Four Classes of Morphogenetic Collective Systems
Hiroki Sayama

arXiv:1405.6296v1 [nlin.AO] 24 May 2014

Collective Dynamics of Complex Systems Research Group
Binghamton University, State University of New York, Binghamton, NY 13902-6000, USA
sayama@binghamton.edu

Abstract
We studied the roles of morphogenetic principles—
heterogeneity of components, dynamic differentiation/redifferentiation of components, and local information sharing among components—in the self-organization of morphogenetic collective systems. By incrementally introducing these principles to collectives, we defined four distinct classes of morphogenetic collective systems. Monte
Carlo simulations were conducted using an extended version of the Swarm Chemistry model that was equipped with
dynamic differentiation/re-differentiation and local information sharing capabilities. Self-organization of swarms was
characterized by several kinetic and topological measurements, the latter of which were facilitated by a newly developed network-based method. Results of simulations revealed that, while heterogeneity of components had a strong
impact on the structure and behavior of the swarms, dynamic
differentiation/re-differentiation of components and local information sharing helped the swarms maintain spatially adjacent, coherent organization.

Introduction
Self-organizing behaviors of biological collectives have
been subject to many scientific inquiries (Reynolds, 1987;
Ben-Jacob, Cohen & Gutnick, 1998; Parrish & EdelsteinKeshet, 1999; Camazine et al., 2000; Sole & Goodman,
2000; Vicsek & Zafiris, 2012). They have also been enthusiastically applied to engineering problem solving as a new
paradigm and methodology for decentralized, distributed
problem solving by collaborative artificial agents (Kennedy
& Eberhart, 1995; Bonabeau, Dorigo, & Theraulaz, 1999;
Leonard & Fiorelli, 2001; Dorigo et al., 2001–2005; Pfeifer,
Iida, & Bongard, 2005; Engelbrecht, 2005; Baldassarre,
Parisi, & Nolfi, 2006; Braha, Minai, & Bar-Yam, 2006;
Doursat, 2008, 2011). Typical assumptions made in the
existing literature are that the system components interact
with each other mostly locally and make decisions at individual levels, which eventually leads to the emergence of
non-trivial (and potentially useful) macroscopic behaviors.
Those models have been successful in reproducing various
self-organizing patterns and adaptive functionalities.

However, theoretical models used in earlier studies were
predominantly focused on homogeneous physical collectives and animal populations. While their simplicity is by
itself a virtue in some regard (Vicsek & Zafiris, 2012),
they are often too simple to capture more complex phenomena seen in real-world biological collectives, such as
multi-cellular organisms’ morphogenesis and physiology,
termite colony building and maintenance, and growth and
self-organization of human social systems. These systems operate with highly sophisticated within-system regulation mechanisms, or “programs” (Doursat, 2008, 2011).
What are common among those real-world complex biological collectives are heterogeneity of components, dynamic differentiation/re-differentiation of components (i.e.,
dynamic switching of component types/roles), and local information sharing among components that influence their
differentiation. These morphogenetic principles are often
absent in earlier models of biological collective behaviors,
and they have not been fully utilized in engineering applications either. Here we define a morphogenetic collective
system as a system made of a large number of components
that self-organize to form nontrivial structures and behaviors
using these morphogenetic principles.
There is growing literature of analytical and numerical
studies on self-organizing behavior of biological collectives
(Vicsek & Zafiris, 2012; Vicsek et al., 1995; Mogilner &
Edelstein-Keshet, 1998; Kunz & Hemelrijk, 2003; Hemelrijk & Kunz, 2005; D’Orsogna et al., 2006; Szabo et al.,
2006; Chuang et al., 2007; Newman & Sayama, 2008; Paley et al., 2008; Chate et al., 2008; Romanczuk, Couzin,
& Schimansky-Geier, 2009; Tian et al., 2009; Bernoff &
Topaz, 2011). It is repeatedly reported that there are a small
number of universal classes of collective behaviors, such as
disordered, highly ordered, rotational, critical, and jamming
patterns, as well as various forms of phase transitions between those classes (Vicsek & Zafiris, 2012). Most of these
results are based on the assumption that collectives are homogeneous in terms of their components’ kinetic and behavioral properties. Within-population variations are rarely
considered in those theoretical models.

