{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019566736547868623, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.754716981132075, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Absolute versus Relative Assessments of Individual Status in Status-Dependent Strategies in Stochastic Environments

Status-dependent strategies represent one of the most remarkable adaptive phenotypic plasticities. A threshold value for individual status (e.g., body size) is assumed above and below which each individual should adopt alternative tactics to attain higher fitness. This implicitly assumes the existence of an “absolute” best threshold value, so each individual chooses a tactic only on the basis of its own status. However, animals may be able to assess their status on the basis of surrounding individuals. This “relative” assessment considers a threshold value to be changeable depending on individual situations, which may result in significant differences in ecological and evolutionary dynamics compared with absolute assessment. Here, we incorporated Bayesian decision-making and adaptive dynamics frameworks to explore the conditions necessary for each type of assessment to evolve. Our model demonstrates that absolute assessment is always an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) in a stable environment, whereas relative assessment can be an ESS in stochastic environments. The consequences of future environmental change differ considerably depending on the assessment chosen. Our results underscore the need to better understand how individuals assess their own status when choosing alternative tactics.