ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2025
Tabula rasa agents display emergent in-group behavior.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Collective artificial intelligence and evolutionary dynamics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
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
Theories on group-bias often posit an internal preparedness to bias one's cognition to favor the in-group (often envisioned as a product of evolution). In contrast, other theories suggest that group-biases can emerge from nonspecialized cognitive processes. These perspectives have historically been difficult to disambiguate given that observed behavior can often be attributed to innate processes, even when groups are experimentally assigned. Here, we use modern techniques from the field of AI that allow us to ask what group biases can be expected from a learning agent that is a pure blank slate without any intrinsic social biases, and whose lifetime of experiences can be tightly controlled. This is possible because deep reinforcement-learning agents learn to convert raw sensory input (i.e. pixels) to reward-driven action, a unique feature among cognitive models. We find that blank slate agents do develop group biases based on arbitrary group differences (i.e. color). We show that the bias develops as a result of familiarity of experience and depends on the visual patterns becoming associated with reward through interaction. The bias artificial agents display is not a static reflection of the bias in their stream of experiences. In this minimal environment, the bias can be overcome given enough positive experiences, although unlearning the bias takes longer than acquiring it. Further, we show how this style of tabula rasa group behavior model can be used to test fine-grained predictions of psychological theories.
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.