Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
field of view
spatial cohesion. To classify these patterns, we present an algorithm that determines the number of
spatial clusters and their associated angular momenta.
The collective movement of large groups of microor- field of view on the dynamics of particles that undergo
ganisms, insects, birds, and mammals are amongst the stochastic velocity alignments remains an open question.
most spectacular examples of self-organized phenomena Moreover, while certain types of position-dependent in-
in the natural world [1, 2]. Species across a range of teractions can facilitate cohesion in a flock [18, 19], it
length scales exhibit a rich variety of collective patterns is intriguing to consider how this outcome might be
of motion that are united by similar underlying char- achieved with velocity alignments alone. Furthermore,
acteristics [3, 4]. Advances in experimental techniques while some flocking models have incorporated the accel-
for investigating flocking [5] has sustained interest in un- eration of particles to describe short-term memory [20],
covering the principles that underpin this emergent phe- collision avoidance [21], consensus decision making [22]
nomenon. For instance, recent experiments have demon- and other experimentally observed features [23], the role
strated that pairwise interactions motivated by biological of position-independent stochastic acceleration remains
goals play a crucial role in determining insect swarming to be established.
patterns [6]. Flocks may fundamentally be viewed as dry In order to address these questions, we propose in this
active matter, namely systems of self-propelled particles letter a novel paradigm for flocking in which long-time
that do not exhibit conservation of momentum [7], and spatial cohesion can emerge through a stochastic acceler-
their dynamics can be understood as a process similar to ation, despite the absence of attractive forces or explicit
the long-range ordering of interacting particles [8]. Fol- confinement. We assume that the interaction between
lowing the seminal work of Vicsek et al. [9, 10], the dom- a chosen pair of particles depends only on their respec-
inant paradigm in models of flocking is that stochasticity tive velocities, in contrast to the typical assumption of
in the dynamics can be accounted for through external two-body or mean-field interactions that depend on the
noise (either additive or multiplicative). While this ap- relative positions of particles. While most previous flock-
proach may be suitable to describe systems of Brownian ing models account for stochasticity through an external
particles, where fluctuations arise from the surrounding noise, here it is a consequence of uncertainty in velocity
media, it cannot account for the source of stochasticity in alignments. This leads to a variety of emergent collective
flocks, namely variability in the behaviour of individual dynamical patterns whose spatio-temporal characteris-
particles [11, 12]. Furthermore, the collective dynamics tics vary significantly. Finally, in order to classify these
of a swarm is known to be density-dependent [13, 14], patterns in a unified manner, we present a cluster-finding
which tacitly suggests that variations in individual be- algorithm that determines the the number of clusters and
haviour may have a cumulative impact. Hence, it is of their associated angular momenta.
significant interest to consider the emergent flocking be- We consider an agent-based model of N interacting
haviour in a system where stochasticity arises purely from point-like particles. The state of each agent i at a time
the uncertainties at the level of inter-particle interactions. step t is described by its position xi (t) and velocity vi (t).
At step t + 1, the state of agent i is
In situations where individual particles are unable to
vi (t + 1) = vi (t) + ai (t) , with probability Pi , (1a)
uniformly survey their neighbourhood due to physiologi-
cal or other constraints, their interactions would be lim- xi (t + 1) = xi (t) + vi (t + 1) , (1b)
ited to neighbours that lie within a field of view [15]. It where ai (t) is a stochastic acceleration that occurs with
was recently shown that such a restriction can yield a probability Pi , and which is given by
jamming transition, even at extremely low particle den-
sities, in a lattice model of flocking [16]. Furthermore, −vi (t) + |vi (t)| η̂, if Ωi = ∅,
ai (t) = (2)
a range of flocking patterns can be observed in a sys- α[v0 − vi (t) + f (v0 + vi (t))], otherwise,
tem with position-dependent short range interactions re- where the coefficient α < 1 is the strength of interac-
stricted by a vision cone [17]. However, the role of a tion, η̂ is a unit random vector, Ωi is the set of all agents
2
a b
8
milling
10 meandering 0.12
trail milling
P(s, t)
wriggling
band
6
10 200
0 t
hs i 2 0 s 100 2000
c
4
10 0.06
wriggling
10
2
P(s, t)
200
0 t
2
t
4 0 s 800 2000
10 10
spective of a disorder to order transition that is typically (α = 0.05, 0.1). Several snapshots of the collective pat-
characterized using a scalar order parameter. However, terns obtained over the entire range of parameter values
it is apparent that such an approach would be unable to displayed in Fig. 3 are presented in the Supplementary
capture the breadth of complexity associated with the Information.
