Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 160 references

An AI Theory of Mind Will Enhance Our Collective Intelligence

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This review argues that equipping AI agents with a Theory of Mind—the ability to infer others' beliefs, preferences, and constraints—will let them enhance collective intelligence in human groups in the same way people do.

desk verdict The review is solid but the toy model miscomputes its own measure: the claimed 1-bit CI is just the injected signal's entropy, so the central demonstration fails. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09168 v2 pith:7QYBJYEQ submitted 2024-11-14 cs.MA cs.AIcs.CYcs.GTnlin.AO

Michael S. Harré , Catherine Drysdale , Jaime Ruiz-Serra This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.MAcs.AIcs.CYcs.GTnlin.AO
keywords collectiveintelligencetheoryofmindhuman-AIcollaborationtime-delayedmutualinformationgamebeliefspreferencesconstraintssocialnicheconstructionmulti-agentsystems
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the same psychological capacity that raises human group performance—Theory of Mind, the ability to infer other agents' beliefs, preferences, and constraints—should be built into artificial agents, and that such AIs will then enhance collective intelligence in hybrid human–AI groups much as people do. It reviews evidence that groups perform better when members score highly on Theory-of-Mind measures, and it interprets that result through a game-theoretic model of hidden mental states. To make the claim quantitative, it proposes a measure of collective intelligence, the excess time-delayed mutual information $\phi$, and illustrates with a three-agent model in which one ToM-equipped agent reconfigures the incentives of two others, raising $\phi$ from zero to one bit. The wider point is that agential AI should be seen as inhabitants of a social ecology—choosing, conforming to, and constructing socio-cognitive niches—rather than as tools. If the claim holds, it gives designers a concrete target: AIs that read and rewrite interpersonal incentive structures should measurably lift group information processing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is $\phi(X;\tau)=I(X_t;X_{t-\tau})-\sum_i I(X^i_t;X^i_{t-\tau})$, the excess time-delayed mutual information: how much predictive information the joint state of all agents carries beyond the sum of each agent's own predictive information. The paper uses this as a proxy for collective intelligence, in the spirit of but not identical to integrated information theory. The complementary machinery is the BPC model (beliefs, preferences, and constraints), which turns a Theory of Mind into a tractable game-theoretic inference: an agent models the hidden utility co-factors that drive others' choices. In the minimal model, agent A1 knows the BPC of agents A2 and A3 and sets $x_1 = \frac{1}{4}s_t$, switching their game between Prisoner's Dilemma and Harmony so that cooperation occurs exactly when the environmental signal says it is valuable; the paper reports $\phi=0$ before the intervention and $\phi=1$ bit after, illustrating how one ToM agent can restructure an interaction network at short time scales.

What would settle it

Recompute $\phi$ in the Section 4 model from the stated assumptions: $s_t$ independent and uniformly random, $x^1_t=s_t/4$, and $x^2_t,x^3_t$ fixed at Nash choices; then each time-delayed mutual information in Equation (1) is zero whenever the agent variables are deterministic functions of the signal or constants, so the joint term equals the self-predictability of the exogenous signal, giving $\phi=0$. If that calculation is right, the paper's one-bit illustration collapses. A separate empirical falsifier: in a controlled experiment, compare group-level $c$ or $\phi$ for teams with a ToM-equipped AI mediator versus a generic AI support tool; no difference in group-level intelligence scores would refute the central hypothesis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that Theory of Mind is the individual-level mechanism that lets agents take causal, goal-directed control of collective information processing, and that AIs equipped with it will enhance collective intelligence in ways similar to human contributions. To support this, the paper distinguishes zeroth- to fourth-order ToM, associates human social intelligence with second-order ToM (attributing hidden beliefs, preferences, and constraints to others), and links the collective-intelligence factor $c$ of groups to members' ToM capability. It then formalises ToM-agent interaction through game-theoretic utilities in which one agent shifts another pair's effective game from Prisoner's Dilemma to Harmony, creating a hypergraph of interaction that the paper measures as one bit of $\phi$. The intended upshot is that hybrid human–AI collectives will become more intelligent not because AI computes better, but because AI can participate in the social construction of shared goals.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the $\phi$ measure is a valid and correctly computed proxy for collective intelligence; if in the three-agent toy model the reported one bit is just the entropy of the external signal, because the two Nash-locked agents contribute no time-delayed mutual information, then the quantitative illustration does not actually show that Theory of Mind increases collective intelligence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is correct, the design target for AI in human groups shifts from better tools to agential social actors that infer and modify the beliefs, preferences, and constraints of human teammates.
  • The $\phi$ measure offers a computable objective for such agents: an AI contribution counts as intelligence-enhancing to the extent it raises the excess time-delayed mutual information of the whole human–AI system.
  • The framework predicts that ToM-equipped AI will matter most in fluid, reconfigurable social settings—the 'liquid brain' end of the spectrum—where fast, targeted interventions in who interacts with whom matter.
  • Hybrid human–AI teams containing a ToM-equipped agent should display higher group-level collective intelligence (the $c$ factor) than teams using AI purely as an information-processing tool.
  • AI will need the full repertoire of niche choice, niche conformance, and niche construction—selecting, adapting to, and reshaping its social niche—rather than being deployed into fixed contexts.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the BPC-based definition implies a sharp boundary test—an AI that only imitates observable behaviour should not raise collective intelligence as much as one that infers and alters hidden preferences, because the latter changes the effective game rather than merely predicting moves.
  • Editorial inference: the framing places LLM-based assistants and ToM-equipped agents on different rungs; if so, benchmarks for human–AI collaboration should measure group-level $\phi$ or $c$, not the standalone capability of the model.
  • Editorial inference: the same $\phi$ measurement could be applied directly to human team time series, offering a way to test whether ToM training or team composition shifts collective intelligence independently of individual IQ.
  • Editorial inference: viewed as a design brief, the paper suggests that alignment of ToM-AI should be evaluated at the level of the collective's information processing, since the incentives an AI manipulates become part of the group's effective game.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that human collective intelligence (CI) is substantially enabled by Theory of Mind (ToM) at the individual level, and it hypothesizes that ToM-equipped AI agents will likewise enhance the collective intelligence of human-AI groups. The argument is built on a broad interdisciplinary review: liquid/solid brains, social network topology, the BPC model of game theory, and psychological evidence such as Woolley et al.'s finding that group performance correlates with ToM. The paper introduces a time-delayed mutual information measure phi(X;tau) (Eq. 1) as a quantitative proxy for CI, applies it to a monkey-computer game dataset, and then presents a three-agent toy model in Section 4 in which an agent A1 uses ToM to manipulate the payoffs of two other agents, claiming that phi increases from 0 to 1 bit. A separate Section 5 sketches an RL/ToM architecture based on piKL regularisation.

