Conference PaperPDF Available

Artificial Swarm Intelligence vs Vegas Betting Markets

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

In the natural world, Swarm Intelligence (SI) is a commonly occurring process in which biological groups amplify their collective intelligence by forming closed-loop systems. It is well known in schools of fish, flocks of bird, and swarms of bees. In recent years, new AI technologies have enabled networked human groups to form systems modeled after natural swarms. Known as Artificial Swarm Intelligence (ASI), the technique has been shown to amplify the effective intelligence of human groups. This study compares the predictive ability of ASI systems against large betting markets when forecasting sporting events. Groups of average sports fans were tasked with predicting the outcome of 200 hockey games (10 games per week for 20 weeks) in the NHL. The expected win rate for Vegas favorites was 62% across the 200 games based on the published odds. The ASI system achieved a win rate of 85%. The probability that the system outperformed Vegas by chance was extremely low (p = 0.0057), indicating a significant result. In addition, researchers compared the winnings from two betting models - one that wagered weekly on the Vegas favorite, and one that wagered weekly on the ASI favorite. At the end of 20 weeks, the Vegas model generated a 41% financial loss, while the ASI model generated a 170% financial gain.
Content may be subject to copyright.
978-1-5386-6712-5/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
Artificial Swarm Intelligence vs
Vegas Betting Markets
Louis Rosenberg
Unanimous AI
San Francisco, CA, USA
Louis@Unanimous.ai
Gregg Willcox
Unanimous AI
San Francisco, CA, USA
Gregg@Unanimous.ai
Abstract In the natural world, Swarm Intelligence (SI) is a
commonly occurring process in which biological groups amplify
their collective intelligence by forming closed-loop systems. It is
well known in schools of fish, flocks of bird, and swarms of bees.
In recent years, new AI technologies have enabled networked
human groups to form systems modeled after natural swarms.
Known as Artificial Swarm Intelligence (ASI), the technique has
been shown to amplify the effective intelligence of human groups.
This study compares the predictive ability of ASI systems against
large betting markets when forecasting sporting events. Groups
of average sports fans were tasked with predicting the outcome of
200 hockey games (10 games per week for 20 weeks) in the NHL.
The expected win rate for Vegas favorites was 62% across the 200
games based on the published odds. The ASI system achieved a
win rate of 85%. The probability that the system outperformed
Vegas by chance was extremely low (p = 0.0057), indicating a
significant result. In addition, researchers compared the winnings
from two betting models one that wagered weekly on the Vegas
favorite, and one that wagered weekly on the ASI favorite. At the
end of 20 weeks, the Vegas model generated a 41% financial loss,
while the ASI model generated a 170% financial gain.
Keywords Swarm Intelligence, Artificial Swarm Intelligence,
Collective Intelligence, Human Swarming, Artificial Intelligence.
I. BACKGROUND
Prior studies on Artificial Swarm Intelligence (ASI) have
shown that by forming real-time “human swarms,” networked
human groups can significantly amplify their accuracy in a wide
variety of forecasting tasks [1- 6] and produce more results than
traditional “Wisdom of Crowd” methods [3]. For example, a
2015 study assessed the ability of human swarms to forecast the
outcome of college football games. A swarm comprised of 75
amateur sports fans, connected by AI algorithms, was tasked
with predicting 10 bowl games at the end of the season. As
individuals, the participants averaged 50% accuracy when
predicting outcomes against the Vegas spread. When forecasting
as a real-time ASI system, those same participants achieved 70%
accuracy against the Vegas spread [2]. Similar increases have
been demonstrated in other studies, including a 5-week study
that tasked human participants, connected as an ASI system,
with predicting 50 consecutive soccer matches in the English
Premier League. Results showed a 31% increase in accuracy
when participants were connected in ASI swarms [4]. The ASI
system also outperformed the BBC’s machine-model known as
“SAM” over the same 50 games. [13].
While prior studies have documented the ability of artificial
swarms to outperform individuals and outperform traditional
Wisdom of Crowd methods across a range of forecasting tasks,
no formal study has compared the predictive ability of artificial
swarms against largescale markets. To address this need, a study
was run to compare human swarms to Vegas betting markets,
assessing the accuracy rates and the financial returns across a
large set of predictions. Specifically, this study required human
participants to forecast the outcome of 200 games in the
National Hockey League (NHL), structured as 10 games per
week for 20 consecutive weeks.
