Self-Organization and Artificial Life: A Review
Carlos Gershenson1 , Vito Trianni2 , Justin Werfel3 and Hiroki Sayama4
1

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico
Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, Italian National Research Council, Rome, Italy
3
Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Enginering, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
4
Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY 13902, USA
cgg@unam.mx, vito.trianni@istc.cnr.it, justin.werfel@wyss.harvard.edu, sayama@binghamton.edu

arXiv:1804.01144v1 [nlin.AO] 3 Apr 2018

2

Abstract
Self-organization has been an important concept within a
number of disciplines, which Artificial Life (ALife) also has
heavily utilized since its inception. The term and its implications, however, are often confusing or misinterpreted. In
this work, we provide a mini-review of self-organization and
its relationship with ALife, aiming at initiating discussions
on this important topic with the interested audience. We first
articulate some fundamental aspects of self-organization, outline its usage, and review its applications to ALife within its
soft, hard, and wet domains. We also provide perspectives for
further research.

What is self-organization?
The term “self-organizing system” was coined by Ashby
(1947) to describe phenomena where local interactions between independent elements lead to global behaviors or patterns. The phrase is used when an external observer perceives a pattern in a system with many components, and this
pattern is not imposed by a central authority external to those
components, but rather arises from the collective behavior
of the elements themselves. Natural examples are found in
areas such as collective motion (Vicsek and Zafeiris, 2012),
as when birds or fish move in flocks or schools exhibiting
complex group behavior; morphogenesis (Doursat, 2011),
in which cells in a living body divide and specialize to
develop into a complex body plan; and pattern formation
(Cross and Hohenberg, 1993) in a variety of physical and
chemical systems, such as convection and crystal growth as
well as the formation of patterns like stripes and spots on
animal coats.
A formal definition of the term runs into difficulties in
agreeing on what is a system, what is organization, and
what is self (Gershenson and Heylighen, 2003), none of
which are perfectly straightforward. However, a pragmatic
approach focuses on when it is useful to describe a system as self-organizing (Gershenson, 2007). This utility
typically comes when an observer identifies a pattern at a
higher scale but is also interested in phenomena at a lower
scale; there then arise questions of how the lower scale produces the observables at the higher scale, as well as how

the higher scale constrains and promotes observables at the
lower scale. For example, bird behavior leads to flock formation, and descriptors at the level of the flock can also
be used to understand regulation of individual bird behavior (Keys and Dugatkin, 1990).
Self-organization has been an important concept within
a number of disciplines, such as statistical mechanics
(Wolfram, 1983; Crutchfield, 2012), supramolecular chemistry (Lehn, 2017), and computer science (Mamei et al.,
2006). Artificial Life (ALife) frequently draws heavily on
self-organizing systems in different contexts (Aguilar et al.,
2014), starting in the early days of the field with studies of
systems like snowflake formation (Packard, 1986) and agent
flocking (Reynolds, 1987), and continuing to the present
day. However, there are often confusion and misinterpretation involved with this concept, possibly due to an apparent lack of recent systematic literature. In this work, we
aim at providing a mini-review of self-organization within
the context of ALife, with a goal to open discussions on
this important topic to the interested audience within the
community. We first articulate some fundamental aspects
of self-organization, outline ways the term has been used by
researchers in the field, and then summarize work based on
self-organization within soft (simulated), hard (robotic), and
wet (chemical and biochemical) domains of ALife. We also
provide perspectives of further research.

Usage
Ashby coined the term “self-organizing system” to show that
a machine could be strictly deterministic and yet exhibit a
self-induced change of organization (Ashby, 1947). This notion was further developed within cybernetics (von Foerster,
1960; Ashby, 1962). In many contexts, a thermodynamical perspective has been taken, where “organization” is
viewed as the opposite of entropy (Nicolis and Prigogine,
1977). Since there is an equivalence between BoltzmannGibbs entropy and Shannon information, this notion has
also been applied in contexts related to information theory
(Fernández et al., 2014). In this view, a self-organizing system is one whose dynamics lead it to decrease its entropy

or increase its information content. In the meantime, there
are several other definitions of self-organization as well. For
example, Shalizi (2001) defines self-organization as an increase in statistical complexity, which in turn is defined as
the amount of information required to minimally specify the
state of the system’s causal architecture. As an alternative to
entropy, the use of the mean value of random variables has
also been proposed (Holzer and De Meer, 2011).
The recent subfield of guided self-organization explores mechanisms by which self-organization can be
regulated for specific purposes—that is, how to find
or design dynamics for a system such that it will
have particular attractors or outcomes (Prokopenko, 2009;
Ay et al., 2012; Polani et al., 2013; Prokopenko, 2014;
Prokopenko and Gershenson, 2014). Much of this research is based on information theory. For example, the
self-organization of random Boolean networks (Kauffman,
1969, 1993) can be guided to specific dynamical regimes
(Gershenson, 2012). The concept of self-organization
is also heavily used in organization science, with relevance to artificial society models (Gilbert and Conte, 1995;
Epstein and Axtell, 1996).
While there may be no single agreed-on definition of selforganization, this lack need not be an insurmountable obstacle for its study, any more than a lack of a unanimous formal
definition of “life” has been an obstacle for progress in the
fields of biology or ALife. In what follows, we provide a
concice review of how self-organization has contributed to
the progress of ALife.