Significance. If the central hypothesis is accepted, the paper offers a useful conceptual bridge between social psychology, complex systems theory, and AI design, and it gives a concrete, if minimal, information-theoretic target for measuring emergent CI. The review component is valuable and well grounded, particularly in the empirical ToM literature and in the established liquid/solid brain framework. The paper is ambitious and interdisciplinary, and it explicitly aims to reframe AI as agential participants in a social ecology rather than as tools. However, the single quantitative demonstration of the paper's own measure, Section 4.2, does not compute phi as defined, so the numerical support for the central claim is currently absent. The manuscript's value is therefore mainly in its synthesis and hypothesis formulation rather than in its proof-of-concept model.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.2, Eq. (1)] The claimed value of 1 bit for the second scenario is inconsistent with Eq. (1). In that scenario x1_t = st/4 and, because A2 and A3 are at their Nash equilibrium, (x2_t,x3_t) = (st,st). Hence X_t is a memoryless function of the iid signal st. For every tau > 0, I(X_t; X_{t-tau}) = 0 and each single-agent TDMI I(x_i,t; x_i,t-tau) = 0, so phi(X;tau) = 0 by the paper's own definition. The reported 1 bit corresponds to H(st), or equivalently to the instantaneous tau = 0 correlation between x2 and x3; it is injected environmental information, not time-delayed excess mutual information. No value of tau or simulation procedure is reported for this computation, so the reader cannot verify any alternative reading. This undermines the only quantitative illustration supporting the central hypothesis.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (8)-(9)] Even if the arithmetic of phi were corrected, the toy model would not isolate a ToM mechanism. A1 sets the preference parameter c equal to x1 = st/4 and thereby selects, at each time step, whether the A2-A3 game is the Prisoner's Dilemma or the Harmony game. Any reactive controller that observes st and knows the payoff structure would produce exactly the same joint state process; no inference of hidden beliefs, preferences, or constraints is required. To support the ToM claim, the model needs either a control condition in which the same information is transmitted without BPC modelling or a condition in which A1 must infer the hidden BPC parameters from observed behaviour. As it stands, the 1-bit gain is built into the scenario by construction rather than demonstrated as an emergent effect of ToM.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The expression for mutual information is written as a sum over i = 1 to n, but the summands are not defined and the notation conflates the joint-state sum with the agent index; it should be written as a sum over joint configurations with the appropriate probabilities.
  2. [Section 4.2] The text states 'for the second scenario it is 1 bit' without specifying the time delay tau, the sample length, or the estimator used; since Eq. (1) depends critically on tau, this omission is important even beyond the conceptual issue raised above.
  3. [Section 5] The piKL discussion is presented as a formal framework, but it is not connected to the preceding phi-based analysis and is never used in any simulation or quantitative result; the authors should clarify whether it is intended as a proposal for future work or as part of the present argument.
  4. [General] The manuscript would benefit from a careful proofread: examples include 'discpline' (Section 1.2), 'n the following section' (Section 3.2), 'Battencourt' for Bettencourt (Eq. 1 citation), 'conspicifics' for conspecifics (Section 1.1), and 'understating' for understanding (Section 2.2).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Section 4.2's reported 1-bit gain is the entropy of the injected signal, not phi from Eq. 1; the toy model's improvement is true by construction.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.1-4.2, applied to Eq. 1]
    "ϕ(X;τ) ≜I(Xt;Xt−τ)− n∑ i=1 I(Xi t;Xi t−τ). (1) ... In the first scenario it is 0 bits and for the second scenario it is 1 bit."

    In the model, A1 sets x1_t = s_t/4 and A2/A3 cooperate exactly when s_t = 1, otherwise defect. Hence the joint state X_t = (s_t/4, s_t, s_t) is a memoryless function of the iid signal s_t. For every τ > 0, both I(X_t; X_{t−τ}) and each individual I(x_i,t; x_i,t−τ) vanish, so Eq. 1 gives phi = 0, not 1. The reported '1 bit' is H(s_t), the entropy of the externally injected binary signal (equivalently the instantaneous I(s_t; x2_t)). The claimed 0-to-1-bit improvement is thus the model's input renamed as its output: a controller given the signal and the power to set incentives would create the same correlation, so the result is built into the construction rather than derived from Eq. 1 or from any ToM-specific mechanism.

full rationale

The paper's central hypothesis — that ToM-equipped AIs will enhance collective intelligence — is not circular per se: it is presented as a hypothesis and is supported by external empirical literature (Woolley et al. 2010; Engel et al. 2014), and the phi measure and utility-polynomial formalism are standard and independently sourced. The self-citations to Harré's prior work are not load-bearing for the main argument. However, the only quantitative illustration of the hypothesis, the Section 4 toy model, does not compute Eq. 1 as written. With iid s_t and actions fully determined by s_t, all time-delayed mutual informations vanish, so phi = 0; the claimed 1 bit equals the entropy of the injected signal. The 0-to-1-bit enhancement is therefore not an emergent property of a ToM mechanism but the model's input renamed as its output. Because this numerical claim is load-bearing for the 'simple illustration' and is not redeemed by simulation, a separate tau value, or any external benchmark, the paper warrants a partial-circularity score of 6 rather than 0-2.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central claim is a hypothesis assembled from prior empirical work; the main original quantitative content is a three-agent toy model and a piKL-based RL objective. The toy model requires the game-switching parameter c, the scaling x1=1/4 s, and a chosen time delay tau; the piKL objective introduces two regularization weights with no values or validation. The philosophical framing relies on domain assumptions about the validity of phi as a CI measure and the reducibility of ToM to BPC variables. No new physical entities are proposed.

free parameters (4)
  • c (game-type parameter) = -1/4 (Prisoner's Dilemma) and +1/4 (Harmony)
    Section 4.1: A1 manipulates A2/A3's payoff by setting c=x1; the magnitude is chosen to switch between PD and Harmony and is not derived from data.
  • x1 signal scaling = 1/4
    Section 4.1: A1's state is set to x_t^1 = (1/4) s_t so that its values match the chosen c values; the scaling is arbitrary.
  • lambda1, lambda2 = not specified
    Section 5.6: regularization weights in the unified objective; no values, tuning, or ablation are provided.
  • time delay tau = 1, 2, 3 in Table 1; unspecified for toy model
    Equation 1 depends on tau; the choice affects phi values, and no criterion is given for the toy model.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption phi (excess time-delayed mutual information) is a valid proxy for Woolley et al.'s collective intelligence factor c.
    Section 3.1 states the measure is used 'as a proxy for Woolley et al.'s c intelligence'; no empirical calibration links phi to c.
  • domain assumption Theory of Mind can be represented by inference over Beliefs, Preferences, and Constraints (BPC) hidden variables.
    Section 2.2 restricts ToM to the BPC model; this reduction is a modeling choice, not an established equivalence.
  • domain assumption In the toy model, A2 and A3 always choose according to the Nash equilibrium of their current game.
    Section 4.1: this assumption makes their behavior deterministic functions of A1's signal and removes any temporal dependence.
  • domain assumption Future AI systems will act as agential actors embedded in social ecologies, not merely as tools.
    Section 1.2 and Discussion: the entire argument for AI-enhanced CI depends on this premise, which is not demonstrated.
invented entities (1)
  • ToM-induced piKL divergence (D^ToM_piKL)
    purpose: Regularization term that measures divergence between a baseline RL policy and a belief-inference-enhanced policy, intended to balance social intelligence and interpretability.
    Section 5.5 defines this divergence as a new objective term, but no implementation, experiment, or external benchmark supports it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An AI Theory of Mind Will Enhance Our Collective Intelligence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7QYBJYEQ

@misc{pith2026241109168,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An AI Theory of Mind Will Enhance Our Collective Intelligence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7QYBJYEQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09168}
}
read the original abstract