II. SWARMS VS CROWDS
When comparing the accuracy of real-time swarms against
traditional crowd-based methods, it’s worth reviewing the
structural differences between them. The prime differentiator
between “crowds” and “swarms” is that in crowd-based
methods, human participants provide input in isolation for
aggregation in external statistical models, while in swarm-based
methods, human participants think together in real-time, their
interactions governed by intelligence algorithms. This means
that swarms are closed-loop systems in which participants act,
react, and interact with each other, converging on optimized
solutions in synchrony. The swarming process is generally
modeled after biological systems such as schools of fish, flocks
of birds, and swarms of bees. The present study uses Swarm AI
technology from Unanimous AI Inc, which is modeled largely
on the decision-making processes of honeybee swarms [4].
As background, the decision-making processes that govern
the behavior of honeybee swarms have been studied since the
1950s and have revealed themselves to be very similar to the
decision-making processes in neurological brains [7-9]. Both
brains and swarms employ large populations of simple excitable
units (i.e., bees and neurons) that operate in parallel to integrate
noisy evidence, weigh competing alternatives, and converge on
decisions in synchrony. In both, outcomes are reached through
real-time competition among sub-populations of excitable units.
When the support generated by one sub-population exceeds a
threshold level, that alternative is chosen. In honeybees, this
enables the group to converge on optimal decisions, picking the
best solution to complex problems 80% of the time [11,12].
III. ENABLING HUMAN SWARMS
Unlike birds and bees and fish, humans have not evolved the
natural ability to form closed-loop systems that enables real-
time swarming. We lack the subtle connections that other
organisms use to establish high speed feedback-loops among
members. Schooling fish detect vibrations in the water around
them. Flocking birds detect subtle motions propagating through
the population. Swarming bees use complex body vibrations
called a “waggle dance. To enable real-time swarming among
groups of networked humans, specialized software is required to
close the loop among all members.
To address this need, a software platform (swarm.ai) was
developed to enable networked human populations to form real-
time swarms by connecting from anywhere in the world [1].
Modeled on the decision-making process of honeybee swarms,
the cloud-based swarm.ai system enables groups of users to
work in parallel to (a) integrate noisy evidence, (b) weigh
competing alternatives, and (c) converge on decisions in
synchrony, while also allowing all participants to perceive and
react to the changing system in real-time, thereby closing a
feedback loop around the full population of participants.
As shown in Figure 3 below, the human participants of ASI
systems answer questions by moving a graphical puck to select
among a set of alternatives. Each participant provides input by
manipulating a graphical magnet with a mouse, touchscreen, or
other input device. By positioning their magnet with respect to
the moving puck, real-time participants express their personal
intent, impacting the system as a whole. The input from each
user is not a discrete vote, but a continuous stream of vectors
that varies freely over time. Because all members of the
swarming population can adjust their intent fluidly in real-time,
the ASI swarm explores the decision-space, not based on the
input of any individual, but based on the emergent dynamics of
the full system. This enables complex deliberations across all
members at once, empowering the group to collectively explore
all the options and converge upon the one solution that best
represents their combined insights.
Fig. 3. A human swarm choosing between options
It is important to note that participants do not only vary the
direction of their intent, but also modulate the magnitude of their
intent by adjusting the distance between their magnet and the
puck. Because the puck is in continuous motion across the
decision-space, users need to continually move their magnet so
that it stays close to the puck’s outer rim. This is significant, for
it requires participants to be engaged continuously throughout
the decision process, evaluating and re-evaluating their intent. If
they stop adjusting their magnet with respect to the changing
position of the puck, the distance grows and their applied
sentiment wanes.
Thus, like bees vibrating their bodies to express sentiment in
a biological swarm, or neurons firing activation signals to
express conviction levels within a biological neural-network, the
participants in an artificial swarm must continuously update and
express their changing preferences during the decision process,
or lose their influence over the collective outcome. In addition,
intelligence algorithms monitor the behaviors of all swarm
members in real-time, inferring their implied conviction based
upon their relative motions over time. This reveals a range of
behavioral characteristics within the swarm population and
weights their contributions accordingly, from entrenched
participants to flexible participants to fickle participants.
IV. PREDICTION STUDY
To assess the ability of human swarms to outperform Vegas
betting markets, a formal study was conducted over a 20-week
period using groups of randomly selected human subjects from
a pool of self-reported sports enthusiasts. Each weekly group
consisted of 25 to 36 participants, all of whom logged in
remotely to the cloud-based swarm.ai system. Human subjects
were paid $3.00 for their participation in each weekly session,
which required them to make predictions of the outcome of all
ten hockey games being played that night, participating both as
(a) individuals reporting on a standard online survey, and (b) as
part of a real-time ASI system.
