Conference PaperPDF Available

Amplifying the Social Intelligence of Teams Through Human Swarming

Authors:
  • Unanimous AI

Figures

Content may be subject to copyright.
XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X/XX/$XX.00 ©20XX IEEE
Amplifying the Social Intelligence of Teams
Through Human Swarming
Louis Rosenberg and Gregg Willcox
Unanimous AI
San Francisco, CA USA
David Askay, Lynn Metcalf and Erick Harris
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA USA
Abstract 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 Eyesor 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.
Keywords Swarm Intelligence, Collective Intelligence,
Artificial Swarm Intelligence, Human Swarming, Artificial
Intelligence, Social Sensitivity, Emotional Intelligence.
I. INTRODUCTION
In the natural world, many species amplify their collective
intelligence by forming real-time closed-loop systems. Referred
to as Swarm Intelligence (SI), this process enables schools of
fish, flocks of birds and swarms of bees to solve problems with
amplified accuracy. 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 [1-9].
While ASI has been shown to amplify the accuracy of
human groups in analytical tasks like forecasting, prioritizing,
estimating, and diagnosing [1-8], formal studies investigating
the potential of ASI to amplify the social intelligence of teams
have not been conducted. This is important to scholarship as a
groups mean social intelligence has been found to be a strong
indicator of a team’s overall performance [10, 11].
Social intelligence, also referred to as social sensitivity, is
often measured in teams by averaging each member’s individual
performance on the “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” (RME) test
an instrument designed to quantify how well individuals “can
put themselves into the mind” of another person and assess their
mental state. [12]. Because prior research has shown that the
effectiveness of teams is significantly correlated with the mean
social intelligence of group members, it stands to reason that if
“human swarming” can amplify the effective social intelligence
of small teams on a standard RME test, it may indicate that
swarming can also increase group effectiveness across a wide
range of collaborative tasks. For example, if a business team was
tasked with making critical hiring decisions, amplification of the
teams social intelligence through swarming could enable the
group to converge upon more effective and insightful decisions.
Similarly, if business teams are tasked with predicting how
consumers will react to marketing messages, product features,
or sales tactics, an amplification of the team’s social intelligence
could enable more accurate and insightful forecasts.
To explore whether the real-time swarming process can
amplify the social intelligence of small working groups, the
present study explored if teams perform with higher social
intelligence on a standard RME test when working as a real-time
swarm, as compared to (i) taking the RME test as individuals
and (ii) reaching decisions by plurality vote.
II. BUILDING HUMAN SWARMS
Artificial Swarm Intelligence (ASI) is modeled after natural
systems such as schools of fish, flocks of birds, and swarms of
bees. But unlike birds, bees and fish, humans have not evolved
the natural ability to form real-time closed-loop swarms, as they
lack the subtle connections that other organisms use to establish
feedback-loops among members. Schooling fish detect subtle
vibrations in the water around them. Flocking birds detect high-
speed motions propagating through the formation. Swarming
bees generate complex body vibrations called a “waggle dance”
that encodes information. To enable networked human groups
to form similar real-time systems, a software platform called
swarm.ai was developed by Unanimous AI, Inc. It enables
distributed groups, connected from remote locations around the
world, to answer questions, make predictions, and reach
decisions by working together as closed-loop swarms.
As shown in Figure 1 below, the swarm.ai platform enables
groups of networked participants to answer questions by
collaboratively moving a graphical puck to select from among a
set of alternatives. Each participant provides individual input by
manipulating a graphical magnet with a mouse, touchpad, or
touchscreen. By adjusting the position and orientation of their
magnet with respect to the moving puck, participants express
their personal intent on the system. The input from each user is
not a discrete vote, but a stream of vectors that varies freely over
time. Because all members of the group can adjust their intent
continuously in real-time, the 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 synchronous
deliberations among all members, empowering the group to
consider the options and converge on the optimal solution.
