abstract: Spergel and Steinhardt have recently proposed the concept of dark matter with strong self-interactions as a means to address numerous discrepancies between observations of dark matter halos on subgalactic scales and the predictions of the standard collisionless dark matter picture. We review the motivations for this scenario and discuss some recent, successful numerical tests. We also discuss the possibility that the dark matter interacts strongly with ordinary baryonic matter, as well as with itself. We present a new analysis of the experimental constraints and re-evaluate the allowed range of cross-section and mass.
author: Benjamin D. Wandelt; Romeel Davé ; Glennys R. Farrar; Patrick C. McGuire David N. Spergel; Paul J. Steinhardt
title: Self-Interacting Dark Matter

# Why Interacting Dark Matter Particles?

Cosmological models with a mixture of roughly 35% collisionless cold dark matter such as axions, WIMPs, or any other candidate interacting through the weak and gravitational forces only, and 65% vacuum energy or quintessence match observations of the cosmic microwave background and large scale structure on extra-galactic scales with remarkable accuracy . However, a number of discrepancies have arisen between numerical simulations and observations on subgalactic scales. We will address these now in turn.

**Halo density profiles.** Simulations of collisionless cold dark matter halos (CCDM) consistently show cuspy halo density profiles similar to the generalized Navarro–Frenk–White (hereafter NFW) profile $$\rho(r)=\rho_0\frac{r^{3}_s}{r^\alpha(r+r_s)^{3-\alpha}}
\label{NFWprofile}$$ where $r_s$ is a scale radius, which is related to the virial radius $r_h$ of the halo via the concentration parameter $c=r_h/r_s$. This profile has the feature that it diverges as $\rho\sim r^{-\alpha}$ as $r\rightarrow 0$.

The exact value for $\alpha$ found in simulations is a matter of some debate – NFW originally found $\alpha\simeq 1$, while more recent, higher resolution simulations find somewhat steeper divergences, $\alpha\simeq
1.5$. This is unlikely to be an artifact; if anything, resolution and discreteness effects lead to simulations underestimating the steepness of the central density profile. Biases can occur when fitting () to simulated halos. For example, the fact that there is a finite number of particles per halo make the choice of the halo center somewhat arbitrary. Any departures from the "true" center will give the illusion that the density profile is less cuspy than it actually is.

Observationally, gravitational lensing in clusters and the presence of disks in galactic halos make it possible to infer their mass distributions. Observations of low surface brightness galaxies (LSB) and dwarfs, chosen for their small mass-to-light ratios, indicate cores of galactic halos with shallow density profiles . Similarly, there is some evidence that the central regions of cluster halos not associated with luminous galaxies appear have flat density profiles ($\rho =r^0$ as $r\rightarrow 0$) .

More recently, preliminary results from high quality measurements of rotation curves in edge-on LSBs with thin disks indicate a best fit of $\alpha\simeq 0.5$, more mildly divergent than and inconsistent with CCDM profiles.

Note that only exquisitely well-measured rotation curves simultaneously constrain *both* the concentration parameter $c$ and the slope $\alpha$ . In practice, observations do not resolve these parameters independently. This means that the problem of halo shapes can be rephrased in terms of $c$; observed halos tend to have smaller concentration ($c\simeq 6-8$) than simulated ones ($c\simeq
20$). The crucial point is that whether one focuses on slope or concentration, simulations and observations do not agree.

**Excess of small scale structure.** One of the most striking features of halos in high resolution CCDM simulations is that they are heavily populated with small subhalos or subclumps. The scarcity of observed satellite galaxies could be interpreted as another failure of the CCDM paradigm on small scales.

Even if there are mechanisms which inhibit star formation in small clumps and thereby leave them dark, a large population of clumps may heat the galactic disk and even endanger its stability .

This is a delicate issue; there clearly is halo substructure in galaxies (satellites, dwarfs, high velocity clouds). Any proposed solution must reduce the number of satellites but guard against wholesale smoothing of the density field on small scales.

**Tully-Fisher relation.** Further evidence for less centrally concentrated halos comes from the failure of CCDM models to account for the zero-point of the Tully–Fisher relation. Mo and Mao explain the surprisingly tight relation between the luminosity of disk galaxies and their maximum rotation speed in terms of the gravitational interactions between galaxy disk and halo. Their model requires the presence of a dark halo with concentration $c\simeq3$, much less than $c\simeq20$ which is found in simulations. Significantly, this pertains to all disk galaxies – not just LSBs and dwarfs.

**Bar stability.** In high surface brightness spiral galaxies, the persistence of bars implies low-density cores .

It is conceivable that these discrepancies are due to problems with current simulations, the quality of present observations or the omission of important astrophysical processes in the models. However, if any one of them persists, they may be an indication that the dark matter is not collisionless.

In this paper we argue that *all* of the discrepancies listed above may be resolved if the dark matter has strong self-interactions. If this proves to be the case, the study of fine-scale structure on subgalactic (kiloparsec) scales, a subject that has not been given much attention by particle physicists in the past, could prove to be a remarkably powerful and precise probe of the properties of dark matter.

# The Physics of Self-Interacting Dark Matter Halos

Consider a CCDM halo. The particles in its center have small rms speeds (are "cold"). As subclumps sink into the larger halo, their outer, hotter, less tightly bound parts are tidally stripped and remain in the outer parts of the halo. If the cold centers of the clumps survive, they join the cold cusp of the halo. Because of the lack of two-body interactions (the gravitational potential is smooth) there is no heat transport into the cold CCDM cusp.

Virialized CCDM halos are not in thermal equilibrium. When interactions are present, however, the second law of thermodynamics requires that heat be transferred into the cold center from the outer halo to approach equilibrium. Initially, the increased rms speeds spread out the halo cusp into a smoother core. At the same time as the inner part is heated, the outer part is cooled, the cooler material moves in, is scattered and mixed, so that eventually the halo becomes isothermal at late times. Particles will be ejected due to two-body interactions, the halo loses heat and gravothermal collapse sets in, moderated by ongoing accretion of small subclumps, which continue to heat the halo.

An important fact to keep in mind is that the heat conduction coefficient does not have a simple dependence on the cross section. A traditional analysis *à la* Chapman and Enskog expands about thermal equilibrium which is brought about by frequent interactions. In this regime, where the mean free path of the particles is much shorter than any characteristic length scale of the system, the heat conduction *decreases* with increasing cross-section, $\kappa(r)\propto \frac{\pi k_B}{\sigma}
\sqrt{\frac{\langle v^2(r)\rangle}{ \pi}}$.

As we will see below, the interactions discussed here are constructed to be in a different regime altogether. Here, the mean free path is of the order of the scale of the halo. In this regime, namely the small cross-section limit, heat transport *increases* as the cross-section increases. For this reason a numerical implementation of self-interacting dark matter is non-trivial and cannot be achieved by solving the standard equations of cosmological hydrodynamics. Also, because of the non-monotonic dependence on cross-section, a simple interpolation between the case of collisionless dark matter and the hydrodynamic limit is not sufficient.

The presence of scatterings has another important effect: the particle velocities become randomized. The random component of particle velocities in a collisionless fluid can be highly correlated, leading to non-spherical velocity ellipsoids . Collisions erase these correlations, randomizing the motions, which leads to more spherical velocity ellipsoids. The resulting lack of a preferred direction should isotropize the inner parts of halos where scattering is important.

Spergel and Steinhardt postulated a self-interaction between dark matter particles with strength which encompassed the range $$s=\frac{\sigma_{DD}}{M}=8\times 10^{-25}- 1\times10^{-23}\,
{\rm cm}^2\,{\rm GeV}^{-1}=0.5-6\, {\rm cm}^2\,{\rm g}^{-1}
\label{sigma}$$ many orders of magnitude stronger than for CCDM particles. (The range quoted here is narrower than originally proposed in because of additional constraints discussed below). A convenient dimensionless quantity measuring the strength of the interaction at the solar circle is the optical depth $\tau=s/s_{\rm
solar}$ where $s_{\rm solar}=
28.4\,{\rm cm}^2/{\rm g}$. Unit optical depth corresponds to a mean free path of order the diameter of the solar orbit $\lambda_{8\,{\rm
kpc}}=16\,{\rm kpc}$ at the densities of the solar neighborhood ($\rho_{8\,{\rm kpc}}\simeq10^5 \rho_{\rm crit}\simeq 7\times
10^{-25}\,$g/cm$^3$). One can then estimate the size of the optically thick region $R_{opt}\simeq 8\tau\,{\rm kpc}$.

The range of $s$ originally quoted in was chosen to cover a span of optical depths straddling unity. On the optically thin side, subhalos are destroyed by *spallation* in which particles are scattered out of the subhalo one-by-one almost every time there is an impact with a hotter particle from the surrounding halo. On the optically thick side, subhalos are destroyed by *evaporation* in which the subhalo absorbs all the kinetic energy from nearly every incoming hot particle of the surrounding halo, heats up and expands. Either mechanism suffices for the purpose of destroying dwarf halos in galaxies. However, a problem with evaporation is that it is so efficient that galaxy halos in massive clusters probably cannot survive, which conflicts with observations. Eq. () takes account of this problem by shaving off the optically thick regime from the range of $s$ found in .

# Numerical Studies

To summarize, the qualitative effects of introducing self-interacting dark matter (SIDM) in the regime of cross-sections in () are:

-   *Heat transport* leading to modified halo profiles and core collapse on time scales larger than the Hubble time.

-   *Isotropization of the velocity tensor* in dense regions and hence more spherical shapes of the inner parts of halos.

