Advertisement

Ising Model as a Switch Voting Mechanism in Collective Perception

  • Palina BartashevichEmail author
  • Sanaz Mostaghim
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11805)

Abstract

This paper investigates the influence of the preferences of individuals on the process of collective perception in the collective decision-making systems. To do this, the Ising model from the context of Social Impact Theory is studied on a dynamic network of agents within an environment. This model additionally considers the mechanisms of the direct modulation of positive feedback. We propose learning rules for updating the preferences. Such rules depend on the undertaken decisions of the individuals. The experiments are evaluated on the best-of-2 collective perception problem and compared with the state-of-the-art voting mechanisms such as majority and voter models. The results show that assigning preferences to the agents allows a designer to take control over the outcome of the collective decision-making process. In addition, the agents with a right conjecture can faster reach the correct conclusion even if only \(20\%\) of the initial population holds the target opinion.

Keywords

Ising model Collective decision making Collective perception Social impact theory 

References

  1. 1.
    Berdahl, A., Torney, C.J., Ioannou, C.C., Faria, J.J., Couzin, I.D.: Emergent sensing of complex environments by mobile animal groups. Science 339, 574–576 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonati, C.: The Peierls argument for higher dimensional Ising models. Eur. J. Phys. 35(3), 035002 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Castellano, C., Fortunato, S., Loreto, V.: Statistical physics of social dynamics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 591–646 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drouffe, J.M., Godrèche, C.: Phase ordering and persistence in a class of stochastic processes interpolating between the Ising and voter models. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 32(2), 249–261 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hartnett, A.T., Schertzer, E., Levin, S.A., Couzin, I.D.: Heterogeneous preference and local nonlinearity in consensus decision making. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 038701 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Holyst, J.A., Kacperski, K., Schweitzer, F.: Social impact models of opinion dynamics. Annual Rev. Comput. Phys. IX, 253–272 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martin, P.: Potts Models and Related Problems in Statistical Mechanics. Series on Advances in Statistical Mechanics. World Scientific, Singapore (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nowak, A., Latane, B., Szamrej, J.: From private attitude to public opinion: a dynamic theory of social impact. Psychol. Rev. 97(3), 362–376 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Strobel, V., Castelló Ferrer, E., Dorigo, M.: Managing byzantine robots via blockchain technology in a swarm robotics collective decision making scenario. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on AAMAS, pp. 541–549 (2018)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Torney, C., Neufeld, Z., Couzin, I.D.: Context-dependent interaction leads to emergent search behavior in social aggregates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106(52), 22055–22060 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Valentini, G.: Achieving Consensus in Robot Swarms. SCI, vol. 706. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53609-5CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceOtto von Guericke UniversityMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations