ArticlePhysical review research
Stochastic dynamics of social patch foraging decisions.
Article in Physical review research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Delay-Induced Hopf Bifurcation and Entropy-Based Distributional Uncertainty in a Stochastic Time-Delay Pheromone Feedback Model of Ant Foraging Dynamics.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Human foraging strategies flexibly adapt to resource distribution and time constraints.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- Linking cognitive strategy, neural mechanism, and movement statistics in group foraging behaviors.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Individual and ecological heterogeneity promote complex communication in social vertebrate group decisions.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Review
- Visual social information use in collective foraging.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Collective incentives reduce over-exploitation of social information in unconstrained human groups.Nature communications · 2024Article
- A Cognitive Computational Approach to Social and Collective Decision-Making.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2024Article
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
Abstract
Animals typically forage in groups. Social foraging can help animals avoid predation and decrease their uncertainty about the richness of food resources. Despite this, theoretical mechanistic models of patch foraging have overwhelmingly focused on the behavior of single foragers. In this study, we develop a mechanistic model that accounts for the behavior of individuals foraging together and departing food patches following an evidence accumulation process. Each individual's belief about patch quality is represented by a stochastically accumulating variable, which is coupled to another's belief to represent the transfer of information. We consider a cohesive group, and model information sharing by considering both intermittent pulsatile coupling (only communicate decision to leave) and continuous diffusive coupling (communicate throughout the deliberation process). Groups employing pulsatile coupling can obtain higher foraging efficiency, which depends more strongly on the coupling parameter compared to those using diffusive coupling. Conversely, groups using diffusive coupling are more robust to changes and heterogeneities in belief weighting and departure criteria. Efficiency is measured by a reward rate function that balances the amount of energy accumulated against the time spent in a patch, computed by solving an ordered first passage time problem for the patch departures of each individual. Using synthetic departure time data, we can distinguish between the two modes of communication and identify the model parameters. Our model establishes a social patch foraging framework to identify deliberative decision strategies and forms of social communication, and to allow model fitting to field data from foraging animal groups.
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.