flocking patterns reported here. Hence, we present a A crucial feature of our model is that the stochasticity
cluster-finding algorithm that classifies the patterns in is maximum at the edges of the flock, while the stochastic
terms of the number of distinct (contiguous) clusters velocity alignments in the interior of the flock gives rise
and their associated angular momenta at a given time, to comparatively ordered behaviour through a process
through the following procedure (this algorithm is rigor- of self-organization. In addition to facilitating cohesion,
ously detailed in the Supplementary Information). We this may help explain the apparent symmetry of several of
define the resolution length R = λRmax , where 0 < λ ≤ the patterns (c.f. milling, meandering and closed trails),
1, and Rmax is the maximum separation between any two as flocks with relatively smoother boundaries have much
particles in the flock at time t. At the length scale Rmax lower stochasticity overall. In other words, the overall
the system can be viewed as comprising a single cluster stochasticity reduces through a minimization of surface
that encompasses the entire flock. For the chosen length area. In this regard, the existence of the wriggling pat-
scale R, we first compute ri,j = |xi (t) − xj (t)| for all tern, which has a rougher boundary, is due to the fact
i,j 6= i, and group the agents into distinct clusters such that the stochasticity at the edge is reduced for larger
that a pair of agents (i, j) in any given cluster satisfies the values of σ. These results are intriguing in light of re-
condition ri,j ≤ R. Next, we regroup the agents such that cent observations that the boundary of a flock plays an
if ri,j ≤ R and rj,k ≤ R but ri,k > R then the agents i, j, important role in its emergent dynamical properties [25].
and k are assumed to belong to the same cluster. The res- Additionally, we note that as the alignment probability
olution length R hence provides a lower bound on the spa- in our model is dependent on θmax , there is an inherent
tial separation of any pair of detected clusters. Once the spatial anisotropy in the stochastic interactions. Specif-
individual clusters ci (of size Ni ) have been determined, ically, for θmax < 90 agents do not interact with neigh-
we define Nc to be the minimum number of clusters bours that lie directly behind them. This may relate to
whose collective population
Pn exceeds 90% of N , i.e. Nc = the emergence of milling patterns in our model, as pre-
min {n : 0.9 N ≤ i=1 Ni , 1 ≤ n ≤ N }. The P center of vious flocking models that reported such patterns have
mass of a cluster ci is defined as x̄i = Ni−1 j∈ci xj , and typically incorporated such a “blind zone” for agents [26–
the corresponding angular momentum about the center 28]. This pattern has been observed in diverse contexts
of mass is Li = Ni−1 j∈ci (xj − x̄i ) × vj . The different
P
across the natural world including fish schools and ant
phases of flocking
PNcan then be characterized by the quan- mills [27, 29, 30]. Furthermore, it can be seen that Ωi
tity Λ = Nc−1 i=1 c
|Li |, where the absolute value sign is not invariant under the transformation vi → −vi , as
takes into account the fact that the flock may contain a consequence of the inherent anisotropy of the field of
clusters that swirl in opposite directions. In our simula- view, which hence breaks the time-reversal symmetry.
tions we have used λ = 2−4 , and find that a small varia- However, such a transformation will not affect the na-
tion R ± δ, where δ ∈ (0, R/2), does not affect the classi- ture of the pattern at the scale of the entire flock.
fication of the patterns. Note that in the limit λ → 0 we In conclusion, our model provides a mechanism
would, by definition, find N clusters that each comprise through which stochasticity can arise intrinsically from
a single agent. the interactions between agents. This framework can,
We determine ensemble-averaged values of the quan- in principle, be generalized to the case of stochastic
tity hΛi and the number of clusters hNc i for systems of many body interactions. In addition, our cluster-finding
size N = 103 over 10 trials for a range of values of θmax , method characterizes the rich dynamical patterns ob-
σ and α. As seen in Fig. 3, the parameter space can served in terms the number of distinct clusters and their
be classified into distinct regimes of collective activity. angular momenta. This method could also be used to
We observe that the patterns seen for lower values of study the evolution of experimentally observed flocking
θmax (. 20◦ ) are always characterized by a single cluster, patterns. Furthermore, the model proposed here could
regardless of σ or α. While both the milling and me- be extended to describe situations of pursuit and evasion
andering patterns are seen for θmax ≈ 20◦ , the latter is in predator-prey systems [31], as well as considering the
characterized by a much lower value of Λ. At very low role of social hierarchy in flocks [32].
