Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Maximal response to a mechanical leader at critical group size in ant collectives

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports that a group of Paratrechina longicornis ants responds most strongly to a small mechanical nudge when the group is at an intermediate size, and argues this is direct evidence that the collective operates near a critical…

desk verdict A genuinely novel experimental measurement of susceptibility peaking at intermediate group size in ant transport, but the simulation support is weaker than claimed because the peak location is set by retuned parameters. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01209 v1 pith:YGORKBW4 submitted 2025-06-01 physics.bio-ph

Atanu Chatterjee , Tom Tzook , Nir Gov , Ofer Feinerman This is my paper
classification physics.bio-ph
keywords criticalitysusceptibilityorder-disordertransitionIsingmodelcooperativetransportParatrechinalongicornismechanicalleadercollectivebehavior
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

The paper reports a direct experimental test of the idea that biological groups are most responsive to external signals when they are poised at the boundary between order and disorder. Using a robot that gently pushes on a food cargo being hauled by Paratrechina longicornis ants, the authors measure how reliably a group of a given size reverses direction in response to a small force. They find that the group's susceptibility—how much the force changes the cargo's later motion—is largest for intermediate groups of roughly 18–24 ants, the same size range where the collective switches between disorganized and organized motion. Theory and simulation of an all-to-all Ising-type model reproduce the peak, supporting the conclusion that the group sits at a finite-size critical point where small leader inputs are maximally amplified.

What carries the argument

The central object is the group susceptibility χ = |⟨θ(t)with force⟩ − ⟨θ(t)without force⟩|, measured after a delay time τ following a force pulse. The experimental device is a hinged cargo whose angular motion is tracked, plus a robotic blade that nudges the cargo through a soft cantilever clutch, applying forces on the scale of a single ant. The argument is carried by mapping the ant cargo system to an all-to-all Ising model in which each ant is a spin and group size N acts as the control parameter; in the thermodynamic limit that model has an order-disorder transition, and susceptibility to a field peaks there. The paper tests this prediction by measuring χ across four group sizes and by simulating the microscopic stochastic model, which reproduces both the switching statistics and the susceptibility peak.

What would settle it

Measure susceptibility at a fine series of group sizes between about 5 and 40 ants: if the peak in χ does not coincide with the group size at which the angular velocity distribution turns from unimodal to bimodal (the order-disorder transition), the criticality interpretation fails. Alternatively, vary the effective coupling (for example by changing cargo geometry or the individuality parameter Find) at fixed group size: the peak should shift with the transition rather than staying at N≈20.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a group of Paratrechina longicornis ants engaged in cooperative transport shows maximal collective response to a small external force at the group size where it sits at the order-disorder transition. Quantitatively, the group susceptibility χ, defined as the absolute difference between the ensemble-averaged cargo angle after a force pulse and the angle in the absence of forcing, peaks at intermediate group size (about 18–24 ants) and declines for both smaller and larger groups. The same peak is reproduced by an all-to-all Ising-type model in which group size is the control parameter, and by mean-field theory. The authors conclude that this is the first direct experimental evidence that a biological collective is poised near criticality to amplify the influence of a single informed individual.

