IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eurphb/v94y2021i12d10.1140_epjb_s10051-021-00259-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stimuli strategy and learning dynamics promote the wisdom of crowds

Author

Listed:
  • Li Zhenpeng

    (Taizhou University)

  • Tang Xijin

    (Academy of Mathematics and Systems Sciences Chinese Academy of Sciences)

Abstract

Collective wisdom is the ability of a group to perform more effectively than any individual alone. Through an evolutionary game-theoretic model of collective prediction, we investigate the role that reinforcement learning stimulus may play the role in enhancing collective voting accuracy. And collective voting bias can be dismissed through self-reinforcing global cooperative learning. Numeric simulations suggest that the provided method can increase collective voting accuracy. We conclude that real-world systems might seek reward-based incentive mechanism as an alternative to surmount group decision error. Graphical Abstract

Suggested Citation

  • Li Zhenpeng & Tang Xijin, 2021. "Stimuli strategy and learning dynamics promote the wisdom of crowds," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 94(12), pages 1-8, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eurphb:v:94:y:2021:i:12:d:10.1140_epjb_s10051-021-00259-9
    DOI: 10.1140/epjb/s10051-021-00259-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1140/epjb/s10051-021-00259-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1140/epjb/s10051-021-00259-9?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vicky Chuqiao Yang & Mirta Galesic & Harvey McGuinness & Ani Harutyunyan, 2021. "Dynamical system model predicts when social learners impair collective performance," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118(35), pages 2106292118-, August.
    2. Wataru Toyokawa & Andrew Whalen & Kevin N. Laland, 2019. "Social learning strategies regulate the wisdom and madness of interactive crowds," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(2), pages 183-193, February.
    3. Imran Yousaf & Shoaib Ali & Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah, 2018. "Herding behavior in Ramadan and financial crises: the case of the Pakistani stock market," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 4(1), pages 1-14, December.
    4. Enrico Diecidue & Jeroen van de Ven, 2008. "Aspiration Level, Probability Of Success And Failure, And Expected Utility," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(2), pages 683-700, May.
    5. Segismundo S. Izquierdo & Luis R. Izquierdo & Nicholas M. Gotts, 2008. "Reinforcement Learning Dynamics in Social Dilemmas," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 11(2), pages 1-1.
    6. Abdullah Almaatouq & Alejandro Noriega-Campero & Abdulrahman Alotaibi & P. M. Krafft & Mehdi Moussaid & Alex Pentland, 2020. "Adaptive social networks promote the wisdom of crowds," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117(21), pages 11379-11386, May.
    7. Enrico Diecidue & Jeroen Van De Ven, 2008. "Aspiration Level, Probability Of Success And Failure, And Expected Utility," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(2), pages 683-700, 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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Stefan Zeisberger, 2022. "Do people care about loss probabilities?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 185-213, October.
    3. Lisheng He & Pantelis P. Analytis & Sudeep Bhatia, 2022. "The Wisdom of Model Crowds," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(5), pages 3635-3659, May.
    4. Pavel Chebotarev, 2023. "Updating Utility Functions on Preordered Sets," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-18, November.
    5. Moshe Levy, 2022. "An evolutionary explanation of the Allais paradox," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 1545-1574, November.
    6. Engström, Per & Nordblom, Katarina & Stefánsson, Arnaldur, 2022. "Loss aversion and indifference to tax rates: Evidence from tax filing data," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 287-311.
    7. Sudeep Bhatia & Graham Loomes & Daniel Read, 2021. "Establishing the laws of preferential choice behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1324-1369, November.
    8. Dennis W. Jansen & Liqun Liu, 2022. "Portfolio choice in the model of expected utility with a safety-first component," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 45(1), pages 187-207, June.
    9. Doron Sonsino & Yaron Lahav & Yefim Roth, 2022. "Reaching for Returns in Retail Structured Investment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(1), pages 466-486, January.
    10. Min Dai & Steven Kou & Shuaijie Qian & Xiangwei Wan, 2022. "Nonconcave Utility Maximization with Portfolio Bounds," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 8368-8385, November.
    11. Dohmen, Thomas & Non, Arjan & Stolp, Tom, 2021. "Reference points and the tradeoff between risk and incentives," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 813-831.
    12. Phillips Peter J. & Pohl Gabriela, 2018. "The Deferral of Attacks: SP/A Theory as a Model of Terrorist Choice when Losses Are Inevitable," Open Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 71-85, February.
    13. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2022. "Chance theory: A separation of riskless and risky utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 1-32, August.
    14. Shuaijie Qian & Chen Yang, 2023. "Non-Concave Utility Maximization with Transaction Costs," Papers 2307.02178, arXiv.org.
    15. Zheng Cui & Jianpeng Ding & Daniel Zhuoyu Long & Lianmin Zhang, 2023. "Target‐based resource pooling problem," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(4), pages 1187-1204, April.
    16. Imran Yousaf & Shoaib Ali & Elie Bouri & Anupam Dutta, 2021. "Herding on Fundamental/Nonfundamental Information During the COVID-19 Outbreak and Cyber-Attacks: Evidence From the Cryptocurrency Market," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, July.
    17. Arvid Hoffmann & Sam Henry & Nikos Kalogeras, 2013. "Aspirations as reference points: an experimental investigation of risk behavior over time," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(2), pages 193-210, August.
    18. Page, Lionel & Savage, David A. & Torgler, Benno, 2014. "Variation in risk seeking behaviour following large losses: A natural experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 121-131.
    19. Enrico G. De Giorgi & David B. Brown & Melvyn Sim, 2010. "Dual representation of choice and aspirational preferences," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2010 2010-07, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
    20. Wenqing Chen & Melvyn Sim, 2009. "Goal-Driven Optimization," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 57(2), pages 342-357, April.
    21. Bert, Federico E. & Rovere, Santiago L. & Macal, Charles M. & North, Michael J. & Podestá, Guillermo P., 2014. "Lessons from a comprehensive validation of an agent based-model: The experience of the Pampas Model of Argentinean agricultural systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 273(C), pages 284-298.

    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:spr:eurphb:v:94:y:2021:i:12:d:10.1140_epjb_s10051-021-00259-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.