Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 176 references

Classifying Emergence in Robot Swarms: An Observer-Dependent Approach

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Emergence type and swarmhood are observer-relative, not fixed properties of a robot system.

desk verdict Useful conceptual scaffolding for swarm/emergence talk, but the headline observer-dependence claim doesn't follow from the paper's own definitions. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07315 v1 pith:OAFNGXCN submitted 2025-07-09 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Ricardo Vega , Cameron Nowzari This is my paper
classification cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY
keywords emergencerobotswarmsobserverdependenceself-organizationmulti-robotsystemsgroupbehaviorequifinalityswarmclassification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that whether a multi-robot system counts as a swarm, and which type of emergence it exhibits, is not a property of the system alone: it is fixed by the observer's resolution, scope, and prior knowledge of the hidden dynamics. It does this by separating the externally observable trajectories of agents from the unobservable internal dynamics and context that generate them, then showing that one and the same trajectory can be produced by feedforward dynamics, local feedback, or centralized coordination. From that it derives an equifinality proposition: any emergent behavior of a given type can be viewed in a different context as an emergent behavior of a lower type. The practical point is that designers and engineers must state observer assumptions explicitly before calling a robot deployment a swarm, and that a swarm should be defined by the generative process rather than by the observed group behavior alone.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the separation of observable data $Y = F(P)$ from the full context $C = P^N \times Z \times R$, together with information markers $M = G(Y)$ and structure sets $\eta$ that define group behaviors as constraints of lower dimension. The classification types are defined by the functional form of the local dynamics: Type I has $\dot p_i = f_i(p_i,u_i,t)$ with no interaction, Type II has $\dot p_i = f_i(P,u_i,t)$ with local feedback, and Type III has a time-varying context with creation and destruction. The load-bearing result, Proposition IV.2, says that for any behavior produced as type $T$ there exists another context producing the same observable information as type $T-1$, which is what makes the classification observer-dependent.