Domains
One way to classify ALife research is to divide it into soft,
hard, and wet domains, roughly referring to computer simulations, physical robots, and chemical/biological research
(including living technology as the application of ALife
(Bedau et al., 2009)), respectively. Self-organization has
played a central role in work in all three domains.

Soft ALife
Soft ALife, or mathematical and computational modeling and simulation of life-like behaviors, has been linked
to self-organization in many sub-domains. Cellular automata (CAs) (Ilachinski, 2001), one of the most popular
modeling frameworks used in earlier forms of soft ALife,
are well-explored, illustrative examples of self-organizing
systems. A CA consists of many units (cells), each of
which can be in any of a number of discrete states, and
each of which repeatedly determines its next state in a
fully distributed manner, based on its current state and
those of its neighbors. With no central controller involved, CAs can spontaneously organize their state configurations to demonstrate various forms of self-organization:
dynamical critical states such as in sand-pile models
(Bak et al., 1988) and in the Game of Life (Bak et al., 1989),

spontaneous formation of spatial patterns (Young, 1984;
Wolfram, 1984; Ermentrout and Edelstein-Keshet, 1993),
self-replication 1 (Langton, 1984, 1986; Reggia et al., 1993;
Sipper, 1998), and evolution by variation and natural selection (Sayama, 1999, 2004; Salzberg and Sayama, 2004;
Suzuki and Ikegami, 2006; Oros and Nehaniv, 2007, 2009).
Similarly, partial differential equations (PDEs), a continuous counterpart of CAs, have an even longer history
of demonstrating self-organizing dynamics (Turing, 1952;
Glansdorff and Prigogine, 1971; Field and Noyes, 1974;
Pearson, 1993).
Another representative class of soft ALife that shows
self-organization comprises models of collective behavior of self-driven agents (Vicsek and Zafeiris, 2012).
Reynolds’ Boids model (Reynolds, 1987) is probably the
best known in this category. In this work, self-propelled
agents (“boids”) move in a continuous space according
to three kinetic rules: cohesion (to maintain positional
proximity), alignment (to maintain directional similarity),
and separation (to avoid overcrowding and collision).
A variety of related models have since been proposed
and studied, including simplified, statistical-physicsoriented ones (Vicsek et al., 1995; Levine et al., 2000;
Aldana et al., 2007; Newman and Sayama, 2008) and more
detailed, behavioral-ecology-oriented ones (Couzin et al.,
2002; Kunz and Hemelrijk, 2003; Hildenbrandt et al.,
2010).
These models produce natural-looking flocking/schooling/swarming collective behaviors out of simple
decentralized behavioral rules, and they also exhibit phase
transitions between distinct macroscopic states.
Such collective behavior models have been brought
to artificial chemistry studies (Dittrich et al., 2001;
Banzhaf and Yamamoto, 2015) as well, such as
swarm chemistry and its variants (Sayama, 2008;
Kreyssig and Dittrich, 2011; Sayama, 2011, 2012;
Erskine and Herrmann, 2015), in which kinetically and
chemically distinct species of idealized agents interact to
form nontrivial spatiotemporal dynamic patterns. More
recently, these collective behavior models have also been
actively utilized in morphogenetic engineering (Doursat,
2011; Doursat et al., 2012), in which researchers attempt
to achieve a successful merger of self-organization and
programmable architectural design, by discovering or designing agent rules that result in specific desired high-level
patterns.
Other examples of self-organization in soft ALife are
found in simulation models of artificial societies. Their
roots can be traced back to the famous segregation mod1
Note that earlier literature on self-reproducing cellular automata (von Neumann, 1966; Codd, 1968) is not included here,
because those models typically had a clear separation between a
central universal controller and a structure that is procedurally constructed by the controller; thus they may not constitute a good example of self-organization as discussed in this article.

els developed by Sakoda and Schelling back in the early
1970s (Sakoda, 1971; Schelling, 1971; Hegselmann, 2017),
in which simple, independent decision making by individual agents would eventually cause a spatially segregated
state of society at a macroscopic level. Agent-based simulation of artificial societies has been one of the core topics discussed in the ALife community (Epstein et al., 1996;
Lansing, 2002), and has elucidated self-organization of issues in social order such as geographical resource management (Lansing and Kremer, 1993; Bousquet and Page,
2004), cooperative strategies (Lindgren and Nordahl, 1993;
Brede, 2011; Adami et al., 2016; Ichinose and Sayama,
2017), and common languages (Steels, 1995; Kirby, 2002;
Smith et al., 2003; Lipowska and Lipowski, 2012). The
literature on self-organization of adaptive social network
structure (Gross and Sayama, 2009; Bryden et al., 2010;
Geard and Bullock, 2010) may also be included in this category.