There are some studies that considered the effects of heterogeneity within biological collectives. Graves et al. studied mixed-species bird flocks in Amazonia and created a
computational model of them (Graves & Gotelli, 1993).
More recently, Couzin et al. studied self-sorting of a fish
school caused by physical variations among individuals
(Couzin et al., 2002). His group also studied collective decisions of a swarm influenced by a small number of informed
individuals, or leaders (Couzin et al., 2005). We also proposed the Swarm Chemistry model (Sayama, 2009, 2010,
2012a,b) to explore self-organization of swarms made of kinetically distinct types of particles. However, these studies
still assumed that within-population variations are variations
of fixed individual properties. None of them considered a
more sophisticated form of dynamic, adaptive changes of
behavioral rules of individuals within a population, potentially through local communication and information sharing.
When one looks at real-world biological collectives, there
are a number of examples where more complex forms of
heterogeneous collectives produce highly intricate patterns
and behaviors that look almost self-evidently “designed” by
someone or something (Doursat, 2008, 2011; Turner, 2007).
Such instances can be found at every scale in biology. For
example, Ben-Jacob et al. reported very complex, heterogeneous, even intelligent, information processing and motion control taking place in bacteria societies (Ben-Jacob,
Cohen & Gutnick, 1998; Ingham & Ben-Jacob, 2008; BenJacob, 2009). Social insects are another well-studied example, where dynamic switching of different roles driven
by local information sharing realizes highly efficient division of labor (Camazine et al., 2000; Bonabeau, Dorigo,
& Theraulaz, 1999; Bonabeau et al., 1997; Campos et al.,
2000; Beshers & Fewell, 2001). Among the most interesting and complex examples are the incredibly sophisticated, large-scale mounds built and maintained by termites
(Turner, 2000, 2007, 2011). A termite mound operates as if
it were a carefully designed and fully integrated physiological system, inside which individual termites “differentiate”
to play various different roles. The complexity of such realworld biological collectives were not fully captured in the
earlier literature of collective behaviors mentioned above.

Four Classes of Morphogenetic Collective
Systems
As briefly reviewed above, the dynamics and capabilities of
different types of morphogenetic collective systems are yet
to be fully understood. Recent increase of studies that incorporate at least part of the morphogenetic principles indicates
the promising nature of this direction of research. In order
to systematically study the effects of each of the morphogenetic principles, here we propose the following four distinct classes of morphogenetic collective systems, which are
obtained by incrementally introducing morphogenetic principles to agents’ behavioral and communication capabilities

(Fig. 1):
A. Homogeneous collectives, where agents’ behaviors are
determined by a globally defined, uniformly applicable
function of observations.
B. Heterogeneous collectives, where an agent’s behavior is
determined by a function of observations specified by the
agent’s static state or type.
C. Heterogeneous collectives with dynamic differentiation/
re-differentiation, where the heterogeneity of agent behaviors is created and dynamically maintained by transitions of agents’ internal states. Agents’ state transitions
are also determined by a function of observations and
states.
D. Heterogeneous collectives with dynamic differentiation/
re-differentiation and local information sharing, where
agents can share information (internal states and their observations) with local neighbors, in addition to all the
above capabilities.1
Our rationale in defining these four classes is that each morphogenetic principle requires the precedent one. Namely,
differentiation/re-differentiation requires multiple states or
types of components (heterogeneity), and information sharing would make sense only if agents could change their
behaviors according to it (differentiation/re-differentiation).
We thus argue that these four classes should represent a natural, straightforward hierarchy of morphogenetic collective
systems, arranged in the ascending order of their organizational complexity.
In this classification, Class A includes traditional collective behavior models, including Boids (Reynolds, 1987)
and its variants that use homogeneous swarms. More recent models that use heterogeneous swarms (Couzin et al.,
2002, 2005; Sayama, 2009, 2012a) belong to Class B. Examples that may be close to those of Class C are the variants of Swarm Chemistry (Sayama, 2010, 2011; Sayama &
Wong, 2011) that implemented stochastic differentiation/redifferentiation of agents, though it was not driven by any
state-transition function and thus not dynamical or adaptive.
Finally, real biological/social morphogenetic systems—such
as embryogenesis of multicellular organisms, colonies of eusocial insects and cities in human civilizations—are most
likely in Class D. Several models proposed in Morphogenetic Engineering (Doursat, Sayama, & Michel, 2012)
also belong here. However, we are not aware of any well
established model of swarm-based collective behaviors that
belong to this class.
1
Here we consider information sharing as explicit signal transmission among agents to share externally unobservable information about their internal states and observations with local neighbors. This should not be confused with kinetically transferred information theoretic waves propagating in swarms that were studied
in recent literature (Wang et al., 2012).

