ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2025
Individual incentives that promote collective intelligence.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A collaborative group can often outperform a single individual in complex problem solving, even when information is limited. This phenomenon, called collective intelligence, can be achieved by engineering a central planner who assigns subtasks distributed across the group. But such algorithms cannot explain how natural populations, which often lack sophisticated central control, can nonetheless evolve collective intelligence. In fact, the process of social learning by imitating successful peers will typically reduce diversity and inhibit collective intelligence. Here, we consider a prediction task where the true outcome each round is a continuous quantity that depends linearly on a large number of random causal factors. Each individual can observe only one factor, and the collective prediction is generated by aggregating personal predictions across individuals. We propose two classes of reward structures that guarantee the emergence of collective intelligence through social learning. One scheme provides greater rewards to those individuals (called experts) whose personal predictions are more accurate. The other scheme provides greater rewards to those individuals (called reformers) whose predictions have greater potential to reduce the collective error, even though their personal predictions may be far from the truth. Although both of these payoff structures can provably maintain diversity and establish collective intelligence, we show that rewards based on collective error are more robust to diverse problem settings than rewards based on personal accuracy. Our results show that identifying reformers is more effective than identifying experts in promoting the emergence of collective intelligence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.