Hard ALife
Robots can be considered to be life-like artifacts in their
ability to sense their physical environment and take action in response. Physical agents, even very simple ones,
can evoke in the observer a particularly strong sense of
being animate. From W. Grey Walter’s tortoises (Walter,
1950, 1951), to simple machines based on the principles
of Braitenberg’s vehicles (Braitenberg, 1986), to other reactive robots (Brooks, 1989), to recent biomimetic and
bioinspired designs (Saranli et al., 2001; Wood et al., 2013;
Kim and Wensing, 2017), building artificial life as physically embodied hardware allows it to exploit the rich dynamics underlying the interaction between itself and its environment, so that even simple mechanisms and behavioral
rules can confer sophisticated life-like attributes to limited
machines (Simon, 1969). Still higher complexity can be
attained either by increasing the sophistication of a single
robot, or by increasing the number of robots in a system that,
through the resulting interaction and self-organization, can
then evince more sophisticated abilities collectively, from
adaptive responses to group decision making.
Physical hardware has the strong advantage that the physical characteristics of the system (dynamics, sensor performance, actuator noise profiles, etc.) are by definition realistic, whereas simulations are necessarily simplified and
typically fail to capture phenomena that only become evident through material experimentation (Brooks and Matarić,
1993; Rubenstein et al., 2014). Conversely, while simulation can readily handle very large numbers of agents, hardware considerations (cost, space, scalability of operation,
etc.) have traditionally limited hard ALife studies to using a
small number of robots. In some scenarios, self-organizing
phenomena of interest do not necessarily require a large
number of robots; when the mechanism for coordination is
based on stigmergy (persistent information left in a shared

environment), the important element is a large number of
interactions between robot and environment, and even a single robot could suffice (Beckers et al., 2000; Werfel et al.,
2014). More recently, hardware advances have made it possible to conduct physical experiments with robots in numbers exceeding a thousand (Rubenstein et al., 2014).
Physical experiments have been used to explore selforganizing phenomena in a variety of areas. Aggregation of objects has been studied from a physics perspective (Giomi et al., 2013); in ways inspired by behavior observed in living systems, such as cockroaches or
bees (Garnier et al., 2008; Kernbach et al., 2009); and using controllers designed through automatic methods like
artificial evolution (Dorigo et al., 2004; Francesca et al.,
2014). Another topic is collective navigation, in which
groups of robots coordinate their overall direction of motion and collectively avoid obstacles (Baldassarre et al.,
2007; Trianni and Dorigo, 2006; Turgut et al., 2008). In
other collective decision-making processes, positive feedback from recruitment processes and negative feedback
from cross-inhibition contribute to shape the outcome
(Reina et al., 2018; Valentini et al., 2015; Scheidler et al.,
2016; Garnier et al., 2009, 2013; Kernbach et al., 2009;
Francesca et al., 2014; Valentini et al., 2017). Self-assembly
(Whitesides and Grzybowski, 2002) is another form of selforganization, with several examples in hard ALife of
self-assembling or self-reconfiguring robots (Murata et al.,
1994; Holland and Melhuish, 1999; Støy and Nagpal, 2004;
Zykov et al., 2005; Dorigo et al., 2006; Ampatzis et al.,
2009; Rubenstein et al., 2014).

Wet ALife
Wet ALife, or physico-chemical synthesis of life-like behaviors, extensively utilizes self-organization as its core principle. A classic example is the spatial pattern formation
in experimentally realized reaction-diffusion systems, such
as the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction (Vanag and Epstein,
2001; Adamatzky et al., 2008) and Gray-Scott-like selfreplicating spots (Lee et al., 1994), where dynamic patterns self-organize entirely from spatially localized chemical reactions. Similar approaches can also be taken by using microscopic biological organisms (e.g., slime molds)
as the media of self-organization (Adamatzky et al., 2008;
Adamatzky, 2015). In the origins of life research, molecular
self-assembly plays the essential role in producing protocell
structures and their metabolic dynamics (Rasmussen et al.,
2003; Hanczyc et al., 2003; Rasmussen et al., 2004, 2008).
More recently, dynamic behaviors of macroscopically visible chemical droplets, a.k.a. liquid robots (Čejková et al.,
2017), has become a focus of active research in ALife. In this line of research, interactions among chemical reactions, physical micro-fluid dynamics and possibly other not-yet-fully-understood microscopic mechanisms cause self-organization of spontaneous movements

(Hanczyc et al., 2007; Cejkova et al., 2014) and complex
morphology (Čejková et al., 2018) of those droplets. Moreover, droplet-based systems have also been used to demonstrate artificial evolution in experimental chemical systems
(Parrilla-Gutierrez et al., 2017).

Perspectives
As already mentioned above, we can understand a selforganizing system as one in which organization increases
in time. However, it can be shown that, depending on
how the variables of a system are chosen, the same system can be said to be either organizing or disorganizing
(Gershenson and Heylighen, 2003). Moreover, in several
examples of self-organization, it is not straightforward to
identify the self of the system, as oftentimes all elements
composing the system can be ascribed equal agency. Finally, in cybernetics and systems theory, the dependency
of the boundaries of a system on the observer has thoroughly been discussed (Gershenson et al., 2014): one wants
to have an objective description of phenomena, but descriptions are necessarily made by observers, making them partially subjective. It becomes clear, then, that discussing selforganization requires the identification of what is self and
what is other, and what are the elements that are increasing
in their organization. Similar issues have been tackled by
Maturana and Varela (1980) in the definition of living systems as autopoietic systems. According to this tradition, a
living system is inherently self-organising because the self
is continuously produced or renewed by processes brought
forth by the system’s internal components. In other words,
an autopoietic system can be recognized as a unity with
boundaries that encompass a number of simpler/elementary
components that are at the basis of the organization of the
system, as they are responsible for the definition of the system boundaries and for the (re)production of the very same
components (Varela et al., 1974). This is a peculiar characteristic of living systems. If life is deeply rooted in selforganization, so should be ALife, and the several acceptations of ALife discussed above demonstrate the richness of
the links it holds with self-organization.
Looking at the perspectives of ALife, it can be useful to
think of self-organization as the common language that unifies the soft, hard and wet domains. The ALife community
can progress owing to shared concepts and definitions, and
despite the mentioned difficulties, self-organization stands
as a common ground on which to build shared consensus.
Most importantly, we believe that the identification and classifications of the mechanisms that underpin self-organization
can be extremely useful to synthesize novel forms of ALife
and gain a better understanding of life itself. These mechanisms should be identified at the level of the system components and characterized for the effects they have on the
system organization. Mechanisms pertain to the modalities of interaction among system components (e.g., colli-