-   *Limited destruction of halo substructure* through spallation.

Intriguingly, the observations we listed in the introduction suggest precisely this sort of behavior.

This has motivated several authors to study the effects of self-interactions numerically. Apart from simulations which are done in the hydrodynamic limit , all of these find that SIDM halos contain smooth cores. However, the longevity of these cores and the time-scale for gravitational collapse are still a matter of debate.

In particular, Kochanek and White simulate isolated halos and find fast evolution towards gravothermal collapse for higher mass halos . *Caveats* of their simulations include that 1) they begin with steep, high-density profiles which are already cuspy before the interactions are turned on, which leads to fast evolution because the central density starts from artificially high values, 2) they do not include accretion, which ought to moderate gravothermal collapse and 3) the cross-section they simulate are high. For a Milky Way type galaxy ($R_0\simeq10
R_{\rm disk}
\simeq35\,kpc$, $M_0\simeq7\times10^{11}M_\odot$) their simulations cover a range from $s\simeq2.5-83\,{\rm g}/{\rm cm}^2$. They observe core collapse for cross-sections above our range (). Burkert has performed simulations comparable to Kochanek and White's, and his results suggest significantly longer lived cores. Yoshida *et al.* compute the halo profile of a cluster from cosmological initial conditions. They, too, find large cores which persist until today.

For our simulations, we modified the freely available GADGET tree N-body code to include scatterings between dark matter particles using Monte Carlo techniques similar to . The simulations begin with cosmological initial conditions in the Lambda model currently favored by the majority of observations ($\Omega_0=1=\Omega_m+\Omega_\Lambda$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$). We follow the evolution of dark matter, represented by $128^3$ particles in a box with 4$h^{-1}$ Mpc on the side and 1$h^{-1}$ kpc spatial resolution. Periodic boundary conditions ensure that we model the continuing accretion of halos correctly.

We simulate interaction strengths of $s\simeq
0.06$, $0.6$, $6$ and $60$ cm$^2$/g. Out of these the smallest value of $s$ produced results that are barely distinguishable from collisionless dark matter. The largest cross-section considered significantly suppresses the formation of halos, and those that do form are much too large and diffuse. But for the two intermediate cases our galactic halos consistently developed constant density cores.

Figure compares the profiles of halos from three of our simulations which assume different cross-sections but which are otherwise identical. It is clear that for intermediate cross-sections, within the range suggested by Spergel and Steinhardt, core collapse has not set in. Consistent with our previous discussion of the optically thin regime, we find evidence that the stronger the self-interactions are, the smoother the halos become.

Figure shows the histograms of inner slopes measured for all halos with more than 1000 particles in each of the 3 simulations. It is clear that in the regime we are exploring, increasing the cross-section smoothes the halo profiles.

These and other results from our simulations will be discussed in more detail in a forthcoming publication .

# Could Dark Matter Consist of an Exotic, Neutral, Stable Hadron?

If self-interactions are responsible for resolving the issues of the halo profile and galactic substructure, then the ratio of the dark matter-dark matter cross-section $\sigma_{DD}$ to the mass of the dark matter particle must lie in the range given in Eq. (). Curiously, the ratio for ordinary hadrons, such as neutrons and protons, lies in roughly this same range, ${\cal O}(10^{-23} \, cm^2/GeV)$ at low energies. One natural possibility is that the dark matter belongs to the hidden sector of a supergravity or superstring model with hidden gauge interactions analogous to ordinary gluon exchange. A second possibility is that the dark matter is composed of exotic hadrons — neutral, stable particles which interact through the strong force with ordinary quarks and gluons as well as with themselves. In this case, the ratio of scattering cross-section to mass for self-scattering ($s$) might be comparable to the ratio for dark matter-nucleon scattering. We should emphasize that the self-interaction proposal does not require that there be strong interactions between dark matter and ordinary hadrons; it suffices if the dark matter interacts strongly with itself. However, the fact that the cross-section required to solve the halo profile problem is so similar to the cross-section for the familiar strong interaction makes it impossible to resist considering the possibility.

If the exotic hadron is neutral and stable and does not radiate photons or other massless mesons, then it will act like dissipationless, collisional dark matter. Possible examples include the quark-gluino bound state, the $S0$ (in some models, the lightest supersymmetric stable particle with odd $R$-parity and unit baryon number) or strangelets . Alternatives are non-hadronic exotics which might also be arranged to have the desired value of $\sigma_{DD}/m$, such as gauge singlet mesons , and $Q$-balls . Of these, the first three naturally have values of $s= \sigma_{DD}/m$ which lie in the desired range, Eq. (). Another condition is that the exotic hadron must not bind to light nuclei. Otherwise, the particle would efficiently convert hydrogen and helium to exotic nuclei during nucleosynthesis and would be found plentifully. Binding to light nuclei may be sufficiently suppressed if the particle has quantum numbers that forbid simple pion exchange with ordinary nuclei, as might occur if the particle is an isospin singlet. Yet a further constraint is that the cosmic abundance must account for the observed matter density. If the particle has similar mass and interactions to ordinary hadrons, perhaps a natural explanation can be found for why the cosmic energy density in exotic hadrons is comparable that of ordinary hadrons.

One may suppose that the notion of exotic hadron is easily discounted. Surely the particle is already ruled out by existing cosmological and astrophysical constraints or by existing accelerator experiments or dark matter detectors or searches for exotic nuclei. Surprisingly, the story is not nearly so simple. For example, if the particle is strongly interacting and similar to a neutron in most characteristics, it evades all currently published constraints known to the authors. During nucleosynthesis, its kinetic energy density is too small to affect the cosmic expansion rate and, if it does not bind to light nuclei, it has no effect on ordinary nuclear abundances or evades terrestrial searches for unusual nuclei. Only an undetectably small fraction of the particles are captured by stars, such as the Sun, so they have no significant effect on stellar evolution, supernovae, etc. The scattering cross-section for dark matter on ordinary protons and neutrons $\sigma_{Dp}$ would presumably be close to the dark matter-dark matter cross-section, $\sigma_{DD}$, so one concern is that halo dark matter collides with ordinary baryons in the disk, creating excess high energy cosmic rays and destabilizing the disk. We find that these considerations do not rule out the exotic hadron scenario, either. In cases where the mass and interaction strength is similar to the more abundantly produced neutrons, it is difficult to exclude them with accelerator experiments.

Hence, one is led to consider dark matter searches. However, most dark matter searches are aimed at weakly interacting particles (WIMPS), such as axions and supersymmetric neutralinos, which can penetrate the atmosphere and deep underground unimpeded. Consequently, the detectors are placed at ground level or in mines. Strongly interacting particles interact in the upper atmosphere and will thermalize with the air before they reach ground level. For a 1 GeV particle, say, the incoming kinetic energy is 1 keV (corresponding to a virial velocity of 300 km/s) and a local density of 0.4 GeV/cm$^3$. If the particle is strongly interacting, then the average kinetic energy is an undetectable 30 meV by the time the particles reach ground level.

\>From these examples, it is clear that the best way to search for strongly interacting particles is in balloons or in space with detectors with little or no shielding and low energy threshold. A decade ago, Starkman *et al.* surveyed all current observations and experiments and found that the combination of cross-section and mass suggested by Eq. () is not constrained for masses near 1 GeV or so, and no new constraints have been published since – until now.

Figure 3 represents our new analysis of the constraints on strongly interacting dark matter . This plot assumes a spin-independent cross-section for scattering of dark matter from nuclei with atomic mass $A$ that is $\sigma_{DA} = A^2 [m_{red}(A)/m_{red}(1)]^2
\sigma_{Dp}$, as considered by Starkman et al. . It is straightforward to modify the plot for spin-dependent cross-sections or cases with different $A$-dependence, as might be expected for some of our candidates. The grey strip represents the range of $\sigma_{DD}/m$ given in Eq. (), which one might imagine is roughly similar to the dark matter-proton cross-section $\sigma_{Dp}/m$. The plot has three new features compared to earlier, similar exclusion plots:

(1) Some important corrections have been applied to constraints from older experiments (Pioneer 11 and Skylab) compared to Starkman *et al.* . The corrections *reduce* the exclusion region at large cross-section; earlier analyses had failed to take proper account of shielding. We also argue that the neutron star bound in does not apply in the limit of large cross-sections . The re-evaluation opens up a range of the grey-striped region for masses between $10^4$ to $10^{17}$ GeV.

(2) We publish for the first time results of a complete analysis of the IMP7/8 cosmic ray silicon detector satellite and the IMAX balloon-borne SIMP (strongly interaction massive particle) detector .

(3) We present a provisional exclusion region for the X-ray Quantum Calorimeter (XQC) experiment , an experiment whose first results are not yet published and that was not designed with dark matter in mind. Remarkably, this "inadvertent" dark matter detector provides perhaps the most important constraint, ruling out a large, previously unconstrained region of parameter space spanning particles in the 0.3 GeV to $10^5$ GeV range that includes the $S0$ and low-mass strangelets. (A more sophisticated analysis is likely to expand the exclusion region somewhat.) The key properties of XQC are that it has impressively sensitive pixels with a low energy threshold (25 eV for a substantial portion of the flight, compared to 160 keV for IMP7) a significant detecting area, minimal atmospheric overburden, and negligible material in front of its 1 sr field-of-view. The detector consists of 33 pixels of 1 mm$^2$ area, each with an x-ray absorber (7000 Angstroms of HgTe) deposited on 15 microns of silicon attached to silicon detector structure with an implanted thermometer. Both the HgTe and the silicon layers are active in detection; silicon dominates the low-mass region and HgTe is more important for excluding the high mass region. Although the detector flew on a sounding rocket at an altitude of 170 km for only a few minutes, the low event rate (probably due to x-ray sources) places strong constraints on dark matter candidates. Stronger limits can be obtained with subsequent flights.