Figure 1: Four classes of morphogenetic collective systems proposed in this paper. Variables si , oi and ai represent the internal
state of agent i, the observation it receives from the environment, and the corresponding action it takes (e.g., acceleration),
respectively. A: Homogeneous collectives. Agents’ behaviors are determined by a function of observations, F (◦). B: Heterogeneous collectives. Each agent has its own static state (si ), and F takes si as an additional argument as well as oi . C:
Heterogeneous collectives with dynamic differentiation/re-differentiation. Agents’ states can dynamically change according
to another function, G(◦). D: Heterogeneous collectives with dynamic differentiation/ re-differentiation and local information sharing. Arguments of the functions are sets of si and oi within the agent’s neighborhood, which represents the local
information sharing.

Model: Morphogenetic Swarm Chemistry
To study qualitative and quantitative differences in possible morphologies and behaviors between the four classes,
we have developed a mathematical model of morphogenetic
collective systems by implementing new rule-based state
transition and local information sharing capabilities in the
Swarm Chemistry model (Sayama, 2010, 2012b). Swarm
Chemistry is naturally suitable for this research task because
it already can represent both homogeneous and heterogeneous collective systems in its model framework.
In the extended model, the design of a swarm is specified
in three parts: a recipe R, a preference weight matrix U ,
and a local information sharing coefficient w. Definitions of
these parts are as follows:
Recipe R: A list of different kinetic parameter settings for
multiple swarm states. Each entry in a recipe is composed
of a relative frequency of a particular state within the

swarm and its kinetic parameter settings (e.g., local perception range, normal speed, strengths of kinetic forces,
etc.). This part of the specification is the same as in our
earlier studies (Sayama, 2009, 2010).
Preference weight matrix U : A n × (n + 5) rectangular
real-valued random matrix where n is the length of the
recipe, i.e., the number of possible states of agents in a
swarm. Its contents represent how each observation component (defined later) affects the agent’s preference for a
particular state choice.
Local information sharing coefficient w: A real number
in [0, 1], which determines how much information about
the neighbors’ states and observations are to be shared and
incorporated into the agent’s own state transition.
Each agent in a swarm in this extended model has its own
state si , in addition to position xi and velocity vi . The movement and state transition of agents is simulated as follows:

Step 1. An agent computes its action (acceleration) based
on its neighbors’ relative positions and velocities using the standard Swarm Chemistry simulation algorithm
(Sayama, 2009).
Step 2. Before making any actual movement, the agent also
computes an (n + 5)-dimensional observation vector oi
that summarizes the situation the agent is in. More details
of this vector will be discussed later.
Step 3. Once all the agents computed their actions and observation vectors, each agent updates its velocity according to the computed acceleration, and then moves using
the updated velocity.
Step 4. The agent computes a state preference vector ui =
(1 − w)U oi + wU hoii , where hoii is the average of observation vectors of other agents in the local neighborhood.
If there are no other agents found in the neighborhood,
ui = U oi regardless of w.
Step 5. The agent checks if the si -th component of ui ,
ui (si ), is negative. If this is the case, it means that
its current state is not preferable in the current situation, and therefore the agent attempts, with probability
1 − exp(ui (si )), to choose a new state. A new state will
be chosen as the next value of si , via a roulette selection
where exp(u(s)) is used as the selection weight for state
s.
The observation vector oi plays an important role in this
model. While there are many choices for how to construct
an observation vector, we used the following definition as an
initial step of our investigation. The first n components of oi
are all 0’s except for the si -th component that is set to 1. This
part embeds the information about the agent’s current state
into the vector so that it can be superposed and averaged
with other agents’ states. The remaining five components of
oi are as follows:
• |hxii − xi |2 /Ri2 : Square of the relative distance from
the average position of other agents in the neighborhood
(hxii ). Ri is the perception range in the parameter set
the agent is currently using. If there are no other agents
nearby, this is set to 0.
2
• vi2 /vin
: Square of the ratio of the agent’s current velocity and the normal velocity (vin ) in the parameter set the
agent is currently using.
2
• hvi2 /vin
: Square of the ratio of the neighbors’ average
velocity (hvi) and the normal velocity in the parameter set
the agent is currently using. If there are no other agents
nearby, this is set to 0.
2
• |hvii − vi |2 /vin
: Square of the relative difference in velocity between the agent and its neighbors. If there are no
other agents nearby, this is set to 0.