Fig.1. A human swarm choosing between options in real-time
While the swarm shown above is composed of twenty
networked participants, each of whom are connected from a
remote location, the swarm.ai platform has been used
successfully with groups with as few as three members and as
many as 150 participants. It is important to note that participants
not only vary the direction of their intent but also modulate the
magnitude of their intent by adjusting the distance between their
magnets and the puck. Because the graphical puck is in
continuous motion across the decision-space, users need to
continually move their magnets so that they stay close to the
puck’s rim. This is significant, for it requires that all participants,
regardless of group size or composition, to be engaged
continuously throughout the decision process, evaluating and re-
evaluating their intent in real-time. If a participant stops
adjusting their magnet with respect to the changing position of
the puck, the distance grows and the participant’s influence on
the group’s decision wanes.
Thus, like bees vibrating their bodies to express sentiment in
a biological swarm, or neurons firing 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. This is generally referred
to as a “leaky integrator” structure and common to both swarm-
based and neuron-based systems. In addition, intelligence
algorithms monitor the behaviors of swarm members in real-
time, inferring their relative conviction based upon their actions
and interactions 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.
III. SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE STUDY
To assess the ability of human swarms to amplify the social
intelligence of working groups, a study was conducted across a
set of 61 teams, each of 3 to 6 members, totaling 302 subjects.
All were college students in communications, engineering and
business courses, for which a team project was required. To
measure social intelligence, a widely used instrument, “Reading
the Mind in the Eyes” (RME) test, was employed [8]. The test
includes 35 questions, each showing a narrow facial image
restricted to a region around the eyes and a set of four options
that describe the emotion expressed. Participants were tasked
with reading the emotional state of facial image based only on
the eyes. An example question from a standard RME test is
shown below in Figure 2, with the four options provided.
Fig.2. Sample Question from Standard RME Test.
Prior studies have shown that the RME test is a reliable
measure of social intelligence, with strong internal consistency
and test-retest stability [13]. Social intelligence is often
described as a person’s ability to perceive, interpret, and respond
to the intentions, dispositions, and behaviors of others [14, 15].
These skills are extremely important for effective decision
making, especially by problem-solving teams, as understanding
and/or empathizing with the needs, goals, intentions, and beliefs
of others is a fundamental skill required of many critical
decisions made by organizations of all sizes [16].
To test whether real-time swarming enabled working groups
to amplify their effective social intelligence when making group
decisions, a two-stage process was employed. First, each of the
302 study participants were administered a 35-question RME
assessment individually through an online survey. To limit bias
and knowledge of correct answers, individual scores were not
shared, and discussion of the assessment was discouraged.
In the second stage, each of the 61 teams were administered
the RME test through the swarm.ai platform such that the group
was tasked with answering each question as a real-time swarm.
Team members were discouraged from communicating with
each other during the assessment, instead relying only on the
closed-loop interaction afforded by the platform (i.e., via pulling
the puck). The platform presented the image of the face to
everyone along with the four potential responses. Each team had
60-seconds to collaboratively coverage upon an answer. Figure
3 below is a snapshot of a participant’s screen during a response,
which represents the pull of each teammate through a magnet. It
should be noted that to discourage conformity, participants did
not see the magnets during the actual swarming session.
Fig. 3. Swarming Group responding to RME question
IV. DATA AND ANALYSIS
The RME was administered to 302 individuals across 61
teams and produced three unique datasets. First, we received
fully completed individual assessments from 266 participants
(88% response rate), totaling over 9,000 item responses. These
responses were used to calculate individual RME scores for each
participant. Second, these same responses were aggregated by
team to generate a plurality RME score, which was calculated
by plurality vote (the most popular answer within a group) for
each of the 61 teams. For questions where the vote was split
evenly across multiple answers, a “deadlock” was determined
and classified as an incorrect response. This provided a dataset
of over 2,500 plurality vote responses to RME assessment
questions. Finally, a swarm RME score for each team was
calculated from the responses collected through the swarm.ai
platform. For questions where the swarm could not converge
upon an answer within the 60 second time limit, a “deadlock”
was determined and classified as an incorrect response.
V. RESULTS
Mean scores and error rates for RME tests were calculated
for the individual, plurality vote, and swarm generated scores.
As shown in Table 1 below, the average individual RME score
was 23.96, which corresponds to an error rate of 31.5%. The
average of each team’s plurality RME score was 25.92, which
corresponds to an average error rate of 25.9%. When teams
worked together as a real-time closed-loop swarm, the average
RME score increased to 29.65, which corresponds to an average
error rate of 15.3%. In other words, by working together as an
ASI system, the 61 groups, on average, reduced their error rates
by more than half. This supports the notion that working as a
swarming system can increase the social intelligence of teams.
