Phototactic Decision-Making by Micro-Algae

Adham Al-Kassem; Adriana I. Pesci; Nir S. Gov; Rapha\"el Jeanneret; Raymond E. Goldstein; Shantanu Raikwar

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 34 references

Phototactic Decision-Making by Micro-Algae

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Given two crossing light beams, negatively phototactic Chlamydomonas cells swim along the intensity-weighted average of the two beam directions, a geometric 'tangent law' that is a fixed point of an adaptive phototaxis model.

desk verdict The tangent law is a clean, parameter-free experimental result for Chlamydomonas; the paper's weak spot is the asserted two-light model and a missing consistency check between the offset-distribution model and the tangent-law data. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01684 v1 pith:BGJ2A5ZN submitted 2025-07-02 cond-mat.soft physics.bio-phq-bio.CB

Shantanu Raikwar , Adham Al-Kassem , Nir S. Gov , Adriana I. Pesci , Raphaël Jeanneret , Raymond E. Goldstein This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.softphysics.bio-phq-bio.CB

keywords phototaxisChlamydomonasreinhardtiitangentlawadaptiveresponseeyespotoffsetstochasticswitchingconflictingstimulidecision-making

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 asks how an aneural single cell chooses a direction when two light sources compete, and answers with a simple geometric rule. Negatively phototactic Chlamydomonas reinhardtii cells swim along the intensity-weighted average of the two light propagation vectors, the tangent law $\tan \phi^* = \frac{\eta-1}{\eta+1} \tan \delta$. The paper derives this law as the fixed point of an adaptive model of phototaxis and shows it is equivalent to minimizing the average light intensity on the cell's anterior pole. At nearly antiparallel beam angles, the population splits into three behaviors—swimming away from one source, away from the other, or along the average direction—with some cells stochastically switching between choices. The paper attributes this apparent randomness to measured variation in eyespot position across the population, making the decision rule deterministic at the level of each cell's geometry.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the adaptive phototaxis model: rigid-body Euler-angle dynamics for the spinning cell coupled to a fast flagellar photoresponse $P$ and a slower adaptation variable $H$, reduced for a photoreceptor in the equatorial plane to $\phi_T = -P \sin T$ with $P$ satisfying a damped-oscillator equation. Under the additivity assumption $S = P^*[\eta J_+ H(J_+) + J_- H(J_-)]$ with Heaviside shading and projections $J_\pm = \sin(\phi \mp \delta) \sin T$, averaging over the fast spin gives the reorientation dynamics $\phi_T = -\lambda[\eta \sin(\phi - \delta) + \sin(\phi + \delta)]$, whose steady state is the tangent law. The generalization to off-equatorial eyespots replaces the projections with $J_\pm = \cos \gamma \sin(\phi \mp \delta) \sin T - \sin \gamma \cos(\phi \mp \delta)$ and adds rotational diffusion, turning the model into a Langevin equation whose simulated trajectories reproduce the three-peaked $Q(\phi)$.