Collective intelligence plays a central role in many fields, from economics and evolutionary theory to neural networks and eusocial insects, and is also core to work on emergence and self-organisation in complex-systems theory. However, in human collective intelligence there is still much to understand about how specific psychological processes at the individual level give rise to self-organised structures at the social level. Psychological factors have so far played a minor role in collective-intelligence studies because the principles are often general and applicable to agents without sophisticated psychologies. We emphasise, with examples from other complex adaptive systems, the broad applicability of collective-intelligence principles, while noting that mechanisms and time scales differ markedly between cases. We review evidence that flexible collective intelligence in human social settings is improved by a particular cognitive tool: our Theory of Mind. We then hypothesise that AIs equipped with a theory of mind will enhance collective intelligence in ways similar to human contributions. To make this case, we step back from the algorithmic basis of AI psychology and consider the large-scale impact AI can have as agential actors in a 'social ecology' rather than as mere technological tools. We identify several key characteristics of psychologically mediated collective intelligence and show that the development of a Theory of Mind is crucial in distinguishing human social collective intelligence from more general forms. Finally, we illustrate how individuals, human or otherwise, integrate within a collective not by being genetically or algorithmically programmed, but by growing and adapting into the socio-cognitive niche they occupy. AI can likewise inhabit one or multiple such niches, facilitated by a Theory of Mind.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09168 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Graphs and hyper-graphs of three agents: (a) A disconnected graph containing two dyadically connected agents [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The interaction networks for the two scenarios: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Payoff matrices for agents A2 and A3, which agent A1 can strategically influence by setting c ← x1. now A1 is more psychologically aware: it knows the beliefs, preferences, and constraints of the other two agents, and it is able to influence their preferences so that they will cooperate with each other when A1 receives the signal: s t = 1. They, in turn, will pay A1 some portion of their total payoff. To do this num… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

160 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bioelectric networks: the cognitive glue enabling evolutionary scaling from physiology to mind

    Michael Levin. Bioelectric networks: the cognitive glue enabling evolutionary scaling from physiology to mind. Animal Cognition, 26(6):1865–1891, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Collective minds: social network topology shapes collective cognition

    Ida Momennejad. Collective minds: social network topology shapes collective cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B , 377(1843):20200315, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    The origins of human cumulative culture: from the foraging niche to collective intelligence

    Andrea Bamberg Migliano and Lucio Vinicius. The origins of human cumulative culture: from the foraging niche to collective intelligence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B , 377(1843):20200317, 2022

    2022

  4. [4]

    The complex structure of hunter–gatherer social networks

    Marcus J Hamilton, Bruce T Milne, Robert S Walker, Oskar Burger, and James H Brown. The complex structure of hunter–gatherer social networks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 274(1622):2195–2203, 2007

    2007

  5. [5]

    Network scaling reveals consistent fractal pattern in hierarchical mammalian societies

    Russell A Hill, R Alexander Bentley, and Robin IM Dunbar. Network scaling reveals consistent fractal pattern in hierarchical mammalian societies. Biology letters, 4(6):748–751, 2008

    2008

  6. [6]

    The social brain: scale-invariant layering of erd˝ os–r´ enyi networks in small-scale human societies

    Michael S Harr´ e and Mikhail Prokopenko. The social brain: scale-invariant layering of erd˝ os–r´ enyi networks in small-scale human societies. Journal of the Royal Society Interface , 13(118):20160044, 2016

    2016

  7. [7]

    Liquid brains, solid brains, 2019

    Ricard Sol´ e, Melanie Moses, and Stephanie Forrest. Liquid brains, solid brains, 2019

    2019

  8. [8]

    Statistical physics of liquid brains

    Jordi Pi˜ nero and Ricard Sol´ e. Statistical physics of liquid brains. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 374(1774):20180376, 2019

    2019

Show all 160 references
  1. [9]

    The computational boundary of a “self”: developmental bioelectricity drives multicellularity and scale-free cognition

    Michael Levin. The computational boundary of a “self”: developmental bioelectricity drives multicellularity and scale-free cognition. Frontiers in psychology, 10:2688, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Technological approach to mind everywhere: an experimentally-grounded framework for understand- ing diverse bodies and minds

    Michael Levin. Technological approach to mind everywhere: an experimentally-grounded framework for understand- ing diverse bodies and minds. Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 16:768201, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Darwin’s agential materials: evolutionary implications of multiscale competency in developmental biology

    Michael Levin. Darwin’s agential materials: evolutionary implications of multiscale competency in developmental biology. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences , 80(6):142, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Competency in navigating arbitrary spaces as an invariant for analyzing cognition in diverse embodiments

    Chris Fields and Michael Levin. Competency in navigating arbitrary spaces as an invariant for analyzing cognition in diverse embodiments. Entropy, 24(6):819, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities

    John J Hopfield. Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences , 79(8):2554–2558, 1982

    1982

  6. [14]

    Single cortical neurons as deep artificial neural networks

    David Beniaguev, Idan Segev, and Michael London. Single cortical neurons as deep artificial neural networks. Neuron, 109(17):2727–2739, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Bayesian spiking neurons i: inference

    Sophie Deneve. Bayesian spiking neurons i: inference. Neural computation, 20(1):91–117, 2008

    2008

  8. [16]

    Ant social network structure is highly conserved across species

    Tomas Kay, Alba Motes-Rodrigo, Arthur Royston, Thomas O Richardson, Nathalie Stroeymeyt, and Laurent Keller. Ant social network structure is highly conserved across species. Proceedings B, 291(2027):20240898, 2024

    2027

  9. [17]

    Leadership–not followership– determines performance in ant teams

    Thomas O Richardson, Andrea Coti, Nathalie Stroeymeyt, and Laurent Keller. Leadership–not followership– determines performance in ant teams. Communications biology, 4(1):535, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Infectious diseases and social distancing in nature

    Sebastian Stockmaier, Nathalie Stroeymeyt, Eric C Shattuck, Dana M Hawley, Lauren Ancel Meyers, and Daniel I Bolnick. Infectious diseases and social distancing in nature. Science, 371(6533):eabc8881, 2021. 17

    2021

  11. [19]

    Beyond collective intelligence: Collective adaptation

    Mirta Galesic, Daniel Barkoczi, Andrew M Berdahl, Dora Biro, Giuseppe Carbone, Ilaria Giannoccaro, Robert L Goldstone, Cleotilde Gonzalez, Anne Kandler, Albert B Kao, et al. Beyond collective intelligence: Collective adaptation. Journal of the Royal Society interface , 20(200)...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Markets as evolving computational entities

    Philip Mirowski and Koye Somefun. Markets as evolving computational entities. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 8(4):329–356, 1998

    1998

  13. [21]

    Robert L. Axtell. Economics as distributed computation. In Meeting the Challenge of Social Problems via Agent- Based Simulation: Post-Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Agent-Based Approaches in Economic and Social Complex Systems , pages 3–23. Springer, 2003

    2003

  14. [22]

    Markets come to bits: Evolution, computation and markomata in economic science

    Philip Mirowski. Markets come to bits: Evolution, computation and markomata in economic science. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization , 63(2):209–242, 2007

    2007

  15. [23]

    Entropy, economics, and criticality.Entropy, 24(2):210, 2022

    Michael S Harr´ e. Entropy, economics, and criticality.Entropy, 24(2):210, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Harr´ e and Terrence Bossomaier

    Michael S. Harr´ e and Terrence Bossomaier. Phase-transition–like behaviour of information measures in financial markets. Europhysics Letters, 87(1):18009, 2009