Load-bearing premise

The results stand on the assumption that the ants' collective decisions are faithfully captured by an all-to-all Ising-type model in which group size is the control parameter; if that mapping is wrong, the observed peak could be a simpler crossover between a regime where ants ignore the force and a regime where they cannot sustain a response.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Groups near the critical size amplify a single informed ant's directional information, giving a functional benefit during cooperative transport.
  • Larger groups require stronger and longer force pulses to switch direction, showing that ordered collectives are more resilient to external influence.
  • The mean-field expression F_ext = γv0β / (1 − exp(−2β kc Δt)) fits the 50% switching boundary across group sizes, connecting the empirical force-duration tradeoff to the model's control parameter β.
  • The susceptibility peak occurs near the group size typical of natural P. longicornis transport groups, suggesting the collective operates near the transition in the wild.
  • This provides the first direct measurement of a previously theoretical temporal susceptibility, linking finite-size critical behavior in a biological collective to a measurable response.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the criticality interpretation is right, the same robot-pulse method could be applied at finer group-size increments to test whether the susceptibility peak tracks the order-disorder transition rather than a fixed ant number.
  • The measured χ is a short-time, finite-size response; a truly divergent susceptibility would require scaling analysis across larger systems and variable coupling, which the current data cannot distinguish from a smooth crossover.
  • The mechanical-leader approach might generalize to other collective-transport species or to cargo geometries that alter the effective coupling, offering a way to test whether maximal responsiveness at the transition is a general design principle.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental and theoretical study of cooperative transport in Paratrechina longicornis ants. A robotic system applies calibrated millinewton-scale force pulses to an ant-carried cargo, mimicking a transient leader ant, and the group's response is quantified by a susceptibility chi defined as the absolute difference in ensemble-averaged cargo angle between forced and unforced trials. The main empirical finding is that chi peaks at the intermediate group size (N=15-20, mean 18) compared with smaller (N=2-4) and larger (N=30-40, 50-60) groups. The authors interpret this peak as direct experimental evidence that the collective response is maximally amplified at the critical group size corresponding to the order-disorder transition of an Ising-like model of ant decision-making. A microscopic simulation and a mean-field approximate expression (Eq. 13) are used to support this interpretation, with simulated susceptibility peaking at N=20.