For each hockey game, participants were tasked with
forecasting the winner and the margin of victory, expressed as
either (a) the team win by 1 goal, or (b) the team win by 2 or
more goals. The margins were chosen to match common Vegas
gambling spreads. Figure 4 below shows a snapshot of a human
swarm comprised of 31 participants in the process of predicting
a match between Toronto and Calgary.
Fig. 4. Human Swarm in the process of forecasting an NHL game
As shown in Figure 4, each real-time swarm is tasked with
selecting from among four outcome options, indicating which
team will win and which margin is most likely. Again, the
pparticipants do not cast discrete votes but express their intent
continuously over time, converging together as a system. The
image shown in Figure 4 is a snapshot of the system as it moves
across the decision-space and converges upon an answer, a
process that generally takes between 10 and 60 seconds.
In addition to forecasting each individual game, participants
were asked to identify which of the weekly predictions is the
most likely to be a correct assessment. In other words, which of
the teams forecast to win their games should be deemed the
“pick of the week” by virtue of being the most likely to win their
game. Figure 5 below shown an example ASI system in the
process of identifying the pick of the week.
Fig. 5. Human Swarm in process of identifying “Pick of the Week”
V. WAGERING PROTOCOL
By collecting predictions for each of the 10 weekly games as
well as a top “pick of the week”, forecasting data was collected
across all 20 weeks for accuracy comparison against Vegas
betting markets. To enable ROI comparisons against betting
markets, two standardized betting models were tracked across
the 20-week period. In both models, an initial simulated betting
pool of $100 was created as the starting point for ROI
computations, the pools tracked over the 20-week period.
In “Wagering Model A,a simple heuristic was defined
which allocated weekly bets equal to 15% of the current betting
pool, dividing it equally across all ten weekly forecasts made by
the ASI system. In “Wagering Model B,a similar heuristic was
defined which also allocated 15% of the current betting pool for
use in weekly bets, but placed the entire 15% upon the one game
identified as “pick of the week”. Both pots were tracked over
the 20-week period, using actual Vegas payouts to compute
returns. Vegas odds used in this study were captured from
www.sportsbook.ag, a popular online betting market.
VI. RESULTS
Across the set of 200 games forecast by the ASI system, an
accuracy rate of 61% was achieved. This compares favorably to
the expected accuracy of 55% based on Vegas odds (p=0.0665).
Of course, the more important skill in forecasting sporting
events is identifying which games can be predicted with high
confidence as compared to those games which are too close to
call. This skill is reflected in the “pick of the week” generated
by the ASI system. Across the 20 weeks, the system achieved
85% accuracy in correctly predicting the winner of the pick of
the week” game. This compares very favorably to the expected
accuracy of 62% based on Vegas odds.
Figure 6 below shows the distribution of Vegas Odds for the
twenty selected “pick of the week” games. As described above,
the swarm-based system had a win rate of 85% across these
same games. This is a significant improvement, equivalent to
reducing the error in Vegas Odds by 61%. The probability that
the swarm outperformed Vegas Odds by chance was extremely
low (p = 0.0057), indicating a highly significant result.
Fig 6. Summary of results across 20 weeks of NHL predictions
In addition, a betting simulation was run for each prediction
set in which 15% of the current bankroll was bet on each
prediction in each week. The performance of this model when
betting against Vegas (and including the Bookie’s cut) is seen
below in Figure 7. Starting with $100 and investing each week
according to this strategy, the Pick of the Week strategy results
in a gain of $270.20, equivalent to a 20-week ROI of 170%, and
a week-over-week average ROI of 5.09%. For comparison,
betting on all of the swarm’s picks evenly (for a total of 15% of
the bankroll) results in $121.82, or a 20-week ROI of 21.8%,
indicating that the swarm is selecting better than randomly
among its picks.
Fig 7. Cumulative Betting Performance across 20 weeks
While the above results are impressive, especially the 170%
ROI over 20 weeks, we can gain additional insight into the
significance of this outcome by comparing against additional
baselines. For example, we can (a) compare these results to
randomly placed bets across all games played as a means of
assessing if the swarm bets across all games are as significant as
they appear, and (b) compare these results to bets placed on the
Vegas favorite each week as a means of assessing if betting on
the swarm’s top picks each week is as impressive as it seems.
These baselines are shown in Figure 8 as the green line and
red line respectively. Looking first at random betting across all
games, the net outcome across 20 weeks was $72.39, which
equates to 28% loss over the test period. This is significantly
worse than the $122 (22% gain) achieved by betting on all
swarm-based forecasts. Even more surprising, betting on the
Vegas favorites each week resulted in a net outcome of $59,
which equates to a 41% loss over the 20-week test period. This
is significantly worse than the $270 (170% gain) achieved by
betting on the swarm’s top picks.