# Conclusion

We find that recent simulations based on the self-interaction proposal of Spergel and Steinhardt with self-interactions of strength $0.1\,{\rm
cm^2/g}< s< 6\,{\rm cm^2/g}$ lend strong support for the concept, producing results that fit observations significantly better than standard collisionless cold dark matter models. The favored dark matter candidates, axions and neutralinos, are effectively collisionless and, hence, are in some considerable jeopardy. The Spergel-Steinhardt proposal has stimulated the interesting possibility that dark matter consists of particles that interact through the strong force with ordinary matter. Our re-evaluation of constraints leads us to conclude that the exotic hadron possibility is now ruled out for a substantial range of masses near 1 GeV and cross-sections near $10^{-24}$ cm$^2$, eliminating some of the most attractive possibilities. At the same time, the re-evaluation has re-opened a region encompassing larger masses and cross-sections previously thought to be ruled out.

# Acknowledgements

We thank Lyman Page for bringing the XQC experiment to our attention and J. Dalcanton, N. Yoshida and D. McCammon for sharing their results with us prior to publication. We are also grateful to the participants of the Princeton Monday cosmology meetings for many useful criticisms. RD and DNS are supported by the NASA ATP grant NAG5-7066. DNS and BDW are supported by the NASA MAP/MIDEX program. This work was supported in part by Department of Energy grant DE-FG02-91ER40671 (PJS).


abstract: An investigation into the properties of a two dimensional (2D+1) system of self propelled particles (known as boids) in free space is conducted using a Lagrangian Individual-Based Model. A potential, associated with each boid is specified and a Lagrangian is subsequently derived in order to obtain the equations of motion for each particle in the flock. The Morse potential and the Lennard-Jones potential, both well understood in atomic and molecular physics, are specified. In contrast to the original model proposed by Vicsek \[Phys. Rev. Lett. **75**, 1226 (1995)\] systems are considered with open boundary conditions. These two models successfully replicate the phases observed in Vicsek's original model, as well as several other significant phases, providing a realistic model of a wide range of flocking phenomena.
address: School of Physics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia.
author: J.A. Smith and A.M. Martin.
date: 2024-10-01
title: Comparison of Hard-Core and Soft-Core Potentials for Modelling Flocking in Free Space

# Introduction

The concept of spontaneous flocking is familiar to us all . The world around us is teeming with examples of this strange emergent behaviour, from a flock of birds to a school of fish , a herd of wildebeest to a swarm of locusts . In Physics, a flock is defined as the coherent motion of a group of self-propelled particles emerging from a simple set of interactions between the constituents of that group. Tamás Vicsek first introduced the concept of flocking to the physics community in 1995 , through the consideration of a simple agent-based model, paving the way for a new branch of interdisciplinary research into the physical mechanisms which result in the emergence of flocking .
In his paper, Vicsek and others discovered that a group of self propelled particles, when modelled using a simple set of parameters displayed the same characteristics as a ferromagnetic system. At high values for stochastic noise, the motion of the particles (known in flocking research as boids) was essentially random, analogous to a high temperature ferromagnetic system. As stochastic noise is reduced past a critical value, a phase transition occurs, whereby the direction of the boids suddenly becomes correlated, and their direction of motion aligns. This simple observation gave birth to the field of flocking. Since this time physicists have gained a deeper understanding of the analogies and relationships between physical condensed matter systems, and biological self-propelled systems.
A number of key states have been observed and analyzed in flocking research since the original discovery by Vicsek *et al*. They include moving and stationary fluids, moving and stationary solid states, and single vs multiple flock states . The phase transitions which have received the most attention are the breaking of directional symmetry , and the breakdown from a single flock into multiple independent flocks . The evolution of vortices has also recieved significant attention, particularly in recent years . The formation of vortices, rigid rotational states have also been observed and can be physically related to the behavior of some bacteria such as *Dictyostelium* and *Daphnia* which have been observed experimentally to form vortices .
One of the major short-comings of the approaches adopted thus far is that they have relied on the specification of periodic or reflecting boundary conditions to hold the flock together. The surface of the flock is imposed artificially rather than being allowed to arise naturally out of interactions between the boids themselves. This has meant that although many of the flocks bulk properties are well understood, the surface properties of the flock have yet to be studied in detail .
In this paper, two non-local flocking models, based on the Morse and Lennard-Jones potentials, are investigated in free space. Whilst some research has now begun on flocking in free space , most flocking models continue to be based on periodic boundary conditions, which places restrictions upon their applicability to real world situations. Additionally, many of the newer models in free space focus on the specific modelling of bacterial systems, in particular, the simulation of vortex states which have been observed in a number of bacterial colonies, as mentioned above. The model developed here is designed to be a simple, robust and independent of scale. This makes it capable of accurately simulating a large number of biological systems, over a wide range of length scales, from bacterial colonies right up to ungulate herds. Rather than attempting to model a specific instance of flocking behaviour very accurately, the models proposed will instead be aimed at exploring the generality of flocking behaviour, clearly showing how many of the characteristics of seemingly quite different grouping behaviours, from the very small to the very large scale, can in fact be encapsulated through a single model with a small number of free parameters. Thus flocking can be seen as a universal behaviour with a unique set of characteristics which transcend the particular biological organisms which are displaying the behaviour.
A Lagrangian approach is taken in order to derive the equations of motion, and the flock is then analyzed as a non-local field, where each boid makes a contribution to the potential of the region. A comparison is made between a hard-core Lennard-Jones Potential and a soft-core Morse potential to determine the similarities and differences observed when modelling flocking using these two potentials. The Lennard-Jones and Morse potentials provide suitable features for modelling flocking and are well understood in the context of atomic and molecular physics.

# Model Formulation

Tamás Vicsek introduced flocking to the physics community in his paper entitled *Novel Type of Phase-Transition in a System of Self-Driven Particles* where he showed the emergence of ordered states from a disordered initial condition. Starting with a 2D box bounded periodically, particles were distributed at random positions ${\bf r}_i$ with a constant speed $|{\bf v}_i|$ in some direction $\theta_i$. At each time step, separated by $\Delta t$, the new position and direction, of each boid, were given by: $$\textbf{r}_i(t+\Delta t)= \textbf{r}_i(t)+\textbf{v}_i\Delta t,
\label{eq:a1}$$ $$\theta_{i}(t+\Delta t)= \langle \theta_i(t) \rangle_r + \Delta \theta,
\label{eq:a2}$$ where $\langle\theta_i(t) \rangle_r$ defines the average angle of all the boids within a distance $r$ of boid $i$ and $\Delta \theta$ corresponds to a random number chosen from a uniform distribution between $-\eta/2$ and $\eta/2$. Despite the importance of this model to flocking research in physics, it does have a number of short-comings when used to model realistic flocking systems. Two key issues are the lack of short-range repulsion to prevent particle collision and the reliance on periodic boundary conditions to effectively force continued interaction over long time periods and prevent dispersion. This means that the full range of realistic flocking behavior is not observed using this model.
A number of different approaches have been attempted in order to overcome these shortcomings. Often, the approach taken includes the ad-hoc introduction of some short range repulsion or alignment dependent equations of motion . The approach taken here is similar, but instead follows in the footsteps of by introducing an already well understood potential, and then deriving the associated equations of motion. In this instance, two different non-local potentials are chosen, in order to contrast the behaviour of flocks based on hard-core and soft-core potentials. The two potentials which are used are the Lennard-Jones Potential (LJP) and the Morse Potential (MP) which are commonly used molecular potentials. After a randomized initial placement these systems are allowed to evolve in free space, allowing a wider range of possible flocking phenomena to occur. This approach extends previous studies , by consideration of open boundary conditions and direct comparison of the effects of hard (LJP) and soft (MP) core potentials on such parameters as flock density, cohesion and behaviour around the critical points.

