Search for: All records

Many models of learning in teams assume that team members can share solutions or learn concurrently. However, these assumptions break down in multidisciplinary teams where team members often complete distinct, interrelated pieces of larger tasks. Such contexts make it difficult for individuals to separate the performance effects of their own actions from the actions of interacting neighbors. In this work, we show that individuals can overcome this challenge by learning from network neighbors through mediating artifacts (like collective performance assessments). When neighbors’ actions influence collective outcomes, teams with different networks perform relatively similarly to one another. However, varying a team’s network can affect performance on tasks that weight individuals’ contributions by network properties. Consequently, when individuals innovate (through “exploring” searches), dense networks hurt performance slightly by increasing uncertainty. In contrast, dense networks moderately help performance when individuals refine their work (through “exploiting” searches) by efficiently finding local optima. We also find that decentralization improves team performance across a battery of 34 tasks. Our results offer design principles for multidisciplinary teams within which other forms of learning prove more difficult. 

Recent outbreaks of Mpox and Ebola, and worrying waves of COVID-19, influenza and respiratory syncytial virus, have all led to a sharp increase in the use of epidemiological models to estimate key epidemiological parameters. The feasibility of this estimation task is known as the practical identifiability (PI) problem. Here, we investigate the PI of eight commonly reported statistics of the classic susceptible–infectious–recovered model using a new measure that shows how much a researcher can expect to learn in a model-based Bayesian analysis of prevalence data. Our findings show that the basic reproductive number and final outbreak size are often poorly identified, with learning exceeding that of individual model parameters only in the early stages of an outbreak. The peak intensity, peak timing and initial growth rate are better identified, being in expectation over 20 times more probable having seen the data by the time the underlying outbreak peaks. We then test PI for a variety of true parameter combinations and find that PI is especially problematic in slow-growing or less-severe outbreaks. These results add to the growing body of literature questioning the reliability of inferences from epidemiological models when limited data are available. 

It has been proposed that climate adaptation research can benefit from an evolutionary approach. But related empirical research is lacking. We advance the evolutionary study of climate adaptation with two case studies from contemporary United States agriculture. First, we define ‘cultural adaptation to climate change’ as a mechanistic process of population-level cultural change. We argue this definition enables rigorous comparisons, yields testable hypotheses from mathematical theory and distinguishes adaptive change, non-adaptive change and desirable policy outcomes. Next, we develop an operational approach to identify ‘cultural adaptation to climate change’ based on established empirical criteria. We apply this approach to data on crop choices and the use of cover crops between 2008 and 2021 from the United States. We find evidence that crop choices are adapting to local trends in two separate climate variables in some regions of the USA. But evidence suggests that cover cropping may be adapting more to the economic environment than climatic conditions. Further research is needed to characterize the process of cultural adaptation, particularly the routes and mechanisms of cultural transmission. Furthermore, climate adaptation policy could benefit from research on factors that differentiate regions exhibiting adaptive trends in crop choice from those that do not. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Climate change adaptation needs a science of culture’. 

Abstract Citizen-generated counter speech is a promising way to fight hate speech and promote peaceful, non-polarized discourse. However, there is a lack of large-scale longitudinal studies of its effectiveness for reducing hate speech. To this end, we perform an exploratory analysis of the effectiveness of counter speech using several different macro- and micro-level measures to analyze 180,000 political conversations that took place on German Twitter over four years. We report on the dynamic interactions of hate and counter speech over time and provide insights into whether, as in ‘classic’ bullying situations, organized efforts are more effective than independent individuals in steering online discourse. Taken together, our results build a multifaceted picture of the dynamics of hate and counter speech online. While we make no causal claims due to the complexity of discourse dynamics, our findings suggest that organized hate speech is associated with changes in public discourse and that counter speech—especially when organized—may help curb hateful rhetoric in online discourse. 

Social change in any society entails changes in both behaviours and institutions. We model a group-structured society in which the transmission of individual behaviour occurs in parallel with the selection of group-level institutions. We consider a cooperative behaviour that generates collective benefits for groups but does not spread between individuals on its own. Groups exhibit institutions that increase the diffusion of the behaviour within the group, but also incur a group cost. Groups adopt institutions in proportion to their fitness. Finally, the behaviour may also spread globally. We find that behaviour and institutions can be mutually reinforcing. But the model also generates behavioural source-sink dynamics when behaviour generated in institutionalized groups spreads to non-institutionalized groups and boosts their fitness. Consequently, the global diffusion of group-beneficial behaviour creates a pattern of institutional free-riding that limits the evolution of group-beneficial institutions. Our model suggests that, in a group-structured society, large-scale beneficial social change can be best achieved when the relevant behaviour and institutions remain correlated. 

Quantifying the differences between networks is a challenging and ever-present problem in network science. In recent years, a multitude of diverse, ad hoc solutions to this problem have been introduced. Here, we propose that simple and well-understood ensembles of random networks—such as Erdős–Rényi graphs, random geometric graphs, Watts–Strogatz graphs, the configuration model and preferential attachment networks—are natural benchmarks for network comparison methods. Moreover, we show that the expected distance between two networks independently sampled from a generative model is a useful property that encapsulates many key features of that model. To illustrate our results, we calculate this within-ensemble graph distance and related quantities for classic network models (and several parameterizations thereof) using 20 distance measures commonly used to compare graphs. The within-ensemble graph distance provides a new framework for developers of graph distances to better understand their creations and for practitioners to better choose an appropriate tool for their particular task.