sions, perceptions, direct communication, stigmergy), to behavioural patterns pertaining to individual components (e.g.,
exploration vs. exploitation), and to information enhancement or suppression (e.g., recruitment or inhibitory processes). The effects of the mechanisms should be visible
in the creation of feedback loops—positive or negative—
at the system level, which determine the complex dynamics underlying self-organization. We believe that, by identifying and characterising the mechanisms that support selforganization, the synthesis of artifacts with life-like properties would be much simplified. In this perspective, mechanisms underlying self-organization can be thought of as
design patterns to generate artificial lives (Babaoglu et al.,
2006; Fernandez-Marquez et al., 2013; Reina et al., 2014).
By exploiting and composing them, different forms of ALife could be designed with a principled approach, owing to
the understanding of the relationship between mechanisms
and system organization.
The possibility of exploiting self-organization for design purposes is especially relevant toward the development of living technologies, that is, technologies presenting features of living systems (Bedau et al., 2009),
such as robustness, adaptability, and self-organization,
which can include self-reconfiguration, self-healing, selfmanagement, self-assembly, etc., often named together as
“self-*” in the context of autonomic computing (Poslad,
2009). Self-organization has been used directly in living technologies within a variety of domains (Bedau et al.,
2013), from protocells (Rasmussen et al., 2008) to cities
(Gershenson, 2013), and also several methodologies that
use self-organization have been proposed in engineering
(Frei and Di Marzo Serugendo, 2011). A major leap forward can be expected when principled design methodologies are laid down, and a better understanding of selforganization for ALife can be at the forefront of the development of such methods.
As a final discussion, and as food for thought, it is also
worth considering when self-organization is not useful in
the context of ALife. Tracing a clear line across the domain is of course impossible, but our reasoning above provides some suggestions. Indeed, self-organization does not
account for every life-like process, for instance when there is
no clear increase in organization. For instance, hard ALife
has strongly developed the concept of embodied cognition
and morphological computation (Pfeifer and Gómez, 2009),
where the dynamics of mind-body-environment interaction
are fundamental aspects. These dynamics, albeit very complex, are not easily described within the framework of
self-organization. Evolution is also very much represented
within ALife, but typical generational evolutionary algorithms do not present clear elements of self-organization,
as the progression in organization through generations is
mediated by a central authority that defines selection of
the fittest individuals. Open-ended evolution (Taylor et al.,

2016) makes a difference when such a centralized authority does not exist and progress is observable in mixing populations of interacting individuals. Exploring possibilities
of infusing self-organization into those processes that were
traditionally not oriented toward self-organization would be
potentially a very fruitful direction of research.
Needless to say, this mini-review we presented here is
not meant to be a complete, comprehensive review of selforganization and ALife, given the limitation of space. We
plan to expand the work substantially in the near future to
develop a more thorough review for publication elsewhere.

References
Adamatzky, A. (2015). A would-be nervous system made from a
slime mold. Artificial life, 21(1):73–91.
Adamatzky, A., de Lacy Costello, B., and Shirakawa, T. (2008).
Universal computation with limited resources: Belousov–
zhabotinsky and physarum computers. International Journal
of Bifurcation and Chaos, 18(08):2373–2389.

Banzhaf, W. and Yamamoto, L. (2015). Artificial Chemistries. MIT
Press.
Beckers, R., Holland, O. E., and Deneubourg, J.-L. (2000). Prerational Intelligence: Adaptive Behavior and Intelligent Systems Without Symbols and Logic, Volume 2, chapter From
Local Actions to Global Tasks: Stigmergy and Collective
Robotics. Springer, Dordrecht.
Bedau, M. A., McCaskill, J. S., Packard, N. H., Parke, E. C., and
Rasmussen, S. R. (2013). Introduction to recent developments in living technology. Artificial Life, 19(3):291–298.
Bedau, M. A., McCaskill, J. S., Packard, N. H., and Rasmussen,
S. (2009). Living technology: Exploiting life’s principles in
technology. Artificial Life, 16(1):89–97.
Bousquet, F. and Page, C. L. (2004). Multi-agent simulations and
ecosystem management: a review. Ecological Modelling,
176(3–4):313 – 332.
Braitenberg, V. (1986). Vehicles: Experiments in synthetic psychology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.

Adami, C., Schossau, J., and Hintze, A. (2016). Evolutionary game
theory using agent-based methods. Phys. Life Rev., 19:1–26.

Brede, M. (2011). The evolution of cooperation on correlated payoff landscapes. Artificial Life, 17(4):365–373.

Aguilar, W., Santamarı́a Bonfil, G., Froese, T., and Gershenson, C.
(2014). The past, present, and future of artificial life. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 1(8).

Brooks, R. A. (1989). A robot that walks; emergent behaviors from
a carefully evolved network. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

Aldana, M., Dossetti, V., Huepe, C., Kenkre, V. M., and Larralde,
H. (2007). Phase transitions in systems of self-propelled
agents and related network models. Physical Review Letters,
98:095702.

