Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42733009›Full record

ArticleNature communications2026

Bio-inspired decision making in robot swarms under biases.

Raina Zakir, Timoteo Carletti, Marco Dorigo, Andreagiovanni Reina

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 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. 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.

Raina ZakirIRIDIA, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. raina.zakir@ulb.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2419-3789
Timoteo CarlettiDepartment of Mathematics and Namur Institute for Complex Systems, naXys, University of Namur, Namur, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2596-4503
Marco DorigoIRIDIA, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3971-0507
Andreagiovanni ReinaCentre for the Advanced Study of Collective Behaviour, Universität Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany. andreagiovanni.reina@uni-konstanz.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4745-992X

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) EXC 2117 - 422037984
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To operate autonomously, minimal robot swarms must make timely and reliable collective decisions despite noisy individual sensing and severe constraints on communication, computation, and memory. Achieving this capability could expand their use in applications such as healthcare, disaster response, and environmental monitoring. Here, we study how such swarms can rapidly and reliably reach consensus on the best among n discrete options by comparing two canonical mechanisms of opinion dynamics-direct-switch and cross-inhibition-simple yet effective rules for collective information processing observed in biological systems across scales, from neural populations to insect colonies. We generalise existing mean-field models by incorporating asocial biases that influence opinion dynamics. While swarms using direct-switch reliably select the best option in the absence of asocial dynamics, their performance deteriorates when such biases are introduced, often leading to decision deadlocks. In contrast, bio-inspired cross-inhibition enables faster, more cohesive, robust, and scalable decisions across a wide range of biased conditions. Our findings provide theoretical and practical insights into the coordination of minimal swarms, with implications for a broad class of decentralised decision-making systems across biology and engineering.

Indexed as

Decision MakingRoboticsAnimalsAutonomous Robots

Identifiers

PMID42733009
PMCPMC13572407

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.