Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 88 references

Collective decision making by embodied neural agents

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Oscillator-driven agents reach collective decisions without explicit communication or preferences.

desk verdict A clean, reproducible proof-of-concept for oscillator-driven collective decisions, but the headline 'balance' claim rests on a constrained ternary scan that needs a robustness check. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18498 v1 pith:F3SORLY3 submitted 2024-11-27 cs.MA q-bio.NC

Nicolas Coucke , Mary Katherine Heinrich , Axel Cleeremans , Marco Dorigo , Guillaume Dumas This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.MAq-bio.NC
keywords collectivedecisionmakingembodiedcognitionHaken-Kelso-Bunzoscillatorsneuraldynamicsmulti-agentsystemssensorimotorcoordinationinter-brainsynchronyconsensus
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to show that collective decision making can emerge from the simplest kind of embodied neural dynamics, without any agent holding a preference or sending a deliberate signal. Ten agents, each controlled by four coupled phase oscillators, move up a stimulus gradient and, through mutual interference of their emitted stimulus, converge on the same food-like source. The central claim is that success requires a balance of three couplings: within the agent's own oscillator network, between agents, and between agent and environment. The authors argue that this balance is visible in neural coordination measures, and that environmental factors such as source quality and initial heading spread set how hard the collective decision is. If right, the work connects coordination dynamics of brains to self-organized multi-agent systems and gives neuro-AI a principled way to build social agents.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the Haken–Kelso–Bunz (HKB) oscillator model, a system of coupled phase oscillators with both in-phase and anti-phase attraction. Each agent has four oscillator nodes—two sensory and two motor—and its steering angle is proportional to the phase difference between the two motor oscillators, closing a sensorimotor loop. Social coupling is implemented by having each agent emit the same exponential-decay stimulus it senses, so the perceived input in Eq. (6) is the environmental gradient plus the summed, distance-decayed emissions of other agents. The argument is carried by showing, in ternary parameter scans, that only an intermediate weighting of internal, environmental, and social influence produces consensus, and by linking that region to phase-locking measures (PLV, KOP, wPLI) that quantify integration and metastability inside and across agents.

What would settle it

Set the social decay rate $\lambda_s$ in Eq. (6) to near zero and to infinity while holding all other parameters fixed; the paper's claim predicts that collective performance collapses at both extremes, with a single intermediate optimum. A simulation or robot experiment that shows consensus persisting across the full range would falsify the balance claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a group of embodied agents whose only control system is a network of HKB phase oscillators can solve a collective binary decision: starting from the same point with different headings, ten agents choose one of two stimulus sources and gather there. The decision is not coded anywhere—there is no preferred-direction parameter, no communication channel, and no rule saying 'follow the majority.' Instead, heading emerges from the phase difference between two motor oscillators, and social influence enters only because each agent emits the same stimulus it senses, so other agents cannot tell social input from environmental input. In the single-agent setting, the same mechanism lets an agent choose between two sources based purely on how its neural dynamics coordinate with the environment. The results show a coherent parameter region, visible in ternary plots, in which internal coupling, environmental sensitivity, and social sensitivity are balanced; in that region movement alignment is high, alignment variability is low, and consensus is achieved. The paper also reports that collective performance falls when social influence is too strong, because agents become saturated with social information and lose adaptive contact with the environment.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that social influence can be modeled as an additive stimulus identical in kind to the environmental stimulus, with a spatial decay rate $\lambda_s$ in Eq. (6) that the paper never fixes numerically.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single agent needs intermediate internal coupling: too little and it is driven by raw sensory input, too much and it ignores the environment; only the metastable middle climbs the gradient.
  • Groups with divergent initial headings can reach consensus with no opinion parameters, purely through embodied sensorimotor coupling.
  • Increasing social influence improves consensus only up to a point; beyond it, agents overshoot, split, or deadlock, so collective behavior is not monotonic in sociability.
  • Environmental difficulty is set by the quality difference between sources and the spread of initial headings; decisions get nonlinearly harder as the second source brightens.
  • Consensus performance is accompanied by measurable movement alignment and by inter-agent neural phase covariance, connecting the model to inter-brain synchrony research.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because social and environmental stimuli are indistinguishable in the model, a natural extension is to test whether agents that can label social input (for example, by giving it a distinct oscillation frequency) show a wider or more robust consensus region; the paper does not simulate this.
  • The balance-of-couplings picture suggests a testable prediction for robot swarms: a controller that tunes internal coupling online in response to social saturation should track the consensus region automatically.
  • The observed overshoot and deadlock regimes could be interpreted as emergent failure modes analogous to milling or group panic; a quantitative comparison with existing swarm or pedestrian models would be a direct next step.
  • If the spatial decay rate of social emission were measured rather than left unspecified, the model's quantitative predictions about consensus regions could be tested directly against physical multi-robot experiments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multi-agent simulation study in which agents are controlled by HKB oscillator networks instead of simple behavioral rules. Each agent has two sensory and two motor oscillators; the motor phase difference controls heading, and in the multi-agent setting agents also emit and perceive a social stimulus that is added to the environmental stimulus. The authors report single-agent results linking gradient-ascent and binary-decision performance to internal coupling and stimulus sensitivity, and multi-agent results in which collective decision performance is displayed in ternary plots as a function of internal, environmental, and social coupling. The main claim is that successful collective decisions require a balance of intra-agent, inter-agent, and agent-environment coupling, and that environmental factors such as stimulus quality ratio and initial heading spread modulate decision difficulty.