Table 1: Decision Method Error Rate and Confidence Interval
Next, the statistical significance of three RME assessment
methods were calculated using a 10,000-trial bootstrap analysis
of the error rate for each method. The 95% confidence intervals
and p-values were then calculated for the difference between
individual REM scores, plurality RME scores, and swarm RME
scores. The results show that the swarm significantly
outperforms both individual (μdifference = 16.3% error, p < 0.001)
and plurality scores (μdifference = 10.7% error, p < 0.001). The
bootstrapped error comparison is shown below in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Bootstrapped Average Error Rate
With respect to deadlocks, a comparison was made between
the rate of deadlocks determined by plurality vote as compared
to the rate of deadlocks reached by swarms. Across the 61
working groups, plurality voting resulted in deadlocks in 12%
of questions. Across those same groups, when working together
as swarms, the rate of deadlocks dropped substantially to 0.6%
of questions. This is a significant improvement, reducing the
need for further steps to resolve undecided groups.
In addition, an analysis was performed that assumed that
deadlocked votes were resolved by giving partial credit for tied
answers that included a correct response: one-half credit for a
two-way tie, one-third credit for a three-way tie, etc. To balance
this, deadlocked swarms were given the chance to resolve
immediately following a deadlock in another 60-second swarm,
with the answer chosen in this second round selected as the final
answer. There were no swarms that deadlocked twice in a row.
As shown in the Table 2 below, when deadlocks were
resolved using partial credit, plurality vote had an average RME
score of 28.23, or an error rate of 19.3%. When enabling the
swarms to work together as real-time systems and resolve their
deadlocks in a follow-up swarm, the swarm RME score
increased to 29.64, or an error rate of 15.3%. In other words,
even when giving partial credit for deadlocks in group responses
determined by plurality vote, the swarm outperformed.
Table 2: Decision Method Error Rates with Deadlocks Resolved.
To assess statistical significance, a bootstrap analysis of the
error rate for each method was again performed across 10,000
trials. We find that the swarm outperforms both the plurality
vote (μdifference = 4.0% error, p < .002) and individuals (μdifference =
16.3% error, p < .001). The bootstrapping of the error rate
confidence intervals is shown below in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Bootstrapped Average Error Rate
In addition to comparing against the average individual, the
swarm can be compared against all individuals. On average,
swarms are in the 93rd percentile of individuals, indicating that
an average swarm scores better than 93% of individuals taking
the test alone. The histogram of user performance and average
swarm performance is shown below in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Bootstrapped Average Error Rate
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Can small teams, working together as real-time ASI swarms,
amplify their effective Social Intelligence? The results of this
study suggest this is the case. As shown across 61 working
groups, each with 3 to 6 members, the average social intelligence
increased significantly as compared to working (i) individually
or (ii) by plurality vote. In fact, teams collaborating on an ASI
platform reduced the error rate of the RME by half compared to
individuals. The probability that the swarm outperformed both
the individuals and the group vote by chance was low (p < 0.001
and p < 0.002 respectively). The swarms performed on average
in the 93rd percentile of users taking the RME test, indicating a
significant amplification of social intelligence. In addition,
swarms deadlocked substantially less frequently than when
voting, which may lead to improved decision times and greater
buy-in among members. Together, this indicates that teams
functioning as swarms through an ASI platform amplify their
performance on social perception and emotional reasoning
tasks. Finally, because prior research shows that social
intelligence is significantly correlated with overall team
performance, it stands to reason that enabling business teams
and other working groups to make critical decisions as real-time
swarms could significantly improve their overall team
effectiveness. Further research is recommended to explore this.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Thanks to Unanimous AI for the use of swarm.ai for this
ongoing work and to California Polytechnic State University.
REFERENCES
[1] Rosenberg, L., “Human Swarms, a real-time method for collective
intelligence.” Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Life
2015, pp. 658-659
[2] Rosenberg, L. “Artificial Swarm Intelligence vs Human Experts,” Neural
Networks (IJCNN), 2016 International Joint Conference on. IEEE.