What would settle it

Measure the swimming direction of single cells whose eyespot offset is known while presenting two beams with individual intensities high enough that the photoreceptor signal should saturate; if $\phi^*$ departs from the tangent law as the sum of intensities increases, the additivity assumption fails. A second check is to image or record the photoreceptor current while both beams illuminate the eyespot simultaneously and compare the response with the sum of single-beam responses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that binary phototactic choice in Chlamydomonas obeys a geometric sum rule: for two beams with intensity ratio $\eta$ and half-angle $\delta$, the mean swimming direction $\phi^*$ satisfies $\tan \phi^* = \frac{\eta-1}{\eta+1} \tan \delta$, equivalently $\hat{u}^* = (\eta \hat{v}_+ + \hat{v}_-)/|\eta \hat{v}_+ + \hat{v}_-|$. The paper shows this is not an empirical fit but the stable fixed point of the adaptive phototaxis dynamics, which also minimizes the Lyapunov function $V = -\hat{e}_3 \cdot (\eta \hat{v}_+ + \hat{v}_-)$ representing the average light on the anterior pole. The same adaptive model quantitatively describes fast reorientation after a sudden switch of light direction with a single fitted parameter. The paper further shows that at large angular separation ($2\delta = 162^\circ$) the observed three-peaked distribution of swimming directions is reproduced by a Langevin extension of the model in which each cell's photoreceptor is displaced from the equator by an angle drawn from the measured Gaussian distribution of eyespot offsets $h = R \sin \gamma$. In this picture, cells with large negative offsets swim stably away from one source, cells with positive offsets follow the tangent law, and intermediate cells hop stochastically between choices, with an effective free energy that bifurcates from one well to two as $h$ increases.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the two light stimuli add linearly inside the photoreceptor signal $S = P^*[\eta J_+ H(J_+) + J_- H(J_-)]$ and that the fast-spin average used to derive the reorientation dynamics remains valid near $\delta \approx 90^\circ$; if two-beam photoreception saturates, cross-inhibits, or the shading average breaks down, the tangent-law fixed point and the anterior-pole illumination minimum would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For more than two lights, the intensity-weighted vector average predicts the swimming direction whenever the angular spread of sources is small enough ($2\delta \lesssim 140^\circ$); as the number of sources grows, negatively phototactic cells should swim directly away from the brightest spot.
The adaptive model, with the same parameter values, quantitatively captures the fast reorientation after a light-direction switch, so the tangent law and the turn dynamics share one mechanism.
The three-peaked direction distribution is a superposition of single-well and double-well effective free energies across the population, not a sharp bifurcation; therefore no true critical angle exists.
Because the tangent law minimizes average anterior-pole illumination, the choice rule can be read as an optimization principle for avoiding light damage to the anterior pole.

Reading between the lines

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

If the linear additivity of photoreceptor signals holds beyond two beams, the same geometric sum rule should predict swimming in natural light fields composed of many discrete sources; this could be tested with three beams arranged in a triangle.
The model implies that apparent stochastic switching is largely deterministic given a cell's eyespot offset; selecting or sorting cells by eyespot position should shift the relative weights of the three peaks in $Q(\phi)$.
The reliance on eyespot offset suggests a generic mechanism: any source of front-back asymmetry in photoreceptor placement will generate multi-stable taxis under conflicting stimuli, so similar three-peaked distributions may appear in other Volvocine algae.
A direct test of additivity at the photoreceptor level—measuring the transduction current while two beams illuminate the eyespot simultaneously—would confirm or refute the load-bearing signal formula.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know about this one for the experimental result, not for the theory. The two-beam tangent law, Eq. (1), is a genuinely new and simple empirical rule: negatively phototactic cells swim along the intensity-weighted vector average of the two light propagation directions. The data in Fig. 1(c) support it across five half-angles and a wide range of intensity ratios, with no free parameters in the law itself. The measurement protocol is careful—angle calibration from single-beam swimming, LED power calibration in the supplement, and open data on Zenodo. That alone makes the paper worth a serious look.

The eyespot-offset story is also interesting. Measuring the distribution of photoreceptor offsets and using it to explain the three-peaked swimming-direction distribution at large angular separation is a plausible mechanism, and the simulated Q(phi) in Fig. 3(d) does resemble the experimental one. Credit where due: the imaging and tracking work is solid, and the switch-reorientation data match the adaptive model with a single fitted P*.

Now the soft spots, in order of importance. First, the stress-test note is right: the paper never checks whether the offset-distribution model, when ensemble-averaged over the measured gamma distribution, reproduces Eq. (1) on the same (delta, eta) grid as Fig. 1(c). The side peaks in the model are asymmetric for eta != 1, and a nonzero mean offset (0.15 microns) could bias away from the tangent law. This is a direct consistency check that should take one supplementary figure, and its absence is a real gap between the two main claims. Second, Eq. (3) is presented as the two-light generalization of the single-source derivation, but the End Matter only derives the single-light case and says the generalization is straightforward. It probably is, but the averaging over the spin phase with the Heaviside shading functions, especially near delta ~ 90 degrees, needs to be shown rather than asserted. Third, the stochastic model's rotational diffusion coefficient Dr is not specified; the reader has to hunt for it or take it as a hidden fit. That is minor compared to the first two.