θmax , we consistently observe that the patterns comprise We would like to thank Abhijit Chakraborty, Niraj Ku-
a single cluster, characterized by extremely small val- mar, V. Sasidevan and Gautam Menon for helpful discus-
ues of Λ, corresponding to cohesive but highly disordered sions. SNM is supported by the IMSc Complex Systems
flocks, reminiscent of midge swarming patterns [24]. Pat- Project (12th Plan). The simulations and computations
terns with very large Λ, which typically correspond to required for this work were supported by the Institute
single or multiple closed trails, are most likely to be ob- of Mathematical Science’s High Performance Computing
served for intermediate values of the interaction strength facility (hpc.imsc.res.in) [nandadevi], which is partially
5
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
CONTENTS
The field of view of agent i is illustrated in Fig. S1. At each iteration, agent i attempts to select an agent that
lies within its field of view, which is delimited by a maximum bearing angle θmax , for the purposes of an alignment
interaction. An agent j within this field of view is picked by i with a probability that is related to the distance
between them, as well as the angle between the velocity of i and the line connecting the two agents. If the field of
view of agent i is empty, it performs a random rotation.
FIG. S1. Schematic of the field of view of an agent i that picks an agent j lying within this field of view. The intensity of
colour in a given region is related to the the probability with which agent i chooses an agent that lies in that region. Each
agent has the highest probability of interacting with agents that lie at a distance σ along its direction of motion. Similarly,
the intensity reduces as the angle θi,j between the velocity of i and the line connecting the agents approaches the maximum
bearing angle θmax . Thus, an agent i is most likely to align with an agent that is near its direct line of sight, and which is
separated by a distance of around σ.
S2
Flocking patterns observed for α = 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, and over a range of θmax and σ, are displayed in Figs. S2–S5.
1 2 3 4
1 R 10 R 10 R 50 R
5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12
6
13 14 15 15
5 11
5
6
4 13
1
σ 8
3
4 12
10
2 7
2
800 R 300 R 3000 R 1 9
3 14
20 40 60 80
θmax
FIG. S2. Snapshots of flocking patterns exhibited by the model for a system of N = 103 agents, obtained for an interaction
strength α = 0.01, over a range of values of the mean interaction length σ and maximum bearing angle θmax . The corresponding
parameter space diagram from the main text is displayed in the bottom right panel. Each grid point in this panel is coloured
in accordance with the displayed table that classifies the regimes on the basis of the ensemble-averaged quantities hNc i and
hΛi, computed over 10 trials. Each of the other 15 panels display flocking patterns observed for parameter values denoted by
the corresponding numbered red marker on the parameter space diagram. The numbered solid bars in the lower left corner of
these panels provides a measure of spatial distance in each case. The solid bar in the lower right corner of each panel indicates
the extent of the corresponding resolution length R, which we use for our cluster-finding algorithm.
S3
1 2 3 4
2 R 2 R 20 R 2 R
5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12
6
13 14 15 12
4
5
1 15
4 10
σ 6
3 5
13
9
2 2 7
14
2000 R 2000 R 400 R 1 8
3 11
20 40 60 80
θmax
FIG. S3. Snapshots of flocking patterns exhibited by the model for a system of N = 103 agents, obtained for an interaction
strength α = 0.05, over a range of values of the mean interaction length σ and maximum bearing angle θmax . The corresponding
parameter space diagram from the main text is displayed in the bottom right panel. Each grid point in this panel is coloured
in accordance with the displayed table that classifies the regimes on the basis of the ensemble-averaged quantities hNc i and
hΛi, computed over 10 trials. Each of the other 15 panels display flocking patterns observed for parameter values denoted by
the corresponding numbered red marker on the parameter space diagram. The numbered solid bars in the lower left corner of
these panels provides a measure of spatial distance in each case. The solid bar in the lower right corner of each panel indicates
the extent of the corresponding resolution length R, which we use for our cluster-finding algorithm.