Fig 8. Swarm Performance vs Baseline Performance across 20 weeks
VII. CONCLUSIONS
Can real-time “human swarms” outperform the predictive
abilities of largescale betting markets? The results of this study
suggest this may be the case. As shown across a set of 200 NHL
games during the 2017-2018 hockey season, an ASI system
comprised of 25 to 36 average sports fans, connected by
intelligence algorithms, significantly out-performed Vegas in
predictive accuracy. The results were strongest when the ASI
system was tasked with identifying a “pick of the week” as the
most likely game to achieve the predicted outcome. Across the
20 weeks, the system achieved 85% accuracy when predicting
the “pick of the week”, which compares very favorably to the
expected accuracy of 62% based on Vegas odds. The probability
that the system outperformed Vegas by chance was extremely
low (p = 0.0057), indicating a highly significant result.
In addition, when using the “pick of the week” as part of an
automated wagering heuristic, a simulated betting pool that
began at $100 at the start of the experiment, increased to $270
over the 20-week period based on the swarm-based predictions.
This corresponds to an impressive return on investment (ROI)
of 170% across the testing period. Additional work is being
conducted to optimize this heuristic, as there appears to be room
for improvement when generating Vegas wagers based on a
swarm-based predictive intelligence.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We greatly appreciate the efforts of Chris Hornbostel and
David Baltaxe for coordinating human participants in weekly
sessions. We also acknowledge Unanimous AI for providing
access to the swarm.ai platform.
REFERENCES
[1] Rosenberg, L.B., “Human Swarms, a real-time method for collective
intelligence.” Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Life
2015, pp. 658-659
[2] Rosenberg, Louis. Artificial Swarm Intelligence vs Human Experts,
Neural Networks (IJCNN), 2016 International Joint Conference on. IEEE.
J. Clerk Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 3rd ed., vol.
2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1892, pp.6873.
[3] Rosenberg, Louis. Baltaxe, David and Pescetelli, Nicollo. "Crowds vs
Swarms, a Comparison of Intelligence," IEEE 2016 Swarm/Human
Blended Intelligence (SHBI), Cleveland, OH, 2016, pp. 1-4.
[4] Baltaxe, David, Rosenberg, Louis and N. Pescetelli, “Amplifying
Prediction Accuracy using Human Swarms”, Collective Intelligence
2017. New York, NY ; 2017.
[5] Rosenberg, L, Pescetelli, N, & Willcox, G. Artificial Swarm Intelligence
amplifies accuracy when predicting financial markets," 2017 IEEE 8th
Annual Ubiquitous Computing, Electronics and Mobile Communication
Conference (UEMCON), New York City, NY, 2017, pp. 58-62..
[6] Rosenberg, L. and Willcox, G. "Artificial Swarms find Social Optima"
2018 IEEE Conference on Cognitive and Computational Aspects of
Situation Management (CogSIMA), Boston, MA, 2018, pp. 174-178.
[7] Seeley T.D, Buhrman S.C 2001 Nest-site selection in honey bees: how
well do swarms implement the ‘best-of-N’ decision rule?” Behav. Ecol.
Sociobiol. 49, 416427
[8] Marshall, James. Bogacz, Rafal. Dornhaus, Anna. Planqué, Robert.
Kovacs, Tim. Franks, Nigel. On optimal decision-making in brains and
social insect colonies. Soc. Interface 2009.
[9] Seeley, Thomas D., et al. "Stop signals provide cross inhibition in
collective decision-making by honeybee swarms." Science 335.6064
(2012): 108-111.
[10] Usher, M. McClelland J.L 2001 “The time course of perceptual choice:
the leaky, competing accumulator model.” Psychol. Rev. 108, 550–592
[11] Seeley, Thomas D. Honeybee Democracy. Princeton Univ. Press, 2010.
[12] Seeley, Thomas D., Visscher, P. Kirk. Choosing a home: How the scouts
in a honey bee swarm perceive the completion of their group decision
making. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 54 (5) 511-520.
[13] McHale, Ian. Sports Analytics Machine (SAM) as reported by BBC:
http://blogs.salford.ac.uk/business-school/sports-analytics-machine/
... Recently, a new method has been developed that is not based on aggregating input from isolated individuals but involves synchronous groups of forecasters working together as real-time systems. Known as Artificial Swarm Intelligence (ASI) or Swarm AI, this method has been shown in numerous studies to significantly increase the accuracy of group forecasts [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. ...