None of this sinks the central experimental claim. The tangent law is an independent measurement, not an output of a tuned model, so the circularity burden is low. But the paper as written overclaims that the model explains the data it was designed to match, without checking the quantitative link between the two. The fixes are straightforward.

Who is this for? People working on microbial phototaxis, active matter with multiple cues, and decision-making in aneural organisms. It deserves a serious referee, not a desk rejection. My recommendation: send it out, and require the authors to add the two-light derivation and the ensemble-averaged tangent-law consistency check.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper reports experiments in which negatively phototactic Chlamydomonas reinhardtii cells are exposed to two mutually inclined collimated light beams with independently adjustable intensities. The authors find that the population-averaged swimming direction follows a 'tangent law', Eq. (1), which states that the cell swims along the intensity-weighted vector average of the two light propagation directions. They derive this law as the steady-state fixed point of an adaptive phototaxis model under an additivity assumption for the photoreceptor signal, and show that fast-turn experiments are consistent with the fast-response limit of that model. At large angular separations the population splits into three subpopulations: cells swimming away from one light, cells following the tangent law, and cells stochastically switching between these directions. The authors attribute this trimodality to a measured population-level distribution of photoreceptor (eyespot) offsets from the equatorial plane and support this with Langevin simulations using the measured offset distribution.

Significance. If the tangent law is correct, it provides a remarkably simple, parameter-free geometrical rule for phototactic decision-making in a unicellular organism, and it offers a link between line-of-sight photoreception and gradient-climbing descriptions of phototaxis. The paper combines careful single-cell tracking, an analytic derivation from a published adaptive model, an independent measurement of the eyespot-offset distribution, and publicly archived data on Zenodo, all of which are strengths. However, the consistency between the offset-dependent model used to explain the trimodal distribution and the tangent law is not demonstrated, and the two-light derivation is only sketched, so the significance as a self-contained theoretical statement is presently limited.

major comments (4)

[Phototaxis at large angular light separation (Eq. (6), Fig. 3)] The paper never checks whether the population-averaged swimming direction predicted by the offset-dependent model, using the measured eyespot-offset distribution, reproduces the tangent law Eq. (1) over the same (δ, η) grid as Fig. 1(c). For η ≠ 1, the model's stable fixed points are asymmetric (cells with negative γ swim near ±δ, while cells with positive γ follow the tangent law), so the ensemble average ⟨φ⟩ will generally differ from the γ=0 fixed point. Please provide a supplementary comparison of the model's ⟨φ⟩ with Eq. (1) and with the experimental data for representative δ values (e.g., 12.5°, 38.4°, 67.6°) and a range of η. If deviations are present, quantify whether they are within the experimental error bars; if the model is intended only for δ near 90°, state the validity range of the tangent-law claim explicitly.
[End Matter, final paragraph] The derivation of Eq. (3) from the two-light signal S = P*[η J+ H(J+) + J− H(J−)] is not actually presented. The End Matter derives the averaged dynamics only for a single light source and then states that the generalization to two lights is 'straightforward'. Please show the averaging explicitly, including the piecewise treatment of the Heaviside shading in the three angular regions (I, II, III) described in the main text, and state the conditions under which the averaging holds (additivity, no saturation, no cross-inhibition). This is needed to verify that the steady state of Eq. (3) is indeed the tangent law Eq. (1).
[Fig. 1(c), Sec. 'Experimental determination of the angles' (Supplemental S2B)] No goodness-of-fit statistics are provided for the tangent law. Because Eq. (1) has no free parameters, the claim that the data are 'well-fit' should be substantiated with residuals, RMS angular deviation, or χ² per degree of freedom for each δ, and the increasing scatter at δ=67.6° near η→1 should be discussed quantitatively. Without this, the empirical support for the central claim is stated only visually.
[Fig. 3(d,e), numerical simulations] The parameters used in the Langevin simulations are not reported: the value of the scaled rotational diffusion constant D̃r (or Dr), the photoresponse amplitude P*, the number of swimmers N, the integration time, and the numerical scheme are all missing. This makes the comparison in Fig. 3(d) and the effective free energy in Fig. 3(e) irreproducible and prevents the reader from assessing parameter sensitivity. Please state the parameter values and, ideally, show how the peak positions and weights depend on Dr and P*.