[3] Befort, K., Proffitt, C., Baltaxe, D., and Durbin, D., Artificial Swarm
Intelligence Technology Enables Better Subjective Rating Judgment in
Pilots Compared to Traditional Data Collection Methods. In Proceedings
of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2017 International Annual
Meeting, HFES 2018
[4] Rosenberg, L. Baltaxe, D and Pescetelli, N. "Crowds vs Swarms, a
Comparison of Intelligence," IEEE 2016 Swarm/Human Blended
Intelligence (SHBI), Cleveland, OH, 2016, pp. 1-4.
[5] Halabi,S, et al. Radiology SWARM: Novel Crowdsourcing Tool for
CheXNet Algorithm Validation SIIM Conference on Machine
Intelligence in Medical Imaging, 2018 (San Francisco, CA).
[6] Baltaxe, D, Rosenberg, L., and N. Pescetelli, “Amplifying Prediction
Accuracy using Human Swarms”, Collective Intelligence 2017. New
York, NY ; 2017.
[7] Rosenberg, L, Pescetelli, N, and Willcox, G. “Human Swarms Amplify
Accuracy in Financial Predictions,” Ubiquitous Computing, Electronics
& Mobile Communication Conference (UEMCON), IEEE Annual, New
York, NY, 2017.
[8] 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.
[9] Rosenberg, L. and Willcox, G. "Artificial Swarm Intelligence Vs Vegas
Betting Markets. 2018 11th International Conference on Developments
in eSystems Engineering (DeSE), Cambridge, UK 2018
[10] Woolley AW, Aggarwal I, Malone TW (2015) Collective intelligence and
group performance. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 24(6):420424.
[11] Woolley AW , Chabris CF , Pentland A , et al. 2010. Evidence for a
collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups.
Science 330 : 68688.
[12] S. Baron-Cohen, S. Wheelwright, J. Hill, Y. Raste, I. Plumb, The
“Reading the Mind in the Eyes” test revised version: A study with normal
adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. J.
Child Psychol. Psychiatry 42, 241 (2001).
[13] Vellante M, Baron-Cohen S, Melis M, Marrone M, Petretto DR, Masala
C, Preti A: The “reading the mind in the eyes” test: systematic review of
psychometric properties and a validation study in italy. Cogn
Neuropsychiatry. 2012, 18: 326-354.
[14] Fiske ST, Taylor SE: Social cognition: From brains to culture. 2013,
London, UK: SAGE Publications Limited
[15] Kunda Z: Social cognition: Making sense of people. 1999, Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press
[16] Frith CD, Singer T (2008) The role of social cognition in decision making.
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363:38753886
... Social intelligence (SQ) can be considered an extension or a superset of emotional intelligence (EQ) since it is a much broader concept than emotional intelligence. In fact, in psychology, both types of intelligence are often integrated as EQ & SQ or briefly as ESI (emotional-social intelligence) [13,15,24,28,31,53]. AI with emotional and social intelligence is referred to here as AI with EQ + SQ with five fundamental abilities of an intelligent multiagent: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, social (interaction) skills, and responsible decision-making skills. ...
... (e) Finally, Social interaction skills of AI with EQ + SQ can be expressed, first all, by the abilities of communication, cooperation, collaboration, or more advanced, cocreative collaboration skills with smooth and efficient interactions and teamwork. However, other important cognitive skills could be also taken here into account when developing and implementing this type of AI, such as assertiveness, tolerance to the limitations of others, the ability to avoid or mitigate conflicted actions or solutions (i.e., efficient conflict management), and also the ability to learn from others and teach others [13,15,16,24,[53][54][55]. ...
Article
Full-text available
This article discusses some trends and concepts in developing a new generation of future Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) systems which relate to complex facets and different types of human intelligence, especially social, emotional, attentional, and ethical intelligence. We describe various aspects of multiple human intelligences and learning styles, which may affect a variety of AI problem domains. Using the concept of “multiple intelligences” rather than a single type of intelligence, we categorize and provide working definitions of various AGIs depending on their cognitive skills or capacities. Future AI systems will be able not only to communicate with human users and each other but also to efficiently exchange knowledge and wisdom with abilities of cooperation, collaboration, and even cocreating something new and valuable and have metalearning capacities. Multiagent systems such as these can be used to solve problems that would be difficult to solve by any individual intelligent agent.