... These results add to previous research demonstrating that human groups can use Swarm AI to make better collective assessments across a wide range of domains, from subjective judgements and medical diagnoses to market forecasting [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. While this study was limited in that it only involved forecasting volatile cult stocks with groups of MBA students, the results support prior research showing success amplifying the accuracy of group financial forecasts using Swarm AI [12]. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Swarm Intelligence (SI) is a natural process that has been shown to amplify decision-making accuracy in many social species, from schools of fish to swarms of bees. Artificial Swarm Intelligence (ASI) is a technology that enables similar benefits in networked human groups. The present research tests whether ASI enables human groups to reach more accurate financial forecasts. Specifically, a group of MBA candidates at Cambridge University was tasked with forecasting the three-day price change of 12 highly volatile assets, a majority of which were cult (or meme) stocks. Over a period of 9 weeks, human forecasters who averaged +0.96% ROI as individuals amplified their ROI to +2.3% when predicting together in artificial swarms (p=0.128). Further, a $5,000 bankroll was managed by investing in the top three buy recommendations produced each week by ASI, which yielded a 2.0% ROI over the course of the 9-week study. This suggests that swarm-based forecasting has the potential to boost the performance of financial traders in real-world settings.
... In human groups, the technology of Artificial Swarm Intelligence (ASI) enables similar benefits by connecting networked groups as real-time closed-loop systems. Often referred to as "human swarms" or "hive minds", these systems have been shown to significantly increase accuracy in a variety of tasks, from predicting sports and equity markets to dispute resolution and medical diagnosis [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Artificial Swarm Intelligence (ASI) is a method for amplifying the collective intelligence of human groups by connecting networked participants into real-time systems modeled after natural swarms and moderated by AI algorithms. ASI has been shown to amplify performance in a wide range of tasks, from forecasting financial markets to prioritizing conflicting objectives. This study explores the ability of ASI systems to amplify the social intelligence of small teams. A set of 61 teams, each of 3 to 6 members, was administered a standard social sensitivity test —"Reading the Mind in the Eyes” or RME. Subjects took the test both as individuals and as ASI systems (i.e. “swarms”). The average individual scored 24 of 35 correct (32% error) on the RME test, while the average ASI swarm scored 30 of 35 correct (15% error). Statistical analysis found that the groups working as ASI swarms had significantly higher social sensitivity than individuals working alone or groups working together by plurality vote (p<0.001). This suggests that when groups reach decisions as real-time ASI swarms, they make better use of their social intelligence than when working alone or by traditional group vote.
... Advances in networking technology and artificial intelligence have led to the development of Artificial Swarm Intelligence (ASI) systems that provides a way for groups of humans to quickly reach a consensus in a way that overcomes these limitations. ASI has been found to significantly amplify decision-making accuracy in human groups across a wide range of tasks [34,35,27], from forecasting [32,33] to subjective judgments [2,39] and prioritizations [36]. Indeed, groups can achieve consensus in less than 60 seconds, while also limiting social influence from group members through anonymous deliberation in a way that captures group dynamics. ...
Article
Full-text available
The aggregation of individual personality assessments to predict team performance is widely accepted in management theory but has significant limitations: the isolated nature of individual personality surveys fails to capture much of the team dynamics that drive real-world team performance. Artificial Swarm Intelligence (ASI)-a technology that enables networked teams to think together in real-time and answer questions as a unified system-promises a solution to these limitations by enabling teams to collectively complete a personality assessment , whereby the team uses ASI to converge upon answers that best represent the group's disposition. In the present study, the group personality of 94 small teams was assessed by having teams take a standard Big Five Inventory (BFI) assessment both as individuals, and as a real-time system enabled by an ASI technology known as Swarm AI. The predictive accuracy of each personality assessment method was assessed by correlating the BFI personality traits to a range of real-world performance metrics. The results showed that assessments of personality generated using Swarm AI were far more predictive of team performance than the traditional aggregation methods, showing at least a 91.8% increase in average correlation with the measured outcome variables, and in no case showing a significant decrease in predictive performance. This suggests that Swarm AI technology may be used as a highly effective team personality assessment tool that more accurately predicts future team performance than traditional survey approaches.
... Advances in networking technology and artificial intelligence have led to the development of Artificial Swarm Intelligence (ASI) systems that provides a way for groups of humans to quickly reach a consensus in a way that overcomes these limitations. ASI has been found to significantly amplify decision-making accuracy in human groups across a wide range of tasks [34,35,27], from forecasting [32,33] to subjective judgments [2,39] and prioritizations [36]. Indeed, groups can achieve consensus in less than 60 seconds, while also limiting social influence from group members through anonymous deliberation in a way that captures group dynamics. ...