minor comments (7)

[End Matter, after Eq. (17b)] The word 'functios' should be 'function'.
[Supplemental S1] 'Savitzy-Golay' is a misspelling of 'Savitzky-Golay'.
[Supplemental Fig. S1 caption] The caption says '(c) Enlargement of the first 10 Hz of the spectra shown in (c)', but it should refer to the spectra shown in (b).
[Main text, Eq. (3) and Eq. (6)] The Heaviside step function H is used without definition; please define H(x) explicitly (e.g., H(x)=1 for x>0, 0 otherwise) at first use.
[Reference [25]] The URL contains the placeholder 'xxx.xxxxxx'; the actual DOI or arXiv link should be provided.
[End Matter, Eq. (19)] The independent variable is denoted inconsistently as both T and t in the same equation; make the notation uniform.
[Fig. 1(c)] The caption states that the experimental data are shown for δ increasing upwards, but it is unclear whether the plotted angle is φ* or φ*−δ; please clarify the ordinate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the tangent law is an independent empirical measurement, and the model fixed-point calculation is a derivation from stated assumptions rather than a restatement of the data.

full rationale

The central result, Eq. (1), is an experimental law measured from ensemble swimming angles across a grid of (δ, η); it is not produced by fitting the model. The fixed-point derivation starts from the adaptive phototaxis equations of prior work [22] and a stated additivity assumption S = P*[ηJ+H(J+) + J-H(J-)]. Although authors of [22] overlap with the present paper, that prior model is parameter-free with respect to the tangent law and was previously published; it supplies α, β, and the single-source averaged dynamics, not the two-beam sum rule. The effective two-beam equation (3) is obtained by linear superposition of the single-source projections, so its fixed point coincides with the vector average by elementary trigonometry, not because Eq. (1) was inserted. Likewise, the eyespot-offset explanation uses an independently measured Gaussian distribution q(h) (mean 0.15 µm, σ = 1.0 µm) as input to Langevin simulations, and the simulated Q(φ) is then compared with the observed Q(φ); no parameter is fitted to the three-peaked distribution. The light-switching fit of P* in Eq. (5) concerns reorientation dynamics, not the tangent law. The only flagged gap is an omitted proof: the End Matter derives the averaged dynamics for a single light and states 'The generalization of (22) to the case of two lights at angles ±δ, leading to (3), is straightforward'; because the Heaviside shading functions may couple to φ in the two-light case, this is a missing derivation and a potential correctness risk, but not a circular reduction. There is no step in which an input is renamed as a prediction or a self-citation is used to forbid alternatives.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central derivation rests on a prior adaptive model with published parameters, an additivity assumption for two light stimuli, Heaviside shading, and a measured eyespot-offset distribution. No new physical entities are introduced. The only newly fitted parameter in a validation is P*, while Dr is not specified in the stochastic model.

free parameters (2)