... Social intelligence (SQ) can be considered an extension or a superset of emotional intelligence (EQ) since it is a much broader concept than emotional intelligence. In fact, in the psychology both intelligences are often integrated as EQ & SQ or briefly as ESI (emotional-social intelligence) [13,14,16,19,38,42 ]. ...
... Finally, Social interaction skills of AI with EQ+SQ can be expressed, first all, by the abilities of communication, collaboration, cooperation, or more advanced, co-creative collaboration skills with smooth and efficient interactions and teamwork. However, other important cognitive skills could be also taken here into account when looking at this type of intelligence, such as assertiveness, tolerance to the limitations of others, the ability to avoid or mitigate conflicted actions or solutions (i.e., efficient conflict management), and also the ability to learn from others and teach others [13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. ...
Preprint
This article discusses recent trends and concepts in developing new kinds of artificial intelligence (AI) systems which relate to complex facets and different types of human intelligence, especially social, emotional, and ethical intelligence, which to date have been under-discussed. We describe various aspects of multiple human intelligence and learning styles, which may impact on a variety of AI problem domains. Using the concept of multiple intelligence rather than a single type of intelligence, we categorize and provide working definitions of various AI depending on their cognitive skills or capacities. Future AI systems will be able not only to communicate with human actors and each other, but also to efficiently exchange knowledge with abilities of cooperation, collaboration and even co-creating something new and valuable and have meta-learning capacities. Multi-agent systems such as these can be used to solve problems that would be difficult to solve by any individual intelligent agent.
... Researchers at Stanford and Unanimous AI showed that groups of doctors working in swarms reduced diagnostic errors by 33% as compared to traditional methods [7,10]. In addition, researchers at California Polytechnic (Cal Poly) showed that human teams could significantly amplify "social perceptiveness" when deliberating in real-time swarms [11,12]. ...
Conference Paper
Conversational Swarm Intelligence (CSI) is a new communication technology that enables large, networked groups (25 to 2500 people) to hold real-time conversational deliberations online. Modeled on the dynamics of biological swarms, CSI enables the reasoning benefits of small-groups with the collective intelligence benefits of large-groups. In this pilot study, groups of 25 to 30 participants were asked to select players for a weekly Fantasy Football contest over an 11-week period. As a baseline, participants filled out a survey to record their player selections. As an experimental method, participants engaged in a real-time text-chat deliberation using a CSI platform called Thinkscape to collaboratively select sets of players. The results show that the real-time conversational group using CSI outperformed 66% of survey participants, demonstrating significant amplification of intelligence versus the median individual (p=0.020). The CSI method also significantly outperformed the most popular choices from the survey (the Wisdom of Crowd, p<0.001). These results suggest that CSI is an effective technology for amplifying the intelligence of groups engaged in real-time large-scale conversational deliberation and may offer a pathway to Collective Superintelligence (CSi).
... Over the past few decades, the investigation of large-scale swarm has received extensive attention in different fields, such as biology, physics, medicine, sociology, engineering, et al. [1][2][3]. Swarm refers to a super large-scale isomorphic individual, based on group dynamics and information perception, supported by efficient and safe collaborative interaction between individuals, with the emergence of swarm intelligence as the core, and based on a comprehensive integration of open architecture. It is a complex system with the advantages of invulnerability, adaptive dynamic configuration, functional distribution, and intelligent features. ...
Article
Full-text available
An efficient control of large-scale unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) swarm to establish a complex formation is one of the most challenging tasks. This paper investigates a novel multi-layer topology network and consensus control approach for a large-scale UAV swarm moving under a stable configuration. The proposed topology can make the swarm remain robust in spite of the large number of UAVs. Then a potential function-based controller is developed to control the UAVs in realizing autonomous configuration swarming under the consideration of mutual collision, and the stability of the controller from the individual UAV to the entire swarm system is analyzed by a Lyapunov approach. Afterwards, a yaw angle adjustment approach for the UAVs to reach consensus is developed for the multi-layer swarm, then the direction state of each UAV converges with a fast rate. Finally, simulations are performed on the large-scale UAV swarm system to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed scheme.