Brooks, R. A. and Matarić, M. J. (1993). Robot Learning, chapter Real Robots, Real Learning Problems, pages 193–213.
Kluwer Academic Press.

Ampatzis, C., Tuci, E., Trianni, V., Christensen, A., and Dorigo, M.
(2009). Evolving self-assembly in autonomous homogeneous
robots: experiments with two physical robots. Artificial Life.
Ashby, W. R. (1947). Principles of the self-organizing dynamic
system. Journal of General Psychology, 37:125–128.

Bryden, J., Funk, S., Geard, N., Bullock, S., and Jansen, V. A. A.
(2010). Stability in flux: community structure in dynamic
networks. J. Roy. Soc. Interface, 8(60):1031–1040.
Čejková, J., Banno, T., Hanczyc, M. M., and Štěpánek, F. (2017).
Droplets as liquid robots. Artificial Life, 23(4):528–549.

Ashby, W. R. (1962). Principles of the self-organizing system. In
Foerster, H. V. and Zopf, Jr., G. W., editors, Principles of
Self-Organization, pages 255–278, Oxford. Pergamon.

Čejková, J., Hanczyc, M. M., and Štěpánek, F. (2018). Multiarmed droplets as shape-changing protocells. Artificial Life,
24(1):71–79.

Ay, N., Der, R., and Prokopenko, M. (2012). Guided selforganization: perception–action loops of embodied systems.
Theory in Biosciences, 131(3):125–127.

Cejkova, J., Novak, M., Stepanek, F., and Hanczyc, M. M. (2014).
Dynamics of chemotactic droplets in salt concentration gradients. Langmuir, 30(40):11937–11944.

Babaoglu, O., Canright, G., Deutsch, A., Di Caro, G. A., Ducatelle,
F., Gambardella, L. M., Ganguly, N., Jelasity, M. . r., Montemanni, R., Montresor, A., and Urnes, T. (2006). Design
patterns from biology for distributed computing. ACM Transactions on Autonomous Adaptive Systems, 1(1):26–66.

Codd, E. F. (1968).
Cellular Automata, chapter A SelfReproducing Universal Computer-Constructor, pages 81–
105. Academic Press, Inc.

Bak, P., Chen, K., and Kreutz, M. (1989). Self-organized criticality
in the “game of life”. Nature, 342:780–782.
Bak, P., Tang, C., and Wiesenfeld, K. (1988). Self-organized criticality. Physical Review A, 38:364.
Baldassarre, G., Trianni, V., Bonani, M., Mondada, F., Dorigo, M.,
and Nolfi, S. (2007). Self-organized coordinated motion in
groups of physically connected robots. IEEE Trans. Syst.
Man Cybern. B Cybern., 37:224–239.

Couzin, I. D., Krause, J., James, R., Ruxton, G. D., and Franks,
N. R. (2002). Collective memory and spatial sorting in animal
groups. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 218(1):1–11.
Cross, M. C. and Hohenberg, P. C. (1993). Pattern formation outside of equilibrium. Rev. Mod. Phys., 65:851–1112.
Crutchfield, J. P. (2012). Between order and chaos. Nature Physics,
8:17–24.
Dittrich, P., Ziegler, J., and Banzhaf, W. (2001). Artificial
chemistries—a review. Artificial Life, 7(3):225–275.

Dorigo, M., Trianni, V., Şahin, E., Groß, R., Labella, T. H.,
Baldassarre, G., Nolfi, S., Deneubourg, J.-L., Mondada, F.,
Floreano, D., and Gambardella, L. (2004). Evolving selforganizing behaviors for a swarm-bot. Autonomous Robots,
17(2-3):223–245.
Dorigo, M., Tuci, E., Trianni, V., Groß, R., Nouyan, S., Ampatzis,
C., Labella, T. H., O’Grady, R., Bonani, M., and Mondada,
F. (2006). Computational Intelligence: Principles and Practice, chapter SWARM-BOT: Design and implementation of
colonies of self-assembling robots. IEEE Computational Intelligence Society.
Doursat, R. (2011). The myriads of alife: Importing complex systems and self-organization into engineering. In 2011 IEEE
Symposium on Artificial Life.
Doursat, R., Sayama, H., and Michel, O., editors (2012). Morphogenetic Engineering: Toward Programmable Complex Systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Epstein, J., Axtell, R., and Project, . (1996). Growing Artificial
Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up. A Bradford
book. Brookings Institution Press.
Epstein, J. M. and Axtell, R. L. (1996). Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up. Brookings Institution Press MIT Press.
Ermentrout, G. B. and Edelstein-Keshet, L. (1993). Cellular automata approaches to biological modeling. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 160(1):97–133.
Erskine, A. and Herrmann, J. M. (2015). Cell-division behavior in
a heterogeneous swarm environment. Artif. Life, 4(481–500).
Fernández, N., Maldonado, C., and Gershenson, C. (2014).
Information measures of complexity, emergence, selforganization, homeostasis, and autopoiesis. In Prokopenko,
M., ed., Guided Self-Organization: Inception, pages 19–51.
Fernandez-Marquez, J. L., Di Marzo Serugendo, G., Montagna, S.,
Viroli, M., and Arcos, J. L. (2013). Description and composition of bio-inspired design patterns: a complete overview.
Natural Computing, 12(1):43–67.
Field, R. J. and Noyes, R. M. (1974). Oscillations in chemical systems. IV. Limit cycle behavior in a model of a real chemical
reaction. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 60(5).
Francesca, G., Brambilla, M., Brutschy, A., Trianni, V., and Birattari, M. (2014). Automode: A novel approach to the automatic design of control software for robot swarms. Swarm
Intelligence, 8(2):89–112.
Frei, R. and Di Marzo Serugendo, G. (2011). Advances in complexity engineering. Int. J. of Bio-Inspired Computation,
3(4):199–212.
Garnier, S., Combe, M., Jost, C., and Theraulaz, G. (2013). Do
ants need to estimate the geometrical properties of trail bifurcations to find an efficient route? a swarm robotics test bed.
PLOS Computational Biology, 9:e1002903.
Garnier, S., Gautrais, J., Asadpour, M., Jost, C., and Theraulaz, G.
(2009). Self-organized aggregation triggers collective decision making in a group of cockroach-like robots. Adaptive
Behavior, 17(2):109–133.

