Emergent aggregation from collective foraging

Collective behaviour in living systems is usually modelled as the outcome of a \emph{direct} social drive: agents are rewarded, or hard-wired, to align with or approach their neighbours. Here we show that aggregation can instead emerge from an \emph{indirect} objective. We let reinforcement learning foragers, initially performing a random walk, optimize their dynamics from a purely individual reward for finding replenishable targets, while perceiving only their conspecifics and never the targets themselves. As the visual range grows, the agents undergo a sharp crossover from an environment-tuned individual search to a scale-agnostic collective one, and this crossover coincides with the onset of spatial aggregation. Thus a collective phase arises as a by-product of optimal foraging, without any direct reward for grouping. A minimal analytical first-passage model reproduces the transition as a crossover between the two search strategies. Our results identify indirect, resource-driven reward as a generic route to emergent collective phenomena.

Interoceptive Attention as Dynamic Homeostatic Prioritization in a Foraging Agent

Biological systems must regulate competing needs under limited perceptual bandwidth, where sharpening one estimate costs the capacity to sharpen the others. Any fixed-budget system therefore has to decide where to allocate its perceptual precision. We study this in a foraging agent that must keep several bodily needs satisfied to survive, modelled with active inference. At each step it reads its own body-state beliefs, identifies the most-needed channel, and reallocates a fixed budget of interoceptive precision toward it, so that the same precision-shaped likelihood feeds both belief update and planning. In AffectWorld, a four-channel foraging gridworld, this selective allocation more than doubles learning-phase survival at matched budget against a uniform-precision agent ($0.414$ vs $0.199$ across 11 layouts, $n{=}32$ seeds each, paired cluster-bootstrap $p \leq 10^{-4}$). Two further results sharpen the mechanism. The benefit runs through planning as well as perception, since denying the shaped likelihood to the planner alone removes about half of it. It is also need-aligned, since aiming precision at the least-needed channel does worse than spreading it evenly. The attended channel additionally learns its own dynamics about twice as fast, and stays ahead even at matched observation count, a behavioural trace of the same precision routing, visible in learning speed, not survival.