Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30940027›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2019

A stochastic game model of searching predators and hiding prey.

Steve Alpern, Shmuel Gal, Viciano Lee, Jérôme Casas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Steve Alpern1 Warwick Business School, University of Warwick , Coventry , UK.
Shmuel Gal2 Department of Statistics, University of Haifa , Haifa , Israel.
Viciano Lee1 Warwick Business School, University of Warwick , Coventry , UK.
Jérôme Casas3 Institut Universitaire de France IUF, Institut de Recherche sur la Biologie de l'Insecte, UMR-CNRS-7261, UFR Sciences et Techniques, Université François Rabelais , Tours , France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When the spatial density of both prey and predators is very low, the problem they face may be modelled as a two-person game (called a 'search game') between one member of each type. Following recent models of search and pursuit, we assume the prey has a fixed number of heterogeneous 'hiding' places (for example, ice holes for a seal to breathe) and that the predator (maybe polar bear) has the time or energy to search a fixed number of these. If he searches the actual hiding location and also successfully pursues the prey there, he wins the game. If he fails to find the prey, he loses. In this paper, we modify the outcome in the case that he finds but does not catch the prey. The prey is now vulnerable to capture while relocating with risk depending on the intervening terrain. This generalizes the original games to a stochastic game framework, a first for search and pursuit games. We outline a general solution and also compute particular solutions. This modified model now has implications for the question of when to stay or leave the lair and by what routes. In particular, we find the counterintuitive result that in some cases adding risk of predation during prey relocation may result in more relocation. We also model the process by which the players can learn about the properties of the different hiding locations and find that having to learn the capture probabilities is favourable to the prey.

Indexed as

Game TheoryModels, BiologicalModels, StatisticalStochastic ProcessesAnimalsPredatory Behaviorbehavioural ecologygame theorypredator–prey theorypursuit escapesearch games

Identifiers

PMID30940027
PMCPMC6505550

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.