First, the interactions between two boids, $i$ and $j$ are considered, as shown in Fig. (a). $r_{ij}$ is the distance separating any 2 boids while ${\bf v}_i$ and ${\bf v}_j$ are the velocities of boids $i$ and $j$, with their direction of motion being defined as $\theta_i$ and $\theta_j$, as measured from the horizontal.
To fully encompass the essential properties of flocking three key elements are required. These can be encapsulated through the consideration of two boids separated by distance $r_{ij}$. Boids have a tendency to avoid collisions thus a repulsive force is required for $r_{ij} < r_{{\rm min}}$. Boids have some preferred separation $r_{ij} = r_{{\rm min}}$, a balance between collision avoidance and predation risk. Boids cease to interact for large separations. Both the LJP and MP, widely used for modelling in condensed matter physics, satisfy the above criteria as can be seen in Fig. (b). These potentials are qualitatively similar for $r_{ij} > r_{{\rm min}}$ but possess a significant quantitative difference for $r_{ij} < r_{{\rm min}}$. Specifically, as $r_{ij}\rightarrow 0$ the LJP has a hard-core with $V\rightarrow \infty$ whereas the MP has a soft-core with the potential tending to a finite constant. This difference generates different bulk behaviour in the flock and also effects the behaviour of the flock around the critical points.
The LJP is given by: $$V_{i}^{{\rm LJ}}({\bf r})=
\sum_{j \ne i}\epsilon\left[\left(\frac{r_{{\rm min}}}{
r_{ij}}\right)^{12}-2\left(\frac{r_{{\rm min}}}{
r_{ij}}\right)^6\right], \label{eq:b1}$$ where $V_{i}^{{\rm LJ}}$ is the potential between boid $i$ and the rest of the flock, ${r}_{ij}$ is the distance between boid $i$ and boid $j$ in the flock. $r_{{\rm min}}$ and $\epsilon$ are constants associated with the shape of the potential. The MP is specified as: $$V_{i}^{{\rm M}}({\bf r})=
\sum_{j \ne i}\epsilon[1-\exp{(-ar_{ij}-r_{{\rm min}})}]^2, \label{eq:b1}$$ where $a$ is a constant defining the width of the potential well. In each case the depth of the potential is defined by $\epsilon$ and the minimum potential between the two boids occurs at $r_{{\rm min}}$, which may be physically interpreted as the preferred distance between nearest neighbours in the flock. The functional form of the LJP (red solid line) and MP (blue dashed line) are shown in Fig. (b) for the case of two boids.
The final key element for flocking behaviour is alignment. For two boids $i$ and $j$ to be aligned, the relative angle between them must be $\Delta\theta_{ij}=\theta_{i} - \theta_{j} \approx0$. In order to enforce this kind of alignment an angular dependent potential, $V_i^{{\rm O}}(\textbf{r})$ is introduced, which we henceforth call the 'orientation potential'. This potential is fairly localized, as the individual boids only interact with nearest neighbours and are unable to discern the flock as a whole. This means that any boid will attempt to match the direction of it's nearest neighbours, but boids far away will have little effect. A convenient representation of such a potential is the error function: $$V_{i}^{{\rm O}}({\textbf{r}}) = \sum_{j \ne i}C\theta_{j}\times
{\textrm{erf}}{{((\alpha r_{{\rm min}}-r_{ij})/\beta)}},\label{eq:Orient}$$ where C, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are constants determining magnitude of the potential, the position of the minima and the width of the potential respectively. In Fig. 1(c) the functional form the orientation potential is shown for two boids as a function of the orientation angle $\theta$, between them. $\alpha$ and $\beta$ from equations () and () are suitibly chosen to be $2$ and $1$ respectively as this value provides a maximum direction correlation at $2r_{{\rm min}}$ ensuring that the interaction is short range only.
$V_{i}^{{\rm LJ}}({\bf r})$ and $V_{i}^{{\rm O}}({\bf r})$ are added to obtain a potential of the form: $$\begin{aligned}
V_i({\bf r}) &=& \sum_{j \neq i}\epsilon\left[\left(\frac{r_{{\rm min}}}{
r_{ij}}\right)^{12}-2\left(\frac{r_{{\rm min}}}{
r_{ij}}\right)^6\right] \nonumber \\
&+&
C\beta \theta_{j}\times
{\textrm{erf}}\left(({\alpha r_{{\rm min}}-r_{ij})/\beta}\right).
\label{eq:b2}
\end{aligned}$$ and likewise for $V_{i}^{{\rm M}}({\bf r})$ and $V_{i}^{{\rm O}}({\bf r})$: $$\begin{aligned}
V_i({\bf r}) &=& \sum_{j \neq i}\epsilon[1-\exp{(-ar_j-r_{{\rm min}})}]^2 \nonumber \\
&+&
C\beta \theta_{j}\times
{\textrm{erf}}\left(({\alpha r_{{\rm min}}-r_{ij})/\beta}\right).
\label{eq:b3}
\end{aligned}$$ The functional form of $V_i(r)$ for 2 boids $i$ and $j$ are shown in Fig. 1(d). The different natures of the two potentials at small values of $r_{ij}$ can also be clearly observed Fig. 1(d), the MP goes to a finite value as $r\rightarrow 0$ whereas the LJP extends to infinity as $r\rightarrow 0$.
The force on each boid is derived using a Lagrangian approach: $$\begin{aligned}
L= T - V,
\end{aligned}$$ where $L$ is the Lagrangian of the system, $T=\frac{1}{2}m\dot{{\bf x}}^2 + \frac{1}{2}m\dot{{\bf y}}^2$ is the kinetic energy of the system, and $V$ are the potentials described above. Using the generalized Euler-Lagrange equations in $x$ and $y$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{dL}{d\dot{x}_i}\right) - \frac{dL}{dx_i} +
\frac{d\Lambda_{x_i}}{d\dot{x}_i}=0,\label{eq:c2}
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{dL}{d\dot{y_i}}\right) - \frac{dL}{dy_i} +
\frac{d\Lambda_{y_i}}{d\dot{y}_i}=0,\label{eq:c2}
\end{aligned}$$
with $\Lambda_{i} = \frac{1}{2}\lambda\dot{{\bf x}}_i^2 - \frac{1}{4}\omega \dot{{\bf x}}_i^4 + \frac{1}{2}\lambda\dot{{\bf y}}_i^2 - \frac{1}{4}\omega \dot{{\bf y}}_i^4$. $\Lambda_{x_i}$ and $\Lambda_{y_i}$ incorporate both a self damping and a self acceleration term, which effectively cause the flock to approach an average speed of $\upsilon = \sqrt{\frac{\omega}{\lambda}}$ whilst still allowing variation about this speed from individual boids within the flock. Introducing damping in this way allows for a great deal of control over the flocks velocity, increasing the stability and cohesion of the flock.
From the Lagrange Equations, the equations of motion for the LJP are: $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf F}_i({\bf {r}}) = -\sum_{j\neq i}{12\epsilon\over{r_{{\rm min}}}}\left(\left(\frac{r_{\rm min}}{
r_{ij}}\right)^{13}-\left(\frac{r_{{\rm min}}}{
r_{ij}}\right)^7\right)\hat{r}_{ij} + \nonumber \\
A{\bf \theta}_j \exp{\left(\frac{-(r_{ij}-\alpha
r_{min})^2}{\beta^2}\right)}\hat{r}_{ij}-(\lambda-\omega v^2)\dot{{\bf r}_i}+\eta_i,\label{eq:c11}
\end{aligned}$$ and likewise for the MP: $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf F}_i({\bf {r}}) = \sum_{j \neq i}2a\epsilon[1-e^{{(-ar_j-r_{{\rm min}})}}]e^{{(-ar_j-r_{{\rm min}})}}\hat{r}_{ij} + \nonumber \\
A{\bf \theta}_j \exp{\left(\frac{-(r_{ij}-\alpha
r_{{\rm min}})^2}{\beta^2}\right)}-(\lambda-\omega v^2)\dot{{\bf r}_i}+\eta_i.\label{eq:c12}
\end{aligned}$$ Note that the new constant $A=\frac{4}{\beta\sqrt{\pi}}$ is defined for convenience and that $m=1$ is set, giving all boids equal weighting. Note that by setting $m=1$ there is a loss of generality, since no individual bird can be set to have a greater weighting than any other (ruling out the modelling of behaviours where there is individual leadership). Variation of $\lambda$ and $\omega$ can be used to adjust the average velocity of the flock. These equations now represent a set of equations of motion which can be used to model flocking in free-space on length scales defined by $r_{\rm min}$.
There are $4$ important parameters which can be varied to simulate different flocking phases, $A$, $\epsilon$, $\eta$ and the initial density $\rho$. However, $\epsilon$ is held constant throughout our models, and $A$ is only varied between $0$ and a finite number, in this case $1$, which equates to turning the alignment component of the potential on a off. This leaves $\eta$, the stochastic noise and $\rho$ the initial density, which are varied with respect to one another in order to examine the range of flocking behaviours observed within this parameter space.
In order to measure different states of the system and determine the locations of any phase transitions a set of 4 order parameters are defined, these being, (i) the average separation, $\bar{x}$, (ii) the fluctuation in the average separation, $\Delta \bar{x}$, (iii) the average velocity, $\bar{{\bf v}}$ and (iv) the fluctuation in the average velocity, $\Delta \bar{{\bf v}}$.

# Results and Discussion

Initially, each boid is placed randomly within a box of side length $l$ at position $r_i$. Each boid starts with some randomized initial speed $v_i$ in some angular direction $\theta$, where $\theta$ is as defined in Fig. $1(a)$. The initial density is thus simply calculated as, $$\rho_{init}= \frac{1}{l^2},\label{eq:Density}$$

In the case of the LJP, an additional restriction that $r_{{\rm init}} > r_{{\rm min}}$ is imposed such that no boids start within the infinite repulsive region of the LJP. Earlier experimentation found this restriction to be necessary since any boid beginning the simulation within the repulsive region of the Lennard-Jones potential will have extremely high energy with respect to the other boids . This leads to flock breakdown and dispersion in almost all cases considered. Note that this is one of the major weaknesses in the LJ description of flocking presented here, and does result in a lose of generality when compared to the MP description. It is also a particularly significant modification since it is found that the future evolution of the flock is critically dependent on the initial flock density. Each simulation contains $200$ boids and is performed over a total of $20000$ time steps. At each time step, the new position of boid $i$ is calculated using simple newtonian kinematics. For each set of suitable parameters an ensemble of $100$ runs was performed, and the average of each of the order parameters listed in the previous section are taken over the entire ensemble.
Key phases are then defined in terms of the order parameters that are tracked in the simulation. The non-moving state is defined by $\bar{{\bf v}}=0$ while the moving state is defined by $\bar{{\bf v}}\neq0$. To differentiate between liquid and solid, the fluctuation in the average separation of the boids in the flock is analyzed. If $\Delta \bar{x} \sim 0$ then the state is a solid, if $\Delta \bar{x} > 0$ so long as $\bar{x}\sim constant$ over time, indicating that the flock remains together and is not undergoing significant dispersion.