    2009

  17. [25]

    Entropy and transfer entropy: the dow jones and the build up to the 1997 asian crisis

    Michael Harr´ e. Entropy and transfer entropy: the dow jones and the build up to the 1997 asian crisis. InProceedings of the International Conference on Social Modeling and Simulation, plus Econophysics Colloquium 2014 , pages 15–

    1997

  18. [26]

    Springer International Publishing, 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

    Computation at the edge of chaos: Phase transitions and emergent computation

    Chris G Langton. Computation at the edge of chaos: Phase transitions and emergent computation. Physica D: nonlinear phenomena, 42(1-3):12–37, 1990

    1990

  20. [28]

    Inform: efficient information-theoretic analysis of collective behaviors

    Douglas G Moore, Gabriele Valentini, Sara I Walker, and Michael Levin. Inform: efficient information-theoretic analysis of collective behaviors. Frontiers in Robotics and AI , 5:60, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Directed information measures in neuroscience , volume 724

    Michael Wibral, Raul Vicente, and Joseph T Lizier. Directed information measures in neuroscience , volume 724. Springer, 2014

    2014

  22. [30]

    Integrated information theory: from con- sciousness to its physical substrate

    Giulio Tononi, Melanie Boly, Marcello Massimini, and Christof Koch. Integrated information theory: from con- sciousness to its physical substrate. Nature reviews neuroscience, 17(7):450–461, 2016

    2016

  23. [31]

    Integrated information as a common signature of dynamical and information-processing complexity

    Pedro AM Mediano, Fernando E Rosas, Juan Carlos Farah, Murray Shanahan, Daniel Bor, and Adam B Barrett. Integrated information as a common signature of dynamical and information-processing complexity. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science , 32(1), 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Practical measures of integrated information for time-series data

    Adam B Barrett and Anil K Seth. Practical measures of integrated information for time-series data. PLoS compu- tational biology, 7(1):e1001052, 2011

    2011

  25. [33]

    Measuring integrated information: Comparison of candidate measures in theory and simulation

    Pedro AM Mediano, Anil K Seth, and Adam B Barrett. Measuring integrated information: Comparison of candidate measures in theory and simulation. Entropy, 21(1):17, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    An information-theoretic primer on complexity, self- organization, and emergence

    Mikhail Prokopenko, Fabio Boschetti, and Alex J Ryan. An information-theoretic primer on complexity, self- organization, and emergence. Complexity, 15(1):11–28, 2009

    2009

  27. [35]

    The local information dynamics of distributed computation in complex systems

    Joseph T Lizier. The local information dynamics of distributed computation in complex systems . Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  28. [36]

    An Introduction to Transfer Entropy: Information Flow in Complex Systems

    Terry Bossomaier, Lionel Barnett, Michael Harr´ e, and Joseph T Lizier. An Introduction to Transfer Entropy: Information Flow in Complex Systems . Springer, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    Machine behaviour

    Iyad Rahwan, Manuel Cebrian, Nick Obradovich, Josh Bongard, Jean-Fran¸ cois Bonnefon, Cynthia Breazeal, Ja- cob W Crandall, Nicholas A Christakis, Iain D Couzin, Matthew O Jackson, et al. Machine behaviour. Nature, 568(7753):477–486, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    Abrupt rise of new machine ecology beyond human response time

    Neil Johnson, Guannan Zhao, Eric Hunsader, Hong Qi, Nicholas Johnson, Jing Meng, and Brian Tivnan. Abrupt rise of new machine ecology beyond human response time. Scientific reports, 3(1):2627, 2013

    2013

  31. [39]

    Social fmri: Investigating and shaping social mechanisms in the real world

    Nadav Aharony, Wei Pan, Cory Ip, Inas Khayal, and Alex Pentland. Social fmri: Investigating and shaping social mechanisms in the real world. Pervasive and mobile computing , 7(6):643–659, 2011

    2011

  32. [40]

    On aims and methods of ethology

    Niko Tinbergen. On aims and methods of ethology. Animal Biology, 55(4), 2005. 18

    2005

  33. [41]

    How large language models can reshape collective intelligence

    Jason W Burton, Ezequiel Lopez-Lopez, Shahar Hechtlinger, Zoe Rahwan, Samuel Aeschbach, Michiel A Bakker, Joshua A Becker, Aleks Berditchevskaia, Julian Berger, Levin Brinkmann, et al. How large language models can reshape collective intelligence. Nature human behaviour, pages...

    2024

  34. [42]

    Cooperating with machines

    Jacob W Crandall, Mayada Oudah, Tennom, Fatimah Ishowo-Oloko, Sherief Abdallah, Jean-Fran¸ cois Bonnefon, Manuel Cebrian, Azim Shariff, Michael A Goodrich, and Iyad Rahwan. Cooperating with machines. Nature com- munications, 9(1):233, 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis of experiments from 1958 to 1992

    David Sally. Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis of experiments from 1958 to 1992. Rationality and society, 7(1):58–92, 1995

    1958

  36. [44]

    A recognition-primed decision (rpd) model of rapid decision making

    Gary A Klein. A recognition-primed decision (rpd) model of rapid decision making. Decision making in action: Models and methods, 5(4):138–147, 1993

    1993

  37. [45]

    Human-level play in the game of diplomacy by combining language models with strategic reasoning

    Meta Fundamental AI Research Diplomacy Team (FAIR) †, Anton Bakhtin, Noam Brown, Emily Dinan, Gabriele Farina, Colin Flaherty, Daniel Fried, Andrew Goff, Jonathan Gray, Hengyuan Hu, et al. Human-level play in the game of diplomacy by combining language models with strategic re...

    2022

  38. [46]

    Machine mind readers

    Edd Gent. Machine mind readers. New Scientist, 257(3426):46–49, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Psychological ai: Designing algorithms informed by human psychology

    Gerd Gigerenzer. Psychological ai: Designing algorithms informed by human psychology. Perspectives on Psycho- logical Science, 19(5):839–848, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Ai-enhanced collective intelligence

    Hao Cui and Taha Yasseri. Ai-enhanced collective intelligence. Patterns, 5(11), 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    A new sociology of humans and machines

    Milena Tsvetkova, Taha Yasseri, Niccolo Pescetelli, and Tobias Werner. A new sociology of humans and machines. Nature Human Behaviour , 8(10):1864–1876, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    Comparing information-theoretic measures of complexity in boltzmann machines

    Maxinder S Kanwal, Joshua A Grochow, and Nihat Ay. Comparing information-theoretic measures of complexity in boltzmann machines. Entropy, 19(7):310, 2017

    2017

  43. [51]

    The collective intelligence of evolution and development

    Richard Watson and Michael Levin. The collective intelligence of evolution and development. Collective Intelligence, 2(2):26339137231168355, 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    The social brain: allowing humans to boldly go where no other species has been

    Uta Frith and Chris Frith. The social brain: allowing humans to boldly go where no other species has been. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 365(1537):165–176, 2010

    2010

  45. [53]

    Derek C Penn and Daniel J Povinelli. On the lack of evidence that non-human animals possess anything remotely resembling a ‘theory of mind’ .Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1480):731– 744, 2007

    2007

  46. [54]

    Theory of mind in animals: Current and future directions

    Christopher Krupenye and Josep Call. Theory of mind in animals: Current and future directions. Wiley Interdisci- plinary Reviews: Cognitive Science , 10(6):e1503, 2019