Article
The aggregation of individual personality assessments to predict team performance is widely accepted in management theory but has significant limitations: the isolated nature of individual personality surveys fails to capture much of the team dynamics that drive realworld team performance. Artificial Swarm Intelligence (ASI)—a technology that enables networked teams to think together in real-time and answer questions as a unified system—promises a solution to these limitations by enabling teams to collectively complete a personality assessment, whereby the team uses ASI to converge upon answers that best represent the group’s disposition. In the present study, the group personality of 94 small teams was assessed by having teams take a standard Big Five Inventory (BFI) assessment both as individuals, and as a realtime system enabled by an ASI technology known as Swarm AI. The predictive accuracy of each personality assessment method was assessed by correlating the BFI personality traits to a range of real-world performance metrics. The results showed that assessments of personality generated using Swarm AI were far more predictive of team performance than the traditional aggregation methods, showing at least a 91.8% increase in average correlation with the measured outcome variables, and in no case showing a significant decrease in predictive performance. This suggests that Swarm AI technology may be used as a highly effective team personality assessment tool that more accurately predicts future team performance than traditional survey approaches.
... Within the human realm, Rosenberg (2015) defines such groupings as a "unified dynamic system" with "collective behavior tightly coordinated by real-time feedback loops." This not only implies teamwork, collective deliberation, and goal orientation (Blee, 2013;Rosenberg & Willcox, 2018) but also flexibility, robustness, and self-organization (Bonabeau & Meyer, 2000). Acting as a massive computational system where its constituent components function in parallel, a collective intelligence is capable of surviving when faced with disturbances due to its high redundancy (Beni, 2004). ...
Article
The technological singularity is popularly envisioned as a point in time when (a) an explosion of growth in artificial intelligence (AI) leads to machines becoming smarter than humans in every capacity, even gaining consciousness in the process; or (b) humans become so integrated with AI that we could no longer be called human in the traditional sense. This article argues that the technological singularity does not represent a point in time but a process in the ongoing construction of a collective consciousness. Innovations from the earliest graphic representations to the present reduced the time it took to transmit information, reducing the cognitive space between individuals. The steady pace of innovations ultimately led to the communications satellite, fast-tracking this collective consciousness. The development of AI in the late 1960s has been the latest innovation in this process, increasing the speed of information while allowing individuals to shape events as they happen.
Article
Full-text available
There are powerful tools for modelling swarms that have strong spatial structures like flocks of birds, schools of fish and formations of drones, but relatively little work on developing formalisms for other swarm structures like hub-based colonies doing foraging, maintaining a nest or selecting a new nest site. We present a method for finding low-dimensional representations of swarm state for simulated homogeneous hub-based colonies solving the best-of-N problem. The embeddings are obtained from latent representations of convolution-based graph neural network architectures and have the property that swarm states which have similar performance have very similar embeddings. Such embeddings are used to classify swarm state into binned estimates of success probability and time to completion. We demonstrate how embeddings can be obtained in a sequence of experiments that progressively require less information, which suggests that the methods can be extended to larger swarms in more complicated environments. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The road forward with swarm systems’.
Conference Paper
We introduce Mindmix (also called hyperswarm ranking) a new collective intelligence technology based on the biological principle of Swarm Intelligence, and show that it enables networked human groups to collaboratively rank independent sets of items with significantly higher accuracy than traditional methods. While prior approaches, such as survey-based Wisdom of Crowd (WoC) techniques, are effective at amplifying groupwise accuracy, we show that this new approach significantly outperforms on a series of general knowledge questions, producing rankings that are 8.1% more accurate than WoC (p < 0.01). This translates into an impressive 39.5% amplification of the traditional “WoC effect.” Finally, we show that the use of hyperswarm ranking enables networked human groups to generate groupwise rankings much faster than other commercially available tools that leverage the accuracy benefits of Artificial Swarm Intelligence, cutting the time required of human participants by more than half.
Article
In the era of digital communication, collective problem solving is increasingly important. Large groups can now resolve issues together in completely different ways, which has transformed the arts, sciences, business, education, technology, and medicine. Collective intelligence is something we share with animals and is different from machine learning and artificial intelligence. To design and utilize human collective intelligence, we must understand how its problem-solving mechanisms work. From democracy in ancient Athens, through the invention of the printing press, to COVID-19, this book analyzes how humans developed the ability to find solutions together. This wide-ranging, thought-provoking book is a game-changer for those working strategically with collective problem solving within organizations and using a variety of innovative methods. It sheds light on how humans work effectively alongside machines to confront challenges that are more urgent than what humanity has faced before. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.
