social insects

    P Kirk Visscher. Group decision making in nest-site selection among social insects. Annual Review of Entomology, 52(1):255–275, 2007. 11

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    The Superorganism: The Beauty, Elegance, and Strangeness of Insect Societies

    Bert Holldobler and E O Wilson. The Superorganism: The Beauty, Elegance, and Strangeness of Insect Societies. W. W. Norton & Company; 1 edition, 2009

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Quorum decision-making facilitates information transfer in fish shoals

    Ashley JW Ward, David JT Sumpter, Iain D Couzin, Paul JB Hart, and Jens Krause. Quorum decision-making facilitates information transfer in fish shoals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(19):6948–6953, 2008

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Collegial decision making based on social amplification leads to optimal group formation

    Jean-Marc Am´ e, Jos´ e Halloy, Colette Rivault, Claire Detrain, and Jean Louis Deneubourg. Collegial decision making based on social amplification leads to optimal group formation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 103(15):5835–5840, 2006

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Honeybee Democracy

    Thomas D Seeley. Honeybee Democracy. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2010

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Dancing bees tune both duration and rate of waggle-run production in relation to nectar-source profitability

    Thomas D Seeley, Alexander S Mikheyev, and Gary J Pagano. Dancing bees tune both duration and rate of waggle-run production in relation to nectar-source profitability. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 186(9):813–819, 2000

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    A negative feedback signal that is triggered by peril curbs honey bee recruitment

    James C Nieh. A negative feedback signal that is triggered by peril curbs honey bee recruitment. Current Biology, 20(4):310–315, 2010

    work page 2010

  9. [9]

    Stop signals pro- vide cross inhibition in collective decision-making by honeybee swarms

    TD Seeley, PK Visscher, T Schlegel, PM Hogan, NR Franks, and JA Marshall. Stop signals pro- vide cross inhibition in collective decision-making by honeybee swarms. Science (New York, NY) , 335(6064):108, 2012

    work page 2012

  10. [10]

    A mechanism for value-sensitive decision-making

    Darren Pais, Patrick M Hogan, Thomas Schlegel, Nigel R Franks, Naomi E Leonard, and James AR Marshall. A mechanism for value-sensitive decision-making. PloS one , 8(9):e73216, 2013

    work page 2013

  11. [11]

    Positive and negative feedback: striking a balance between necessary antagonists

    Olivier Cinquin and Jacques Demongeot. Positive and negative feedback: striking a balance between necessary antagonists. Journal of theoretical biology , 216(2):229–241, 2002

    work page 2002

  12. [12]

    The biological principles of swarm intelligence

    Simon Garnier, Jacques Gautrais, and Guy Theraulaz. The biological principles of swarm intelligence. Swarm intelligence , 1(1):3–31, 2007

    work page 2007

  13. [13]

    Patterns of individual variability in floral resources

    Leslie Real and Beverly J Rathcke. Patterns of individual variability in floral resources. Ecology, 69(3):728–735, 1988

    work page 1988

  14. [14]

    Division of labor in a dynamic environment: response by honeybees (apis mellifera) to graded changes in colony pollen stores

    Jennifer H Fewell and Susan M Bertram. Division of labor in a dynamic environment: response by honeybees (apis mellifera) to graded changes in colony pollen stores. Behavioral ecology and sociobiology, 46(3):171–179, 1999

    work page 1999

  15. [15]

    Collective decision-making in honey bees: how colonies choose among nectar sources

    Thomas D Seeley, Scott Camazine, and James Sneyd. Collective decision-making in honey bees: how colonies choose among nectar sources. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology , 28(4):277–290, 1991

    work page 1991

  16. [16]

    Influence of gene action across different time scales on behavior

    Y Ben-Shahar, A Robichon, MB Sokolowski, and GE Robinson. Influence of gene action across different time scales on behavior. Science, 296(5568):741–744, 2002

    work page 2002

  17. [17]

    Automated monitoring reveals extreme interindividual variation and plasticity in honeybee foraging activity levels