Significance. If fully supported, the model would provide a useful bridge between coordination-dynamics neuroscience and embodied collective behavior, and the open-source implementation is a concrete strength. The paper honestly reports deterministic runs and provides a substantial set of behavioral and neural measures (PLV, KOP, wPLI). However, the central 'balance' conclusion is currently supported mainly by a constrained ternary parameterization whose normalization is arbitrary, and the social decay rate needed to reproduce the multi-agent results is never specified. The contribution is therefore valuable but needs additional analysis before the headline claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2.1, Fig. 4] The ternary normalization makes the central 'balance' claim scale-dependent. The caption states that stimulus sensitivity, social sensitivity, and internal coupling sum to 100, with heterogeneous linear maps (c in 0–10, S in 0–5, av3,v4 in 0–1 each mapped to a [0,50] scale). This constraint negatively correlates the three parameters and confines the scan to a 2D manifold. The bright interior region is therefore guaranteed to be a region where no single coupling is maximal, regardless of the system's actual behavior. Please report an unconstrained 3D sweep, or at minimum show that the qualitative location and boundedness of the high-performance region are invariant under different rescaling choices.
  2. [§5.1, Eq. (6)] The social decay rate lambda_s is introduced in Eq. (6) but is never given a numerical value anywhere in the paper, and Eq. (3) instead uses the symbol lambda_a. This decay rate sets the spatial range of inter-agent influence and therefore directly shapes the consensus regions in Fig. 4 and all multi-agent outcomes. Without this value the model is not reproducible and the role of social coupling cannot be independently assessed. Please provide the value, reconcile the notation, and include a brief sensitivity analysis over lambda_s.
  3. [§5.2.2 and Fig. 4 caption] It is unclear which internal couplings were varied in the multi-agent experiments. The methods text says 'internal coupling between the motor oscillators (avi,vj values from 0 to 1, in steps of 0.02, in Eq. 7)', while the Fig. 4 caption labels the axis specifically as av3,v4. The single-agent experiments varied all connections, so the reader cannot tell whether 'internal coupling' in the multi-agent balance claim refers only to the motor–motor link or to the full set of oscillator connections. Please clarify this and, if only av3,v4 was varied, discuss why the other internal couplings were held fixed.
  4. [§5.3, Eq. (10)] The binary decision-making performance metric is misprinted: it reads min{D_source1(tend), D_source1(tend)} / D(t0). Taken literally, this metric ignores the second stimulus source and cannot measure a binary decision. Presumably the intended expression is min{D_source1(tend), D_source2(tend)}; please correct the equation and confirm that the implemented metric matches the corrected form, since this metric underlies the single-agent decision-making claims.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.2, Eq. (3) and §5.1, Eq. (6)] The social decay rate is written as lambda_a in Eq. (3) and lambda_s in Eq. (6); please use a single symbol consistently.
  2. [Supplementary S3 and S4] The supplementary text refers to 'Fig. 5A' and 'Fig. 6' of the main paper when the corresponding panels appear to be Fig. 4 and Fig. 5; please update all cross-references.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption contains run-together labels such as 'stimulussensitivity' and 'socialsensitivity'; please insert proper spacing.
  4. [§3.1] The observation that high internal coupling leads to PLV near 1 and loss of gradient climbing is, to a large extent, a direct consequence of Eq. (8): a phase-locked motor oscillator pair gives a constant heading. The paper should acknowledge this structural entailment explicitly rather than presenting it only as an emergent empirical result.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

One supporting result is definitional via the heading equation; the central multi-agent balance claim is a constrained-scan interpretation rather than a forced circularity.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 3.1 (single-agent results) with Eqs. (7)-(8)]
    "At an internal coupling level of avi,vj = 1.7, the effect of internal coupling became strong enough that it nullified the effect of any sensory input, resulting in PLV = 1 (indicating no variation in inter-oscillator dynamics). ... Such a stable state of high integration between oscillators precludes changes in movement direction in response to sensory input, inhibiting the agent from approaching the stimulus source."