Significance. If substantiated, this would be an important direct empirical test of the criticality hypothesis in a biological collective. The experimental platform is a genuine technical achievement: it applies real-time, calibrated sub-millinewton forces in the field and measures both immediate switching and longer-term persistence. The paper also provides open code and data, which is commendable. However, the strength of the central claim depends on the identification of the measured intermediate group size with the order-disorder transition, and that identification currently rests on a model whose parameters (notably Find) were retuned with knowledge of the experimental behavior. The experimental dataset itself contains only four group-size bins, with the peak in chi at a single intermediate bin. These issues mean that the reported result is promising but the claim of 'direct experimental evidence' for maximal response at critical group size is stronger than the current support justifies.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theoretical model / Materials and Methods] The simulated susceptibility peak at N=20 is not an independent confirmation that the experimental peak lies at the order-disorder transition. In the Materials and Methods the authors state that Find was increased from 10 (used in earlier work) to 28 and that kon was increased, and the per-cargo calibration used measured angular velocities and oscillation amplitudes. With the simulation constants f0=2.8 and Find=28, the mean-field condition beta=f0N/(2Find)-1=0 (Eq. 13) gives N_c=20, exactly the size at which the simulated chi peaks in Fig. 5. The peak location is therefore imposed by the chosen parameters rather than emerging as an out-of-sample prediction. This is load-bearing because the central claim requires the measured peak to coincide with the critical group size. I ask the authors to provide an out-of-sample test, for example by simulating with parameters fixed by the unforced order-disorder transition alone, or by estimating N_c directly from the unforced angular-velocity distributions without any retuning of Find, and then showing that the chi peak follows that independently estimated N_c.
  2. [Results, Fig. 5] The experimental evidence for a peak rests on four group-size bins (N=3, 18, 34, 54), with the maximum occurring at a single intermediate bin. No significance test is reported for the difference between the intermediate bin and the adjacent large bin, and there is no finer scan of group sizes. A non-critical explanation is equally consistent with the four points: small groups respond transiently but do not persist (low chi), large groups do not switch direction (low chi), and the intermediate group both switches and persists (high chi). To support the criticality claim, the authors should add more group sizes around the transition (e.g., N=8, 12, 15, 22, 26) and test whether the chi peak is located at the independently determined transition size rather than at some generic intermediate size. At minimum, they should provide a statistical comparison showing that the intermediate bin is significantly more responsive than the large bin under a non-monotonic alternative.
  3. [Results, Response statistics] The susceptibility measure is evaluated for a single force amplitude (0.30±0.05 mN) and a single delay tau=5 s. Because this force is below the switching threshold for large groups and above it for small groups, chi(N) conflates the probability of switching with the persistence of the switched state. The authors should demonstrate that the peak in chi as a function of N is robust across a range of Fext and tau values, and ideally that the peak position tracks the independently estimated N_c as tau is varied. If the peak appears only for this particular forcing amplitude, the interpretation in terms of a critical divergence is considerably weakened.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Results] There is a typo: 'and and rotates' should read 'and rotates'.
  2. [Results] In the sentence 'the external cannot initiate sufficient role-switching', the word 'force' appears to be missing; it should read 'the external force cannot initiate'.
  3. [Materials and Methods] The definition of susceptibility is asymmetric: theta(t) with force is evaluated at t=t'+Δt+τ relative to the force onset, while theta(t) without force is evaluated at t=Δt+τ after the cargo crosses the nest in control cases. Please clarify how the control time origin is defined and whether the same distribution of initial cargo angles is used in both conditions.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption says the phase boundary is 'fitted with exponential functions from Eqn. 13', but Eq. 13 is Fext=γv0β/(1−exp(−2βkcΔt)), which is not a pure exponential in Δt. Please rephrase to avoid confusion.
  5. [Discussion] There is a formatting issue: 'P. longicornisP.' should read 'P. longicornis' with a space before the period, and the phrase 'typical group size seen inP. longicornis' has a missing space.
  6. [Theoretical model] In Eq. 5 the argument of sinh and cosh is written as v/(Find/γ), and similar expressions appear elsewhere. Please check the dimensional consistency of these arguments and define the tilde variables (e.g., N-tilde, F-tilde) before Eq. 7, since the notation transition is abrupt.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The simulated susceptibility peak at N=20 is placed by the retuned ratio Find/f0 through Eq. 13 (N_c = 2Find/f0 = 20), so the theory does not independently confirm that the experimental peak lies at the critical group size.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Materials and Methods, 'Microscopic model' and 'Mean-field approximation' (Eq. 13); Results, Fig. 5 paragraph; Fig. 3 caption]
    "To account for the intermittent “jerks” that the agents (ants) experience when the robot nudges the cargo in experiments, we also increased the individuality parameter Find to 28, compared to the value of 10 used in earlier works [10]. ... Finally, we calibrated the model using the angular velocity and oscillation amplitude measured from the experiments for each cargo. The model parameters used in this case are: Nmax = 60, Find = 28, f0 = 2.8, kon = 0.021, koff = 0.015, kforget = 0.09, kc = 1, kori = 0.7, and γ = 180"

    The mean-field solution places the order-disorder transition at β = f0N/(2Find) − 1 = 0, i.e., N_c = 2Find/f0. With the retuned Find = 28 and f0 = 2.8, N_c = 20, which is exactly the group size where the simulated susceptibility peaks in Fig. 5 and close to the experimental intermediate group (average N = 18). Since Find was increased from its earlier published value and the model was calibrated to measured angular velocities and oscillation amplitudes, the simulated peak location is an echo of the fitted parameter ratio, not an independent out-of-sample prediction. Thus the theory does not independently establish that the experimental response peak is at the critical group size; the critical group size was effectively placed at the peak.

full rationale

The experimental susceptibility curve (Fig. 5, left) is a genuine, model-free measurement: χ is computed from ensemble-averaged cargo angles with and without the applied force, and the peak at the intermediate cargo (average N ≈ 18) is empirical. The order-disorder character of the intermediate regime is also directly shown in Fig. 2 from angular-velocity distributions. Hence the paper is not circular in its data. The circularity is in the theory/simulation-support leg: Eq. 13 defines β = f0N/(2Find) − 1, so the transition/critical group size is N_c = 2Find/f0. The authors retuned Find to 28 (from 10 in earlier work) and then report a simulated susceptibility peak at N = 20, in agreement with experiment. The location of the simulated peak is therefore determined by the fitted parameter ratio, not independently predicted. The self-citations to the same group's Ising mapping [10,31] are load-bearing for the criticality interpretation, but the paper includes its own transition data, so the main reduction is the fitted-parameter placement of the theoretical peak. Overall: partial circularity in the theory-support leg, with an independent experimental core; score 6 rather than 0 because the 'prediction' that the peak sits at the critical group size is partly constructed.

