Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41866041›Full record

ArticleAdvanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany)2026

Consensus Formation and Change are Enhanced by Neutrality.

Andrei Sontag, Janina A Hoffmann, Tim Rogers, Christian A Yates

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Consensus Formation and Change are Enhanced by Neutrality.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    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.

Andrei SontagDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, University of Bath, Bath, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7088-0491
Janina A HoffmannDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6246-2724
Tim RogersDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, University of Bath, Bath, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-2460-806X
Christian A YatesDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, University of Bath, Bath, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0461-7297

Funding

EPSRC EP/S022945/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Effective collective decision-making in human and animal groups requires robust mechanisms for consensus formation and change, typically via feedback loops in which individuals adapt their behavior and opinions based on their perception of others. Such processes have been observed in the onset of motion in insect swarms and are believed to manifest across scales from nucleosomes to entire societies. However, levels of participation can be highly variable over time, with individuals sometimes adopting neutral positions such as moving to the back of a group or abstaining from a vote. Here, we present a new theoretical and experimental analysis showing that neutrality has two important and hitherto unreported benefits to collective decision-making. First, it enables the robust formation of consensus in groups of individuals applying simple linear reasoning, updating their stance after consideration of at most one other individual at a time. Second, we find that neutral actors can facilitate efficient consensus change by reducing the effective population size during transitions. These findings are derived from a new general mathematical model of collective binary decision problems and validated against experiments with insect and human populations. Our results provide a parsimonious explanation of how groups of animals and humans quickly reach and overturn consensus, suggesting efficient solutions to collective decision-making problems.

Indexed as

collective behaviourconsensus formationdecision makingindividual‐based modelstochastic switching

Identifiers

PMID41866041
PMCPMC13325515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.