Conference Paper
Conversational Swarm Intelligence (CSI) is a new technology that enables human groups of potentially any size to hold real-time deliberative conversations online. Modeled on the dynamics of biological swarms, CSI aims to optimize group insights and amplify group intelligence. It uses Large Language Models (LLMs) in a novel framework to structure large-scale conversations, combining the benefits of small-group deliberative reasoning and large-group collective intelligence. In this study, a group of 241 real-time participants were asked to estimate the number of gumballs in a jar by looking at a photo. In one test case, individual participants entered their estimation in a standard survey. In another test case, participants converged on groupwise estimates collaboratively using a prototype CSI text-chat platform called Thinkscape. The results show that when using CSI, the group of 241 participants estimated within 12% of the correct answer, which was significantly more accurate (p<0.001) than the average individual (mean error of 55%) and the survey-based Wisdom of Crowd (error of 25%). The group using CSI was also more accurate than an estimate generated by GPT 4 (error of 42%). This suggests that CSI is a viable method for enabling large, networked groups to hold coherent real-time deliberative conversations that amplify collective intelligence. Because this technology is scalable, it could provide a possible pathway towards building a general-purpose Collective Superintelligence (CSi).
Article
In the ever-evolving landscape of technology, Industry 4.0 stands as a monumental revolution that intertwines man and machine, reshaping the dynamics of labor and work environments. This paradigm shift demands a new outlook and necessitates a fresh set of skills and competencies to navigate the intricate web of advancements. From engineers to entrepreneurs, programmers to workers, the fourth industrial revolution mandates a versatile skillset to embrace its technological leaps. Amidst this transformation, the role of remote labs emerges as a potent platform, offering efficient and dependable means to cultivate students' expertise, thus preparing them for the dawn of the Work 4.0 era. This article delves into the story of Princess Sumaya University for Technology, shedding light on its ingenious employment of remote labs to provide students with a firsthand encounter with Industry 4.0. Furthermore, it explores innovative assessment techniques to foster virtual collaboration, social intelligence, and communication skills among students, highlighting remarkable enhancements in performance and achievements .
Chapter
Full-text available
Conference Paper
Full-text available
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.
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.
Book
Ziva Kunda provides a comprehensive and accessible survey of research and theory about social cognition at a level appropriate for undergraduate and graduate students, as well as researchers in the field. How do we make sense of other people and of ourselves? What do we know about the people we encounter in our daily lives and about the situations in which we encounter them, and how do we use this knowledge in our attempt to understand, predict, or recall their behavior? Are our social judgments fully determined by our social knowledge, or are they also influenced by our feelings and desires? Social cognition researchers look at how we make sense of other people and of ourselves. In this book Ziva Kunda provides a comprehensive and accessible survey of research and theory about social cognition at a level appropriate for undergraduate and graduate students, as well as researchers in the field. The first part of the book reviews basic processes in social cognition, including the representation of social concepts, rules of inference, memory, "hot" cognition driven by motivation or affect, and automatic processing. The second part reviews three basic topics in social cognition: group stereotypes, knowledge of other individuals, and the self. A final chapter revisits many of these issues from a cross-cultural perspective. Bradford Books imprint
Article
Ratings provided by Pilots on workload scales and usability surveys can be biased by subjective differences in perception, experience, skill, emotional state, motivation, and estimation of risk/cost that may be associated with performing a task. Personality dynamics can further compound polarization of issues during pilot debriefings. What if these unwanted effects could be filtered out of pilot data collection and we could cost-effectively access a higher-order, collective ‘pilot brain’ made up of a combined pilot intellect, intuition, and experience to provide more accurate insight into workload and usability? Swarm AI technology was used in a high fidelity pilot simulation event and compared against a traditional methodology for collecting workload and usability survey data. Pilot and Subject Matter Expert workload and usability survey ratings were collected during the event and compared to a post-event pilot swarm. The results of the study showed pilots engaging in collective intelligence were found to be more effective at rating workload, and also more aligned with Subject Matter Expert workload ratings. This initial workload testing suggests that Swarm AI technology and techniques have great potential for usability research by activating the collective intelligence of groups, which can exceed that of the individual performing alone. The usability survey sample was limited, therefore further study is recommended to validate the generalizability of this technology to Likert Scale data.