    2019

  47. [55]

    Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups

    Anita Williams Woolley, Christopher F Chabris, Alex Pentland, Nada Hashmi, and Thomas W Malone. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. science, 330(6004):686–688, 2010

    2010

  48. [56]

    Reading the mind in the eyes or reading between the lines? theory of mind predicts collective intelligence equally well online and face-to-face

    David Engel, Anita Williams Woolley, Lisa X Jing, Christopher F Chabris, and Thomas W Malone. Reading the mind in the eyes or reading between the lines? theory of mind predicts collective intelligence equally well online and face-to-face. PloS one, 9(12):e115212, 2014

    2014

  49. [57]

    Game theory of mind

    Wako Yoshida, Ray J Dolan, and Karl J Friston. Game theory of mind. PLoS computational biology, 4(12):e1000254, 2008

    2008

  50. [58]

    The foundations of behavior: The beliefs, preferences, and constraints model

    Herbert Gintis. The foundations of behavior: The beliefs, preferences, and constraints model. Biological Theory, 1:123–127, 2006

    2006

  51. [59]

    A framework for the unification of the behavioral sciences

    Herbert Gintis. A framework for the unification of the behavioral sciences. Behavioral and brain sciences, 30(1):1–16, 2007

    2007

  52. [60]

    Unifying the behavioral sciences ii

    Herbert Gintis. Unifying the behavioral sciences ii. Behavioral and brain sciences , 30(1):45–53, 2007

    2007

  53. [61]

    Human-ai coevolution

    Dino Pedreschi, Luca Pappalardo, Emanuele Ferragina, Ricardo Baeza-Yates, Albert-L´ aszl´ o Barab´ asi, Frank Dignum, Virginia Dignum, Tina Eliassi-Rad, Fosca Giannotti, J´ anos Kert´ esz, et al. Human-ai coevolution. Ar- tificial Intelligence, page 104244, 2024. 19

    2024

  54. [62]

    Thinking through other minds: A variational approach to cognition and culture

    Samuel PL Veissi` ere, Axel Constant, Maxwell JD Ramstead, Karl J Friston, and Laurence J Kirmayer. Thinking through other minds: A variational approach to cognition and culture. Behavioral and brain sciences, 43:e90, 2020

    2020

  55. [63]

    Designing ecosystems of intelligence from first principles

    Karl J Friston, Maxwell JD Ramstead, Alex B Kiefer, Alexander Tschantz, Christopher L Buckley, Mahault Al- barracin, Riddhi J Pitliya, Conor Heins, Brennan Klein, Beren Millidge, et al. Designing ecosystems of intelligence from first principles. Collective Intelligence , 3(1):...

    2024

  56. [64]

    Testing game theory of mind models for artificial intelligence.Games, 15(1):1, 2023

    Michael S Harr´ e and Husam El-Tarifi. Testing game theory of mind models for artificial intelligence.Games, 15(1):1, 2023

    2023

  57. [65]

    What can game theory tell us about an AI ‘Theory of Mind’? Games, 13(3):46, 2022

    Michael S Harr´ e. What can game theory tell us about an AI ‘Theory of Mind’? Games, 13(3):46, 2022

    2022

  58. [66]

    Integrated records of environmental change and evolution challenge the cambrian explosion

    Rachel Wood, Alexander G Liu, Frederick Bowyer, Philip R Wilby, Frances S Dunn, Charlotte G Kenchington, Jennifer F Hoyal Cuthill, Emily G Mitchell, and Amelia Penny. Integrated records of environmental change and evolution challenge the cambrian explosion. Nature ecology and ...

    2019

  59. [67]

    On having no head: Cognition throughout biological systems

    Frantiˇ sek Baluˇ ska and Michael Levin. On having no head: Cognition throughout biological systems. 7, 2016

    2016

  60. [68]

    Memory inception and preservation in slime moulds: the quest for a common mechanism

    A Boussard, J Delescluse, A P´ erez-Escudero, and A Dussutour. Memory inception and preservation in slime moulds: the quest for a common mechanism. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological sciences, 374(1774):20180368–20180368, 2019

    2019

  61. [69]

    Thompson

    Richard F. Thompson. Habituation: A history. Neurobiology of learning and memory , 92(2):127–134, 2009

    2009

  62. [70]

    Zhi Li and Satish K. Nair. Quorum sensing: How bacteria can coordinate activity and synchronize their response to external signals? Protein science, 21(10):1403–1417, 2012

    2012

  63. [71]

    Network morphospace.Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 12(103):20140881, 2015

    Andrea Avena-Koenigsberger, Joaqu´ ın Go˜ ni, Ricard Sol´ e, and Olaf Sporns. Network morphospace.Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 12(103):20140881, 2015

    2015

  64. [72]

    A morphospace for reef fishes: elongation is the dominant axis of body shape evolution

    Thomas Claverie and Peter C Wainwright. A morphospace for reef fishes: elongation is the dominant axis of body shape evolution. PloS one, 9(11):e112732, 2014

    2014

  65. [73]

    The morphospace of language networks.Scientific reports, 8(1):10465, 2018

    Lu´ ıs F Seoane and Ricard Sol´ e. The morphospace of language networks.Scientific reports, 8(1):10465, 2018

    2018

  66. [74]

    Collective intelligence of morphogenesis as a teleonomic process

    Michael Levin. Collective intelligence of morphogenesis as a teleonomic process. 2022

    2022

  67. [75]

    Watson, Rob Mills, and C

    Richard A. Watson, Rob Mills, and C. L. Buckley. Global Adaptation in Networks of Selfish Components: Emergent Associative Memory at the System Scale. Artificial Life, 17(3):147–166, July 2011

    2011

  68. [76]

    self-modeling

    Richard A. Watson, C. L. Buckley, and Rob Mills. Optimization in “self-modeling” complex adaptive systems. Complexity, 16(5):17–26, 2011

    2011

  69. [77]

    Sensing enhancement on social networks: The role of network topology

    Markus Brede and Guillermo Romero-Moreno. Sensing enhancement on social networks: The role of network topology. Entropy, 24(5):738, 2022

    2022

  70. [78]

    Modular structure within groups causes information loss but can improve decision accuracy

    Albert B Kao and Iain D Couzin. Modular structure within groups causes information loss but can improve decision accuracy. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological sciences , 374(1774):20180378–20180378, 2019

    2019

  71. [79]

    Morphospace

    Graham E Budd. Morphospace. Current Biology, 31(19):R1181–R1185, 2021

    2021

  72. [80]

    The morphospace of consciousness

    Xerxes D Arsiwalla, Ricard Sole, Clement Moulin-Frier, Ivan Herreros, Marti Sanchez-Fibla, and Paul Verschure. The morphospace of consciousness. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.11190 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Statistical mechanics of deep learning

    Yasaman Bahri, Jonathan Kadmon, Jeffrey Pennington, Sam S Schoenholz, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, and Surya Gan- guli. Statistical mechanics of deep learning. Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics , 11(1):501–528, 2020

    2020

  74. [82]

    A morphospace for synthetic organs and organoids: the possible and the actual

    Aina Oll´ e-Vila, Salva Duran-Nebreda, N´ uria Conde-Pueyo, Ra´ ul Monta˜ nez, and Ricard Sol´ e. A morphospace for synthetic organs and organoids: the possible and the actual. Integrative Biology, 8(4):485–503, 2016