The phases observed in Vicsek's original model as well as moving and stationary variants of the fluid and solid phases in both the multi-flock and single flock limits were successfully replicated using both soft-core (MP) and hard-core (LJP) potentials in free space by varying the noise amplitude, $\eta$, the initial density, $\rho$ for stationary $(A=0)$ and moving $(A=1)$ flocks. Importantly, this shows that both models demonstrate similar qualitative behaviour, since neither $\eta$ nor $A$ effect the LJ or Morse components of the potential, only the orientational component. Since the same kinds of phases are observed in similar relative positions of phase space for both the LJP and MP it indicates a "Potential Independence" between different models. This suggests that any potential with some short-length repulsion, a single minimum at $r_{min}$ and no long range interactions will likely produce the same qualitative behaviour.
Fig. 2 shows a sampling of some of some of the key phases that have been documented in flocking literature and which are observed in this model. Fig. 2(a) shows a single flock, Fig. 2(b) a phase consisting of multiple independent flocks in a low density regime, Fig. 2(c) a stationary lattice and Fig. 2(d) a stationary liquid exhibiting vortex like structures within the bulk. It is important to note that all these states were observed in free space, in the absence of any boundary conditions. Whilst the structures observed in Fig. 2(a) and Fig. 2(b) have been studied in previous models, few of these models have been examined in free space. Additionally, experimental observation and measurement is significantly lacking for structures like these , which tend to form on macroscopic levels. However, the recent advent of the STARFLAG project means that experimental verification for some of these phases may soon be forthcoming . However the state shown in Fig. 2(d) is in very good qualitative agreement, not just with several previous models looking at complex bacterial behaviour , but also with experimental measurements made on E.coli .
Despite significant qualitative similarities in structure and behaviour between the two models there are still some key differences between flocks formed. Quantitative measurements such as inter-boid distance, position and nature of the phase transitions and the relative regions of phase space where these different phases are present are still dependent on the finer structure of the different potentials and some variation between MP and LJP cases. For instance, in the single flock regime, the MP forms a dense, regular teardrop shaped flock, whereas the LJP leads to a flock with a dense frontal arc with a more dispersed region trailing. Additionally, the positions and nature of the phase transitions between the single flock and multi flock phases is model dependent. Using the MP, the single-multi transition appears to be discontinuous, effectively occurring along one plane in phase space. However in the case of the LJP, the single-multi transition occurs gradually, and there is not a sudden change between the single and multi flock phases. Instead the flocks begin to disperse at some value of $\rho$ but do not become fully independent until a much higher $\rho$, with a transitionary region existing in between.

The nature of the transition of the single flock state is highly dependent on the model being used, with a significantly different modes being observed for each model. In the LJP, the mode by which the single flock transitions into multiple flocks is quite different to that which is observed in the MP case. The front of the flock begins to split as density decreases, forming two separate "wavefronts" (the term which is adopted to describe this mode hereafter). The evolution of this fragmentation with decreasing density is seen clearly by comparing figure 3(a) to figure 3(c). In figure 3(a) there is a single, cohesive front, whereas in figure 3(c) this single front has began to fragment into two or more separate fronts. After splitting, each front then continues in a slightly different direction to the other, and over long time scales, the single flocks resolves itself into two separate flocks. As density decreases further, the two separate flocks become easier to define, until at very low densities, many completely independent flocks can be observed.

This wavefront mode of flocking is observed in nature at the macroscopic level, with herds of wildebeest (and other ungulates) often forming distinct patterns qualitatively similar to those observed in our simulations during their migratory marches. These wavefront flocks have been examined in some detail , but are primarily only understood qualitatively, with few quantitative measurements of their characteristics having been made. A popular theory for this shape of flock is that the region inside the "arc" of the wavefront becomes overgrazed, while the region outside has more resources for the flocks constituents to feed upon. When combined with the natural tendency for flock members to follow one another, a breaking of the directional symmetry thus leads to the characteristic wavefront. This characteristic shape is seen in Fig. 4(a), and the qualitative agreement with our model is seen by comparing this to Fig. 4(b). However, our models do not include the effects of resource gathering (feeding), yet the characteristic shape is still observed for moving hard-core interactions. This indicates that instead of being purely a result of outside forces, the wavefront shape exhibited in moving ungulates could instead be caused by the interactions between the flock members themselves. Due to the slow speed on ungulates relative to one another, they are unlikely to undergo accidental collisions, and thus we believe their behaviour is more accurately described the hard-core potential we have used. Therefore, the question of whether the characteristic structure of ungulate herds is caused by interactions with the inhomogeneous resource pool, or interactions with one another is a very pertinent one in the light of these results.
For the MP, as density increases past the critical point, the flock splits into two or more independent flocks along the line of motion with the flocks travelling in the same direction. This characteristic splitting in clearly seen by comparing the regular teardrop shaped flock in Fig. 3(b) with the three separate flocks in Fig. 3(d) which occur at lower densities. The state observed in Fig. 3(d) is subsequently called the "train". As the density further decreases, there is a breaking of the velocity directional symmetry, resulting in multiple independent flocks travelling in different directions. This holds true for all moving phases and noise regimes that were analyzed in our simulations. Additionally, once the initial density is low enough for the directional symmetry to break, the independent flocks are free to move around and merge over time, with these mergers being observed in many of the simulations analyzed in the low density regime.
The single-flock MP phase is of particular interest, as behaviour similar to this is exhibited in many biological flocks. In fact, spheroidal or amorphous flocks are amongst the most commonly encountered and include many types of bird flocks, fish schools and insect swarms. The qualitative similarities between the modelled single flock MP phase and an experimental observed bird flock can be seen in figure 4(c)-4(d). However there is a singificant lack of experimental data for flocking in 3D (fish and bird schools) and it is yet to be confirmed that similar spherical structures will form the 3D extension of the MP modelled used here.
It is also important to note the existence of vortex-like behaviour over a wide range of densities in our stationary state simulations $A=0$ using the MP. This vortex behaviour warrants further analysis in the long-term due to its correspondence with observed behaviour in bacteria, in particular Dictyostelium , Daphnia and E.Coli . However, the vortex structures are quite sensitive to changes in noise and are only observed in the low noise regimes. In the medium and high noise cases, the vortex structure is broken down by thermal motions. The fact that this state exists in our simulations at all is a good indication for the generality of the models presented here. Good qualitative agreement is found between our simulated case and experimental observations in E.Coli in particular. This is shown in Fig. 4(e) and Fig. 4(f).
Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 shows a set of phase diagrams for both the LJ and Morse based models with $\eta$ plotted against $l=\frac{1}{\rho^{1/2}}$ in both cases for fixed values of $A=1$ (moving states). Low noise corresponds to $\eta=1$ for both models. In the MP case, medium noise corresponds to $\eta=20$ and high noise to $\eta=40$ and in the LJP case medium noise corresponds to $\eta=10$ and high noise to $\eta=20$.
As stochastic noise, $\eta$ increases, the liquid-like behaviour of the flock becomes dominant, and for small values of $\eta$ the solid-like behaviour is dominant. The formation of single flock or multi-flock states is highly dependent on the initial density $\rho$, even in the absence of boundary conditions. For high values of $\rho$ in the respective models, a single flock state will form, as $\rho$ is decreased, the flock transitions into an intermediate phase, and then at lower values of $\rho$, multiple independent flocks are observed. Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 show the results for the MP and LJP respectively in the moving regime $(A=1)$. In both cases, three distinct phases are observed as density decreases. In the MP, as $\rho$ decreases the flock splits along the line of motion, resulting in a phase transition between the single flock and train phases. Further decrease in $\rho$ eventually results in a further breaking of directional symmetry, whereby multiple independent flocks form each with random direction. This is true in low (Fig. 5(a)), medium (Fig. 5(b))and high (Fig. 5(c)) noise regimes, although the actual values of $\rho_{crit}$ vary slightly depending on the amount of stochastic noise in the system. Figure 6 shows similar behaviour in the case of the LJP. In this case however the transitionary state is quite different. As shown in Fig. 3(d) as density decreases, the flock tears along the middle, resulting in splitting of the flocks wavefront. As density decreases further these fragmented flocks cease to interact and the result in a multi-flock state with a number of independent flocks moving in free space, as for the MP case. Additionally, in the case of the LJP, the position of the phase transitions described above is more difficult to resolve than for the MP, resulting in larger regions of uncertainty and making the nature of the phase transition less clear. As for the LJP, the same general behaviour is observed in low (Fig. 6(a)), medium (Fig. 6(b))and high (Fig. 6(c)) noise regimes, despite the actual values for $\rho_{crit}$ varying slightly. Thus, the positions of the phase transitions in the moving regime are not highly sensitive to noise, and in fact, variation of the stochastic noise seems to have only a small effect on the position of the transitions in phase space.