    Paul Tenczar, Claudia C Lutz, Vikyath D Rao, Nigel Goldenfeld, and Gene E Robinson. Automated monitoring reveals extreme interindividual variation and plasticity in honeybee foraging activity levels. Animal Behaviour, 95:41–48, 2014

    work page 2014

  18. [18]

    Why do honey bees dance? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 55(4):395–401, 2004

    Anna Dornhaus and Lars Chittka. Why do honey bees dance? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 55(4):395–401, 2004

    work page 2004

  19. [19]

    How dancing honey bees keep track of changes: the role of inspector bees

    Boris Granovskiy, Tanya Latty, Michael Duncan, David JT Sumpter, and Madeleine Beekman. How dancing honey bees keep track of changes: the role of inspector bees. Behavioral Ecology, 23(3):588– 596, 2012. 12

    work page 2012

  20. [20]

    The anti-waggle dance: use of the stop signal as negative feedback

    Parry M Kietzman and P Kirk Visscher. The anti-waggle dance: use of the stop signal as negative feedback. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution , 3:14, 2015

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    Multiagent decision- making dynamics inspired by honeybees

    Rebecca Gray, Alessio Franci, Vaibhav Srivastava, and Naomi Ehrich Leonard. Multiagent decision- making dynamics inspired by honeybees. IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems , 5(2):793–806, 2018

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    Bayes’ theorem and its applications in animal behaviour

    John M McNamara, Richard F Green, and Ola Olsson. Bayes’ theorem and its applications in animal behaviour. Oikos, 112(2):243–251, 2006

    work page 2006

  23. [23]

    Normative evidence accumulation in unpredictable environments

    Christopher M Glaze, Joseph W Kable, and Joshua I Gold. Normative evidence accumulation in unpredictable environments. Elife, 4:e08825, 2015

    work page 2015

  24. [24]

    dance language

    RI’Anson Price, N Dulex, N Vial, C Vincent, and C Gr¨ uter. Honeybees forage more successfully without the “dance language” in challenging environments. Science advances, 5(2):eaat0450, 2019

    work page 2019

  25. [25]

    Deciding on a new home: how do honeybees agree? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    NF Britton, NR Franks, SC Pratt, and TD Seeley. Deciding on a new home: how do honeybees agree? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences , 269(1498):1383– 1388, 2002

    work page 2002

  26. [26]

    On optimal decision-making in brains and social insect colonies

    James AR Marshall, Rafal Bogacz, Anna Dornhaus, Robert Planqu´ e, Tim Kovacs, and Nigel R Franks. On optimal decision-making in brains and social insect colonies. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 6(40):1065–1074, 2009

    work page 2009

  27. [27]

    Stochastic processes in physics and chemistry

    Nicolaas Godfried Van Kampen. Stochastic processes in physics and chemistry . Elsevier, 1992

    work page 1992

  28. [28]

    Consensus decision making in animals

    Larissa Conradt and Timothy J Roper. Consensus decision making in animals. Trends in ecology & evolution, 20(8):449–456, 2005

    work page 2005

  29. [29]

    House-hunting by honey bee swarms: collective decisions and individual behaviors

    Scott Camazine, PK Visscher, Jennifer Finley, and RS Vetter. House-hunting by honey bee swarms: collective decisions and individual behaviors. Insectes Sociaux, 46(4):348–360, 1999

    work page 1999

  30. [30]

    In- formation flow, opinion polling and collective intelligence in house–hunting social insects

    Nigel R Franks, Stephen C Pratt, Eamonn B Mallon, Nicholas F Britton, and David JT Sumpter. In- formation flow, opinion polling and collective intelligence in house–hunting social insects. Philosophi- cal Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences , 357(1427):1567–1583, 2002

    work page 2002

  31. [31]

    The stop signal of honey bees: reconsidering its message

    James C Nieh. The stop signal of honey bees: reconsidering its message. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 33(1):51–56, 1993

    work page 1993

  32. [32]