    The heading is defined by Eq. 8 as ˙θ = ηϕv3,v4 = η(φv3 − φv4). PLV = 1 means the phase difference φv3 − φv4 is constant over time, so ˙θ is constant and the movement direction cannot change by definition. The paper presents this as an empirical result ('precludes changes in movement direction') and uses it to support the need for a balance of couplings, but the high-coupling failure is a direct restatement of the motor-to-heading map rather than an emergent simulation discovery.

full rationale

The main multi-agent balance result is not a circular derivation: performance in Fig. 4 is computed from simulated trajectories and is not algebraically equal to the ternary weights. The ternary normalization (sum = 100) and the arbitrary [0,50] scalings do constrain the scan and make the 'balance' interpretation harder to separate from the requirement that all three terms be non-negligible, but this is a missing-control/validity concern, not a definitional equivalence. No load-bearing self-citations were found: Dumas et al. and other author-overlapping references are used for context or replication, not to justify the model's results. The one genuine reduction is the single-agent high-coupling claim, where phase locking is linked to heading by Eq. 8 identically; that is a peripheral supporting result, not the central claim, so the paper is only partially circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on hand-chosen oscillator couplings, sensitivities, and decay rates. The most notable gap is the unspecified lambda_s, which controls the range of social influence and is load-bearing for the multi-agent results. No entities beyond the modeled agents and stimulus fields are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • internal coupling a_{vi,vj} = swept 0.05-2.5 (single-agent), 0-1 (multi-agent)
    Hand-chosen range; the balance result depends on the intermediate values.
  • stimulus sensitivity c = 0-10
    Hand-chosen; sets environmental forcing on sensory oscillators.
  • social sensitivity S = 0-5
    Hand-chosen; sets strength of social emission.
  • social decay rate lambda_s = not specified
    Appears in Eq. 6 but no numeric value is given; controls spatial range of inter-agent influence.
  • environmental decay rate lambda = 0.02
    Sets spatial scale of the environmental gradient.
  • intrinsic oscillator frequency omega = 5 Hz
    Chosen to resemble theta band; all four oscillators identical.
  • coupling ratio k = b/a = 2
    Chosen to make the HKB system bistable (k < 4).
  • heading scaling eta = not specified
    From Eq. 8; exact value not given in the text.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Haken-Kelso-Bunz equations describe neural coordination
    Adopted from Aguilera et al. 2013 and Zhang et al. 2019; no independent justification for biological plausibility beyond the cited literature.
  • domain assumption Metastable coordination is required for adaptive behavior
    Stated in the Introduction; leads to interpretation of SD(KOP) as an adaptive regime.
  • ad hoc to paper Social influence is an additive stimulus indistinguishable from the environmental stimulus
    Eq. 6; this is the only channel of inter-agent coupling, and agents cannot distinguish self-emitted from environmental stimulus.
  • ad hoc to paper Deterministic dynamics with no noise
    Methods 5.2.2; deliberately deterministic to isolate coordination dynamics, but this removes stochastic exploration that often matters in collective behavior.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Collective decision making by embodied neural agents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F3SORLY3

@misc{pith2026241118498,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Collective decision making by embodied neural agents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F3SORLY3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18498}
}
read the original abstract

Collective decision making using simple social interactions has been studied in many types of multi-agent systems, including robot swarms and human social networks. However, existing multi-agent studies have rarely modeled the neural dynamics that underlie sensorimotor coordination in embodied biological agents. In this study, we investigated collective decisions that resulted from sensorimotor coordination among agents with simple neural dynamics. We equipped our agents with a model of minimal neural dynamics based on the coordination dynamics framework, and embedded them in an environment with a stimulus gradient. In our single-agent setup, the decision between two stimulus sources depends solely on the coordination of the agent's neural dynamics with its environment. In our multi-agent setup, that same decision also depends on the sensorimotor coordination between agents, via their simple social interactions. Our results show that the success of collective decisions depended on a balance of intra-agent, inter-agent, and agent-environment coupling, and we use these results to identify the influences of environmental factors on decision difficulty. More generally, our results demonstrate the impact of intra- and inter-brain coordination dynamics on collective behavior, can contribute to existing knowledge on the functional role of inter-agent synchrony, and are relevant to ongoing developments in neuro-AI and self-organized multi-agent systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18498 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Single-agent behavior and neural dynamics. (A) The agent architecture: two sensors, each connected to a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Agent behavior and intra-agent neural dynamics during collective decision making. (A) Agents emit stimulus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Intra-agent neural dynamics: the mean PLV and SD(KOP) of each agent during its run ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ternary plots illustrating how collective behavior and neural dynamics depend on the agent configuration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dependence of the collective decision-making performance on the environment and initial orientations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bedia, Bruno A

    Miguel Aguilera, Manuel G. Bedia, Bruno A. Santos, and Xabier E. Barandiaran. The situated HKB model: how sensorimotor spatial coupling can alter oscillatory brain dynamics. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience , 7, 2013

    2013

  2. [2]

