1

Information Transfer in Swarms with Leaders
YU SUN, LOUIS F. ROSSI and CHIEN-CHUNG SHEN, University of Delaware
JENNIFER MILLER, Trinity College
X. ROSALIND WANG, JOSEPH T. LIZIER and MIKHAIL PROKOPENKO, CSIRO Computational
Informatics
UPUL SENANAYAKE, The University of Sydney

1. INTRODUCTION
Swarm dynamics is the study of collections of agents that interact with one another without central
control. In natural systems, insects, birds, fish and other large mammals function in larger units to
increase the overall fitness of the individuals. Their behavior is coordinated through local interactions
to enhance mate selection, predator detection, migratory route identification and so forth [Andersson
and Wallander 2003; Buhl et al. 2006; Nagy et al. 2010; Partridge 1982; Sumpter et al. 2008]. In artificial systems, swarms of autonomous agents can augment human activities such as search and rescue,
and environmental monitoring by covering large areas with multiple nodes [Alami et al. 2007; Caruso
et al. 2008; Ogren et al. 2004; Paley et al. 2007; Sibley et al. 2002]. In this paper, we explore the interplay between swarm dynamics, covert leadership and theoretical information transfer. A leader is a
member of the swarm that acts upon information in addition to what is provided by local interactions.
Depending upon the leadership model, leaders can use their external information either all the time or
in response to local conditions [Couzin et al. 2005; Sun et al. 2013]. A covert leader is a leader that is
treated no differently than others in the swarm, so leaders and followers participate equally in whatever interaction model is used [Rossi et al. 2007]. In this study, we use theoretical information transfer
as a means of analyzing swarm interactions to explore whether or not it is possible to distinguish between followers and leaders based on interactions within the swarm. We find that covert leaders can
be distinguished from followers in a swarm because they receive less transfer entropy than followers.
2. MODELING THREE-ZONE SWARMING WITH COVERT LEADERS
In swarms of autonomous individuals, large-scale behavior results from decisions made based on local
information. Local interactions are often defined by three zones surrounding each individual [Aoki
1982; Couzin et al. 2002; Huth and Wissel 1992; Lukeman et al. 2010; Vicsek et al. 1995]. The zone
closest to the individual is the zone of repulsion, and the individual will respond to neighbors in this
zone by moving away from them. The zone of orientation is further away, and an individual will align
itself with the direction of travel for neighbors in this region. Finally, an individual will move toward
neighbors in its zone of attraction. The responses to all neighbors are combined, and the individual
turns toward this desired direction.
We use continuous zones of interaction to avoid having an individual’s desired direction make a
sudden large change. The responses to neighbors are weighted by Gaussian kernels depending on the
distance from the individual to its neighbors. Although the kernels take every individual in the swarm
into account, they decay so quickly that the influence of a far-off individual is negligible compared to
closer neighbors. A cross-section view of the kernels is shown in Fig. 1.
The individuals in our swarms are governed by a system of differential equations introduced in [Miller
et al. 2012]. For an individual, we define the position vector to be ~s. To compute the local interactions
Collective Intelligence 2014.

1:2

•

Y, Sun, L. F. Rossi, C-C. Shen, J. Miller, X. R. Wang, J. Lizier, U. Senanayake, M. Prokopenko
1
repulsion
alignment
attraction
0.5

0

−0.5

−1
−20

−15

−10

−5

0
x

5

10

15

20

Fig. 1. Location of zones of repulsion (ZOR), orientation (ZOO) and attraction (ZOA) along with cross-section views of normalized interaction kernels.

for individual i, we use ~sij = ~sj − ~si for the distance between neighbors i and j. The desired velocity
vector for individual i is given by ~vd,i = ~vr,i + ~vo,i + ca~va,i where :
PN
1
N
sij |2 /4σ22 )~vj
X
j=1 4πσ22 exp(−|~
1
2
2
~
s
exp(−|~
s
|
/4σ
),
~
v
=
−
~vr,i =
,
P
ij
ij
o,i
1
N
1
8πσ14
sij |2 /4σ22 )
2 exp(−|~
j=1
j=1
4πσ2

~va,i =

N
X
j=1

1
~sij |~sij |2 exp(−|~sij |2 /4σ32 ),
64πσ36

(1)

where ca controls the relative importance of attraction, and σ1 , σ2 , and σ3 control the zone widths. Once
~vd has been computed, the velocity for each individual is updated.
We use the methodology in [Sun et al. 2013] to model covert leaders in the swarm. In this case, the
additional information is a preferred direction for the swarm. We use a modified form of the linear
leadership model [Couzin et al. 2005] so that leaders will respond more strongly to their additional
information where the swarm is sparse (low density), and interact more like followers where the swarm
is denser. In our model, the follower’s desired velocity ~vlf is the same as for the leaderless model (1).
The desired velocity for a covert leader ~vld is represented by the following equation:


Gσ2 ∗(ρf +ρl )
Gσ2 ∗(ρf +ρl )
σ
σ
~vlf + e−
~g,
(2)
~vld = 1 − e−
where the ∗ denotes a convolution, G is Gaussian smoothing kernel and ρf and ρl is the follower and
leader density. The leader’s influence decays over the scale σ. Our analysis in [Sun et al. 2013] shows
that the stability properties are the same as for the leaderless model so information can be inserted
into the system without changing the stability of the coherent structure.
3. TRANSFER ENTROPY FOR SWARMS
We utilized a framework for local information transfer developed by Lizier et al. [Lizier et al. 2008].
The framework precisely quantifies information transfer at each spatiotemporal point in a complex
system. Previous works [Wang et al. 2012; Miller et al. 2014] showed long range communications
between individuals within a swarm can be captured by conditional transfer entropy (CTE). The local
CTE from a source agent Y to a destination agent X conditioned on another contributor W is the local
mutual information between the previous state of the source yn and the next state of the destination
(k)
xn+1 , conditioned on the past of the destination xn and the previous state of the contributor wn :
(k)

tY →X|W (n + 1, k) = lim log2
k→∞

Collective Intelligence 2014.

p(xn+1 |xn , wn , yn )
(k)

p(xn+1 |xn , wn )

,

(3)

Information Transfer in Swarms with Leaders

•

1:3

where tY →X (n + 1, k) represents finite-k approximation. The variables in Equation 3 are composed of
the relative positions and change in velocity of the swarm individuals:
yn = {~s np − ~s np′ , ~v np − ~v np′ }, wn = |v|n , xn = ~v np − ~v pn−1 , xn+1 = ~v n+1
− ~v np
p
where p is the destination swarm individual and p′ is the source individual.
To calculate the CTE in swarms, previous works [Wang et al. 2012; Miller et al. 2014] treated the
swarm as homogeneous and estimated the probability distribution function (PDF) in Eq. 3 by accumulating the observations across all agents. In this paper however, the leaders and followers are known to
react differently given their neighboring conditions, and thus the PDF needs to capture the reactions of
the individuals within the swarm accordingly. Therefore, we separate the observations by the role of the
destination individual, and estimate separate PDFs for those destination individuals that are followers
and those that are leaders. We characterize overall transfer as the average over all causally connected
pairs Y → X F , where F denotes followers, at each time step: T (n + 1, k)F = htY →X F (n + 1, k)iY →X F ,
and similarly for the leaders.
4. RESULTS: INFORMATION THEORY AND IDENTIFYING COVERT LEADERS

Average Conditional Transfer Entropy (CTE)

T=1

6

Transfer entropy
2
Followers
Leaders
1.5

1

2

2
0

−2

−2

−4

−4

0

0

2

4

2

4

6

Time

8

10

12

6

8

10

12

T=5

8

0.5

0

4

0

−6−2

−6−2

6

6
4

2

2

0

0

−2

−2

−4

−4
0

2

4

0

4

2

6

8

10

12

−6−2

6

8

10

12

T=12

8

4

−6−2

T=2

6

4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Fig. 2. The transfer entropy received by followers and leaders over time along with the swarm configuration at key times during
self-organization. Leaders are displayed in red, but swarm interactions with leaders and followers are the same.

Though it can be difficult, if not impossible, to identify leaders through visual inspection, information
theory provides an appropriate lens through which this segregation may be possible. (In certain models under certain circumstances, leaders may aggregate at the front, but this is not generally the case.)
Using the information theoretic approach, we discard all a priori knowledge of individual interactions
and instead use the CTE in the swarm to see if covert leaders transmit or receive more information
than followers. While it is intuitive that a leader ought to share more information with the swarm, we
find that the reciprocal relationship is the best way to distinguish covert leaders. A covert leader in a
swarm is notable because it receives less information than followers on average. In Fig. 2, we can see
an experiment where a regular array of randomly oriented individuals organizes itself into a coherent
translating disk. Without leadership, the equilibrium direction of motion is random, depending upon
the initial disordered configuration. In this experiment, 15% of the individuals are leaders that want
to move to the right (~g = [1, 0]T ). While it is not possible to identify the leaders through visual inspection, the average CTE received by the covert leaders is markedly lower than the CTE received by the
followers as the swarm organizes itself into a coherent disk.
Collective Intelligence 2014.