S4
1 2 3 4
1 R 2 R 5 R 10 R
5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12
40 R 80 R 20 R 800 R
6
13 14 15 11
4 15
5
1
4
10
σ 9
3 13
8
2 2 5
12
500 R 800 R 10 R 1 7
3 6 14
20 40 60 80
θmax
FIG. S4. Snapshots of flocking patterns exhibited by the model for a system of N = 103 agents, obtained for an interaction
strength α = 0.1, over a range of values of the mean interaction length σ and maximum bearing angle θmax . The corresponding
parameter space diagram from the main text is displayed in the bottom right panel. Each grid point in this panel is coloured
in accordance with the displayed table that classifies the regimes on the basis of the ensemble-averaged quantities hNc i and
hΛi, computed over 10 trials. Each of the other 15 panels display flocking patterns observed for parameter values denoted by
the corresponding numbered red marker on the parameter space diagram. The numbered solid bars in the lower left corner of
these panels provides a measure of spatial distance in each case. The solid bar in the lower right corner of each panel indicates
the extent of the corresponding resolution length R, which we use for our cluster-finding algorithm.
S5
1 2 3 4
40 R 5 R 10 R 5 R
5 6 7 8
100 R 20 R 40 R 200 R
9 10 11 12
6
13 14 15 4 15
10
5 7
2 13
4
σ 6
3 3 9
2 12
1000 R 4000 R 5 R 1 1 5 8 11 14
20 40 60 80
θmax
FIG. S5. Snapshots of flocking patterns exhibited by the model for a system of N = 103 agents, obtained for an interaction
strength α = 0.5, over a range of values of the mean interaction length σ and maximum bearing angle θmax . The corresponding
parameter space diagram from the main text is displayed in the bottom right panel. Each grid point in this panel is coloured in
accordance with the displayed table that classifies the regimes on the basis of the ensemble-averaged quantities hNc i and hΛi,
computed over 10 trials. Each of the other 15 panels display flocking patterns observed for parameter values denoted by the
corresponding numbered red marker on the parameter space diagram. The numbered solid bars in the lower left corner of these
panels provides a measure of spatial distance in each case. The solid bar in the lower right corner of each panel indicates the
extent of the corresponding resolution length R, which we use for our cluster-finding algorithm. Note that the pattern in panel
1 is classified as a single cluster because over 90% of the agents belong to that cluster (see algorithm for details). Moreover
while the snapshots of patterns in panels 2 − 4 may appear reminiscent of the wriggling pattern, their dynamics are in fact
qualitatively similar to the meandering pattern.
S6
At any specified time instant, the maximum possible distance between a pair of agents in the flock is denoted by
We set the resolution length R = λ Rmax by choosing a value of λ in the range 0 < λ ≤ 1. Each agent i = 1, 2, . . . , N
is assigned a label gi which is associated with an integer value that specifies the cluster to which the agent belongs
to. The cluster-finding algorithm involves determining the number of distinct clusters Nc of size ≥ R. The label of
each agent i thus lies in the range gmin (= 1) ≤ gi ≤ gmax (= Nc ).
The algorithm is outlined in the following pseudocode. Comments appear in blue italicised text.
Initalize: gmax = 0, gmin = 0, and gi = 0 for all i = 1, 2, . . . , N .
For i = 1, 2, . . . , N
If agent i has not been assigned a label, we label it as one plus the maximum value of the array g.
If gi = 0 Then gi = max{gi0 , i0 = 1, 2, . . . , N } + 1.
The variable b marks all the agents in the current assignment.
Initalize: bj = 0 for all j = 1, 2, . . . , N .
Find all agents j that are at a distance ≤ R from agent i and assign j with the same label as i.
For j = 1, 2, . . . , N
If |xi (t) − xj (t)| < R Then
If gj = 0 Then gj = gi .
bj = 1.
End
End
Initalize: gmin = gi .
Consider all the marked agents, i.e. all agents j for which bj = 1.
We find the minimum value of gj and assign it to gmin
For j = 1, 2, . . . , N
If bj = 1 Then
If gj ≤ gmin Then gmin = gj .