P* (scaled photoresponse amplitude) = ≈ 1.4
Sole fitting parameter in Eq. (5) used to match the light-switching reorientation data; it scales λ in Eq. (3) but cancels from the tangent-law fixed point.
Dr (rotational diffusion coefficient in Langevin model) = not reported
The stochastic model used to produce Fig. 3(d,e) requires a scaled rotational diffusion coefficient, but the value or fitting procedure is not given in the text, making the tri-modal comparison partially qualitative.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Adaptive phototaxis model from prior work, including parameter values α = 7 and β = 0.14
The End Matter uses the coupled Euler-angle and adaptive equations from the authors' earlier paper, with α = 7 and β = 0.14, to derive the averaged reorientation dynamics used in Eq. (3) and Eq. (5).
domain assumption Additivity of light stimuli in the photoreceptor signal
The signal S = P*[η J+ H(J+) + J- H(J-)] in the main text is a linear weighted sum of the two beam projections; this is what makes the fixed point equal to the intensity-weighted average vector. Saturation or cross-talk between beams would change the law.
domain assumption Heaviside shading of the eyespot
The functions H(J±) encode line-of-sight shielding in S and in Eq. (6); this is motivated by prior line-of-sight phototaxis studies of Chlamydomonas.
standard math Small photoresponse and two-time-scale separation with secularity removal
The End Matter perturbative expansion assumes 0 < ε << 1, a slow time τ = εT, and removal of secular terms to obtain Eq. (21) and then the two-light averaged dynamics in Eq. (3).
domain assumption Each cell's eyespot offset is fixed and drawn from the measured Gaussian distribution
Equation (6) uses h = R sin γ with the measured distribution from Fig. 3(c); the tri-modal explanation depends on this assignment and on rotational diffusion jitter.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phototactic Decision-Making by Micro-Algae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BGJ2A5ZN

@misc{pith2026250701684,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phototactic Decision-Making by Micro-Algae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BGJ2A5ZN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01684}
}

abstract

We study how simple eukaryotic organisms make decisions in response to competing stimuli in the context of phototaxis by the unicellular alga $Chlamydomonas~reinhardtii$. While negatively phototactic cells swim directly away from a collimated light beam, when presented with two beams of adjustable intersection angle and intensities, we find that cells swim in a direction given by an intensity-weighted average of the two light propagation vectors. This geometrical law is a fixed point of an adaptive model of phototaxis and minimizes the average light intensity falling on the anterior pole of the cell. At large angular separations, subpopulations of cells swim away from one source or the other, or along the direction of the geometrical law, with some cells stochastically switching between the three directions. This behavior is shown to arise from a population-level distribution of photoreceptor locations that breaks front-back symmetry of photoreception.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01684 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Reorientation dynamics. (a) Trajectories during a switch in light direction from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Phototaxis at large angular light separation. (a) Trajectories for 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Coordinate system of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The correction function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[1]

Fretwell and H.L

S.D. Fretwell and H.L. Lucas Jr., On territorial behav- ior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds, Acta Biotheor. 19, 16–36 (1969)

work page 1969
[2]

Ideal free

D.G.C. Harper, Competitive foraging in mallards: “Ideal free” ducks, Anim. Behav. 30, 575–584 (1982)

work page 1982
[3]

Decision

J. Adler and W.-W. Tso, “Decision”-making in bacteria: Chemotactic response of Escherichia coli to conflicting stimuli, Science 184, 1292–1294 (1974)

work page 1974
[4]

Santos and A.G

L.R. Santos and A.G. Rosati, The evolutionary roots of human decision making, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 66, 321– 347 (2015)

work page 2015
[5]

C.R. Reid, S. Garnier, M. Beekman, and T. Latty, In- formation integration and multiattribute decision mak- ing in non-neuronal organisms, Anim. Behav. 100, 44–50 (2015)

work page 2015
[6]

R.M.W. Chau, D. Bhaya, and K.C. Huang, Emergent phototactic responses of cyanobacteria under complex light regimes, mBio 8, e02330-16 (2017)

work page 2017
[7]

Kim, Phototaxis of cyanobacteria under complex light environments, mBio 8, e00498-17 (2017)

M. Kim, Phototaxis of cyanobacteria under complex light environments, mBio 8, e00498-17 (2017)

work page 2017
[8]