1:4

•

Y, Sun, L. F. Rossi, C-C. Shen, J. Miller, X. R. Wang, J. Lizier, U. Senanayake, M. Prokopenko

REFERENCES
Rachid Alami, Raja Chatila, and Hajime Asama (Eds.). 2007. Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems 6. Springer Japan,
Tokyo. http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/978-4-431-35873-2
M Andersson and J Wallander. 2003. Kin selection and reciprocity in flight formation? Behav. Ecol. 15 (2003), 158–162.
I Aoki. 1982. A simulation study on the schooling mechanism in fish. Bulletin of the Japanese Society of Scientific Fisheries 48
(1982), 1081–1088.
J Buhl, D J T Sumpter, I D Couzin, J J Hale, E Despland, E R Miller, and S J Simpson. 2006. From disorder to order in marching
locusts. Science (New York, N.Y.) 312, 5778 (June 2006), 1402–6. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1125142
A. Caruso, F. Paparella, L. F. M. Vieira, M. Erol, and M. Gerla. 2008. The Meandering Current Mobility Model and its Impact on
Underwater Mobile Sensor Networks. IEEE. 221–225 pages. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs\ all.jsp?arnumber=4509648
ID Couzin, J Krause, R James, GD Ruxton, and N Franks. 2002. Collective memory and spatial sorting in animal groups.
Journal of Theoretical Biology 218 (2002), 1–11. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022519302930651
Iain D Couzin, Jens Krause, Nigel R Franks, and Simon A Levin. 2005. Effective leadership and decision-making in animal
groups on the move. Nature 433, 7025 (Feb. 2005), 513–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature03236
A Huth and C Wissel. 1992. The simulation of the movement of fish schools. J. theor. Biol. 156 (1992), 365–385.
Joseph T. Lizier, Mikhail Prokopenko, and Albert Y. Zomaya. 2008. Local information transfer as a spatiotemporal filter for
complex systems. Physical Review E 77, 2 (2008), 026110.
Ryan Lukeman, Yue-Xian Li, and Leah Edelstein-Keshet. 2010. Inferring individual rules from collective behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107, 28 (June 2010), 12576–12580.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1001763107
Jennifer M Miller, Allison Kolpas, Joao Plinio Juchem Neto, and Louis F Rossi. 2012. A continuum three-zone model for swarms.
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 74, 3 (March 2012), 536–61. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11538-011-9676-y
Jennifer M. Miller, X. Rosalind Wang, Joseph T. Lizier, Mikhail Prokopenko, and Louis F. Rossi. 2014. Measuring Information
Dynamics in Swarms. In Guided Self-Organization: Inception, Mikhail Prokopenko (Ed.). Springer, 343–364.
Máté Nagy, Zsuzsa Akos, Dora Biro, and Tamás Vicsek. 2010. Hierarchical group dynamics in pigeon flocks. Nature 464, 7290
(April 2010), 890–3. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature08891
P. Ogren, E. Fiorelli, and N.E. Leonard. 2004. Cooperative Control of Mobile Sensor Networks: Adaptive Gradient Climbing in a Distributed Environment. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 49, 8 (Aug. 2004), 1292–1302. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/
articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=1323171
DA Paley, NE Leonard, Rodolphe Sepulchre, Daniel Grünbaum, and JK Parrish. 2007. Spatial Patterns in the Dynamics of
Engineered and Biological Networks. IEEE Control Systems Magazine 27, 4 (2007), 89–105. http://en.scientificcommons.org/
55327347
BL Partridge. 1982.
The structure and function of fish schools.
Scientific American (1982).
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0682-114
Louis Rossi, Xiaofeng Han, and Chien-Chung Shen. 2007. Autonomous Navigation of Wireless Robot Swarms with
Covert Leaders. The Proceedings of First International Conference on Robot Communication and Coordination (2007).
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.4108/ICST.ROBOCOMM2007.2206
G.T. Sibley, M.H. Rahimi, and G.S. Sukhatme. 2002. Robomote: a tiny mobile robot platform for large-scale ad-hoc sensor
networks. In Proceedings 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.02CH37292), Vol. 2.
IEEE, 1143–1148. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=1014697
David Sumpter, Jerome Buhl, Dora Biro, and Iain Couzin. 2008. Information transfer in moving animal groups. Theory in
biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften 127, 2 (June 2008), 177–86. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12064-008-0040-1
Yu Sun, Louis F. Rossi, Hao Luan, and Chien-Chung Shen. 2013. Modeling and Analyzing Large Swarms with Covert Leaders.
In 2013 IEEE 7th International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems. IEEE, 169–178. http://ieeexplore.
ieee.org/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=6676504
T Vicsek, A Czirok, E Ben-Jacob, I Cohen, and O Shochet. 1995. Novel Type of Phase Transition in a System of Self-Driven
Particles. Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995), 1226–1229.
X Rosalind Wang, Jennifer M Miller, Joseph T Lizier, Mikhail Prokopenko, and Louis F Rossi. 2012. Quantifying and tracing
information cascades in swarms. PloS ONE 7, 7 (Jan. 2012), e40084. http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040084

Collective Intelligence 2014.