Book
Full-text available
In the era of digital communication, collective problem solving is increasingly important. Large groups can now resolve issues together in completely different ways, which has transformed the arts, sciences, business, education, technology, and medicine. Collective intelligence is something we share with animals and is different from machine learning and artificial intelligence. To design and utilize human collective intelligence, we must understand how its problem-solving mechanisms work. From democracy in ancient Athens, through the invention of the printing press, to COVID-19, this book analyzes how humans developed the ability to find solutions together. This wide-ranging, thought-provoking book is a game-changer for those working strategically with collective problem solving within organizations and using a variety of innovative methods. It sheds light on how humans work effectively alongside machines to confront challenges that are more urgent than what humanity has faced before. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.
Article
Full-text available
The aggregation of individual personality tests to predict team performance is widely accepted in management theory but has significant limitations: the isolated nature of individual personality surveys fails to capture much of the team dynamics that drive real-world team performance. Artificial Swarm Intelligence (ASI), a technology that enables networked teams to think together in real-time and answer questions as a unified system, promises a solution to these limitations by enabling teams to take personality tests together and converge upon answers that best represent the group’s disposition. In the present study, the group personality of 94 small teams was assessed by having teams take a standard Big Five Inventory (BFI) test both as individuals, and as a real-time system enabled by an ASI technology known as Swarm AI. The predictive accuracy of each personality assessment method was assessed by correlating the BFI personality traits to a range of real-world performance metrics. The results showed that assessments of personality generated using Swarm AI were far more predictive of team performance than the traditional survey-based method, showing a significant improvement in correlation with at least 25% of performance metrics, and in no case showing a significant decrease in predictive performance. This suggests that Swarm AI technology may be used as a highly effective team personality assessment tool that more accurately predicts future team performance than traditional survey approaches.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
In the natural world, many social species amplify their collective intelligence by forming real-time closed-loop systems. Referred to as Swarm Intelligence (SI), this phenomenon has been rigorously studied in schools of fish, flocks of birds, and swarms of bees. In recent years, technology has enabled human groups to form real-time closed-loop systems modeled after natural swarms and moderated by AI algorithms. Referred to as Artificial Swarm Intelligence (ASI), these methods have been shown to enable human groups to reach optimized decisions. The present research explores this further, testing if ASI enables groups with conflicting views to converge on socially optimal solutions. Results showed that “swarming” was significantly more effective at enabling groups to converge on the Social Optima than three common voting methods: (i) Plurality voting (i) Borda Count and (iii) Condorcet pairwise voting. While traditional voting methods converged on socially optimal solutions with 60% success across a test set of 100 questions, the ASI system converged on socially optimal solutions with 82% success (p<;0.001).
Conference Paper
Full-text available
For well over a century, researchers in the field of Collective Intelligence have shown that groups can outperform individuals when making decisions, predictions, and forecasts. The most common methods for harnessing the intelligence of groups treats the population as a “crowd” of independent agents that provide input in isolation in the form of polls, surveys, and market transactions. While such crowd-based methods can be effective, they are markedly different from how natural systems harness group intelligence. In the natural world, groups commonly form real-time closed-loop systems (i.e. “swarms”) that converge on solutions in synchrony. The present study compares the predictive ability of crowds and swarms when tapping the intelligence of human groups. More specifically, the present study tasked a crowd of 469 football fans and a swarm of 29 football fans in a challenge to predict 20 Prop Bets during the 2016 Super Bowl. Results revealed that the crowd, although 16 times larger in size, was significantly less accurate (at 47% correct) than the swarm (at 68% correct). Further, the swarm outperformed 98% of the individuals in the full study. These results suggest that swarming, with closed-loop feedback, is potentially a more effective method for tapping the insights of groups than traditional polling.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
"Artificial Swarm Intelligence" (ASI) strives to amplify the combined intelligence of networked human groups by enabling populations of participants to form real-time closed-loop systems modeled after biological swarms. Prior studies [Rosenberg 2015] have shown that "human swarms" can converge on more accurate decisions and predictions than traditional methods for tapping the wisdom of groups such as votes and polls. To further explore the predictive ability of ASI systems, 75 randomly selected sports fans were assembled into real-time human swarms using the UNU software platform and were tasked with predicting College Bowl football games against the spread. Results show intelligence amplification.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Much research has been done in the field of collective intelligence to aggregate input from human populations with the goal of amplifying the abilities of the groups. Nearly all prior research follows a similar model where input is collected from human participants in isolation and then aggregated statistically after the fact. The paper introduces a radically different approach in which the human participants is not aggregated statistically, but through a real-time dynamic control in which the participants act, react, and interact as a part of a system modeled after swarms in nature. Early testing of these "human swarms" suggest great potential for amplifying the intelligence of human groups, exceeding traditional aggregation methods. on the simulation of collaborative systems as it relates to the emergence of real-time collective intelligence. While theoretical studies are of great research value, there’s a growing need for real-world platforms that test the emergence of collective intelligence among human users. This short paper introduces such a platform. It enables networks of online collaborators to converge on questions, decisions, and dilemmas in real-time, functioning as a unified dynamic system. The dynamic system has been modeled after biological swarms, which is why refer to the process as “social swarming” or "human swarming". Early testing of human swarms suggests a great potential for harnessing collective intelligence.
