Solitary movement style predicts collective foraging while whom to follow emerges only in company
Organizations: Faculty of Engineering Science, Kansai University, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Abstract
How far can behaviour inside a group, and the group's performance, be predicted from members measured while alone? We tested this on three public datasets of human collective foraging (621, 128 and 1,133 participants). A low-dimensional individual representation estimated from private-phase movement was mapped onto behaviour inside the group through a mapping learned on other participants. Private information processing was stable between the two halves of a session (split-half reliability, the correlation between the halves, 0.60--0.83) and predicted behaviour inside the group with correlations of 0.30--0.66. Selective social learning, following those who have succeeded or stopped, showed stable individual differences inside the group (reliability 0.45--0.59) yet was not predicted at all from the same person's private behaviour. Group performance was predicted with a correlation of 0.55 in all three datasets by simulations never fitted to group outcomes or by the mean of individually measured performance, a prediction carried by mobility and individual performance rather than by social weights. We found no credible evidence for an effect of how members were combined (equivalence bound 0.06). Whom to follow thus emerges only in company, which delimits what solitary measurements can predict and compose.
Figures & tables
| Dataset | Task | Size | Private phase / social phase |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chirkov et al. 2026 [ 24 ] | Track a moving resource for 15 min in an immersive 3-D environment. Alone (A) or in groups of five (no payoff information NP / voluntary sharing VP / full payoff information FP) resource speed (slow / fast). 10-Hz recording; the attention network (who sees whom) reconstructed each second from a 90 ∘ field of view | 621 participants (144 alone, 477 in groups); 103 groups (65 of five, 38 of four) | Search phase (more than 40 m from the resource) / tracking phase (on the resource) |
| Wu et al. 2025 [ 37 ] | 16 rounds of 120 s searching for reward blocks in Minecraft (8 solo, 8 in groups of four; random / smooth reward environments). 20-Hz recording; field of view reconstructed in Unity | 128 participants; 32 sessions (groups of four) | Solo rounds / group rounds |
| Hawkins et al. 2023 [ 38 ] | 1–6 players search a 2-D screen for an invisible circular scoring region that moves, in games of 5–6 min. Experiment 1: binary payoff display; Experiment 3: graded payoff field and waiting-room recording. 8-Hz recording | Experiment 1: 682 participants, 294 games; Experiment 3: 451 participants, 223 games; group level 281 games (169) | Search state (outside the region) and waiting room / scoring state (inside the region) |
| Chirkov et al. | Wu et al. | Hawkins et al. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability, private processing | 0.76 / 0.60 | 0.83 / 0.76 | 0.69 / 0.64 |
| Reliability, selective social learning | 0.09–0.12 | 0.45 / 0.27 | 0.55 / 0.25 |
| Transfer, private processing ( / ceiling) | 0.50 / 0.76 | 0.64 / 0.83 | 0.37 / 0.69 |
| Transfer, selective social learning | not evaluable (ceiling ) | (negative) | 0.06 |
| Roles: contribution of within-group SD ( ) | 0.22–0.95 | 0.26–0.76 | 0.048–0.53 |
| Group performance, prediction | 0.55 (103 groups) | 0.55 (64 cells) | 0.55 (281 games) |
| Dataset | Parameter | Meaning | Trait class |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chirkov (RE) | Intercept | Baseline amount of rotation while tracking (motor activity) | Private processing |
| Detector | Sensitivity to the resource detector (change in distance to the resource); strength of heading correction when about to lose the resource | Private processing | |
| SocPosInFOV | Weight on turning towards the mean position of others in view | Social attraction | |
| SocMovDir | Weight on aligning with the others’ mean movement direction | Social attraction | |
| SocPos SocQual, SocMov SocQual | Increment of the above weights when visible others are closer to the resource than oneself (payoff selectivity) | Selective social learning | |
| Chirkov (ABM policy) | , | Baseline rotation while tracking and sensitivity to the detector | Private processing |
| Dataset | Parameter | Dataset | Parameter | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chirkov (RE) | Intercept | 0.76 | Wu (choice weights) | Locality | 0.83 |
| Detector | 0.60 | BlockVisibility | 0.76 | ||
| SocPosInFOV | 0.30 | RewardPrediction | 0.43 | ||
| SocMovDir | 0.17 | SuccessfulProximity | 0.45 | ||
| SocPosInFOV:SocQual | 0.12 | UnsuccessfulProximity | 0.27 | ||
| SocMovDir:SocQual | 0.09 | AdaptLocality | 0.39 |
| Variant | 95 % CI | (random) | (smooth) | |
| Own | 0.20 | 0.16 | 0.24 | |
| Group mean | 0.04 | 0.11 | ||
| Population | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.04 | |
| Alone | 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.08 | |
| Own + mobility | 0.44 | 0.67 | 0.22 | |
| Group mean + mobility | 0.47 | 0.64 | 0.29 |
| Dataset | SD added | 95 % CI | ( ) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wu | SuccessfulProximity | 0.41 | 0.029 (0.041) | ||
| Wu | Both social weights | 0.55 | 0.034 (0.10) | ||
| Wu | All 5 weights | 0.89 | 0.053 (0.18) | ||
| Hawkins | Facing stopped others | 0.63 | 0.004 (0.34) | ||
| Hawkins | Selectivity index | 0.72 | 0.008 (0.17) | ||
| Hawkins | Teacher | 0.81 | 0.000 (0.81) |
| Hypothesis | Decision rule (pre-specified) | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (i) Search → tracking | The of a sequence encoder of the search phase predicts the tracking-phase random effects with , against the condition speed mean, and outperforms a linear ridge | Failed . Mean for the CNN vs 0.17 for ridge. The condition-mean baseline gives by the definition of random effects and is uninformative ( is trivial). Unchanged with a GRU, , six learning rates 500/10k/50k epochs |
| (ii) Cross-individual transfer | Distance between individuals in space explains transfer error (slope ) and outperforms the summary-statistic distance | Held (linear : slope 0.124 for the distance vs 0.087 for the summary-statistic distance; log-likelihood vs ) |
| (iii) Early movement → roles | The first-3-min predicts later roles with , against the initial-score baseline | In-degree held ( , group-cluster bootstrap ); out-degree failed (0.079, ). The reading (testing directly by cluster bootstrap) was decided on 2026-10-20 |
| (iv) Payoff information and roles | Prediction is best in the FP condition | Not supported (in-degree : NP 0.18 / VP 0.27 / FP 0.18) |
| Payoff sharing | Exploratory (no verdict) | The fraction shared is exhausted by tracking time (Supplementary Note 1) |
| (v) Individual → group performance | Agents with individual parameters predict score and efficiency with , against the default-parameter and mean-parameter controls | Held (score and 0.93). Both controls, however, are constant within cell ( ) and trivial |
| Target | Score only | Tracking time only | Search-phase | First-3-min | Tracking RE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fraction shared (overall; ) | 0.23 | 0.29 | 0.23 | 0.16 | 0.32 |
| Fraction shared (while tracking) | 0.10 | ||||
| Fraction shared (while searching; ) | 0.09 | 0.02 | |||
| Sharing after entering the resource ( ) | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.21 | 0.14 | 0.16 |
| Sharing after one’s own discovery ( ) | 0.04 | 0.10 | 0.21 |
Human Behavior Prediction
Human behavior prediction models how people will act, decide, move, or feel from their histories, context, and observable signals.
See all 76 papers