End
For j = 1, 2, . . . , N
We assign the minimum value of the array g to all the marked agents.
If bj = 1 Then
For k = 1, 2, . . . , N
If gk = gj and k 6= j Then gk = gmin .
End
gj = gmin .
End
End
End
If more than one cluster exists, we relabel them so as to remove the value zero.
If gmax > 1 Then
For i = (gmax − 1), (gmax − 2), . . . , 1
Set: c = 0
For j = 1, 2, . . . , N
If gj = i Then c = 1 and Exit.
End
Fix gaps in the label numbers to ensure that the final set is contiguous
If c = 0 Then
For j = 1, 2, . . . , N
For k = i + 1, . . . , gmax
If gj = k Then gj = k − 1.
End
End
End
End
End
In the following example, we present an implementation of this cluster-finding algorithm at two different reso-
lution lengths, R. As displayed in Fig. S6, we consider four clusters of agents. Each cluster consists of 50 agents
√ are chosen randomly within a 10 × 10 square centered at the coordinates (0, 0), (0, 25), (25, 0),
whose coordinates
√
and (25/ 2, 25/ 2).
(a) (b)
II R = Rmax/4 = 11.78 II R = Rmax/8 = 5.89
25 25
8.67 8.67
II III
20 20
15 15
15.28
15.28
9.56
9.56
10 0
26
26
10 . 10 .1
13 13
.2
.2
1
II IV
5 5
15.57 15.57
0 0
I I
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
FIG. S6. A demonstration of the cluster-finding algorithm. We choose resolution lengths (a) R = Rmax /4, and (b) R = Rmax /8.
The lines connect the closest agents in each pair of clusters, and the corresponding numerical value denotes the distance between
these agents. The bold lines and numbers in panel (a) indicate that the corresponding clusters are categorized as being part of
the same cluster (II). In panel (b) four clusters (I-IV) are obtained since all of them are separated by a distance > R.
S8
Upon running our cluster-finding algorithm on this flock, we find that the maximum separation between any pair
of agents is Rmax = 47.13. For the choices λ = 1/4, 1/8, we find R = Rmax /4 = 11.78 and R = Rmax /8 = 5.89. In the
displayed realization (Fig. S6), we find that the minimum distance between agents in the lower left and upper right
clusters is 13.1. Hence, at resolution length R = 11.78 these two clusters are categorized as being distinct. In contrast
the minimum distances between the agents in upper right cluster and those in the remaining clusters are less than
11.78 and hence they are categorized as being part of the same cluster. Thus, as displayed in Fig. S6(a), at resolution
length R = 11.78 we find just two distinct clusters I & II (coloured red and blue).
For the case where a resolution length R = Rmax /8 = 5.89 is used, we find that since all four clusters are separated
by a value greater than R they are categorized are being distinct. Thus, our method obtains four distinct clusters
(I-IV) at this resolution length, as displayed in Fig. S6(b) where each cluster is coloured distinctly.
• Movie_S1.mp4
Evolution of a system of N = 103 agents moving in a wriggling pattern for the case σ = 5, θmax = 40 and
α = 0.8. The system is simulated over 2 × 104 time steps, starting from an initial condition where agents
are distributed randomly over a small portion of the computational domain. Each frame of the simulation is
separated by 50 time steps.
• Movie_S2.mp4
Evolution of a system of N = 103 agents moving in a closed trail for the case σ = 3, θmax = 50 and α = 0.1.
The system is simulated over 2 × 104 time steps, starting from an initial condition where agents are distributed
randomly over a small portion of the computational domain. Each frame of the simulation is separated by 50
time steps.
• Movie_S3.mp4
Evolution of a system of N = 103 agents moving in a milling pattern for the case σ = 1, θmax = 20 and
α = 0.025. The system is simulated over 2 × 104 time steps, starting from an initial condition where agents
are distributed randomly over a small portion of the computational domain. Each frame of the simulation is
separated by 50 time steps.
• Movie_S4.mp4
Evolution of a system of N = 103 agents moving in a flock with a meandering center of mass for the case σ = 3,
θmax = 15 and α = 0.02. The system is simulated over 2 × 104 time steps, starting from an initial condition
where agents are distributed randomly over a small portion of the computational domain. Each frame of the
simulation is separated by 50 time steps.