    2016

  75. [83]

    Using large-scale experiments and machine learning to discover theories of human decision-making

    Joshua C Peterson, David D Bourgin, Mayank Agrawal, Daniel Reichman, and Thomas L Griffiths. Using large-scale experiments and machine learning to discover theories of human decision-making. Science, 372(6547):1209–1214, 2021

    2021

  76. [84]

    Theory of mind as inverse reinforcement learning

    Julian Jara-Ettinger. Theory of mind as inverse reinforcement learning. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences , 29:105–110, 2019. 20

    2019

  77. [85]

    Inverse reinforcement learning as the algorithmic basis for theory of mind: current methods and open problems

    Jaime Ruiz-Serra and Michael S Harr´ e. Inverse reinforcement learning as the algorithmic basis for theory of mind: current methods and open problems. Algorithms, 16(2):68, 2023

    2023

  78. [86]

    Theory of mind from observation in cognitive models and humans

    Thuy Ngoc Nguyen and Cleotilde Gonzalez. Theory of mind from observation in cognitive models and humans. Topics in cognitive science, 14(4):665–686, 2022

    2022

  79. [87]

    Teaching agents to understand teamwork: Evaluating and predicting collective intelli- gence as a latent variable via hidden markov models

    Michelle Zhao, Fade R Eadeh, Thuy-Ngoc Nguyen, Pranav Gupta, Henny Admoni, Cleotilde Gonzalez, and Anita Williams Woolley. Teaching agents to understand teamwork: Evaluating and predicting collective intelli- gence as a latent variable via hidden markov models. Computers in Hu...

    2023

  80. [88]

    Fostering collective intelligence in human–ai collaboration: laying the groundwork for cohumain

    Pranav Gupta, Thuy Ngoc Nguyen, Cleotilde Gonzalez, and Anita Williams Woolley. Fostering collective intelligence in human–ai collaboration: laying the groundwork for cohumain. Topics in cognitive science, 2023

    2023

  81. [89]

    Theory of collective mind

    Garriy Shteynberg, Jacob B Hirsh, Wouter Wolf, John A Bargh, Erica J Boothby, Andrew M Colman, Gerald Echterhoff, and Maya Rossignac-Milon. Theory of collective mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 27(11):1019–1031, 2023

    2023

  82. [90]

    Theory of minds: Understand- ing behavior in groups through inverse planning

    Michael Shum, Max Kleiman-Weiner, Michael L Littman, and Joshua B Tenenbaum. Theory of minds: Understand- ing behavior in groups through inverse planning. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume 33, pages 6163–6170, 2019

    2019

  83. [91]

    Causal cognition and theory of mind in evolutionary cognitive archaeology

    Marlize Lombard and Peter G¨ ardenfors. Causal cognition and theory of mind in evolutionary cognitive archaeology. Biological Theory, 18(4):234–252, 2023

    2023

  84. [92]

    Working-memory capacity and the evolution of modern cognitive potential: implications from animal and early human tool use

    Miriam No¨ el Haidle. Working-memory capacity and the evolution of modern cognitive potential: implications from animal and early human tool use. Current anthropology, 51(S1):S149–S166, 2010

    2010

  85. [93]

    The pleistocene of sch¨ oningen, germany: a complex tunnel valley fill revealed from 3d subsurface modelling and shear wave seismics

    J¨ org Lang, Jutta Winsemann, Dominik Steinmetz, Ulrich Polom, Lukas Pollok, Utz B¨ ohner, Jordi Serangeli, Chris- tian Brandes, Andrea Hampel, and Stefan Winghart. The pleistocene of sch¨ oningen, germany: a complex tunnel valley fill revealed from 3d subsurface modelling and...

    2012

  86. [94]

    Theory of mind and the self

    Francesca Happ´ e. Theory of mind and the self. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 1001(1):134–144, 2003

    2003

  87. [95]

    Dimensions of animal consciousness

    Jonathan Birch, Alexandra K Schnell, and Nicola S Clayton. Dimensions of animal consciousness. Trends in cognitive sciences, 24(10):789–801, 2020

    2020

  88. [96]

    Biolinguistic explorations: Design, development, evolution

    Noam Chomsky. Biolinguistic explorations: Design, development, evolution. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 15(1):1–21, 2007

    2007

  89. [97]

    Early language development and the emergence of a theory of mind

    M Jeffrey Farrar and Lisa Maag. Early language development and the emergence of a theory of mind. First language, 22(2):197–213, 2002

    2002

  90. [98]

    The role (s) of language in theory of mind

    Jill G de Villiers. The role (s) of language in theory of mind. In The neural basis of mentalizing , pages 423–448. Springer, 2021

    2021

  91. [99]

    Complements to cognition: A longitudinal study of the relationship between complex syntax and false-belief-understanding

    Jill G De Villiers and Jennie E Pyers. Complements to cognition: A longitudinal study of the relationship between complex syntax and false-belief-understanding. Cognitive development, 17(1):1037–1060, 2002

    2002

  92. [100]

    Language and theory of mind: Meta-analysis of the relation between language ability and false-belief understanding

    Karen Milligan, Janet Wilde Astington, and Lisa Ain Dack. Language and theory of mind: Meta-analysis of the relation between language ability and false-belief understanding. Child development, 78(2):622–646, 2007

    2007

  93. [101]

    Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning

    Paul H Thibodeau and Lera Boroditsky. Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PloS one, 6(2):e16782, 2011

    2011

  94. [102]

    How linguistic metaphor scaffolds reasoning

    Paul H Thibodeau, Rose K Hendricks, and Lera Boroditsky. How linguistic metaphor scaffolds reasoning. Trends in cognitive sciences, 21(11):852–863, 2017

    2017

  95. [103]

    The role of social networks in information diffusion

    Eytan Bakshy, Itamar Rosenn, Cameron Marlow, and Lada Adamic. The role of social networks in information diffusion. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web , pages 519–528, 2012

    2012

  96. [104]

    Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans

    Robin IM Dunbar. Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral and brain sciences, 16(4):681–694, 1993

    1993

  97. [105]

    Evolution in the social brain

    Robin IM Dunbar and Susanne Shultz. Evolution in the social brain. science, 317(5843):1344–1347, 2007. 21

    2007

  98. [106]

    Social networks, support cliques, and kinship

    Robin IM Dunbar and Matt Spoors. Social networks, support cliques, and kinship. Human nature, 6:273–290, 1995

    1995

  99. [107]

    Discovering social groups via latent structure learning

    Tatiana Lau, Hillard T Pouncy, Samuel J Gershman, and Mina Cikara. Discovering social groups via latent structure learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 147(12):1881, 2018

    2018

  100. [108]

    Another advanced test of theory of mind: Evidence from very high functioning adults with autism or asperger syndrome

    Simon Baron-Cohen, Therese Jolliffe, Catherine Mortimore, and Mary Robertson. Another advanced test of theory of mind: Evidence from very high functioning adults with autism or asperger syndrome. Journal of Child psychology and Psychiatry, 38(7):813–822, 1997

    1997

  101. [109]

    reading the mind in the eyes

    Simon Baron-Cohen, Sally Wheelwright, Jacqueline Hill, Yogini Raste, and Ian 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. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry...