Menon, P

S.N. Menon, P. Varuni, and G.I. Menon, Information in- tegration and collective motility in phototactic cyanobac- teria, PLoS Comput. Biol. 16, e1007807 (2020)

work page 2020

Show all 34 references

[9]

Rivi` ere and Y

M. Rivi` ere and Y. Meroz, Plants sum and subtract stim- uli over different timescales, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2306655120 (2023)

2023
[10]

Foster and R

K.W. Foster and R. D. Smyth, Light antennas in photo- tactic algae, Microbiol. Rev. 44, 572–630 (1980)

1980
[11]

R¨ uffer and W

U. R¨ uffer and W. Nultsch, Flagellar photoresponses of Chlamydomonas cells held on micropipettes: I. Change in flagellar beat frequency, Cell Mot. Cytoskeleton 15, 162–167 (1990)

1990
[12]

R¨ uffer and W

U. R¨ uffer and W. Nultsch, Flagellar photoresponses of Chlamydomonas cells held on micropipettes: II. Change in flagellar beat pattern, Cell Mot. Cytoskeleton 18, 269– 278 (1991)

1991
[13]

Schaller, R

K. Schaller, R. David, and R. Uhl, How Chlamydomonas keeps track of the light once it has reached the right pho- totactic orientation, Biophys. J. 73, 1562–1572 (1997)

1997
[14]

Hegemann, Vision in microalgae, Planta 203, 265–274 (1997)

P. Hegemann, Vision in microalgae, Planta 203, 265–274 (1997)

1997
[15]

Josef, J

K. Josef, J. Saranak, and K.W. Foster, Ciliary behavior of a negatively phototactic Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, Cell Mot. Cytoskel. 61, 97–111 (2005)

2005
[16]

Josef, J

K. Josef, J. Saranak, and K.W. Foster, Linear systems analysis of the ciliary steering behavior associated with negative-phototaxis in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, Cell Mot. Cytoskel. 63, 758–777 (2006)

2006
[17]

Hegemann, Algal Sensory Photoreceptors, Annu

P. Hegemann, Algal Sensory Photoreceptors, Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 59, 167–189 (2008)

2008
[18]

J´ ekely, Evolution of phototaxis, Phil

G. J´ ekely, Evolution of phototaxis, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 2795–2808 (2009)

2009
[19]

Drescher, R.E

K. Drescher, R.E. Goldstein, and I. Tuval, Fidelity of adaptive phototaxis, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 11171–11176 (2010)

2010
[20]

Bennett and R

R.R. Bennett and R. Golestanian, A steering mechanism for phototaxis in Chlamydomonas, J. R. Soc. Interface 12, 20141164 (2015)

2015
[21]

de Maleprade, F

H. de Maleprade, F. Moisy, T. Ishikawa, and R.E. Gold- stein, Motility and phototaxis in Gonium, the simplest differentiated colonial alga Phys. Rev. E 101, 022416 (2020)

2020
[22]

Leptos, M

K.C. Leptos, M. Chioccioli, S. Furlan, A.I. Pesci and R.E. Goldstein, Phototaxis of Chlamydomonas arises from a tuned adaptive photoresponse shared with multicellular Volvocine green algae, Phys. Rev. E 107, 014404 (2023)

2023
[23]

Yoshimura and R

K. Yoshimura and R. Kamiya, The sensitivity ofChlamy- domonas photoreceptor is optimized for the frequency of cell body rotation, Plant Cell Physiol. 42, 665–672 (2001)

2001
[24]

Sridhar, L

V.H. Sridhar, L. Li, D. Gorbonos, M. Nagy, B.R. Schell, T. Sorochkin, N.S. Gov, and I.D. Couzin, The geometry of decision-making in individuals and collectives, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2102157118 (2021)

2021
[25]

Further experimental results in Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/xxx.xxxxxx

doi
[26]