    The brief piping signal of the honey bee: begging call or stop signal? Ethology, 111(8):775–784, 2005

    Kristen A Pastor and Thomas D Seeley. The brief piping signal of the honey bee: begging call or stop signal? Ethology, 111(8):775–784, 2005

    work page 2005

  33. [33]

    Honey bee inhibitory signaling is tuned to threat severity and can act as a colony alarm signal

    Ken Tan, Shihao Dong, Xinyu Li, Xiwen Liu, Chao Wang, Jianjun Li, and James C Nieh. Honey bee inhibitory signaling is tuned to threat severity and can act as a colony alarm signal. PLoS biology, 14(3):e1002423, 2016

    work page 2016

  34. [34]

    A recurrent network mechanism of time integration in per- ceptual decisions

    Kong-Fatt Wong and Xiao-Jing Wang. A recurrent network mechanism of time integration in per- ceptual decisions. Journal of Neuroscience , 26(4):1314–1328, 2006

    work page 2006

  35. [35]

    Honeybees tune excitatory and inhibitory recruitment signalling to resource value and predation risk

    Ralph T Jack-McCollough and James C Nieh. Honeybees tune excitatory and inhibitory recruitment signalling to resource value and predation risk. Animal behaviour, 110:9–17, 2015

    work page 2015

  36. [36]

    Foraging theory upscaled: the behavioural ecology of herbivore movement

    N Owen-Smith, JM Fryxell, and EH Merrill. Foraging theory upscaled: the behavioural ecology of herbivore movement. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 365(1550):2267–2278, 2010. 13

    work page 2010

  37. [37]

    Negative feedback enables fast and flexible collective decision- making in ants

    Christoph Grueter, Roger Schuerch, Tomer J Czaczkes, Keeley Taylor, Thomas Durance, Sam M Jones, and Francis LW Ratnieks. Negative feedback enables fast and flexible collective decision- making in ants. PLoS One, 7(9):e44501, 2012

    work page 2012

  38. [38]

    Synergy between social and private information increases foraging efficiency in ants

    Tomer J Czaczkes, Christoph Gr¨ uter, Sam M Jones, and Francis LW Ratnieks. Synergy between social and private information increases foraging efficiency in ants. Biology letters , 7(4):521–524, 2011

    work page 2011

  39. [39]

    Social information use and the evolution of unresponsiveness in collective systems

    Colin J Torney, Tommaso Lorenzi, Iain D Couzin, and Simon A Levin. Social information use and the evolution of unresponsiveness in collective systems. Journal of the Royal Society Interface , 12(103):20140893, 2015

    work page 2015

  40. [40]

    Group decisions in humans and animals: a survey

    Larissa Conradt and Christian List. Group decisions in humans and animals: a survey. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 364(1518):719–742, 2008

    work page 2008

  41. [41]

    Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology.Trends in ecology & evolution, 20(4):187– 193, 2005

    Sasha RX Dall, Luc-Alain Giraldeau, Ola Olsson, John M McNamara, and David W Stephens. Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology.Trends in ecology & evolution, 20(4):187– 193, 2005

    work page 2005

  42. [42]

    Consensus decision making by fish

    David JT Sumpter, Jens Krause, Richard James, Iain D Couzin, and Ashley JW Ward. Consensus decision making by fish. Current Biology, 18(22):1773–1777, 2008

    work page 2008

  43. [43]

    Psychophysics: bees trade off foraging speed for accuracy

    Lars Chittka, Adrian G Dyer, Fiola Bock, and Anna Dornhaus. Psychophysics: bees trade off foraging speed for accuracy. Nature, 424(6947):388, 2003

    work page 2003

  44. [44]

    Diversity of speed-accuracy strategies benefits social insects

    James G Burns and Adrian G Dyer. Diversity of speed-accuracy strategies benefits social insects. Current biology, 18(20):R953–R954, 2008

    work page 2008

  45. [45]