    Hermann Haken, J. A. Scott Kelso, and H. Bunz. A theoretical model of phase transitions in human hand movements. Biological Cybernetics , 51(5):347--356, feb 1985

    1985

  3. [3]

    Kuramoto

    Y. Kuramoto. Chemical Oscillations, Waves, and Turbulence . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1984

    1984

  4. [4]

    Third party stabilization of unstable coordination in systems of coupled oscillators

    Joseph McKinley, Mengsen Zhang, Alice Wead, Christine Williams, Emmanuelle Tognoli, and Christopher Beetle. Third party stabilization of unstable coordination in systems of coupled oscillators. Journal of Physics: Conference Series , 2090(1):012167, nov 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    Schöner and J.A.S

    G. Schöner and J.A.S. Kelso. A dynamic pattern theory of behavioral change. Journal of Theoretical Biology , 135(4):501--524, dec 1988

    1988

  6. [6]

    Emmanuelle Tognoli and J. A. Scott Kelso. The metastable brain. Neuron , 81(1):35--48, jan 2014

    2014

  7. [7]

    Mengsen Zhang, Christopher Beetle, J. A. Scott Kelso, and Emmanuelle Tognoli. Connecting empirical phenomena and theoretical models of biological coordination across scales. Journal of The Royal Society Interface , 16(157):20190360, aug 2019

    2019

  8. [8]

    Dan Bang and Chris D. Frith. Making better decisions in groups. Royal Society Open Science, 4 0 (8): 0 170193, aug 2017. doi:10.1098/rsos.170193

    work page doi:10.1098/rsos.170193 2017

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    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, 364 0 (1518): 0 719--742, dec 2008. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0276

    2008

  2. [10]

    Analysis of emergent symmetry breaking in collective decision making

    Heiko Hamann, Thomas Schmickl, Heinz Wörn, and Karl Crailsheim. Analysis of emergent symmetry breaking in collective decision making. Neural Computing and Applications, 21 0 (2): 0 207--218, apr 2010. doi:10.1007/s00521-010-0368-6

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    Montes de Oca , Eliseo Ferrante, Alexander Scheidler, Carlo Pinciroli, Mauro Birattari, and Marco Dorigo

    Marco A. Montes de Oca , Eliseo Ferrante, Alexander Scheidler, Carlo Pinciroli, Mauro Birattari, and Marco Dorigo. Majority-rule opinion dynamics with differential latency: A mechanism for self-organized collective decision-making. Swarm Intelligence, 5 0 (3--4): 0 305--327, 2011

    2011

  4. [12]

    The best-of-n problem in robot swarms: Formalization, state of the art, and novel perspectives

    Gabriele Valentini, Eliseo Ferrante, and Marco Dorigo. The best-of-n problem in robot swarms: Formalization, state of the art, and novel perspectives. Frontiers in Robotics and AI , 4, mar 2017. doi:10.3389/frobt.2017.00009

    2017

  5. [13]

    Couzin, Christos C

    Iain D. Couzin, Christos C. Ioannou, Güven Demirel, Thilo Gross, Colin J. Torney, Andrew Hartnett, Larissa Conradt, Simon A. Levin, and Naomi E. Leonard. Uninformed individuals promote democratic consensus in animal groups. Science, 334 0 (6062): 0 1578--1580, dec 2011. doi:10...

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    Network dynamics of social influence in the wisdom of crowds

    Joshua Becker, Devon Brackbill, and Damon Centola. Network dynamics of social influence in the wisdom of crowds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, page 201615978, jun 2017. doi:10.1073/pnas.1615978114

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    The network science of collective intelligence

    Damon Centola. The network science of collective intelligence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26 0 (11): 0 923--941, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Couzin, Jens Krause, Nigel R

    Iain D. Couzin, Jens Krause, Nigel R. Franks, and Simon A. Levin. Effective leadership and decision-making in animal groups on the move. Nature, 433 0 (7025): 0 513--516, feb 2005. doi:10.1038/nature03236

    2005 doi

  9. [17]

    Seng Bum Michael Yoo, Benjamin Yost Hayden, and John M. Pearson. Continuous decisions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 376 0 (1819): 0 20190664, jan 2021. doi:10.1098/rstb.2019.0664

    2021

  10. [18]

    O'Doherty

    Shinsuke Suzuki, Ryo Adachi, Simon Dunne, Peter Bossaerts, and John P. O'Doherty. Neural mechanisms underlying human consensus decision-making. Neuron, 86 0 (2): 0 591--602, apr 2015. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.03.019

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis and simulation

    Rainer Hegselmann and Ulrich Krause. Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis and simulation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 5, 07 2002

    2002

  12. [20]

    Sociophysics: A review of galam models

    Serge Galam. Sociophysics: A review of galam models. International Journal of Modern Physics C, March 2008. doi:10.1142/S0129183108012297