Article
Full-text available
The time course of perceptual choice is discussed in a model of gradual, leaky, stochastic, and competitive information accumulation in nonlinear decision units. Special cases of the model match a classical diffusion process, but leakage and competition work together to address several challenges to existing diffusion, random walk, and accumulator models. The model accounts for data from choice tasks using both time-controlled (e.g., response signal) and standard reaction time paradigms and its adequacy compares favorably with other approaches. A new paradigm that controls the time of arrival of information supporting different choice alternatives provides further support. The model captures choice behavior regardless of the number of alternatives, accounting for the log-linear relation between reaction time and number of alternatives (Hick's law) and explains a complex pattern of visual and contextual priming in visual word identification.
Article
Full-text available
This study views a honey bee swarm as a supraorganismal entity which has been shaped by natural selection to be skilled at choosing a future home site. Prior studies of this decision-making process indicate that swarms attempt to use the best-of-N decision rule: sample some number (N) of alternatives and then select the best one. We tested how well swarms implement this decision rule by presenting them with an array of five nest boxes, only one of which was a high-quality (desirable) nest site; the other four were medium-quality (acceptable) sites. We found that swarms are reasonably good at carrying out the best-of-N decision rule: in four out of five trials, swarms selected the best site. In addition, we gained insights into how a swarm implements this decision rule. We found that when a scout bee returns to the swarm cluster and advertises a potential nest site with a waggle dance, she tunes the strength of her dance in relation to the quality of her site: the better the site, the stronger the dance. A dancing bee tunes her dance strength by adjusting the number of waggle-runs/dance, and she adjusts the number of waggle-runs/dance by changing both the duration and the rate of her waggle-run production. Moreover, we found that a dancing bee changes the rate of her waggle-run production by changing the mean duration of the return-phase portion of her dance circuits. Differences in return-phase duration underlie the impression that dances differ in liveliness. Although a honey bee swarm has bounded rationality (e.g., it lacks complete knowledge of the possible nesting sites), through its capacity for parallel processing it can choose a nest site without greatly reducing either the breadth or depth of its consideration of the alternative sites. Such thoroughness of information gathering and processing no doubt helps a swarm implement the best-of-N decision rule.
Article
Full-text available
This study considers the mystery of how the scout bees in a honey bee swarm know when they have completed their group decision making regarding the swarm's new nest site. More specifically, we investigated how the scouts sense when it is appropriate for them to begin producing the worker piping signals that stimulate their swarm-mates to prepare for the flight to their new home. We tested two hypotheses: "consensus sensing," the scouts noting when all the bees performing waggle dances are advertising just one site; and "quorum sensing," the scouts noting when one site is being visited by a sufficiently large number of scouts. Our test involved monitoring four swarms as they discovered, recruited to, and chose between two nest boxes and their scouts started producing piping signals. We found that a consensus among the dancers was neither necessary nor sufficient for the start of worker piping, which indicates that the consensus sensing hypothesis is false. We also found that a buildup of 10–15 or more bees at one of the nest boxes was consistently associated with the start of worker piping, which indicates that the quorum sensing hypothesis may be true. In considering why the scout bees rely on reaching a quorum rather than a consensus as their cue of when to start preparing for liftoff, we suggest that quorum sensing may provide a better balance between accuracy and speed in decision making. In short, the bees appear to begin preparations for liftoff as soon as enough of the scout bees, but not all of them, have approved of one of the potential nest sites.
Article
Full-text available
Stop, Don't Go There Decision-making in complex brains requires the reaching of a consensus based on information relayed by multiple neurons. A similar situation occurs in the decision-making process of swarming bees, where multiple individuals relay information about suitable hive sites, but a single site is chosen by the swarm. Seeley et al. (p. 108 , published online 8 December; see the Perspective by Niven ) show that consensus in this system is reached as information from scouting bees accumulates within the hive. Stop signals were given by scout bees from a particular site to those scout bees signaling from other sites. As the signals accumulate, scouting ceases and the bees prepare to swarm to the site that was best represented among the scouts. When this process was simulated, the results indicated that cross-inhibition among the bees functions similarly to that which occurs among neurons within complex brains. In both cases, such cross-inhibition prevents the overall system from coming to an impasse.