    Negative feedback in ants: crowding results in less trail pheromone deposition

    Tomer J Czaczkes, Christoph Gr¨ uter, and Francis LW Ratnieks. Negative feedback in ants: crowding results in less trail pheromone deposition. Journal of the Royal Society Interface , 10(81):20121009, 2013

    work page 2013

  46. [46]

    Insights from insects about adaptive social information use

    Christoph Grueter and Ellouise Leadbeater. Insights from insects about adaptive social information use. Trends in Ecology & Evolution , 29(3):177–184, 2014

    work page 2014

  47. [47]

    The hidden cost of information in collective foraging

    Fran¸ cois-Xavier Dechaume-Moncharmont, Anna Dornhaus, Alasdair I Houston, John M McNamara, Edmund J Collins, and Nigel R Franks. The hidden cost of information in collective foraging. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 272(1573):1689–1695, 2005

    work page 2005

  48. [48]

    Social learning strategies

    Kevin N Laland. Social learning strategies. Animal Learning & Behavior , 32(1):4–14, 2004

    work page 2004

  49. [49]

    The animal mind

    James L Gould and Carol Grant Gould. The animal mind . WH Freeman, New York, 1994

    work page 1994

  50. [50]

    Automated monitoring of behavior reveals bursty interaction patterns and rapid spread- ing dynamics in honeybee social networks

    Tim Gernat, Vikyath D Rao, Martin Middendorf, Harry Dankowicz, Nigel Goldenfeld, and Gene E Robinson. Automated monitoring of behavior reveals bursty interaction patterns and rapid spread- ing dynamics in honeybee social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115(7):1433–1438, 2018

    work page 2018

  51. [51]

    Group versus individual performance: Are n+ 1 heads better than one? Psychological bulletin, 91(3):517, 1982

    Gayle W Hill. Group versus individual performance: Are n+ 1 heads better than one? Psychological bulletin, 91(3):517, 1982

    work page 1982

  52. [52]

    Swarm intelligence in animals and humans

    Jens Krause, Graeme D Ruxton, and Stefan Krause. Swarm intelligence in animals and humans. Trends in ecology & evolution , 25(1):28–34, 2010. 14

    work page 2010

  53. [53]

    Decision accuracy in complex environments is often maximized by small group sizes

    Albert B Kao and Iain D Couzin. Decision accuracy in complex environments is often maximized by small group sizes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 281(1784):20133305, 2014

    work page 2014

  54. [54]

    Stochastic resonance

    Luca Gammaitoni, Peter H¨ anggi, Peter Jung, and Fabio Marchesoni. Stochastic resonance. Reviews of modern physics , 70(1):223, 1998

    work page 1998

  55. [55]

    Noise improves collective decision-making by ants in dynamic environments

    Audrey Dussutour, Madeleine Beekman, Stamatios C Nicolis, and Bernd Meyer. Noise improves collective decision-making by ants in dynamic environments. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences , 276(1677):4353–4361, 2009

    work page 2009

  56. [56]

    Noise-induced bistable states and their mean switching time in foraging colonies

    Tommaso Biancalani, Louise Dyson, and Alan J McKane. Noise-induced bistable states and their mean switching time in foraging colonies. Physical review letters , 112(3):038101, 2014

    work page 2014

  57. [57]

    Piecewise-smooth dynamical systems: theory and applications , volume 163

    Mario Bernardo, Chris Budd, Alan Richard Champneys, and Piotr Kowalczyk. Piecewise-smooth dynamical systems: theory and applications , volume 163. Springer Science & Business Media, 2008

    work page 2008

  58. [58]

    Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos with Student Solutions Manual: With Applica- tions to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering

    Steven H Strogatz. Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos with Student Solutions Manual: With Applica- tions to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering . CRC Press, 2018

    work page 2018

  59. [59]

    Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions

    Daniel T Gillespie. Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions. The journal of physical chemistry, 81(25):2340–2361, 1977. Appendix A Swarm foraging dynamics for a single switching feeder Consider model Eq. (3) for which the food quality α(t) switches between two values α(t) = ¯α and 0 at length T minutes, similar to previous experiments [1...

    work page 1977