    2008 doi

  13. [21]

    Models of social influence: Towards the next frontiers

    Andreas Flache, Michael Mäs, Thomas Feliciani, Edmund Chattoe-Brown, Guillaume Deffuant, Sylvie Huet, and Jan Lorenz. Models of social influence: Towards the next frontiers. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 20 0 (4), 2017. doi:10.18564/jasss.3521

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    Collective decision-making in ideal networks: The speed-accuracy tradeoff

    Vaibhav Srivastava and Naomi Ehrich Leonard. Collective decision-making in ideal networks: The speed-accuracy tradeoff. IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems , 1 0 (1): 0 121--132, mar 2014. doi:10.1109/tcns.2014.2310271

    2014

  15. [23]

    Tump, Timothy J

    Alan N. Tump, Timothy J. Pleskac, and Ralf H. J. M. Kurvers. Wise or mad crowds? the cognitive mechanisms underlying information cascades. Science Advances, 6 0 (29), jul 2020. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abb0266

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Calalo, Adam Roth, Brenden Swanik, Michael J

    Rakshith Lokesh, Seth Sullivan, Jan A. Calalo, Adam Roth, Brenden Swanik, Michael J. Carter, and Joshua G. A. Cashaback. Humans utilize sensory evidence of others' intended action to make online decisions. Scientific Reports, 12 0 (1), may 2022. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-12662-y

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Andreagiovanni Reina, Thomas Bose, Vaibhav Srivastava, and James A. R. Marshall. Asynchrony rescues statistically optimal group decisions from information cascades through emergent leaders. Royal Society Open Science, 10 0 (3), mar 2023. doi:10.1098/rsos.230175

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Novel type of phase transition in a system of self-driven particles

    Tam \' a s Vicsek, Andr \' a s Czir \' o k, Eshel Ben-Jacob, Inon Cohen, and Ofer Shochet. Novel type of phase transition in a system of self-driven particles. Physical Review Letters, 75 0 (6): 0 1226--1229, aug 1995. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.75.1226

    1995 doi

  19. [27]

    Social force model for pedestrian dynamics

    Dirk Helbing and Peter Molnar. Social force model for pedestrian dynamics. Physical review E, 51 0 (5): 0 4282, 1995

    1995

  20. [28]

    Effective leadership for crowd evacuation

    Yi Ma, Richard Kwok Kit Yuen, and Eric Wai Ming Lee. Effective leadership for crowd evacuation. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 450: 0 333--341, may 2016. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2015.12.103

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    Model of the best-of-n nest-site selection process in honeybees

    Andreagiovanni Reina, James AR Marshall, Vito Trianni, and Thomas Bose. Model of the best-of-n nest-site selection process in honeybees. Physical Review E, 95 0 (5): 0 052411, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    How simple rules determine pedestrian behavior and crowd disasters

    Mehdi Moussa \" d, Dirk Helbing, and Guy Theraulaz. How simple rules determine pedestrian behavior and crowd disasters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108 0 (17): 0 6884--6888, 2011

    2011

  23. [31]

    A multi-brain framework for social interaction

    Lyle Kingsbury and Weizhe Hong. A multi-brain framework for social interaction. Trends in neurosciences, 43 0 (9): 0 651--666, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    correlation vs. causation

    Quentin Moreau and Guillaume Dumas. Beyond “correlation vs. causation”: multi-brain neuroscience needs explanation. Trends Cogn. Sci, 25: 0 542--543, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Shrunken social brains? a minimal model of the role of social interaction in neural complexity

    Georgina Montserrat Res \'e ndiz-Benhumea, Ekaterina Sangati, Federico Sangati, Soheil Keshmiri, and Tom Froese. Shrunken social brains? a minimal model of the role of social interaction in neural complexity. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 15: 0 634085, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Sridhar, Liang Li, Dan Gorbonos, M \' a t \' e Nagy, Bianca R

    Vivek H. Sridhar, Liang Li, Dan Gorbonos, M \' a t \' e Nagy, Bianca R. Schell, Timothy Sorochkin, Nir S. Gov, and Iain D. Couzin. The geometry of decision-making in individuals and collectives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118 0 (50), dec 2021. doi:10.1073...