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

The central experimental result is measured directly and does not rely on the model, but the interpretation as criticality and the simulation support depend on the Ising mapping and several fitted parameters. The model is calibrated to the experiments, so the simulations do not provide an independent test.

free parameters (4)
  • Find (individuality parameter) = 28
    Increased from 10 in prior work to account for intermittent jerks; calibrated to match experimental switching behavior.
  • kon (attachment rate) = adjusted (value not given)
    Increased so cargo is always fully saturated with ants, mirroring experimental observations.
  • Per-cargo calibration parameters (v0, gamma, beta) = varies by group size
    Calibrated using measured angular velocity and oscillation amplitude for each cargo; these parameters are used in the Eq. 13 fit.
  • tau (delay time) = 5 s
    Chosen as a sufficiently large time window for persistence; not fitted but affects the value of susceptibility.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Ant cooperative transport maps to an all-to-all Ising model with spin states puller/lifter
    This mapping, taken from refs 10 and 31, is used to interpret the order-disorder transition and criticality.
  • domain assumption The transition between disordered and ordered motion occurs as a function of group size, with critical group size around 15-20 ants
    Used to identify the intermediate cargo as the critical regime; based on prior work and Fig. 2.
  • standard math Small-angle approximations in the mean-field derivation (sinh x approximately x, cosh x approximately 1)
    Used to derive Eq. 13; stated in the Force response curve section.
  • domain assumption The cargo dynamics are over-damped, so total force equals gamma times velocity
    Used in Eqn. 5 and the mean-field derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Maximal response to a mechanical leader at critical group size in ant collectives." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YGORKBW4

@misc{pith2026250601209,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Maximal response to a mechanical leader at critical group size in ant collectives},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YGORKBW4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01209}
}
read the original abstract

It is widely recognized that biological collectives operate near criticality to amplify their capability of collective response. The peak in susceptibility near criticality renders these groups highly responsive to external stimuli. While this phenomenon has been recognized and supported by evidence from theory, a direct experimental demonstration has been elusive. To bridge this gap, here we record the response of a group of Paratrechina longicornis ants to external stimuli as they join efforts to carry food to their nest. Using a robotic system that mimics a transient leader, we apply tactile ant-scale forces and measure the group's response at sub, near, and supercritical regimes. Supported by theory and simulations, we provide direct experimental evidence to demonstrate that at critical group size, the collective response of the ants to an external force is maximally amplified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01209 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: , left panel, our findings demonstrate an increase in susceptibility with group size, peaking at the intermediate cargo size before rapidly declining. In the right panel, we present some sample empirical trajectories before and FIG. 5. Peak susceptibility at a critical…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Vicsek, A

    T. Vicsek, A. Czir´ ok, E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen, and O. Shochet, Novel type of phase transition in a system of self-driven particles, Physical review letters 75, 1226 (1995)

    1995

  2. [2]

    Toner and Y

    J. Toner and Y. Tu, Long-range order in a two-dimensional dynamical xy model: how birds fly together, Physical review letters 75, 4326 (1995)

    work page 1995

  3. [3]

    Toner and Y

    J. Toner and Y. Tu, Flocks, herds, and schools: A quantitative theory of flocking, Physical review E 58, 4828 (1998)

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    T. Vicsek, Universal patterns of collective motion from minimal models of flocking, in 2008 Second IEEE International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems(IEEE, 2008) pp. 3–11

