Lucas Gautheron

Outside ideal settings, conventions are shaped by heterogeneous competing processes that can challenge the emergence of norms. In order to acknowledge this complexity, this paper develops a generalized account of conventions and identifies three trade-offs involved in their diffusion: (I) the trade-off between the imperatives of social, sequential, and contextual consistency that individuals balance when choosing between conventions; (II) the competition between local (bottom-up) and global (top-down) coordination, depending on whether individuals coordinate their behavior via interactions throughout a social network or external factors transcending the network; and (III) the balance between decision optimality (e.g., collective satisfaction) and decision costs when collectives with conflicting preferences choose a convention. A broadly applicable statistical physics framework for exploring these trade-offs is developed and applied to a sign convention in physics. The method can infer the structure of the underlying coordination game, the networks of social interactions involved, and the processes through which conflicts are resolved. This shows that the purpose of conventions may exceed coordination, and that individual preferences towards conventions are concurrently shaped by cultural factors and multiple social networks. Finally, this work emphasizes the role of leadership in the resolution of conflicts.

Real-world creative processes ranging from art to science rely on social feedback-loops between selection and creation. Yet, the effects of popularity feedback on collective creativity remain poorly understood. We investigate how popularity ratings influence cultural dynamics in a large-scale online experiment where participants ($N = 1\,008$) iteratively \textit{select} images from evolving markets and \textit{produce} their own modifications. Results show that exposing the popularity of images reduces cultural diversity and slows innovation, delaying aesthetic improvements. Popularity feedback is associated with changes to both selection and creative stages. During selection, popularity information triggers cumulative advantage, with participants preferentially building upon popular images, reducing diversity. During creation, participants make less disruptive changes, and are more likely to expand existing visual patterns. Feedback loops in cultural markets thus not only shape selection, but also, directly or indirectly, the form and direction of cultural innovation.

How do scientists navigate between the need to capitalize on their prior knowledge through specialization, and the urge to adapt to evolving research opportunities? Drawing from diverse perspectives on adaptation, this paper proposes an unsupervised Bayesian approach motivated by Optimal Transport of the evolution of scientists' research portfolios in response to transformations in their field. The model relies on $186,162$ scientific abstracts and authorship data to evaluate the influence of intellectual, social, and institutional resources on scientists' trajectories within a cohort of $2\,108$ high-energy physicists between 2000 and 2019. Using Inverse Optimal Transport, the reallocation of research efforts is shown to be shaped by learning costs, thus enhancing the utility of the scientific capital disseminated among scientists. Two dimensions of social capital, namely ``diversity'' and ``power'', have opposite associations with the magnitude of change in scientists' research interests: while ``diversity'' is associated with greater change and expansion of research portfolios, ``power'' is associated with more stable research agendas. Social capital plays a more crucial role in shifts between cognitively distant research areas. More generally, this work suggests new approaches for understanding, measuring and modeling collective adaptation using Optimal Transport.

According to Peter Galison, the coordination of different “subcultures” within a scientific field happens through local exchanges within “trading zones.” In his view, the workability of such trading zones is not guaranteed, and science is not necessarily driven towards further integration. In this paper, we develop and apply quantitative methods (using semantic, authorship, and citation data from scientific literature), inspired by Galison’s framework, to the case of the disunity of high-energy physics. We give prominence to supersymmetry, a concept that has given rise to several major but distinct research programs in the field, such as the formulation of a consistent theory of quantum gravity or the search for new particles. We show that “theory” and “phenomenology” in high-energy physics should be regarded as distinct theoretical subcultures, between which supersymmetry has helped sustain scientific “trades.” However, as we demonstrate using a topic model, the phenomenological component of supersymmetry research has lost traction and the ability of supersymmetry to tie these subcultures together is now compromised. Our work supports that even fields with an initially strong sentiment of unity may eventually generate diverging research programs and demonstrates the fruitfulness of the notion of trading zones for informing quantitative approaches to scientific pluralism.