• 1: A constant term.
Although it is a highly constrained, mathematically stylized formulation, this extended Swarm Chemistry model
can still describe a wide variety of morphogenetic collective
systems, including the four classes proposed in this paper.
Specifically, including only one parameter set in R and letting U = 0 and w = 0 will make a Class A swarm. Including multiple parameter sets in R with U = 0 and w = 0 will
make a Class B swarm. A Class C swarm will be obtained by
additionally adopting a non-zero matrix for U while w = 0.
Finally, a Class D swarm will be obtained by adopting nonzero U and w.

Experiments
We conducted systematic Monte Carlo simulations to see
if there were any significant differences in the dynamics of
morphogenetic collective systems among the four classes.
Specifications of swarm designs were configured as follows:
• The number of agents was fixed to 300 for all cases.
• The number of possible agent states n was set to 1 for
Class A swarms, or otherwise ξ + 2 where ξ is a random
integer sampled from a Poisson distribution with mean 1.
• Recipe R was created by sampling each kinetic parameter’s value from a uniform distribution between 0 and the
parameter’s maximum value defined in (Sayama, 2009).
The relative frequencies of different parameter settings
were determined by randomly dividing 300 into n portions.
• Preference weight matrix U was set to all 0’s for Class A
and B swarms. For Class C and D swarms, each component of U was sampled from a normal distribution with
mean 0 and standard deviation 0.1.
• Local information sharing coefficient w was set to 0 for
Class A, B and C swarms, while it was sampled from a
uniform distribution between 0 and 1 for Class D swarms.
Five hundred independent simulation runs were conducted for each class. Each run was initialized with 300
agents whose positions were randomly distributed in a twodimensional 300 × 300 (in arbitrary unit) square area and
whose velocities were set to 0, and then simulated for 400
time steps. In each time step during the second half of the
simulation (t = 201 − 400), the following properties were
measured from the agents’ positions and velocities:
• Average speed of the swarm as a whole (|hvi|, where h. . .i
denotes an average over all the agents hereafter unless
noted otherwise).
• Average of absolute speed of agents (h|v|i).

A

B

C

• Average size of connected components.
• Homogeneity of sizes of connected components. This
was measured by the normalized entropy in the distribution of sizes of connected components. If there was only
one connected component, this was set to 1.
• Size of the largest connected component.

D

E

• Average size of connected components smaller than the
largest one. If there was only one connected component,
this was set to 0.
• Average clustering coefficient.
• Link density.

Figure 2: Construction of networks from swarms. Top: Illustration of the algorithm. A: Spatially distributed agents.
B: Ranges of neighbor recognition drawn around the agents.
The radius of each range is αdi (see text). C: Resulting
network where pairs of agents that mutually recognize each
other as neighbors are connected. Bottom: An example of
network construction from a simulated swarm. D: Original
swarm snapshot. E: Network constructed from agent positions in D.

Altogether, we obtained time series of 5 + 7 = 12 measurements from each simulation run. These time series were
further summarized by calculating their respective mean and
standard deviation over time. As a result, the structure and
behavior of each swarm was characterized by 2 × 12 = 24
outcome variables. Finally, a visual image of the swarm at
the end of the simulation (t = 400) was also recorded for
visual inspection of the swarm’s topology.
The simulator was implemented in Python using NetworkX (Hagberg, Schult, & Swart, 2008) and PyCX
(Sayama, 2013). The code is available upon request.