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Giardina, Collective behavior in animal groups: theoretical models and empirical studies, HFSP journal 2, 205 (2008)

    I. Giardina, Collective behavior in animal groups: theoretical models and empirical studies, HFSP journal 2, 205 (2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Cavagna, A

    A. Cavagna, A. Cimarelli, I. Giardina, G. Parisi, R. Santagati, F. Stefanini, and M. Viale, Scale-free correlations in starling flocks, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 11865 (2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Ariel and A

    G. Ariel and A. Ayali, Locust collective motion and its modeling, PLOS computational Biology 11, e1004522 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Sarfati, J

    R. Sarfati, J. C. Hayes, and O. Peleg, Self-organization in natural swarms of photinus carolinus synchronous fireflies, Science Advances 7, eabg9259 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Tunstrøm, Y

    K. Tunstrøm, Y. Katz, C. C. Ioannou, C. Huepe, M. J. Lutz, and I. D. Couzin, Collective states, multistability and transitional behavior in schooling fish, PLoS computational biology 9, e1002915 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    Gelblum, I

    A. Gelblum, I. Pinkoviezky, E. Fonio, A. Ghosh, N. Gov, and O. Feinerman, Ant groups optimally amplify the effect of transiently informed individuals, Nature communications 6, 7729 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Gelblum, I

    A. Gelblum, I. Pinkoviezky, E. Fonio, N. S. Gov, and O. Feinerman, Emergent oscillations assist obstacle negotiation during ant cooperative transport, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 14615 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    J. E. Ron, I. Pinkoviezky, E. Fonio, O. Feinerman, and N. S. Gov, Bi-stability in cooperative transport by ants in the presence of obstacles, PLoS computational biology 14, e1006068 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Ayalon, Y

    O. Ayalon, Y. Sternklar, E. Fonio, A. Korman, N. S. Gov, and O. Feinerman, Sequential decision-making in ants and implications to the evidence accumulation decision model, Frontiers in applied mathematics and statistics 7, 672773 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Mora and W

    T. Mora and W. Bialek, Are biological systems poised at criticality?, Journal of Statistical Physics 144, 268 (2011). 16

    2011

  7. [15]

    Attanasi, A

    A. Attanasi, A. Cavagna, L. Del Castello, I. Giardina, S. Melillo, L. Parisi, O. Pohl, B. Rossaro, E. Shen, E. Silvestri, et al., Finite-size scaling as a way to probe near-criticality in natural swarms, Physical review letters 113, 238102 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    Hidalgo, J

    J. Hidalgo, J. Grilli, S. Suweis, M. A. Munoz, J. R. Banavar, and A. Maritan, Information-based fitness and the emergence of criticality in living systems, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 10095 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    Chat´ e and M

    H. Chat´ e and M. A. Mu˜ noz, Insect swarms go critical, Physics7, 120 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Bialek, A

    W. Bialek, A. Cavagna, I. Giardina, T. Mora, O. Pohl, E. Silvestri, M. Viale, and A. M. Walczak, Social interactions dominate speed control in poising natural flocks near criticality, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 7212 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    D. S. Calovi, U. Lopez, P. Schuhmacher, H. Chat´ e, C. Sire, and G. Theraulaz, Collective response to perturbations in a data-driven fish school model, Journal of The Royal Society Interface 12, 20141362 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    W. Poel, B. C. Daniels, M. M. Sosna, C. R. Twomey, S. P. Leblanc, I. D. Couzin, and P. Romanczuk, Subcritical escape waves in schooling fish, Science Advances 8, eabm6385 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    G´ omez-Nava, R

    L. G´ omez-Nava, R. T. Lange, P. P. Klamser, J. Lukas, L. Arias-Rodriguez, D. Bierbach, J. Krause, H. Sprekeler, and P. Romanczuk, Fish shoals resemble a stochastic excitable system driven by environmental perturbations, Nature Physics 19, 663 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Romanczuk and B