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    Collective behavior from surprise minimization

    Conor Heins, Beren Millidge, Lancelot Da Costa, Richard P Mann, Karl J Friston, and Iain D Couzin. Collective behavior from surprise minimization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121 0 (17): 0 e2320239121, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Being There

    Andy Clark. Being There. The MIT Press, 1998. ISBN 9780262531566

    1998

  29. [37]

    The Oxford Handbook of 4E Cognition

    Albert Newen and Shaun Gallagher. The Oxford Handbook of 4E Cognition. Oxford University Press, 2018. ISBN 9780198735410

    2018

  30. [38]

    The artificial life route to artificial intelligence: Building embodied, situated agents

    Luc Steels and Rodney Brooks. The artificial life route to artificial intelligence: Building embodied, situated agents. Routledge, 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    Language and culture internalization for human-like autotelic AI

    C \' e dric Colas, Tristan Karch, Cl \' e ment Moulin-Frier, and Pierre-Yves Oudeyer. Language and culture internalization for human-like autotelic AI . Nature Machine Intelligence, 4 0 (12): 0 1068--1076, dec 2022. doi:10.1038/s42256-022-00591-4

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    Varela, Evan T

    Francisco J. Varela, Evan T. Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch. The Embodied Mind. The MIT Press, 1992. ISBN 9780262720212

    1992

  33. [41]

    Evan Thompson and Francisco J. Varela. Radical embodiment: neural dynamics and consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5 0 (10): 0 418--425, oct 2001. doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01750-2

    2001 doi

  34. [42]

    Di Paolo

    Tom Froese and Ezequiel A. Di Paolo. The enactive approach. Pragmatics and Cognition, 19 0 (1): 0 1--36, jul 2011. doi:10.1075/pc.19.1.01fro

    2011 doi

  35. [43]

    Synchronous neural oscillations and cognitive processes

    Lawrence M Ward. Synchronous neural oscillations and cognitive processes. Trends in cognitive sciences, 7 0 (12): 0 553--559, 2003

    2003

  36. [44]

    The Brain from Inside Out

    György Buzs \' a ki. The Brain from Inside Out. Oxford University Press, jun 2019. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190905385.001.0001

    2019

  37. [45]

    Scaling brain size, keeping timing: Evolutionary preservation of brain rhythms

    György Buzs \' a ki, Nikos Logothetis, and Wolf Singer. Scaling brain size, keeping timing: Evolutionary preservation of brain rhythms. Neuron, 80 0 (3): 0 751--764, oct 2013. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2013.10.002

    2013 doi

  38. [46]

    Theta oscillations shift towards optimal frequency for cognitive control

    Mehdi Senoussi, Pieter Verbeke, Kobe Desender, Esther De Loof, Durk Talsma, and Tom Verguts. Theta oscillations shift towards optimal frequency for cognitive control. Nature Human Behaviour, 6 0 (7): 0 1000--1013, 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    On natural attunement: shared rhythms between the brain and the environment

    Efrosini Charalambous and Zakaria Djebbara. On natural attunement: shared rhythms between the brain and the environment. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 155: 0 105438, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    J. A. Scott Kelso. Dynamic Patterns The Self-organization Of Brain And Behavior. Bradford Book, 1997. ISBN 9780262611312

    1997

  41. [49]

    J. A. Scott Kelso, Emmanuelle Tognoli, and Guillaume Dumas. Coordination dynamics: Bidirectional coupling between humans, machines and brains. In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics ( SMC ) . IEEE , oct 2014. doi:10.1109/smc.2014.6974258

    2014

  42. [50]

    Emmanuelle Tognoli, Mengsen Zhang, Armin Fuchs, Christopher Beetle, and J. A. Scott Kelso. Coordination dynamics: A foundation for understanding social behavior. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 14, aug 2020. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2020.00317

    2020

  43. [51]

    Emmanuelle Tognoli and J. A. Scott Kelso. The metastable brain. Neuron, 81 0 (1): 0 35--48, jan 2014. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2013.12.022

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    Hermann Haken, J. A. Scott Kelso, and H. Bunz. A theoretical model of phase transitions in human hand movements. Biological Cybernetics, 51 0 (5): 0 347--356, feb 1985. doi:10.1007/bf00336922

    1985 doi

  45. [53]

    Kuramoto

    Y. Kuramoto. Chemical Oscillations, Waves, and Turbulence. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1984. ISBN 9783642696916

    1984

  46. [54]

    J. A. Scott Kelso. Coordination dynamics. In Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science, pages 1--41. Springer New York, 2013. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-27737-5_101-3

    2013 doi

  47. [55]

    Bedia, Bruno A

    Miguel Aguilera, Manuel G. Bedia, Bruno A. Santos, and Xabier E. Barandiaran. The situated HKB model: how sensorimotor spatial coupling can alter oscillatory brain dynamics. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 7, 2013. doi:10.3389/fncom.2013.00117

    2013

  48. [56]

    Leonard, Tian Shen, Benjamin Nabet, Luca Scardovi, Iain D

    Naomi E. Leonard, Tian Shen, Benjamin Nabet, Luca Scardovi, Iain D. Couzin, and Simon A. Levin. Decision versus compromise for animal groups in motion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109 0 (1): 0 227--232, dec 2011. doi:10.1073/pnas.1118318108

    2011 doi

  49. [57]

    Vehicles, Experiments in Synthetic Psychology

    Valentino Braitenberg. Vehicles, Experiments in Synthetic Psychology. M.I.T. P., 1986. ISBN 0262521121