    2001

  102. [110]

    Strategic information processing from behavioural data in iterated games.Entropy, 20(1):27, 2018

    Michael S Harr´ e. Strategic information processing from behavioural data in iterated games.Entropy, 20(1):27, 2018

    2018

  103. [111]

    Reinforcement learning and decision making in monkeys during a competitive game

    Daeyeol Lee, Michelle L Conroy, Benjamin P McGreevy, and Dominic J Barraclough. Reinforcement learning and decision making in monkeys during a competitive game. Cognitive brain research, 22(1):45–58, 2004

    2004

  104. [112]

    The rules of information aggregation and emergence of collective intelligent behavior

    Lu´ ıs MA Bettencourt. The rules of information aggregation and emergence of collective intelligent behavior. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(4):598–620, 2009

    2009

  105. [113]

    Jidt: An information-theoretic toolkit for studying the dynamics of complex systems

    Joseph T Lizier. Jidt: An information-theoretic toolkit for studying the dynamics of complex systems. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 1:11, 2014

    2014

  106. [114]

    Plants attract parasitic wasps to defend themselves against insect pests by releasing hexenol

    Jianing Wei, Lizhong Wang, Junwei Zhu, Sufang Zhang, Owi I Nandi, and Le Kang. Plants attract parasitic wasps to defend themselves against insect pests by releasing hexenol. PLOS one, 2(9):e852, 2007

    2007

  107. [115]

    Evolution of signal emission by uninfested plants to help nearby infested relatives

    Yutaka Kobayashi and Norio Yamamura. Evolution of signal emission by uninfested plants to help nearby infested relatives. Evolutionary Ecology, 21:281–294, 2007

    2007

  108. [116]

    Ecological networks over the edge: hypergraph Trait-Mediated Indirect Interaction (TMII) structure

    Antonio J Golubski, Erik E Westlund, John Vandermeer, and Mercedes Pascual. Ecological networks over the edge: hypergraph Trait-Mediated Indirect Interaction (TMII) structure. Trends in ecology & evolution , 31(5):344–354, 2016

    2016

  109. [117]

    On the smooth unfolding of bifurcations in quantal-response equilibria

    Adam Harris, Scott McCallum, and Michael S Harr´ e. On the smooth unfolding of bifurcations in quantal-response equilibria. Games and Economic Behavior , 2023

    2023

  110. [118]

    Multi-agent economics and the emergence of critical markets

    Michael S Harr´ e. Multi-agent economics and the emergence of critical markets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.01332 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  111. [119]

    The free energy principle made simpler but not too simple

    Karl Friston, Lancelot Da Costa, Noor Sajid, Conor Heins, Kai Ueltzh¨ offer, Grigorios A Pavliotis, and Thomas Parr. The free energy principle made simpler but not too simple. Physics Reports, 1024:1–29, 2023

    2023

  112. [120]

    Factorised active inference for strategic multi-agent interactions

    Jaime Ruiz-Serra, Patrick Sweeney, and Michael S Harr´ e. Factorised active inference for strategic multi-agent interactions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.07362 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Niche construction affects the variability and strength of natural selection

    Andrew D Clark, Dominik Deffner, Kevin Laland, John Odling-Smee, and John Endler. Niche construction affects the variability and strength of natural selection. The American Naturalist, 195(1):16–30, 2020

    2020

  114. [122]

    How individualized niches arise: Defining mechanisms of niche construction, niche choice, and niche conformance

    Rose Trappes, Behzad Nematipour, Marie I Kaiser, Ulrich Krohs, Koen J Van Benthem, Ulrich R Ernst, J¨ urgen Gadau, Peter Korsten, Joachim Kurtz, Holger Schielzeth, et al. How individualized niches arise: Defining mechanisms of niche construction, niche choice, and niche confor...

    2022

  115. [123]

    Brain connectivity dynamics during social interaction reflect social network structure

    Ralf Schm¨ alzle, Matthew Brook O’Donnell, Javier O Garcia, Christopher N Cascio, Joseph Bayer, Danielle S Bassett, Jean M Vettel, and Emily B Falk. Brain connectivity dynamics during social interaction reflect social network structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of S...

    2017

  116. [124]

    Universal darwinism as a process of bayesian inference

    John O Campbell. Universal darwinism as a process of bayesian inference. Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 10:49, 2016

    2016

  117. [125]

    Evolutionary connectionism: algorithmic principles underlying the evolution of biological organisation in evo-devo, evo-eco and evolutionary transitions

    Richard A Watson, Rob Mills, CL Buckley, Kostas Kouvaris, Adam Jackson, Simon T Powers, Chris Cox, Simon Tudge, Adam Davies, Loizos Kounios, et al. Evolutionary connectionism: algorithmic principles underlying the evolution of biological organisation in evo-devo, evo-eco and e...

    2016

  118. [126]

    How can evolution learn? Trends in ecology & evolution , 31(2):147–157, 2016

    Richard A Watson and E¨ ors Szathm´ ary. How can evolution learn? Trends in ecology & evolution , 31(2):147–157, 2016

    2016

  119. [127]

    Evolutionary mechanism design: a review

    Steve Phelps, Peter McBurney, and Simon Parsons. Evolutionary mechanism design: a review. Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems , 21(2):237–264, 2010

    2010

  120. [128]

    McKee, Andrea Tacchetti, Michiel A

    Kevin R. McKee, Andrea Tacchetti, Michiel A. Bakker, Jan Balaguer, Lucy Campbell-Gillingham, Richard Everett, and Matthew Botvinick. Scaffolding cooperation in human groups with deep reinforcement learning. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(10):1787–1796, October 2023

    2023

  121. [129]

    Collective Intelligence in Human-AI Teams: A Bayesian Theory of Mind Approach

    Samuel Westby and Christoph Riedl. Collective Intelligence in Human-AI Teams: A Bayesian Theory of Mind Approach. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 37(5):6119–6127, June 2023

    2023

  122. [130]

    Fiore, and Florian Jentsch

    Rhyse Bendell, Jessica Williams, Stephen M. Fiore, and Florian Jentsch. Individual and team profiling to support theory of mind in artificial social intelligence. Scientific Reports, 14(1):12635, June 2024

    2024

  123. [131]

    An Arms Race in Theory-of-Mind: Deception Drives the Emergence of Higher-level Theory-of-Mind in Agent Societies

    S ¸tefan Sarkadi. An Arms Race in Theory-of-Mind: Deception Drives the Emergence of Higher-level Theory-of-Mind in Agent Societies. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Autonomic Computing and Self-Organizing Systems (ACSOS), pages 1–10, September 2023

    2023

  124. [132]

    Reading the market? Expectation coordination and theory of mind

    Te Bao, Sascha F¨ ullbrunn, Jiaoying Pei, and Jichuan Zong. Reading the market? Expectation coordination and theory of mind. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization , 219:510–527, March 2024

    2024

  125. [133]

    Theory of Mind in Artificial Intelligence Applications

    Alvaro Garcia-Lopez. Theory of Mind in Artificial Intelligence Applications. In Teresa Lopez-Soto, Alvaro Garcia- Lopez, and Francisco J. Salguero-Lamillar, editors, The Theory of Mind Under Scrutiny: Psychopathology, Neuro- science, Philosophy of Mind and Artificial Intellige...