Garnier, S., Jost, C., Gautrais, J., Asadpour, M., Caprari, G., Jeanson, R., Grimal, A., and Theraulaz, G. (2008). The embodiment of cockroach aggregation behavior in a group of microrobots. Artificial Life, 14(4):387–408.
Geard, N. and Bullock, S. (2010). Competition and the dynamics of
group affiliation. Advances in Complex Systems, 13(4):501.
Gershenson, C. (2007).
Design and Control of Selforganizing Systems.
CopIt Arxives,
Mexico.
http://tinyurl.com/DCSOS2007.
Gershenson, C. (2012). Guiding the self-organization of random
Boolean networks. Theory in Biosciences, 131(3):181–191.
Gershenson, C. (2013). Living in living cities. Artificial Life, 19(3
& 4):401–420.
Gershenson, C., Csermely, P., Erdi, P., Knyazeva, H., and Laszlo,
A. (2014). The past, present and future of cybernetics and
systems research. systema: connecting matter, life, culture
and technology, 1(3):4–13.
Gershenson, C. and Heylighen, F. (2003). When can we call a
system self-organizing? In ECAL 2003, pages 606–614.
Gilbert, N. and Conte, R., editors (1995). Artificial Societies: the
computer simulation of social life. Taylor & Francis, Inc.,
Bristol, PA, USA.
Giomi, L., Hawley-Weld, N., and Mahadevan, L. (2013). Swarming, swirling and stasis in sequestered bristle-bots. Proc. R.
Soc. A, 469(2151).
Glansdorff, P. and Prigogine, I. (1971). Thermodynamic Theory
of Structure, Stability and Fluctuations. Wiley-Interscience,
New York.
Gross, T. and Sayama, H., editors (2009). Adaptive networks: Theory, Models and Applications. Understanding Complex Systems. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.
Hanczyc, M. M., Fujikawa, S. M., and Szostak, J. W. (2003). Experimental models of primitive cellular compartments: encapsulation, growth, and division. Science, 302:618–622.
Hanczyc, M. M., Toyota, T., Ikegami, T., Packard, N., and Sugawara, T. (2007). Fatty acid chemistry at the oil- water interface: self-propelled oil droplets. Journal of the American
Chemical Society, 129(30):9386–9391.
Hegselmann, R. (2017). Thomas C. Schelling and James M.
Sakoda: The intellectual, technical, and social history of a
model. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul., 20(3):15.
Hildenbrandt, H., Carere, C., and Hemelrijk, C. (2010). Selforganized aerial displays of thousands of starlings: a model.
Behavioral Ecology, 21(6):1349–1359.
Holland, O. and Melhuish, C. (1999). Stigmergy, self-organization,
and sorting in collective robotics. Artificial Life, 5:173–202.
Holzer, R. and De Meer, H. (2011). Methods for approximations of
quantitative measures in self-organizing systems. In Bettstetter, C. and Gershenson, C., editors, Self-Organizing Systems,
LCNS volume 6557, pages 1–15.

Ichinose, G. and Sayama, H. (2017). Invasion of cooperation in
scale-free networks: Accumulated versus average payoffs.
Artificial Life, 23(1):25–33.

Maturana, H. and Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition:
the Realization of the Living. D. Reidel Publishing Co.,
Dordecht, 2nd edition.

Ilachinski, A. (2001). Cellular Automata: A Discrete Universe.
World Scientific.

Murata, S., Kurokawa, H., and Kokaji, S. (1994). Self-assembling
machine. In Proc. ICRA 1994.

Kauffman, S. A. (1969). Metabolic stability and epigenesis in randomly constructed genetic nets. J. Theor. Biol., 22:437–467.

Newman, J. P. and Sayama, H. (2008). Effect of sensory blind
zones on milling behavior in a dynamic self-propelled particle model. Physical Review E, 78:011913.

Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The Origins of Order. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, UK.
Kernbach, S., Thenius, R., Kernbach, O., and Schmickl, T. (2009).
Re-embodiment of honeybee aggregation behavior in an artificial micro-robotic system. Adapt. Behav., 17(3):237–259.
Keys, G. C. and Dugatkin, L. A. (1990). Flock size and position
effects on vigilance, aggression, and prey capture in the european starling. The Condor, 92:151–159.
Kim, S. and Wensing, P. M. (2017). Foundations and Trends
in Robotics, volume 5, chapter Design of Dynamic Legged
Robots, pages 117–190. Now Publishers Inc.
Kirby, S. (2002). Natural language from artificial life. Artifical
Life, 8(2):185 – 215.
Kreyssig, P. and Dittrich, P. (2011). Reaction flow artificial
chemistries. In ECAL, pages 431–437.
Kunz, H. and Hemelrijk, C. K. (2003). Artificial fish schools: Collective effects of school size, body size, and body form. Artificial Life, 9(3):237–253.
Langton, C. G. (1984). Self-reproduction in cellular automata.
Physica D, 10:135–144.
Langton, C. G. (1986). Studying artificial life with cellular automata. Physica D, 22(1–3):129–149.
Lansing, J. S. (2002). “artificial societies” and the social sciences.
Artificial Life, 8(3):279–292.
Lansing, J. S. and Kremer, J. N. (1993). Emergent properties of
balinese water temple networks: Coadaptation on a rugged
fitness landscape. American Anthropologist, 95(1):97–114.

Nicolis, G. and Prigogine, I. (1977). Self-Organization in NonEquilibrium Systems: From Dissipative Structures to Order
Through Fluctuations. Wiley, Chichester.
Oros, N. and Nehaniv, C. L. (2007). Sexyloop: Self-reproduction,
evolution and sex in cellular automata. In 2007 IEEE Symposium on Artificial Life.
Oros, N. and Nehaniv, C. L. (2009). Dude, where is my sex
gene?—persistence of sex over evolutionary time in cellular
automata. In 2009 IEEE Symposium on Artificial Life.
Packard, N. (1986). Lattice models for solidification and aggregation. In Theory and Application of Cellular Automata, Wolfram S. (ed.), pages 305–310. World Scientific, Institute for
Advanced Study Preprint. Reprinted (1986).
Parrilla-Gutierrez, J. M., Tsuda, S., Grizou, J., Taylor, J., Henson,
A., and Cronin, L. (2017). Adaptive artificial evolution of
droplet protocells in a 3d-printed fluidic chemorobotic platform with configurable environments. Nature Communications, 8(1):1144.
Pearson, J. E. (1993). Complex patterns in a simple system. Science, 261(5118):189–192.
Pfeifer, R. and Gómez, G. (2009). Morphological Computation
– Connecting Brain, Body, and Environment. In Creating
Brain-Like Intelligence, pages 66–83. Springer, Berlin.
Polani, D., Prokopenko, M., and Yaeger, L. S. (2013). Information and self-organization of behavior. Advances in Complex
Systems, 16(2&3):1303001.
Poslad, S. (2009). Autonomous Systems and Artificial Life, chapter 10, pages 317–341. Wiley-Blackwell.

Lee, K.-J., McCormick, W. D., Pearson, J. E., and Swinney, H. L.
(1994). Experimental observation of self-replicating spots in
a reaction–diffusion system. Nature, 369(6477):215.

Prokopenko, M. (2009). Guided self-organization. HFSP Journal,
3(5):287–289.

Lehn, J.-M. (2017). Supramolecular chemistry: Where from?
where to? Chem. Soc. Rev., 46:2378–2379.

Prokopenko, M., editor (2014). Guided Self-Organization: Inception, volume 9 of Emergence, Complexity and Computation.
Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.

Levine, H., Rappel, W.-J., and Cohen, I. (2000). Self-organization
in systems of self-propelled particles. Physical Review E,
63:017101.

Prokopenko, M. and Gershenson, C. (2014). Entropy methods in
guided self-organisation. Entropy, 16(10):5232–5241.

Lindgren, K. and Nordahl, M. G. (1993). Cooperation and community structure in artificial ecosystems. Artificial Life,
1(1 2):15–37.
Lipowska, D. and Lipowski, A. (2012). Naming game on adaptive
weighted networks. Artificial Life, 18(3):311–323.
Mamei, M., Menezes, R., Tolksdorf, R., and Zambonelli, F. (2006).
Case studies for self-organization in computer science. Journal of Systems Architecture, 52(8-9):443–460.

Rasmussen, S., Bedau, M. A., Chen, L., Deamer, D., Krakauer,
D. C., Packard, N. H., and Stadler, P. F., editors (2008). Protocells: Bridging Nonliving and Living Matter Bridging Nonliving and Living Matter. MIT Press.
Rasmussen, S., Chen, L., Deamer, D., Krakauer, D. C., Packard,
N. H., Stadler, P. F., and Bedau, M. A. (2004). Transitions
from nonliving to living matter. Science, 303(5660):963–965.
Rasmussen, S., Chen, L., Nilsson, M., and Abe, S. (2003). Bridging nonliving and living matter. Artificial life, 9(3):269–316.

Reggia, J. A., Armentrout, S. L., Chou, H.-H., and Peng, Y. (1993).
Simple systems that exhibit self-directed replication. Science,
259(5099):1282–1287.
Reina, A., Bose, T., Trianni, V., and Marshall, J. A. R. (2018). Effects of spatiality on value-sensitive decisions made by robot
swarms. In DARS 2016, pages 461–473.
Reina, A., Dorigo, M., and Trianni, V. (2014). Towards a Cognitive
Design Pattern for Collective Decision-Making. In ANTS’14,
pages 194–205.
Reynolds, C. W. (1987). Flocks, herds, and schools: A distributed
behavioral model. Computer Graphics, 21(4):25–34.
Rubenstein, M., Cornejo, A., and Nagpal, R. (2014). Programmable self-assembly in a thousand-robot swarm. Science, 345(6198):795–799.
Sakoda, J. M. (1971). The checkerboard model of social interaction. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1(1):119–132.
Salzberg, C. and Sayama, H. (2004). Complex genetic evolution
of artificial selfreplicators in cellular automata. Complexity,
10(2):33–39.