Results
• Average angular velocity of the swarm as a whole (h(x −
hxi) × v/|x − hxi|2 i).
• Average distance of agents from center of mass (h|x −
hxi|i).
• Average pairwise distance (h|x1 − x2 |i, where x1 and x2
are positions of two randomly sampled agents; the average in this case was over 10,000 sampled pairs).
In addition, topological properties of the swarm morphology were also measured. For this task, we constructed a network for each swarm at each time step during the measurement period by connecting agents that were spatially close to
each other. More specifically, we first measured a characteristic “neighbor” distance di for each agent by calculating the
mean of its distances to its k nearest neighbors. The agent
then recognized all other agents within distance αdi as its
“neighbors”. Once this was done for all agents, the pairs of
agents that mutually recognized each other as “neighbors”
were actually connected. We used k = 2 and α = 1.7,
which were empirically chosen to approximate cluster structures recognized visually by human experimenters. Figure 2
shows examples of this network construction process.
For each swarm converted to a network, we measured the
following topological properties:
• Number of connected components.

Simulation results are summarized in Table 1, where medians of 24 outcome variables were shown for each class together with p-values obtained using the Kruskal-Wallis median test between the four classes.2 Statistically significant
differences were detected for most of the outcome variables,
especially for topological outcome variables, which demonstrates the effectiveness of our network-based topology characterization method. Most of the variables with statistical
significance showed clear differences between Class A (homogeneous) and other (heterogeneous) swarms. The temporal mean of the average clustering coefficient was the only
outcome variable that did not show statistically significant
differences between the classes. This metric may be primarily determined by constraints built in our simulation or
network construction algorithms.
We found several notable patterns in Table 1. First, the
medians of Class A swarms consistently took the lowest values among the four classes with regard to the temporal standard deviations of measurements (lower half of Table 1).
This indicates that the interactions between different types
of agents helped produce dynamic behaviors, causing temporal fluctuations of their macroscopic properties. Second,
there were clear differences between Class B (with no state
2

Visual snapshots of the swarms’ final configurations
for each of the four classes are also available online at
http://bingweb.binghamton.edu/˜sayama/SwarmChemistry/.

Kinetic
outcomes
Topological
outcomes
Kinetic
outcomes
Topological
outcomes

Temporal Standard Deviation

Temporal Mean

Table 1: Comparison of medians of 24 outcome variables between four classes of morphogenetic collective systems. The pvalues of the Kruskal-Wallis median test were shown in the rightmost column (*: p < 0.01, **: p < 0.001, ***: p < 0.0001).
Variables with statistically significant differences were highlighted in color (yellow: high, cyan: low). The intensity of color is
adjusted according to the p-value of the variable and the distance from overall average. The top half shows temporal means of
the 12 measurements while the bottom half shows temporal standard deviations of the 12 measurements.
Class A
median

Class B
median

Class C
median

Class D
median

K-W test
p-value

average speed of swarm

2.46921

3.63557

3.71434

4.0491

0.00006***

average absolute speed of agents

7.93488

9.14903

9.15137

9.86948

0.00024**

average angular velocity of swarm

0.000381388 0.00135723 0.000879347 0.000775047 0.00000***

average distance from center

144.646

375.673

215.245

206.946

0.00000***

average pairwise distance

197.277

521.194

302.728

284.57

0.00000***

number of connected components

1.54

11.65

9.91

7.8175

0.00000***

average size of connected components

234.013

27.7284

32.4974

41.5561

0.00000***

0.647418

0.669637

0.670815

0.00000***

homogeneity of connected component sizes 0.957634
size of largest connected component

298.633

177.26

199.48

212.645

0.00000***

average size of smaller connected
components

1.00075

6.93472

5.18955

5.0891

0.00000***

average clustering coefficient

0.43364

0.434347

0.433522

0.431574

0.18211

link density

0.0164127

0.0131673

0.0137475

0.0136435

0.00000***

average speed of swarm

0.109343

0.318225

0.28713

0.262987

0.00000***

average absolute speed of agents

0.0285353

0.0849336

0.0910742

0.0853709

0.00000***

average angular velocity of swarm

0.00185723 0.00357737 0.00376014 0.00401965 0.00000***

average distance from center

0.353314

45.9475

11.2173

4.87346

0.00000***

average pairwise distance

1.11209

62.249

15.4285

6.60913

0.00000***

number of connected components

0.156125

2.17945

1.86601

1.79757

0.00000***

average size of connected components

1.24983

4.90952

4.20666

4.12473

0.00000***

0.0424783

0.0458559

0.053207

0.00000***

5.37309

4.24246

4.94907

0.00000***

1.54578

1.03091

1.04183

0.00000***

0.0165864

0.0162297

0.00000***

homogeneity of connected component sizes 0.0176554
0.211601
size of largest connected component
average size of smaller connected
components