In the stationary regime where $A=0$ the phase transitions are a somewhat simpler. In the MP case, two phases are observed with a discontinuous phase transition between the single and multi-flock state. There is no intermediate phase between the single and multi-flock states, as we observed in the moving regime. At high densities a single flock is formed, and as the density $\rho$ is decreased, there is little change in this single flock state until the critical value is reached. There is some uncertainty as to the exact value at which the phase transition takes place, but Table 1 shows the approximate values of $l$ and $\rho$ where this takes place. At values lower than $\rho_{crit}$ two independent flocks are observed. Thereafter, further decreases in $\rho$ lead to an increase in the number of independent flocks present. In this case it is important to note that position of the phase transition is more sensitive to stochastic noise than in the moving states, with a consistent increase in the critical value of $\rho$ which results in a transition between the single and multiple flock states as noise, $\eta$ increases. For the case of the LJP, a decrease in density simply leads to an increasingly dispersed flock, but does not result in the formation of multiple independent flocks. It is not well understood why this should be the case, but it is believed that it is a consequence of the random placement algorithm used in our simulations in which boids are prevented from being placed too close together in the case of the LJP due to the infinite hard-core, since this has the effect of reducing the amount of initial inhomogeneities which subsequently form into the multiple independent flocks in the MP simulations.

| Noise($\eta$) | Side Length($l_{crit}$) | Density($\rho_{crit}*10^{-3}$) |
|:-------------:|:-----------------------:|:------------------------------:|
|       1       |         20 - 22         |           2.5 - 2.1            |
|      20       |         18 - 20         |           3.1 - 2.5            |
|      40       |         16 - 18         |           3.9 - 3.1            |

Phase Transition points in the stationary flock regime $(A=0)$ for MP case at low, medium and high values of stochastic noise.

# Conclusion

It has been shown that both the Lennard-Jones and Morse potentials, when coupled with an alignment potential, are capable of replicating a wide range of flocking behaviour in free space, including those phases observed in Vicsek's original flocking paper, that have previously only been studied with the aid of periodic boundary conditions. Additionally, it has been shown that while their are significant differences in the quantitative details, the bulk features of both the hard core LJP and the soft core MP are the quite similar in most key regards. This indicates a kind of "potential independence" which should operate between all potentials which have the same key features of short-range repulsion, a preferred nearest-neighbour distance, and long range attraction that weakens with increasing inter-boid distance.
However, significant differences appear upon deeper examination of the two Potential types. The behaviour around the phase transitions differs in that the transition between the single and multi-flocks states occurs discontinuously at some single value of $\rho$ whereas in the LJP, the breakdown of the single flock is gradual, taking place over a wide range of $\rho$ making it difficult to identify a single point where this phase transition occurs.
Additionally, the transition from single to multi-flock states happens in two stages. In the first stage , the flock is observed to split along the line of motion, with all flocks continuing to travel in the same direction. The second stage occurs as $\rho$ is further decreased, resulting in a breaking of directional symmetry, which leads to a number of independent flocks all travelling in effectively random directions. Once this state is reached, the individual flocks interact only minimally until they come into close proximity with one another. A number of behaviours can be observed when these independent flocks come into contact with one another including flock mergers, scattering of flocks off one another and flock collisions. All of these interactions have been observed in our model but have not yet fully investigated.
Finally, several vortex states were observed in the low noise regime of the stationary states for the MP. In the LJP these vortices were not observed, but instead solid lattice behaviour was observed in the corresponding regimes for this class of potential. The observation of these vortices is important since it is indicative of the ability of our model to effectively simulate bacterial behaviours which have already been observed in experimental situations and have been more extensively measured than most macroscopic examples of flocking.
Although a number of important observations have so far been made using these models, there is still much scope for future analysis of a number of flocking properties. The models presented have proven very effective in qualitatively simulating the behaviour of a wide range of different flocking behaviours over the entire spectrum of length scales, which was the original aim when they were developed.


abstract: This article presents an introduction to visual attention retargeting, its connection to visual saliency, the challenges associated with it, and ideas for how it can be approached. The difficulty of attention retargeting as a saliency inversion problem lies in the lack of one-to-one mapping between saliency and the image domain, in addition to the possible negative impact of saliency alterations on image aesthetics. A few approaches from recent literature to solve this challenging problem are reviewed, and several suggestions for future development are presented.
author: Victor A. Mateescu and Ivan V. Bajić
School of Engineering Science, Simon Fraser University, Canada
bibliography: refs.bib
title: Adversarial Attacks on Human Vision

# Visual Saliency

Visual attention retargeting is a field of research in which the content of an image or video is altered in an effort to guide viewer's attention from where it normally would be, towards another, desired location.[^1] The origins of attention retargeting are closely tied to visual saliency, a measure of propensity for drawing visual attention. A considerable amount of research has been done on saliency computation ; we can confidently predict the areas of an image that are likely to draw our immediate attention. The problem of going in the reverse direction, i.e., dictating where we should look and finding the image that satisfies this requirement, has been relatively unexplored. Since attention retargeting builds upon principles of early attention, we begin our overview with a discussion of visual saliency.

A full, detailed analysis of every object within view at any single point in time is an incredibly complex task, far beyond the capabilities of human visual processing . And yet, most would agree that the simple act of seeing is rather effortless; watching television is not often thought of as a taxing activity. To cope with the vast amount of input obtained through our eyes , our attentional mechanisms will focus on a few key areas for in-depth analysis using a two-stage process .

The initial processing narrows down the list of potentially relevant areas across our entire visual field  by identifying objects that appear to pop out in terms of basic visual features, such as color, orientation, and motion . An interesting or conspicuous object (in the context of these visual primitives) can be perceived within 25 - 50 ms  in an effortless manner, regardless of clutter from uninteresting objects . The second stage of attention involves a more complex, detailed processing out of the viewer's own volition. Although the deliberate nature of this mechanism can override the attention given to the objects that popped out in the first stage, it cannot be deployed at such a fast rate. This means that if the scene suddenly changes, we involuntarily draw our gaze toward objects that are sufficiently salient in the pre-attentive stage regardless of any intent to avoid them. For example, you'll likely be distracted for a moment by the backlit mobile phone screen in a dark movie theater the instant someone in front of you takes it out to start texting. Soon afterwards however, you resolve to ignore it and return your focus onto the movie.

Visual saliency primarily refers to the initial stage of visual attention. A region of interest (ROI) is salient if it is perceptually different from its local surroundings in terms of basic visual features (Fig. ). A popular architecture for visual saliency computation  is illustrated in Fig. . A set of visual features that drive early attention is extracted first from the input stimuli. In the subsequent stage, conspicuities are identified within each feature channel by computing local dissimilarity among features corresponding to each region of the input. For example, image luminance can be divided into non-overlapping square patches, each of which is compared against their adjacent patches. This operation, frequently referred to as "center-surround," produces a conspicuity map for each feature channel, which details the particular feature's influence on the overall saliency. Each conspicuity map is normalized to ensure that their values fall within a common range and to punish uniformity, and then combined with other maps.

The final result is a grayscale saliency map, as illustrated in Fig.  (bottom). Highly salient regions that are predicted to draw viewer's attention are denoted by bright pixels, whereas non-salient regions that are likely to be neglected are indicated by dark pixels. The above architecture can be applied to predict saliency in videos as well. The input would be a sequence of images, and temporal features, such as flicker and motion, would be utilized in addition to spatial features to produce a saliency map for each image in the sequence.

The past few decades of research demonstrate a fairly decent grasp of predicting visual saliency . This is significant because the involuntary nature of visual saliency makes it a powerful tool for orienting attention. We may then pose an interesting problem: *if we can reasonably accurately estimate visual saliency, how can we alter it to manipulate viewers' attention*? In the following section, we describe attention retargeting as a saliency inversion problem and specify the main challenges involved. Various approaches to this problem are provided with examples from existing work. We finish our overview with a discussion of subliminal attention guiding and provide some suggestions for future work.

# Attention Retargeting

Attention retargeting refers to modifying an image or video in an effort to alter viewer's gaze patterns in a desired way. This can be thought of as a saliency inversion problem, as illustrated in Fig. . Given an image and a (target) map of desired saliency, we want to obtain the modified image whose saliency matches the target saliency map. Unfortunately, this is an ill-posed problem since there is no one-to-one mapping between saliency and images. This is largely due to the fact that saliency can stem from various different features. As illustrated in Fig. , the desired change in saliency can be achieved through the manipulation of features like intensity, color, or spatial frequency, among others. This problem can persist even when the retargeting is constrained to a single feature, since saliency is based on context. For example, the saliency of a ROI can be altered by raising the intensity of the ROI, or decreasing the intensity of its surroundings, or a combination of the two.

The fact that a desired change in saliency can be obtained in many ways leads to the impression that modifying saliency is easy. This is a difficult point to contest; a drastic change in the intensity of a region can easily make it stand out, and an application of Gaussian blurring to reduce visual conspicuities may serve to conceal it. Although modifying saliency may be simple in itself, doing so in a manner that preserves the aesthetics of the original image is not. The concept of aesthetics is fairly subjective and difficult to measure.

Attention retargeting is relatively unexplored and lacks a unified framework. In the remainder of this section, we present three broad classes of methods that have been developed for this purpose. Examples and ideas for improvement are provided with a brief overview of existing work in the field.

## Iterative Black-Box Approach

The simplest approach to attention retargeting is to use saliency computation as a black box in an iterative optimization procedure, as shown in Fig.  (excluding the the signal drawn in red). At each iteration, the saliency $S$ of the image $I$ is obtained after it has been modified with respect to a chosen set of features. These features can be different from those used to compute saliency. The goal is to minimize the error between the saliency $S$ and the target saliency $T$, given by $e = T - S$. In order to maintain the naturalness or aesthetics of the input image, a set of constraints can be introduced to prevent overmodification. The process ends when $e$ becomes small enough, or when the modifications can no longer produce an appreciable change in saliency towards the intended goal.

