ArticleRoyal Society open science2019
Asynchrony induces polarization in attraction-based models of collective motion.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robust spatial self-organization in crowds of asynchronous pedestrians.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2024Article
- Applying collective motion models to study discordant individual behaviours within a school of fish.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Exploring the criticality hypothesis using programmable swarm robots with Vicsek-like interactions.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2023Article
- Functional duality in group criticality via ambiguous interactions.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Randomness in the choice of neighbours promotes cohesion in mobile animal groups.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- Modelling collective motion based on the principle of agency: General framework and the case of marching locusts.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Animal groups frequently move in a highly organized manner, as represented by flocks of birds and schools of fish. Despite being an everyday occurrence, we do not fully understand how this works. In particular, what social interactions between animals give rise to the flock structures we observe? This question is often investigated using self-propelled particle models where particles represent the individual animals. These models differ in the social interactions used, individual particle properties, and various technical assumptions. One particular technical assumption relates to whether all particles update their headings and positions at exactly the same time (synchronous update) or not (asynchronous update). Here, we investigate the causal effects of this assumption in an attraction-only model and find that it has a dramatic impact. Polarized groups do not form when synchronous update is used, but are produced with asynchronous update, and this phenomenon is robust with respect to variation in particle displacements and inclusion of noise. Given that many important models have been implemented with synchronous update only, we speculate that our understanding of the social interactions on which they are based may be incomplete. Perhaps previously unobserved phenomena will emerge if other potentially more realistic update schemes are used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.