0.297179

average clustering coefficient

0.00936916 0.0174722

link density

0.000306748 0.000324602 0.000351948 0.000350871 0.00000***

transitions) and Classes C & D (with state transitions) regarding temporal standard deviations of the average distance
of agents from the center of mass and the average pairwise
distance. This is likely due to the fact that, while Class B
swarms tend to disperse into smaller clusters easily, agents
of Class C & D swarms can stay together and maintain spatially adjacent, coherent organization more often, because
adaptive state transitions help initially incompatible agents
assimilate into kinetically compatible types.
Finally, we noticed a consistent trend in a number of the
outcome variables that the properties of Class C & D swarms
sat somewhere in between those in Class A and Class B.
This could also be understood in that dynamic state transition, possibly driven by local information sharing, has enabled swarms to adaptively achieve coherence in their structures and behaviors. However, the results also indicate that

the swarms in Classes C & D did not simply turn into a
more homogeneous state like Class A ones, because nearly
all the topological outcome variables showed significant differences between Class A and Classes C & D. Therefore,
this apparent trend found in morphogenetic collective systems in Classes C & D must be understood not as simple
homogenization but as an emergent shift of higher-level system properties.

Conclusions
In this paper, we proposed a classification of morphogenetic
collective systems based on the absence or presence of
three morphogenetic principles: heterogeneity of components, dynamic differentiation/re-differentiation of components, and local information sharing among components.
Monte Carlo simulations with an extended morphogenetic

Swarm Chemistry model demonstrated that, while heterogeneity of components had a strong impact by itself on
the structure and behavior of the swarms, the other two
morphogenetic principles, i.e., dynamic differentiation/redifferentiation of components and local information sharing,
greatly contributed to the maintenance of spatially adjacent,
coherent organization of swarms. Interestingly, many outcome measurements of Class C and D swarms fell somewhere in between those of Class A and Class B. This result
indicates that the dynamic, adaptive state transition of components possibly driven by their mutual information sharing
is playing an essential role in achieving structural and functional integration of biological and social collectives.
The present study has several fundamental limitations.
First, the dynamics of swarms were explored only through a
limited number of random parameter sampling and analyzed
only using simple median comparisons. It was a reasonable
first step of exploration when nothing was known about the
model, but this approach would not be able to characterize
behavioral diversity and richness of each class of systems or
to discover non-trivial behaviors that would be statistically
rare but unique and interesting. To fully explore and understand the limit of dynamical diversity of each class, more
sophisticated evolutionary or other population-based search
methods should be conducted. Now that we have 24 outcome metrics defined, we can try evolving morphogenetic
collective systems toward a certain area in this metric space,
to examine how closely the swarms of each class can achieve
the target properties.
Second, the model we used in this study (morphogenetic
Swarm Chemistry) was developed using somewhat arbitrary
design decisions. The behavioral rules were exactly the
same as those used in previous swarm models, which were
limited to agents’ acceleration only. The state transition
functions were defined in a rather simple and linear fashion
using a product of a preferential weight matrix and an observation vector. Moreover, the variables included in the observation vector were chosen without substantial justification.
We will need to consider adopting more open-ended, nonlinear forms of representations for observations, state transitions and agent behaviors. We plan to apply genetic programming (Banzhaf et al., 2000) or other symbolic evolutionary search methods (Bongard & Lipson, 2007; Schmidt
& Lipson, 2009) to overcome this limitation in the future.
Finally, the scope of the experiments was limited only to
“free” self-organization of collectives without any stimuli or
constraints. Exposing swarms to such external conditions
and measuring their adaptive responses will further clarify
the functional differences between different classes of morphogenetic collective systems.

Acknowledgments
This material is based upon work supported by the US National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1319152.

