IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1005904.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Costs of task allocation with local feedback: Effects of colony size and extra workers in social insects and other multi-agent systems

Author

Listed:
  • Tsvetomira Radeva
  • Anna Dornhaus
  • Nancy Lynch
  • Radhika Nagpal
  • Hsin-Hao Su

Abstract

Adaptive collective systems are common in biology and beyond. Typically, such systems require a task allocation algorithm: a mechanism or rule-set by which individuals select particular roles. Here we study the performance of such task allocation mechanisms measured in terms of the time for individuals to allocate to tasks. We ask: (1) Is task allocation fundamentally difficult, and thus costly? (2) Does the performance of task allocation mechanisms depend on the number of individuals? And (3) what other parameters may affect their efficiency? We use techniques from distributed computing theory to develop a model of a social insect colony, where workers have to be allocated to a set of tasks; however, our model is generalizable to other systems. We show, first, that the ability of workers to quickly assess demand for work in tasks they are not currently engaged in crucially affects whether task allocation is quickly achieved or not. This indicates that in social insect tasks such as thermoregulation, where temperature may provide a global and near instantaneous stimulus to measure the need for cooling, for example, it should be easy to match the number of workers to the need for work. In other tasks, such as nest repair, it may be impossible for workers not directly at the work site to know that this task needs more workers. We argue that this affects whether task allocation mechanisms are under strong selection. Second, we show that colony size does not affect task allocation performance under our assumptions. This implies that when effects of colony size are found, they are not inherent in the process of task allocation itself, but due to processes not modeled here, such as higher variation in task demand for smaller colonies, benefits of specialized workers, or constant overhead costs. Third, we show that the ratio of the number of available workers to the workload crucially affects performance. Thus, workers in excess of those needed to complete all tasks improve task allocation performance. This provides a potential explanation for the phenomenon that social insect colonies commonly contain inactive workers: these may be a ‘surplus’ set of workers that improves colony function by speeding up optimal allocation of workers to tasks. Overall our study shows how limitations at the individual level can affect group level outcomes, and suggests new hypotheses that can be explored empirically.Author summary: Many complex systems have to allocate their units to different functions: cells in an embryo develop into different tissues, servers in a computer cluster perform different calculations, and insect workers choose particular tasks, such as brood care or foraging. Here we demonstrate that this process does not automatically become easier or harder with system size. If more workers are present than needed to complete the work available, some workers will always be idle; despite this, having surplus workers makes redistributing them across the tasks that need work much faster. Thus, unexpectedly, such surplus, idle workers may potentially significantly improve system performance. Our work suggests that interdisciplinary studies between biology and distributed computing can yield novel insights for both fields.

Suggested Citation

  • Tsvetomira Radeva & Anna Dornhaus & Nancy Lynch & Radhika Nagpal & Hsin-Hao Su, 2017. "Costs of task allocation with local feedback: Effects of colony size and extra workers in social insects and other multi-agent systems," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-29, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1005904
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005904
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005904
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005904&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005904?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:cup:cbooks:9780511771576 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Gary S. Becker & Kevin M. Murphy, 1994. "The Division of Labor, Coordination Costs, and Knowledge," NBER Chapters, in: Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education, Third Edition, pages 299-322, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Thomas N. Hubbard, 2009. "Specialization, Firms, and Markets: The Division of Labor within and between Law Firms," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 339-371, October.
    4. Lindbeck, Assar & Snower, Dennis J, 2000. "Multitask Learning and the Reorganization of Work: From Tayloristic to Holistic Organization," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(3), pages 353-376, July.
    5. Gary S. Becker, 1994. "Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education, Third Edition," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number beck94-1, March.
    6. Daniel Charbonneau & Anna Dornhaus, 2015. "When doing nothing is something. How task allocation strategies compromise between flexibility, efficiency, and inactive agents," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 217-242, October.
    7. Aviram Gelblum & Itai Pinkoviezky & Ehud Fonio & Abhijit Ghosh & Nir Gov & Ofer Feinerman, 2015. "Ant groups optimally amplify the effect of transiently informed individuals," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, November.
    8. Easley,David & Kleinberg,Jon, 2010. "Networks, Crowds, and Markets," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521195331.
    9. Anna Dornhaus & Franziska Klügl & Christoph Oechslein & Frank Puppe & Lars Chittka, 2006. "Benefits of recruitment in honey bees: effects of ecology and colony size in an individual-based model," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 17(3), pages 336-344, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Klaus Jaffe, 2015. "Agent based simulations visualize Adam Smith's invisible hand by solving Friedrich Hayek's Economic Calculus," Papers 1509.04264, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2015.
    2. Galina Besstremyannaya & Sergei Golovan, 2023. "Measuring heterogeneity in hospital productivity: a quantile regression approach," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 15-43, February.
    3. repec:awi:wpaper:0421 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. David J. Deming, 2017. "The Growing Importance of Social Skills in the Labor Market," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 132(4), pages 1593-1640.
    5. Molina-Domene, Maria, 2018. "Labor specialization as a source of market frictions," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 91703, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Enghin Atalay & Sebastian Sotelo & Daniel Tannenbaum, 2021. "The Geography of Job Tasks," Working Papers 21-27, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
    7. Snower, Dennis J. & Goerlich, Dennis, 2013. "Multitasking and Wages," IZA Discussion Papers 7426, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Michael Gibbs & Alec Levenson & Cindy Zoghi, 2010. "Why are jobs designed the way they are?," Research in Labor Economics, in: Jobs, Training, and Worker Well-being, pages 107-154, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    9. Ratto Marisa & Schnedler Wendelin, 2008. "Too Few Cooks Spoil the Broth: Division of Labor and Directed Production," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-19, August.
    10. Leila Agha & Keith Marzilli Ericson & Kimberley H. Geissler & James B. Rebitzer, 2018. "Team Formation and Performance: Evidence from Healthcare Referral Networks," NBER Working Papers 24338, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Lex Borghans & Bas Weel, 2006. "The Division of Labour, Worker Organisation, and Technological Change," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 116(509), pages 45-72, February.
    12. Ennio E. Piano, 2021. "Organizing high-end restaurants," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 165-192, June.
    13. Prasad, Suraj & Tran, Hien, 2013. "Work practices, incentives for skills, and training," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 66-76.
    14. Amit Jain & Will Mitchell, 2022. "Specialization as a double‐edged sword: The relationship of scientist specialization with R&D productivity and impact following collaborator change," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(5), pages 986-1024, May.
    15. Galina Besstremyannaya, 2015. "Heterogeneous effect of residency matching and prospective payment on labor returns and hospital scale economies," Discussion Papers 15-001, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    16. Maria Molina-Domene, 2018. "Specialization matters in the firm size-wage gap," CEP Discussion Papers dp1545, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    17. Klaus Jaffé, 2017. "The “Invisible Hand” of Economic Markets Can Be Visualized through the Synergy Created by Division of Labor," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-10, December.
    18. Madanizadeh, Seyed Ali, 2021. "International trade, skill premium and endogenous labor division: The case of Mexico," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    19. Meier, Stephan & Stephenson, Matthew, 2015. "Culture of Trust and Division of Labor," IZA Discussion Papers 8974, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Heiman, Amir & Gordon, Ben & Zilberman, David, 2019. "Food beliefs and food supply chains: The impact of religion and religiosity in Israel," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 363-369.
    21. Roland G. Fryer, Jr, 2016. "The 'Pupil' Factory: Specialization and the Production of Human Capital in Schools," NBER Working Papers 22205, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1005904. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.