    1986

  50. [58]

    Mengsen Zhang, Christopher Beetle, J. A. Scott Kelso, and Emmanuelle Tognoli. Connecting empirical phenomena and theoretical models of biological coordination across scales. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 16 0 (157): 0 20190360, aug 2019. doi:10.1098/rsif.2019.0360

    2019

  51. [59]

    The brainweb: Phase synchronization and large-scale integration

    Francisco Varela, Jean-Philippe Lachaux, Eugenio Rodriguez, and Jacques Martinerie. The brainweb: Phase synchronization and large-scale integration. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2 0 (4): 0 229--239, apr 2001. doi:10.1038/35067550

    2001 doi

  52. [60]

    Communication dynamics in complex brain networks

    Andrea Avena-Koenigsberger, Bratislav Misic, and Olaf Sporns. Communication dynamics in complex brain networks. Nature reviews neuroscience, 19 0 (1): 0 17--33, 2018

    2018

  53. [61]

    Strogatz

    Steven H. Strogatz. From kuramoto to crawford: exploring the onset of synchronization in populations of coupled oscillators. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 143 0 (1-4): 0 1--20, sep 2000. doi:10.1016/s0167-2789(00)00094-4

    doi

  54. [62]

    Kringelbach, and Gustavo Deco

    Joana Cabral, Francesca Castaldo, Jakub Vohryzek, Vladimir Litvak, Christian Bick, Renaud Lambiotte, Karl Friston, Morten L. Kringelbach, and Gustavo Deco. Metastable oscillatory modes emerge from synchronization in the brain spacetime connectome. Communications Physics, 5 0 (...

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    Pennartz

    Martin Vinck, Robert Oostenveld, Marijn van Wingerden, Franscesco Battaglia, and Cyriel M.A. Pennartz. An improved index of phase-synchronization for electrophysiological data in the presence of volume-conduction, noise and sample-size bias. NeuroImage , 55 0 (4): 0 1548--1565...

    2011 doi

  56. [64]

    Hyperscanning: A valid method to study neural inter-brain underpinnings of social interaction

    Artur Czeszumski, Sara Eustergerling, Anne Lang, David Menrath, Michael Gerstenberger, Susanne Schuberth, Felix Schreiber, Zadkiel Zuluaga Rendon, and Peter König. Hyperscanning: A valid method to study neural inter-brain underpinnings of social interaction. Frontiers in Human...

    2020

  57. [65]

    Technologically-assisted communication attenuates inter-brain synchrony

    Linoy Schwartz, Jonathan Levy, Yaara Endevelt-Shapira, Amir Djalovski, Olga Hayut, Guillaume Dumas, and Ruth Feldman. Technologically-assisted communication attenuates inter-brain synchrony. NeuroImage , 264: 0 119677, dec 2022. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119677

    2022

  58. [66]

    A time to dance, a time to die

    John Waller. A time to dance, a time to die. Icon Books, 2008. ISBN 9781848310216

    2008

  59. [67]

    I. D. Couzin and N. R. Franks. Self-organized lane formation and optimized traffic flow in army ants. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 270 0 (1511): 0 139--146, jan 2003. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2210

    2003

  60. [68]

    Collective decision with 100 kilobots: speed versus accuracy in binary discrimination problems

    Gabriele Valentini, Eliseo Ferrante, Heiko Hamann, and Marco Dorigo. Collective decision with 100 kilobots: speed versus accuracy in binary discrimination problems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 30 0 (3): 0 553--580, dec 2015. doi:10.1007/s10458-015-9323-3

    2015 doi

  61. [69]

    The Ants

    Bert Hölldobler and Edward Osborne Wilson. The Ants. Belknap Press, 1990. ISBN 9780674040755

    1990

  62. [70]

    John Pickavance, Arianne Azmoodeh, and Andrew D. Wilson. The effects of feedback format, and egocentric & allocentric relative phase on coordination stability. Human Movement Science, 59: 0 143--152, jun 2018. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2018.04.005

    2018 doi

  63. [71]

    Swarm Intelligence

    Guy Theraulaz Eric Bonabeau, Marco Dorigo. Swarm Intelligence. Oxford University Press Inc, 1999. ISBN 0195131592. URL https://www.ebook.de/de/product/3253990/eric_postdoctoral_fellow_postdoctoral_fellow_santa_fe_institute_bonabeau_marco_researcher_researcher_free_university_o...

