Profile Yujiro KISU (B4) Department of Biological Sciences (English program), Tokyo Metropolitan University Extracurricular Activities • Event hosting/participation • Organising/joining hackathons - GDGoC etc. • CEDASC 2022 Experimental Design and Analytics - Harvard Medical School • Virtual Winter School on Cognitive Modeling - Indian Institute of Technology Mandi • Programming • Software development – GDGoC • Competitive programming – AtCoder Inc. • School assistant - CA Tech Kids Inc. (GDGoC: Google Developer Groups on Campus as a lead) Activities in English • Studying abroad • High school cultural exchange program (1 yr) – Petal High School, the U.S. • Undergraduate exchange program (1 yr) – Macquarie University, Australia • Conference volunteer • Australasian Cognitive Neuroscience Society Conference Sydney, Australia • Model United Nations • All Japan High School Model United Nations 1

↓ Found strengths of different disciplines made me challenge integrating science with others to tackle multifaceted problems Nearly impossible consensus amongst different backgrounds at the Model United Nations ↓ Motivated to solve one of the global problems A chance to join a tech club and study abroad ↓ Aimed to know science work with other knowledges Liberal arts ↓ Not only science but also humanities, technologies, etc. Global warming ↓ Interested in biology as a key to the problem by Salk Institute Research motivation present Psychology - Theory-driven science - Science expanded by technology via physics Indigenous (Dharug) study - Non-scientific epistemology - Identities of research culture Software engineering - Team project management - Structural understanding of complex subject Philosophy - Conceptual base of ideas - Objective measurements of logics Questioned more fundamental problem involved in difficulties in a multifaceted problem ↓ How do agents with different backgrounds achieve a common goal? High school (Japan x The U.S.) B1-B2 (Japan) B3 (Australia) 2

Research interests – step 1 (learned from former studies) An advice from a professor: concept in one field may be called differently in another field ↓ An exact match with my question was too difficult ↓ I found a partly similar concept in philosophy ↓ Extracted one that was for scientists to achieve a new discovery from “Division of Cognitive Labor (Kitcher, 1990)” ↓ “to jump ship together”: The mechanism by which agents go against an existing major trend to get an optimal outcome How do agents with different backgrounds achieve a common goal? but it was too big to tackle… 3 Ants can go against an existing pheromone signal to choose a better nest condition (Cronin, 2013a)

As I search for existing mechanisms, there are many recruiting methods and decision-making methods I am working on how they are used or not by simulation and empirical experiments (in progress) ! • ‘No entry’ pheromone (Robinson et al., 2005) • Up/Downregulation of pheromone deposition (Czaczkes et al., 2024; Czaczkes & Heinze, 2015) • Existing trail suppresses additional pheromone (Czaczkes et al., 2012) • Longer time spent in less trails/pheromone area (Beckers et al., 1992) etc. • Quorum threshold change (Cronin, 2013b; Cronin, 2014; Marshall et al., 2009) 4 Research interests – step 2 (probing the unknown by modifying previous studies)

How do agents with different backgrounds achieve a common goal? Previously… How do agents with different backgrounds achieve a common goal? Nest step is… Ants care for the kins of her colony → achieving gene inheritance (a common goal of ants) Spread of colonies → to some degree, avoiding different colonies/backgrounds? → to an ultimate degree, mixing colonies/backgrounds? (e.g. Linepithema humile as a supercolony) New question → How do ants of different colonies optimise their genetic inheritance while having prevalence of habitats? 5 Research interests – step 3 (going further to ask the bigger)

Research Interests - summary My research intent is to explore the fundamental aspect of multifaceted problem where agents with different backgrounds achieve a common goal with help of non-human animals like ants from interdisciplinary perspectives References Beckers, R., Deneubourg, J. L., & Goss, S. (1992). Trail laying behaviour during food recruitment in the antLasius niger (L.). Insectes Sociaux, 39(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01240531 Cronin, A. L. (2013a). Conditional Use of Social and Private Information Guides House-Hunting Ants. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e64668. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064668 Cronin, A. L. (2013b). Synergy between pheromone trails and quorum thresholds underlies consensus decisions in the ant Myrmecina nipponica. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 67(10), 1643–1651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-013-1575-9 Cronin, A. L. (2014). Ratio-dependent quantity discrimination in quorum sensing ants. Animal Cognition, 17(6), 1261–1268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-014-0758-8 Czaczkes, T. J., Grüter, C., Ellis, L., Wood, E., & Ratnieks, F. L. W. (2012). Ant foraging on complex trails: Route learning and the role of trail pheromones in Lasius niger. Journal of Experimental Biology, jeb.076570. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.076570 Czaczkes, T. J., & Heinze, J. (2015). Ants adjust their pheromone deposition to a changing environment and their probability of making errors. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1810), 20150679. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.0679 Czaczkes, T. J., Olivera-Rodriguez, F.-J., & Poissonnier, L.-A. (2024). Ants (Lasius niger) deposit more pheromone close to food sources and further from the nest but do not attempt to update erroneous pheromone trails. Insectes Sociaux, 71(4), 367–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-024-00995-y Kitcher, P. (1990). The division of cognitive labor. The Journal of Philosophy, 87, 5–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026796 Marshall, J. A. R., Bogacz, R., Dornhaus, A., Planqué, R., Kovacs, T., & Franks, N. R. (2009). On optimal decision-making in brains and social insect colonies. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 6(40), 1065–1074. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2008.0511 Robinson, E. J. H., Jackson, D. E., Holcombe, M., & Ratnieks, F. L. W. (2005). ‘No entry’ signal in ant foraging. Nature, 438(7067), 442–442. https://doi.org/10.1038/438442a 6