    P. Romanczuk and B. C. Daniels, Phase transitions and criticality in the collective behavior of animals—self-organization and biological function, in Order, Disorder and Criticality: Advanced Problems of Phase Transition Theory(World Scien- tific, 2023) pp. 179–208

    2023

  15. [23]

    B. A. Cipra, An introduction to the ising model, The American Mathematical Monthly 94, 937 (1987)

    1987

  16. [24]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Statistical Physics: Volume 5, Vol. 5 (Elsevier, 2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    Bonabeau, Flexibility at the edge of chaos: a clear example from foraging in ants, Acta Biotheoretica 45, 29 (1997)

    E. Bonabeau, Flexibility at the edge of chaos: a clear example from foraging in ants, Acta Biotheoretica 45, 29 (1997)

    1997

  18. [26]

    Romanczuk, I

    P. Romanczuk, I. D. Couzin, and L. Schimansky-Geier, Collective motion due to individual escape and pursuit response, Physical Review Letters 102, 010602 (2009)

    2009

  19. [27]

    Pawson and P

    T. Pawson and P. Nash, Assembly of cell regulatory systems through protein interaction domains, science 300, 445 (2003)

    2003

  20. [28]

    I. D. Couzin, J. Krause, et al., Self-organization and collective behavior in vertebrates, Advances in the Study of Behavior 32, 10 (2003)

    2003

  21. [29]

    D. J. Sumpter, The principles of collective animal behaviour, Philosophical transactions of the royal society B: Biological Sciences 361, 5 (2006)

    2006

  22. [30]

    I. D. Couzin, Collective cognition in animal groups, Trends in cognitive sciences 13, 36 (2009)

    2009

  23. [31]

    Feinerman, I

    O. Feinerman, I. Pinkoviezky, A. Gelblum, E. Fonio, and N. S. Gov, The physics of cooperative transport in groups of ants, Nature Physics 14, 683 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Schneidman, M

    E. Schneidman, M. J. Berry, R. Segev, and W. Bialek, Weak pairwise correlations imply strongly correlated network states in a neural population, Nature 440, 1007 (2006)

    2006

  25. [33]

    P. P. Klamser and P. Romanczuk, Collective predator evasion: Putting the criticality hypothesis to the test, PLoS com- putational biology 17, e1008832 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Procaccini, A

    A. Procaccini, A. Orlandi, A. Cavagna, I. Giardina, F. Zoratto, D. Santucci, F. Chiarotti, C. K. Hemelrijk, E. Alleva, G. Parisi, et al., Propagating waves in starling, sturnus vulgaris, flocks under predation, Animal behaviour 82, 759 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    S. B. Rosenthal, C. R. Twomey, A. T. Hartnett, H. S. Wu, and I. D. Couzin, Revealing the hidden networks of interaction in mobile animal groups allows prediction of complex behavioral contagion, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 4690 (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    A. J. Mathijssen, J. Culver, M. S. Bhamla, and M. Prakash, Collective intercellular communication through ultra-fast hydrodynamic trigger waves, Nature 571, 560 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Bastien and P

    R. Bastien and P. Romanczuk, A model of collective behavior based purely on vision, Science advances 6, eaay0792 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Bedard, H

    C. Bedard, H. Kroeger, and A. Destexhe, Does the 1/f frequency scaling of brain signals reflect self-organized critical states?, Physical review letters 97, 118102 (2006)

    2006

  31. [39]

    J. M. Beggs and N. Timme, Being critical of criticality in the brain, Frontiers in physiology 3, 163 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    T. J. Czaczkes and F. L. Ratnieks, Cooperative transport in ants (hymenoptera: Formicidae) and elsewhere, Myrmecol. News 18, 1 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    H. F. McCreery and M. Breed, Cooperative transport in ants: a review of proximate mechanisms, Insectes sociaux 61, 99 (2014)

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.