References
Baldassarre, G., Parisi, D., and Nolfi, S. (2006). Distributed coordination of simulated robots based on self-organization. Artificial Life, 12: 289–311.
Banzhaf, W., Koza, J. R., Ryan, C., Spector, L., and Jacob, C.
(2000). Genetic programming. Intelligent Systems and their
Applications, 15(3): 74–84.
Ben-Jacob, E. (2009). Learning from bacteria about natural information processing. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1178: 78–90.
Ben-Jacob, E., Cohen, I., and Gutnick, D. L. (1998). Cooperative
organization of bacterial colonies: From genotype to morphotype. Annual Review of Microbiology, 52: 779–806.
Bernoff, A. J. and Topaz, C. M. (2011). A primer of swarm equilibria. SIAM Journal of Applied Dynamical Systems, 10: 212–
250.
Beshers, S. N. and Fewell, J. H. (2001). Models of division of labor
in social insects. Annual Review of Entomology, 46: 413–440.
Bonabeau, E., Dorigo, M., and Theraulaz, G. (1999). Swarm Intelligence: From Natural to Artificial Systems. Oxford University Press.
Bonabeau, E., Sobkowski, A., Theraulaz, G., and Deneubourg, J.L. (1997). Adaptive task allocation inspired by a model of division of labor in social insects. In Lundh, D., Olsson, B. and
Narayanan A., eds., Bio Computation and Emergent Computing, pages 36–45.
Bongard, J. and Lipson, H. (2007). Automated reverse engineering
of nonlinear dynamical systems. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 104: 9943–9948.
Braha, D., Minai, A. A., and Bar-Yam, Y., eds. (2006). Complex
Engineered Systems: Science Meets Technology. Springer.
Camazine, S., Deneubourg, J.-L., Franks, N. R., Sneyd, J., Theraulaz G., and Bonabeau, E. (2000). Self-Organization in Biological Systems. Princeton University Press.
Campos, M., Bonabeau, E., Theraulaz, G. and Deneubourg, J.-L.
(2000). Dynamic scheduling and division of labor in social
insects. Adaptive Behavior, 8: 83–95.
Chate, H., Ginelli, F., Gregoire, G., and Raynaud, F. (2008). Collective motion of self-propelled particles interacting without
cohesion. Physical Review E, 77: 046113.
Chuang, Y. L., D’Orsogna, M. R., Marthaler, D., Bertozzi, A. L.,
and Chayes, L. S. (2007). State transitions and the continuum limit for a 2D interacting, self-propelled particle system.
Physica D, 232: 33–47.
Couzin, I. D., Krause, J., Franks, N. R., and Levin, S. A. (2005).
Effective leadership and decision making in animal groups on
the move. Nature, 433: 513–516.
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: 1–11.
Dorigo, M. et al. (2001–2005).
http://www.swarm-bots.org/.

Swarm-Bots

Project.

D’Orsogna, M. R., Chuang, Y. L., Bertozzi, A. L., and Chayes,
L. (2006). Self-propelled particles with soft-core interactions:
Patterns, stability, and collapse. Physical Review Letters, 96:
104302.
Doursat, R. (2008). Organically grown architectures: Creating decentralized, autonomous systems by embryomorphic engineering. In Würtz, R. P., ed., Organic Computing, pages 167–
200. Springer.
Doursat, R. (2011). The myriads of Alife: Importing complex systems and self-organization into engineering. In Proceedings
of the Third IEEE Symposium on Artificial Life, pages 1–8.
Doursat, R., Sayama, H. and Michel, O., eds. (2012). Morphogenetic Engineering: Toward Programmable Complex Systems, Springer.
Engelbrecht, A. P. (2005). Fundamentals of Computational Swarm
Intelligence. John Wiley and Sons.

Reynolds, C. W. (1987). Flocks, herds, and schools: A distributed
behavioral model. Computer Graphics, 21(4): 25–34.
Romanczuk, P., Couzin, I. D., and Schimansky-Geier, L. (2009).
Collective motion due to individual escape and pursuit response. Physical Review Letters, 102: 010602.
Sayama, H. (2009). Swarm chemistry. Artificial Life, 15: 105–114.
Sayama, H. (2010). Robust morphogenesis of robotic swarms.
IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine, 5(3): 43–49.
Sayama, H. (2011). Seeking open-ended evolution in Swarm
Chemistry. Proceedings of the Third IEEE Symposium on Artificial Life (IEEE ALIFE 2011), pages 186–193.
Sayama, H. (2012a). Morphologies of self-organizing swarms
in 3D Swarm Chemistry. Proceedings of the 2012 Genetic
and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO 2012),
pages 577–584.