    1999

  64. [72]

    An exchange of letters on the role of noise in collective intelligence

    Daniel Kahneman, David C Krakauer, Olivier Sibony, Cass Sunstein, and David Wolpert. An exchange of letters on the role of noise in collective intelligence. Collective Intelligence, 1 0 (1): 0 263391372210785, aug 2022. doi:10.1177/26339137221078593

    2022 doi

  65. [73]

    O'Keeffe, Hyunsuk Hong, and Steven H

    Kevin P. O'Keeffe, Hyunsuk Hong, and Steven H. Strogatz. Oscillators that sync and swarm. Nature Communications, 8 0 (1), nov 2017. doi:10.1038/s41467-017-01190-3

    2017 doi

  66. [74]

    Diverse behaviors in non-uniform chiral and non-chiral swarmalators

    Steven Ceron, Kevin O'Keeffe, and Kirstin Petersen. Diverse behaviors in non-uniform chiral and non-chiral swarmalators. Nature Communications, 14 0 (1), feb 2023. doi:10.1038/s41467-023-36563-4

    2023 doi

  67. [75]

    Perceptual interactions in a minimalist virtual environment

    Malika Auvray, Charles Lenay, and John Stewart. Perceptual interactions in a minimalist virtual environment. New ideas in psychology, 27 0 (1): 0 32--47, 2009

    2009

  68. [76]

    Can social interaction constitute social cognition? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14 0 (10): 0 441--447, oct 2010

    Hanne De Jaegher , Ezequiel Di Paolo , and Shaun Gallagher. Can social interaction constitute social cognition? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14 0 (10): 0 441--447, oct 2010. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.06.009

    2010 doi

  69. [77]

    Inter-brain synchronization during social interaction

    Guillaume Dumas, Jacqueline Nadel, Robert Soussignan, Jacques Martinerie, and Line Garnero. Inter-brain synchronization during social interaction. PLoS ONE , 5 0 (8): 0 e12166, aug 2010. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012166

    2010 doi

  70. [78]

    Wegener, Jose G

    Yiyuan Yang, Mingzheng Wu, Abraham V \' a zquez-Guardado, Amy J. Wegener, Jose G. Grajales-Reyes, Yujun Deng, Taoyi Wang, Raudel Avila, Justin A. Moreno, Samuel Minkowicz, Vasin Dumrongprechachan, Jungyup Lee, Shuangyang Zhang, Alex A. Legaria, Yuhang Ma, Sunita Mehta, Daniel ...

    2021

  71. [79]

    Anatomical connectivity influences both intra- and inter-brain synchronizations

    Guillaume Dumas, Mario Chavez, Jacqueline Nadel, and Jacques Martinerie. Anatomical connectivity influences both intra- and inter-brain synchronizations. PLoS ONE , 7 0 (5): 0 e36414, may 2012. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036414

    2012 doi

  72. [80]

    A neurodynamic model of inter-brain coupling in the gamma band

    Quentin Moreau, Lena Adel, Caitriona Douglas, Ghazaleh Ranjbaran, and Guillaume Dumas. A neurodynamic model of inter-brain coupling in the gamma band. Journal of Neurophysiology, sep 2022. doi:10.1152/jn.00224.2022

    2022

  73. [81]

    Kringelbach

    Ole Adrian Heggli, Joana Cabral, Ivana Konvalinka, Peter Vuust, and Morten L. Kringelbach. A kuramoto model of self-other integration across interpersonal synchronization strategies. PLOS Computational Biology , 15 0 (10): 0 e1007422, oct 2019. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007422

    2019 doi

  74. [82]

    Dark Matter

    Samuele Bolotta and Guillaume Dumas. Social Neuro AI : Social Interaction as the “ Dark Matter ” of AI . Frontiers in Computer Science, 4, 2022. ISSN 2624-9898. URL https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomp.2022.846440

    2022

  75. [83]

    Guido Van Rossum and Fred L. Drake. Python 3 Reference Manual. CreateSpace, Scotts Valley, CA, 2009. ISBN 1441412697

    2009

  76. [84]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Kopf, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu ...

    2019

  77. [85]

    Principles of Neural Design

    Peter Sterling and Simon Laughlin. Principles of Neural Design. The MIT Press, 2017. ISBN 9780262534680

    2017

  78. [86]

    Leonard, Iain D

    Benjamin Nabet, Naomi E. Leonard, Iain D. Couzin, and Simon A. Levin. Dynamics of decision making in animal group motion. Journal of Nonlinear Science, 19 0 (4): 0 399--435, jan 2009. ISSN 1432-1467. doi:10.1007/s00332-008-9038-6

    2009 doi

  79. [87]

    Jean-Philippe Lachaux, Eugenio Rodriguez, Jacques Martinerie, and Francisco J. Varela. Measuring phase synchrony in brain signals. Human Brain Mapping, 8 0 (4): 0 194--208, 1999. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0193(1999)8:4<194::aid-hbm4>3.0.co;2-c

    1999 doi

  80. [88]

    Metastable chimera states in community-structured oscillator networks

    Murray Shanahan. Metastable chimera states in community-structured oscillator networks. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 20 0 (1): 0 013108, mar 2010. doi:10.1063/1.3305451

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.