An example of this approach can be found in the work of Wong and Low . In their model, the user segments an image into $N$ segments and enumerates them in order of importance. A target importance value $T_{i}$ is assigned to each segment, where $i = 1$ is the most important segment and $i = N$ is the least important. Modifications are made to the intensity, color saturation, and sharpness of the original image until the average saliency within each segment matches the target importance value for the corresponding segment. Specifically, the saliency error is defined as

$$%\min_{x} f(x) = \sum\limits_{i=1}^N |\mathcal{N}(T_{i}) - \mathcal{N}(M_{i})|,
e = \sum\limits_{i=1}^N |\mathcal{N}(T_{i}) - \mathcal{N}(S_{i})|,
\label{eq:WongLowObjectiveFunction}$$

where $S_{i}$ is the average saliency of the $i$th segment, and $\mathcal{N}(\cdot)$ is a normalization operator defined as $\mathcal{N}(X_{i}) = X_{i}/\sum_{j=1}^N X_{j}$.

The main disadvantage of this approach is the limited insight into why the images are modified the way they are. This limitation stems from the use of saliency computation as a black-box function, which only lets us observe the effect of a modification after the change to the image has been made. If $\mathcal{N}(T_{i}) - \mathcal{N}(S_{i})$ is small for some $i$, no modifications are necessary in that region. If $\mathcal{N}(T_{i}) - \mathcal{N}(S_{i})$ is large and positive then we have to increase saliency, and if $\mathcal{N}(T_{i}) - \mathcal{N}(S_{i})$ is large and negative then we have to decrease saliency in order to match the target saliency. All we can do is modify the image where $|\mathcal{N}(T_{i}) - \mathcal{N}(S_{i})|$ is large, recompute the saliency, and see whether the cost function is actually minimized. Since the modification may not necessarily alter saliency in the right direction, many iterations may be needed.

This can be remedied if the saliency computation block contains feature channels that are pertinent to the modifications being made. For example, let us consider a saliency detector that extracts spatial frequency information from blocks of $I$ to produce a feature map $\beta_{f}$. Center-surround operations are applied on $\beta_{f}$ to produce the conspicuity map $\beta_{c}$, describing the saliency of $I$ that originates from spatial frequency. The modification in this example is either blurring or sharpening (e.g., via Gaussian or Laplacian filters) applied to specific regions of $I$, which decrease or increase their spatial frequency, respectively, by varying degrees.

Consider the case where saliency must be reduced in a particular region. If $\beta_{c}$ is small in this region, then the feature associated with it does not contribute to saliency and does not need to be modified. Conversely, if $\beta_{c}$ is large then the feature in $\beta_{f}$ must be altered in the opposite direction. In our example, if $\beta_{f}$ indicates high spatial frequency in that region of $I$ then we need to blur it; otherwise, we need to sharpen it. Similar logic is applied in the case where saliency must be increased in a particular region. A large $\beta_{c}$ in this region indicates that it is already salient with respect to its corresponding feature, hence no modification is needed. If $\beta_{c}$ is small in this region, then the corresponding region of $I$ must be made salient with a modification that alters the feature in $\beta_{f}$ in the opposite direction, as before. Thus, the information extracted during saliency computation $\beta = \{\beta_{f},\beta_{c}\}$ can be used to guide the direction and possibly even the magnitude of the modifications at each step. This improved algorithm, shown by the addition of the red signal in Fig. , can be thought of as a steepest descent algorithm for attention retargeting.

Hagiwara *et al.* apply this methodology in . They reverse engineer a simplified version of the well-known saliency model by Itti *et al.* , which decomposes an RGB image into a set of four color features $r = R - (G + B)/2$, $g = G - (R + B)/2$, $b = B - (R + G)/2$, and $y = (R + G)/2 - |R - G|/2 - B$, and an additional intensity feature $v = (R + G + B)/3$. Conspicuity maps are then obtained for each feature and combined to compute saliency. Hagiwara *et al.* first select a ROI whose saliency is to be maximized. They determine the change in the image channels $\Delta R$, $\Delta G$, $\Delta B$ needed to increment saliency at each pixel as a function of the features and their corresponding conspicuity maps. Since the saliency of the ROI is to be maximized relative to the rest of the image, each pixel within the ROI is modified by $\Delta \alpha$ (calculated individually for each pixel), and pixels outside are modified by their respective $-\Delta \alpha$, where $\alpha \in \{ R, G, B\}$.

## Direct Mapping

The optimization procedure in Fig.  uses feedback from saliency computation to estimate how the image is to be modified in a series of steps. Mapping an additive or multiplicative change to the saliency map (or conspicuity map of a particular feature) directly onto the image domain is a highly non-trivial task. However, one of the earlier works on attention retargeting by Su *et al.* , which de-emphasizes distracting textures in images, demonstrates that this is indeed possible. Since there currently are no generalizations of this approach, we illustrate the concept of direct mapping by summarizing the methodology of Su *et al.*.

The texture-based saliency of an image is computed using steerable filter banks, as shown in Fig. . The local frequency content $s_{Ln}$ is computed for each subband by rectification (since $s_{n}$ is band-limited) followed by local averaging with a Gaussian filter. Conspicuities within each subband $s_{Hn}$ can be found by applying a high pass filter to the local frequency content. Regions of the image with highly salient textures are identified by large values in the conspicuity maps $s_{Hn}$.

Minimizing the saliency of these regions can be thought of as removing any conspicuities from the local frequency content, i.e., subtracting $s_{Hn}$ from $s_{Ln}$. To ensure that the values of $s_{Ln}$ remain positive after any modification, the procedure is revised so that any subsequent processing of $s_{Ln}$ is done in the log domain. Thus, $s_{Hn}$ is subtracted from $\ln(s_{Ln})$ instead, which is equivalent to a scaling of the original coefficients $$s_{n}' = s_{n}e^{-s_{Hn}}.
\label{eq:SuModification}$$ The modified image can be reconstructed as a linear combination of the modified subbands.

## ROI-Based Retargeting

Often, it is only desirable to draw attention to a specific ROI, or perhaps a few ROIs. For example, the target saliency map in the bottom-left of Fig.  indicates that we want the flamingo in the top right of the image to draw more attention than the rest of the image. To this end, we may supply a simple binary mask of the desired ROI with the objective of making this region as salient as possible relative to the rest of the image.

Kim and Varshney apply this concept in a straightforward manner to guide attention towards selected regions in visualizations of volumetric datasets  and 3-D meshes . They model saliency as the convolution of a center-surround kernel, e.g., difference of Gaussians, with a feature map of an image. This rudimentary saliency computation can be written as a matrix multiplication $\mathbf{Cx} = \mathbf{s}$, where $\mathbf{C}$ is the center-surround operation matrix, while $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{s}$ are, respectively, the vectorized feature and saliency maps. Suppose instead that we supply $\mathbf{s}$ as a binary mask of the ROI, with the goal of solving for an unknown $\mathbf{x}$. If $\mathbf{C}$ is well-conditioned then $\mathbf{C}^{-1}\mathbf{s}$ is a vector of scaling factors that can be used to modulate feature channels (e.g., intensity and color saturation in ) to increase the relative saliency of the ROI.

The absence of the target saliency as an input highlights a big redundancy—the lack of need for full-scale saliency computation—in the approaches outlined in Section . Saliency computation typically requires center-surround differences over the whole image. With the simplified goal of either increasing or decreasing saliency within a single region, it suffices to perform this operation on the ROI and its surroundings alone, rather than the entire image.

A model proposed in , which estimates the relative changes in saliency of a ROI under rotation, demonstrates what can be accomplished by avoiding this inefficiency. Upon selecting a ROI, e.g., the tile in Fig. (b), edge distributions within this ROI and its surroundings are obtained using statistical Hough Transform. The solid red curve in Fig. (a) shows that the ROI in Fig. (b) primarily consists of horizontal ($\theta = 0^{\circ}/180^{\circ}$) and vertical ($\theta = 90^{\circ}$) edges, with a similar composition for the surrounding region, shown by the blue curve. If we were to rotate the ROI by $45^{\circ}$, then the edges of the tile would be primarily oriented at $45^{\circ}$ and $135^{\circ}$. Therefore, a counter-clockwise rotation of the ROI can be represented as a leftward circular shift of its corresponding distribution, as shown in Fig. (a) by the dashed red curve.

The dissimilarity between the ROI and its surroundings, i.e., the center-surround operation that estimates the saliency of the ROI, is measured in  as the symmetric Kullack-Leibler divergence between their respective edge distributions. We can rapidly obtain this measure for all possible rotation angles $\phi$ of the ROI due to the concise representation of this modification as a circular shift of a 1-D distribution. The result, shown in Fig. (c), is a complete inverse mapping of the ROI's relative saliency to rotation angle (note that a one-to-one mapping between saliency and images still does not exist, despite only a single feature being modified). The approach taken here chooses features in a manner that allows a simpler representation of the modification being made, and utilizes a center-surround operation that avoids redundancy by only focusing on the ROI. These two aspects grant the ability to rapidly predict the outcome of all possible modifications of the particular feature, in this case edge orientation. Another example of the orientation change by the method from  is shown in Fig. . A similar approach has been applied to hue in  for color-based attention retargeting.