Crocker and D.G

J.C. Crocker and D.G. Grier, Methods of digital video microscopy for colloidal studies, J. Coll. Int. Sci. 179, 298–310 (1996)

1996
[27]

Isogai, R

N. Isogai, R. Kamiya and K. Yoshimura, Dominance between the two flagella during phototactic turning in Chlamydomonas, Zool. Sci. 17, 1261–1266 (2000)

2000
[28]

Williams and M.A

C.R. Williams and M.A. Bees, Photo-gyrotactic biocon- vection, J. Fluid Mech. 678, 41–86 (2011)

2011
[29]

de Andres-Bragado, C

L. de Andres-Bragado, C. Mazza, W. Senn, and S.G. Sprecher, Statistical modelling of navigational decisions based on intensity versus directionality inDrosophila lar- val phototaxis, Sci. Rep. 8, 11272 (2018)

2018
[30]

Zhu, K.J

M.L. Zhu, K.J. Herrera, K. Vogt, and A. Bahl, Navi- gational strategies underlying phototaxis in Drosophila larvae, J. Exp. Biol. 224, jeb242428 (2021)

2021
[31]

Lebovitz and A.I

N.R. Lebovitz and A.I. Pesci, Dynamic bifurcation in Hamiltonian systems with one degree of freedom, SIAM J. Appl. Math. 55, 1117–1133 (1995)

1995
[32]

Moses, D.W

M.M. Moses, D.W. Morris and W. Qin, Greener on the other side of the fence: density-dependent habitat se- lection by a unicellular alga, Evol. Ecol. Res. 15, 1–20 (2013)

2013
[33]

Arrieta, A

J. Arrieta, A. Barreira, M. Chioccioli, M. Polin, and I. Tuval, Phototaxis beyond turning: persistent accumula- tion and response acclimation of the microalga Chlamy- domonas reinhardtii, Sci. Rep. 7, 3447 (2017)

2017
[34]

Phototactic decision-making by al- gae

R. Jeanneret, S. Raikwar, N.S. Gov, A.I. Pesci and R.E. Goldstein, Data for “Phototactic decision-making by al- gae”. Zenodo. doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15051634 (2025). 6 END MA TTER The complete model introduced earlier [22] consists of the coupled dynamics of the Euler angles (...

2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Fretwell and H.L

S.D. Fretwell and H.L. Lucas Jr., On territorial behav- ior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds, Acta Biotheor. 19, 16–36 (1969)

work page 1969

[2] [2]

Ideal free

D.G.C. Harper, Competitive foraging in mallards: “Ideal free” ducks, Anim. Behav. 30, 575–584 (1982)

work page 1982

[3] [3]

Decision

J. Adler and W.-W. Tso, “Decision”-making in bacteria: Chemotactic response of Escherichia coli to conflicting stimuli, Science 184, 1292–1294 (1974)

work page 1974

[4] [4]

Santos and A.G

L.R. Santos and A.G. Rosati, The evolutionary roots of human decision making, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 66, 321– 347 (2015)

work page 2015

[5] [5]

C.R. Reid, S. Garnier, M. Beekman, and T. Latty, In- formation integration and multiattribute decision mak- ing in non-neuronal organisms, Anim. Behav. 100, 44–50 (2015)

work page 2015

[6] [6]

R.M.W. Chau, D. Bhaya, and K.C. Huang, Emergent phototactic responses of cyanobacteria under complex light regimes, mBio 8, e02330-16 (2017)

work page 2017

[7] [7]

Kim, Phototaxis of cyanobacteria under complex light environments, mBio 8, e00498-17 (2017)

M. Kim, Phototaxis of cyanobacteria under complex light environments, mBio 8, e00498-17 (2017)

work page 2017

[8] [8]

Menon, P

S.N. Menon, P. Varuni, and G.I. Menon, Information in- tegration and collective motility in phototactic cyanobac- teria, PLoS Comput. Biol. 16, e1007807 (2020)

work page 2020