    2023

  126. [134]

    Panisson

    Michele Rocha, Heitor Henrique da Silva, Anal´ ucia Schiaffino Morales, Stefan Sarkadi, and Alison R. Panisson. Applying Theory of Mind to Multi-agent Systems: A Systematic Review. In Murilo C. Naldi and Reinaldo A. C. Bianchi, editors, Intelligent Systems , pages 367–381, Cha...

    2023

  127. [135]

    The Social Machine: Artificial Intelligence (AI) Approaches to Theory of Mind

    Alberto Nebreda, Danylyna Shpakivska-Bilan, Carmen Camara, and Gianluca Susi. The Social Machine: Artificial Intelligence (AI) Approaches to Theory of Mind. In Teresa Lopez-Soto, Alvaro Garcia-Lopez, and Francisco J. Salguero-Lamillar, editors, The Theory of Mind Under Scrutin...

    2023

  128. [136]

    The moral machine experiment

    Edmond Awad, Sohan Dsouza, Richard Kim, Jonathan Schulz, Joseph Henrich, Azim Shariff, Jean-Fran¸ cois Bonne- fon, and Iyad Rahwan. The moral machine experiment. Nature, 563(7729):59–64, 2018

    2018

  129. [137]

    A review on machine theory of mind.IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems , 2024

    Yuanyuan Mao, Shuang Liu, Qin Ni, Xin Lin, and Liang He. A review on machine theory of mind.IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems , 2024

    2024

  130. [138]

    Understanding hunter–gatherer cultural evolution needs network thinking

    Javier Fern´ andez-L´ opez de Pablo, Val´ eria Romano, Maxime Derex, Erik Gjesfjeld, Claudine Gravel-Miguel, Marcus J Hamilton, Andrea Bamberg Migliano, Felix Riede, and Sergi Lozano. Understanding hunter–gatherer cultural evolution needs network thinking. Trends in Ecology & ...

    2022

  131. [139]

    Networks of food sharing reveal the functional significance of multilevel sociality in two hunter-gatherer groups

    Mark Dyble, James Thompson, Daniel Smith, Gul Deniz Salali, Nikhil Chaudhary, Abigail E Page, Lucio Vinicuis, Ruth Mace, and Andrea Bamberg Migliano. Networks of food sharing reveal the functional significance of multilevel sociality in two hunter-gatherer groups. Current Biol...

    2017

  132. [140]

    An introduction to niche construction theory

    Kevin Laland, Blake Matthews, and Marcus W Feldman. An introduction to niche construction theory. Evolutionary ecology, 30:191–202, 2016

    2016

  133. [141]

    Foraging and farming as niche construction: stable and unstable adapta- tions

    Peter Rowley-Conwy and Robert Layton. Foraging and farming as niche construction: stable and unstable adapta- tions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 366(1566):849–862, 2011

    2011

  134. [142]

    Civilisation and human niche construction

    Manuel Arroyo-Kalin, David Wengrow, Dorian Q Fuller, Chris J Stevens, and Mich` ele Wollstonecroft. Civilisation and human niche construction. Archaeology International, 20(1):106–109, 2017

    2017

  135. [143]

    7000 years of turnover: historical contingency and human niche construction shape the caribbean’s anthropocene biota

    Melissa E Kemp, Alexis M Mychajliw, Jenna Wadman, and Amy Goldberg. 7000 years of turnover: historical contingency and human niche construction shape the caribbean’s anthropocene biota. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 287(1927):20200447, 2020

    1927

  136. [144]

    The onset of the anthropocene

    Bruce D Smith and Melinda A Zeder. The onset of the anthropocene. Anthropocene, 4:8–13, 2013. 23

    2013

  137. [145]

    The anthropocene condition: evolving through social–ecological transformations

    Erle C Ellis. The anthropocene condition: evolving through social–ecological transformations. Philosophical Trans- actions of the Royal Society B , 379(1893):20220255, 2024

    2024

  138. [146]

    Multilevel cultural evolution: From new theory to practical applications

    David Sloan Wilson, Guru Madhavan, Michele J Gelfand, Steven C Hayes, Paul WB Atkins, and Rita R Colwell. Multilevel cultural evolution: From new theory to practical applications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(16):e2218222120, 2023

    2023

  139. [147]

    Social niche construction and evolutionary transitions in individuality

    Paul A Ryan, Simon T Powers, and Richard A Watson. Social niche construction and evolutionary transitions in individuality. Biology & philosophy , 31:59–79, 2016

    2016

  140. [148]

    Attention is all you need

    A Vaswani. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2017

    2017

  141. [149]

    Reward is enough

    David Silver, Satinder Singh, Doina Precup, and Richard S Sutton. Reward is enough. Artificial Intelligence , 299:103535, 2021

    2021

  142. [150]

    Chain of thought empowers transformers to solve inherently serial problems

    Zhiyuan Li, Hong Liu, Denny Zhou, and Tengyu Ma. Chain of thought empowers transformers to solve inherently serial problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12875 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  143. [151]

    Emergent abilities of large language models

    Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  144. [152]

    Testing theory of mind in large language models and humans

    James WA Strachan, Dalila Albergo, Giulia Borghini, Oriana Pansardi, Eugenio Scaliti, Saurabh Gupta, Krati Saxena, Alessandro Rufo, Stefano Panzeri, Guido Manzi, et al. Testing theory of mind in large language models and humans. Nature Human Behaviour , pages 1–11, 2024

    2024

  145. [153]

    Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4

    S´ ebastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, et al. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  146. [154]

    Artificial Intelligence and Causal Inference

    Momiao Xiong. Artificial Intelligence and Causal Inference . Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2022

    2022

  147. [155]

    Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Nature, 514(7521):161–164, 2014

    Kevin Laland, Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B M¨ uller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, John Odling-Smee, Gregory A Wray, Hopi E Hoekstra, et al. Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Nature, 514(7521):161–164, 2014

    2014

  148. [156]

    The major evolutionary transitions.Nature, 374(6519):227–232, 1995

    E¨ ors Szathm´ ary and John Maynard Smith. The major evolutionary transitions.Nature, 374(6519):227–232, 1995

    1995

  149. [157]

    Toward major evolutionary transitions theory 2.0.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(33):10104–10111, 2015

    E¨ ors Szathm´ ary. Toward major evolutionary transitions theory 2.0.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(33):10104–10111, 2015

    2015

  150. [158]

    Biological arrow of time: Emergence of tangled information hierarchies and self-modelling dynamics

    Mikhail Prokopenko, Paul CW Davies, Michael Harr´ e, Marcus Heisler, Zdenka Kuncic, Geraint F Lewis, Ori Livson, Joseph T Lizier, and Fernando E Rosas. Biological arrow of time: Emergence of tangled information hierarchies and self-modelling dynamics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409...

    2024 arXiv

  151. [159]

    Rethinking the theoretical foundation of economics i: The multilevel paradigm

    David Sloan Wilson and Dennis J Snower. Rethinking the theoretical foundation of economics i: The multilevel paradigm. Economics, 18(1):20220070, 2024

    2024

  152. [160]

    Multilevel selection as bayesian inference, major transitions in individuality as structure learning

    D´ aniel Cz´ egel, Istv´ an Zachar, and E¨ ors Szathm´ ary. Multilevel selection as bayesian inference, major transitions in individuality as structure learning. Royal Society open science, 6(8):190202, 2019. 24 A Utility polynomials In two-player, m-action normal-form games, ...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.