Aside from benefits to computational complexity, this simplification may also allow more freedom in the problem formulation, particularly in the objective function used in the optimization. For example, a recently proposed model by Nguyen *et al.* used a graph-based optimization for attention retargeting . The input image is segmented into patches, and the set of patches $i$ comprising the ROI undergo color transfer from a set of candidate patches $x_{i}$. The candidate patches are mined from a large image dataset and correspond to the same objects found in the ROI so that color transfer only occurs between similar objects in an effort to maintain naturalness. Candidate patches for color transfer to the ROI are found by minimizing $$E(x) = \sum\limits_{i\;\in\;\text{ROI}} E_{d}(x_{i}) + \lambda\sum\limits_{i}\sum\limits_{j\;\in\;N(i)} E_{s}(x_{i},x_{j}).
\label{eq:NguyenEnergy}$$

The data cost $E_{d}$ is designed to consider global center-surround differences, rather than local ones. It demands that the ideal candidate patch be highly dissimilar from the entire image content outside of the ROI. The smoothness energy $E_{s}$ is designed to punish dissimilarity between neighboring patches that are of a similar color, e.g., belonging to the same object, and encourage it otherwise. In contrast to the data cost $E_{d}$, this considers local center-surround differences to further enhance saliency. At the same time, it ensures that different objects in the ROI remain individually consistent in appearance.

## Summary

A summary of attention retargeting methods—what they aim to achieve, their methodology, and any constraints imposed—is presented in Table . Most existing methods are concerned with guiding attention towards a region by increasing its saliency . The problem of repelling attention by reducing saliency is less explored (). From the analysis above, it is reasonable to conclude that  and  are the most computationally demanding since they use full-scale saliency computation. Although setting hard limits on the modifications may be the simplest way to preserve aesthetics ( and to a lesser extent ), they may not match the versatility of adaptive constraints . Since an objective comparison of these methods currently does not exist, we will refrain from speculating any further on their strengths and weaknesses.

```latex
\begin{tabular}{ | P{0.08\linewidth} | p{0.15\linewidth} | p{0.35\linewidth} | p{0.30\linewidth} |}
    \hline
    \textbf{Method} & \textbf{Goal} & \textbf{Features and Approach} & \textbf{Aesthetics Constraints} \\ \hline
        %
    Wong and Low~\cite{Wong2011} & Change saliency of each image segment according to specified order of importance. &
        \begin{itemize*}
            \item Intensity, chromaticity, sharpness.
            \item Iterative adjustment of each segment of the image.
            \item Uses saliency computation as a black box.
        \end{itemize*} &
        %Bound constraints for the intensity, chromaticity, and sharpness of each segment to prevent over-modification. \\ \hline
        Upper and lower limits for the amount that each segment can be changed with respect to each feature. \\ \hline
        %
    Hagiwara \textit{et al.}~\cite{Hagiwara2011} & Make ROI the most salient part of the image. &
        \begin{itemize*}
            \item Intensity and color.
            \item Iterative adjustment of each pixel in the entire image.
            \item Uses feedback from saliency computation.
        \end{itemize*} &
        None. \\ \hline
        %
    Su \textit{et al.}~\cite{Su2005} & Decrease saliency of textures in ROI. &
        \begin{itemize*}
            \item Spatial frequency.
            \item Image is decomposed with steerable pyramids.
            \item Saliency subtraction is mapped directly as a scaling of steerable coefficients.
        \end{itemize*} &
        \begin{itemize*}
            \item Scaling factors with extreme values are clamped.
            \item Histogram of reconstructed output image is matched to that of the original input.
        \end{itemize*} \\ \hline
        %
        Kim and Varshney \cite{Kim2006, Kim2008} & Increase the relative saliency of the ROI. &
        \begin{itemize*}
            \item Intensity, chromaticity~\cite{Kim2006} and curvature~\cite{Kim2008}.
            \item Express saliency as a matrix multiplication; invert the operation with a binary map of the ROI.
            \item Scale features at each pixel/voxel within the ROI and local surroundings.
        \end{itemize*} &
        Scaling factors are normalized to a certain range. \\ \hline
        %
        Mateescu and Baji\'{c}~\cite{Mateescu2014Color, Mateescu2013} & Map relative ROI saliency to all possible modifications of the ROI. &
        \begin{itemize*}
            \item Hue in~\cite{Mateescu2014Color}, edge orientation in~\cite{Mateescu2013}.
            \item Efficiently represent the modification.
            \item Measure dissimilarity between ROI and surround for all possible modifications.
        \end{itemize*} &
        \begin{itemize*}
            \item No direct aesthetics constraints.
            \item Shows which modifications have a lighter impact on saliency, and hence more subtle.
        \end{itemize*} \\ \hline
        %
        Nguyen \textit{et al.}~\cite{Nguyen2013} & Increase the relative saliency of the ROI. &
        \begin{itemize*}
            \item Intensity and color.
            \item Graph-based optimization that maximizes global and local dissimilarity of ROI by changing the intensity and color of each object within.
        \end{itemize*} &
        \begin{itemize*}
            \item New color of objects in ROI can only come from similar objects in an image dataset.
            \item Graph-based optimization maintains the color-consistency of each object in ROI.
        \end{itemize*} \\
    \hline
    \end{tabular}
```

# Subliminal Attention Guiding

Subtlety is an important aspect of attention retargeting. Modifications that degrade an image so severely that they detract from the viewing experience are of limited practical use, regardless of whether they guide viewers' attention as intended. It would be of great value to be able to guide attention in the least intrusive manner possible. Ideally, the modifications wouldn't be perceivable at all, thus guiding attention *subliminally*. Retargeting attention without any perceivable alteration to the original stimuli may seem like an implausible concept. However, it is a topic of research in neuroscience and psychology that has received a fair bit of interest.

Experiments on subliminal orienting of attention generally consist of reaction-time target detection tasks. In a typical experiment, each trial begins with the participant fixating at the center of a blank screen. After some time, a subliminal cue, i.e., a visually unperceivable stimulus (experimentally confirmed to be unperceivable), is presented on the screen at a random location from a set of predetermined possible locations. Sometime later, a target, i.e., a visible stimulus, is presented randomly at one of these locations. Prior to the experiment, the participant is told to respond as quickly as possible to the target by issuing a key-press corresponding to the target's location. If the subliminal cue is truly capable of orienting the viewer's attention, reaction times to the target are expected to be shorter in trials where the cue is presented in the same location as the target. In this situation, the cue would serve as a subconscious hint to the location of the upcoming target. However, reaction times are expected to increase in trials where the cue and the target appear in different locations. Here, the cue would subconsciously distract the viewer.

A study by Cheadle *et al.* investigates subliminal flicker as a cue for orienting attention . Their display consists of three Gabor patterns, equally spaced on an invisible circle around the black fixation cross at the center, as shown in Fig. . The subliminal cue in their experiments consists of alternating the contrast of one of the three Gabor patches from maximum to minimum at a frequency of 50 Hz (corresponding to a 100 Hz refresh rate). The flicker is no longer discernable at such a high frequency and the flickering Gabor patch appears identical to the other two. The target that follows the subliminal cue is a change in spatial frequency of one of the three Gabor patches. Participants' reactions to the target were found to be, on average, 15 ms faster in cases where the cue is presented in the same location as the target, which suggests that subliminal flicker is capable of drawing attention.

A temporally asynchronous cue was shown to subliminally draw attention by Mulckhuyse *et al.* . In their experiment, they displayed three grey circular discs arranged horizontally, one of which, either the left or the right, appeared a short instant (16 ms) before the other two. In their study, they determined that participants could not accurately locate the disc that appeared earlier, suggesting that all three discs were perceived to appear simultaneously. The target consisted of a black dot that appeared inside either the left or right circular discs. Participants were told to locate the target as fast as possible. Reaction times were 11 ms shorter, on average, in cases where the target was in the same location as the cue.

Although these studies demonstrate that it may be possible to guide attention without awareness, they all use synthetic stimuli, and they used reaction time as a proxy for attention. It is uncertain whether such effects on attention would be observed if similar cues were to be applied in natural images and videos. Since reaction-time target detection tasks are less suitable for natural stimuli, investigation of subliminal orienting in natural images and videos would require eye-tracking as a more direct measure of visual attention. One of the two existing studies to have done this is the work by Huang *et al.* , who displayed a circular blob (radius of 50 pixels and Weber contrast of 20%) for 50 ms prior to displaying an image in an attempt to subconsciously draw attention toward the blob's location. The other study  investigated the effect of subliminal flicker in natural images, where flicker was introduced to selected regions alternating the contrast in these regions from high to low at a frequency of 50 Hz. A comparison of eye-tracking data between participants who viewed the flickering images against those who viewed the original images suggests that subliminal flicker may, on average, repel attention rather than attract it . However, a more detailed analysis is required to assess statistical significance of these findings.[^2]

# Conclusions and Future Work

As a relatively unexplored topic, attention retargeting presents a wide array of possibilities for improvement. For measurable progress, it is necessary to establish an objective framework for comparison of various approaches. Changing saliency is easy, but doing so in an aesthetically responsible manner is not. A reliable measure of aesthetics is of critical importance in this regard. Reverse-engineering existing saliency models may provide valuable insight and could pave the way to tractable models for predicting how simultaneous changes in multiple features affect saliency, which would be an important step forward. Subliminal attention retargeting may be considered an ultimate goal of this research direction, but further work is needed to investigate its plausibility in natural images and video. We hope that this article sparks interest in attention retargeting and motivates others to contribute.

[^1]: More recently, when applied to machine vision rather than human vision, these kinds of methods have been referred to as *adversarial attacks*.

[^2]: A more detailed study of this effect, subsequently termed *flicker observer effect*, has been presented in .