Støy, K. and Nagpal, R. (2004). Self-reconfiguration using directed
growth. In Proc. DARS 2004, Toulouse, France.
Suzuki, K. and Ikegami, T. (2006). Spatial-pattern-induced evolution of a self-replicating loop network. Artificial Life,
12(4):461–485.
Taylor, T., et al. (2016). Open-ended evolution: perspectives from
the OEE workshop in York. Artificial Life, 22(3):408–423.
Trianni, V. and Dorigo, M. (2006). Self-organisation and communication in groups of simulated and physical robots. Biological
Cybernetics, 95(3):213–231.
Turgut, A. E., Çelikkanat, H., Gökçe, F., and Şahin, E. (2008).
Self-organized flocking in mobile robot swarms. Swarm Intelligence, 2(2–4):97–120.
Turing, A. (1952). The chemical basis of morphogenesis. Phil.
Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B, 237(641):37–72.
Valentini, G., Ferrante, E., and Dorigo, M. (2017). The best-of-n
problem in robot swarms: Formalization, state of the art, and
novel perspectives. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 4(9).

Saranli, U., Buehler, M., and Koditschek, D. E. (2001). RHex:
A simple and highly mobile robot. International Journal of
Robotics Research, 20(7):616–631.

Valentini, G., Ferrante, E., Hamann, H., and Dorigo, M. (2015).
Collective decision with 100 kilobots: speed versus accuracy
in binary discrimination problems. In Autonomous Agents
and Multi-Agent Systems, pages 553–580.

Sayama, H. (1999).
A new structurally dissolvable selfreproducing loop evolving in a simple cellular automata
space. Artificial Life, 5(4):343–365.

Vanag, V. K. and Epstein, I. R. (2001). Pattern formation in a
tunable medium: The Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction in an
aerosol OT microemulsion. Phys. Rev. Lett., 87(22):228301.

Sayama, H. (2004). Self-protection and diversity in self-replicating
cellular automata. Artificial Life, 10(1):83–98.

Varela, F. J., Maturana, H. R., and Uribe, R. (1974). Autopoiesis:
The organization of living systems, its characterization and a
model. Biosystems, 5(4):187–196.

Sayama, H. (2008). Swarm chemistry. Artif. Life, 15(1):105–114.
Sayama, H. (2011). Seeking open-ended evolution in swarm chemistry. In 2011 IEEE Symposium on Artificial Life.

Vicsek, T., Czirók, A., Ben-Jacob, E., Cohen, I., and Shochet, O.
(1995). Novel type of phase transition in a system of selfdriven particles. Physical Review Letters, 75:1226.

Sayama, H. (2012). Morphologies of self-organizing swarms in 3d
swarm chemistry. In Proc. GECCO 2012, pages 577–584.

Vicsek, T. and Zafeiris, A. (2012). Collective motion. Physics
Reports, 517:71–140.

Scheidler, A., Brutschy, A., Ferrante, E., and Dorigo, M. (2016).
The k-unanimity rule for self-organized decision-making
in swarms of robots. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics,
46(5):1175–1188.

von Foerster, H. (1960). On self-organizing systems and their environments. In Yovitts, M. C. and Cameron, S., editors, SelfOrganizing Systems, pages 31–50, New York. Pergamon.

Schelling, T. C. (1971). Dynamic models of segregation. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1(2):143–186.

von Neumann, J. (1966). The Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata. University of Illinois Press, Champaign. Edited by
A. W. Burks.

Shalizi, C. R. (2001). Causal Architecture, Complexity and SelfOrganization in Time Series and Cellular Automata. PhD
thesis, University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Walter, W. G. (1950). An imitation of life. Sci. Am., 182:42–45.

Simon, H. A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Werfel, J., Petersen, K., and Nagpal, R. (2014). Designing collective behavior in a termite-inspired robot construction team.
Science, 343(6172):754–758.

Sipper, M. (1998). Fifty years of research on self-replication: An
overview. Artificial Life, 4(3):237–257.
Smith, K., Kirby, S., and Brighton, H. (2003). Iterated learning:
A framework for the emergence of language. Artificial Life,
9(4):371–386.
Steels, L. (1995). A self-organizing spatial vocabulary. Artificial
Life, 2(3):319–332.

Walter, W. G. (1951). A machine that learns. Sci. Am., 185:60–63.

Whitesides, G. M. and Grzybowski, B. (2002). Self-assembly at
all scales. Science, 295(5564):2418–2421.
Wolfram, S. (1983). Statistical mechanics of cellular automata.
Reviews of Modern Physics, 55(3):601–644.
Wolfram, S. (1984). Cellular automata as models of complexity.
Nature, 311:419–424.

Wood, R., Nagpal, R., and Wei, G.-Y. (2013).
robobees. Scientific American.

Flight of the

Young, D. A. (1984). A local activator-inhibitor model of vertebrate skin patterns. Mathematical Biosciences, 72(1):51–58.
Zykov, V., Mytilinaios, E., Adams, B., and Lipson, H. (2005).
Robotics: self-reproducing machines. Nature, 435:163–164.