Graves, G. R. and Gotelli, N. J. (1993). Assembly of avian mixedspecies flocks in Amazonia. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 90: 1388–1391.

Sayama, H. (2012b). Swarm-based morphogenetic artificial life.
In Doursat, R., Sayama, H. and Michel, O., eds., Morphogenetic Engineering: Toward Programmable Complex Systems, pages 191–208.

Hagberg, A. A., Schult, D. A., and Swart, P. J. (2008). Exploring
network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX.
Proceedings of the 7th Python in Science Conference, pages
11–15.

Sayama, H. (2013). PyCX: A Python-based simulation code repository for complex systems education. Complex Adaptive Systems Modeling, 1: 2.

Hemelrijk, C. K. and Kunz, H. (2005). Density distribution and
size sorting in fish schools: an individual-based model. Behavioral Ecology, 16: 178–187.

Sayama, H. and Wong, C. (2011). Quantifying evolutionary dynamics of Swarm Chemistry. In Advances in Artificial Life,
ECAL 2011: Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Artificial Life, pages 729–730. MIT Press.

Ingham, C. J. and Ben-Jacob, E. (2008). Swarming and complex
pattern formation in Paenibacillus vortex studied by imaging
and tracking cells. BMC Microbiology, 8: 36.

Schmidt, M. and Lipson, H. (2009). Distilling free-form natural
laws from experimental data. Science, 324: 81–85.

Kennedy, J. and Eberhart, R. (1995). Particle swarm optimization.
In Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE International Conference
on Neural Networks, pages 1942–1948.
Kunz, H. and Hemelrijk, C. K. (2003). Artificial fish schools: Collective effects of school size, body size, and body form. Artificial Life, 9: 237–253.
Leonard, N. and Fiorelli, E. (2001). Virtual leaders, artificial potentials and coordinated control of groups. In Proceedings of
the 40th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pages
2968–2973.
Mogilner, A. and Edelstein-Keshet, L. (1998). A non-local model
of a swarm. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 38: 534–570.
Newman, J. and Sayama, H. (2008). Effect of sensory blind zones
on milling behavior in a dynamic self-propelled particle
model. Physical Review E, 78: 011913.
Paley, D. A., Leonard, N. E., Sepulchre, R. J., and Couzin, I. D.
(2008). Spatial models of bistability in biological collectives.
In Proceedings of the 46th IEEE Conference on Decision and
Control, pages 4851–4856.
Parrish, J. K. and Edelstein-Keshet, L. (1999). Complexity, pattern,
and evolutionary trade-offs in animal aggregation. Science,
284: 99–101.
Pfeifer, R., Iida, F., and Bongard, J. (2005). New robotics: Design
principles for intelligent systems. Artificial Life, 11: 99–120.

Sole, R. and Goodman, B. (2000). Signs of Life: How Complexity
Pervades Biology. Basic Books.
Szabo, B., Szollosi, G. J., Gonci, B., Juranyi, Zs., Selmeczi, D., and
Vicsek, T. (2006). Phase transition in the collective migration
of tissue cells: experiment and model. Physical Review E, 74:
061908.
Tian, B.-M., Yang, H.-X., Li W., Wang, W.-X., Wang, B.-H., and
Zhou, T. (2009). Optimal view angle in collective dynamics
of self-propelled agents. Physical Review E, 79: 052102.
Turner, J. S. (2000). The Extended Organism: The Physiology of
Animal-Built Structures. Harvard University Press.
Turner, J. S. (2007). The Tinkerer’s Accomplice: How Design
Emerges from Life Itself. Harvard University Press.
Turner, J. S. (2011). Termites as models of swarm cognition.
Swarm Intelligence, 5: 19–43.
Vicsek, T., Czirok, 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: 1226–1229.
Vicsek, T. and Zafiris, A. (2012). Collective motion. Physics Reports, 517: 71–140.
Wang, X. R., Miller, J. M., Lizier, J. T., Prokopenko, M., and Rossi,
L. F. (2012). Quantifying and tracing information cascades in
swarms. PLOS ONE, 7(7), e40084.