What would settle it

Construct a system whose output trajectories provably determine the internal dynamics $f_i$ up to a unique emergence type, for example a linear system whose parameters are identifiable from $P(t)$ under the chosen information markers; if the same behavior cannot be reproduced by a lower-type context, Proposition IV.2 fails. More simply, find any real system for which the set of contexts producing a given trajectory has only one emergence type.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that emergence type and swarmhood are observer-relative classifications that cannot be read off the observable state trajectories. For each agent the paper models dynamics $\dot p_i = f_i(p_i,u_i,w_i)$ with only $p_i$ observable, while $f_i$, internal states, sensing, and parameters live in the unobservable context $C$. Group behaviors are defined through information markers $M = G(F(P))$ falling in structure sets $\eta$, so the same $P(t)$ can be assigned many behaviors. The paper defines emergence types: Type 0 is no emergence, Type I is feedforward nominal emergence, Type II is feedback weak emergence, and Type III is strong emergence with a time-varying context and creation or destruction of objects. It then states Proposition IV.2: for any context in which a behavior arises as type $T$, another context exists in which the same observable information and behavior arises as type $T-1$, so the type is entirely dependent on observer perception and knowledge. It concludes that a swarm is not defined by group behavior alone but by the process generating that behavior, and proposes necessary conditions, multiple similar agents, recognizable constrained group behavior, agency, local interaction, and decentralized no-leader control, that classify example systems differently depending on what the observer knows.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that the observable trajectories $P(t)$ leave the hidden dynamics $f_i$ undetermined, so the same behavior can be generated by different emergence types; the paper asserts this rather than proving that no observer could ever recover $f_i$ from $P(t)$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the equifinality proposition holds, no experimental trajectory alone can certify that a system is a true swarm; a video of positions is insufficient evidence.
  • Engineered multi-robot systems with explicit centralized targets, such as a drone light show, fall outside the paper's swarm definition, while reactive self-organizing systems qualify.
  • The same deployed robot fleet can be a swarm for one operator and a coordinated multi-robot system for another, depending on whether they know the controllers.
  • Progress on swarm-versus-multi-robot debates requires researchers to publish not just behavior but the generative process, including hidden states and interaction rules.
  • Observer dependence does not imply arbitrariness: once context, resolution, scope, and tacit knowledge are fixed, classification is objective.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves open that observer-dependence could be tested experimentally: subjects given the same trajectory video but different stories about hidden controllers should shift their swarm and emergence classifications.
  • Equifinality suggests a hierarchy-reduction principle: strong emergence claims may be reinterpreted as ignorance claims, so a universal simulator would collapse Type III to Type II, a consequence the paper gestures at but does not develop.
  • The framework could be extended to define a quantitative degree of observer commitment: the more hidden dynamics an observer must assume to call a system a swarm, the weaker the emergent claim.
  • For deployment, the paper implies that swarm controllability may be improved by intentionally designing systems that remain Type II under many observers, meaning robust self-organization rather than centralized choreography.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a formal framework for discussing emergence and swarms in multi-agent/robot systems. It separates externally observable trajectories P(t) from latent internal dynamics f_i and a context C, defines information markers, structures, and group behaviors, and introduces a classification of emergence into Type 0 (non-emergent), Type I (nominal), Type II (weak), and Type III (strong) according to the functional form of the hidden dynamics. Through a running example of six agents milling in a circle, it argues that the same observable behavior can be generated by different underlying mechanisms, and concludes that whether a system is a swarm and what type of emergence it exhibits depend on the observer's perception, knowledge, and resolution/scope. The paper also proposes a checklist of necessary conditions for a 'swarm', applies it to existing definitions and motivating examples, and closes with a discussion of future research directions in swarm robotics.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would provide a useful vocabulary for comparing definitions of emergence and swarm and a caution against conflating observable group behavior with the mechanism that produces it. The strengths are the explicit formal scaffolding adapted from swarm analytics (information markers, structures, group behaviors), the worked milling example that illustrates how one observable pattern can be produced by different mechanisms, the systematic comparison of swarm definitions in Table III, and the absence of fitted parameters or hidden numerical assumptions. However, the advertised conclusion that emergence type is 'entirely dependent' on the observer is not derivable from the formal definitions as written, and the paper's key proposition is asserted rather than proved. The paper is therefore better described at this stage as a conceptual position piece than as a formal classification result.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV (Proposition IV.2)] Proposition IV.2 is asserted without proof, and as stated it is ill-posed for T = I. Type 0 is defined in §III.B as a context in which there is only N = 1 thing, whereas the proposition requires a context C′ in which 'the same observable information and behavior B' occurs. Since a group behavior B is defined via information markers on P ∈ P^N with N > 1 (Definition II.3 and Eq. (2)), the T = I case would require P^N and P^1 to produce the same Y = F(P), which is not defined. No construction is given for the T = III → II or T = II → I cases either. The examples in Example III.5 do not fill this gap: case (a) changes N from 6 to 1, and case (d) is described only by reference to [78] without writing f_i or verifying that the resulting trajectories coincide with Eq. (4). The proposition therefore cannot be checked as written.
  2. [§III.B and §IV] The formal definitions make emergence type a function of the actual context C, not of the observer. Type I is defined by ˙pi = fi(pi, ui, t), Type II by ˙pi = fi(P, ui, t), and Type III by a changing context C(t). Given a fixed context C, these conditions are either true or false independently of any observer's perception or knowledge. Proposition IV.2, if true, states that for any such C there exists a different C′ with the same observable information and a lower emergence type; this is a statement about underdetermination of hidden dynamics by observables. It does not imply that 'the type of emergence that occurs ... is entirely dependent on [the observer]'. The conclusion would require defining emergence type relative to an observer's information state or prior beliefs, as suggested informally in §III.C, but the definitions in §III.B do not do this. The central advertised claim is therefore a non sequitur under the paper's own formalism.
  3. [§III.B (Type III)] The formal characterization of Type III is not stated in the same terms as Types I and II. The prose says strong emergence is 'unpredictable' and 'cannot be reduced to the parts', but the formal sentence only says 'the context is changing in time C(t) with objects being both created and destroyed, including different swarm behaviors Bj'. There is no condition on f_i or P(t) that can be checked, and no precise notion of 'created and destroyed' within the framework, whose agents are indexed by fixed i ∈ {1, ..., N} in Eq. (1). Since Proposition IV.2 quantifies over T ∈ {I, II, III}, the missing formal condition directly affects the main claim.
  4. [§III.A and Example III.5] The underdetermination premise — that the observable trajectories P(t) do not determine the hidden dynamics f_i, so that the same P(t) can arise from different emergence types — is asserted ('the underlying dynamics and functional form of fi in (1) are usually not [contained] in the information Y') but not established. A reader could object that a sufficiently clever observer might recover f_i from P(t) and the history of u_i (system identification). Because Proposition IV.2's existence claim relies on this underdetermination, the paper needs either an identifiability analysis or a constructed pair of contexts with explicitly different f_i of different types generating exactly the same trajectory set under the same N. The four sub-cases of Example III.5 are illustrative but not proofs: case (a) changes N, and case (d) does not provide the actual f_i, u_i, or initial conditions.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table I] The entry 'Quantim-Classical' should be 'Quantum-Classical'.
  2. [§III.B] The text 'Type IV emergence is unpredictable by definition' should read 'Type III emergence'; the same section also uses 'Type IV' in the bullet heading where 'Type III' is intended.
  3. [Remark II.6] The phrase 'out framework' should be 'our framework', and the sentence 'the Diffusion behavior also emerges B3(t) = 0' appears contradictory, since if the behavior emerges one would expect B3(t) = 1.
  4. [Remark II.4] The expression 'P Bj(t) > 1' should presumably be a sum over behaviors, e.g., Σ_j Bj(t) > 1.
  5. [Example II.5] The word 'diffusal' should be 'diffusion', and in Example III.5(2) the notation 'du = 0, ui = ∅' is nonstandard and should be defined.
  6. [§IV] The sentence 'emergence is level of emergence changes as we increase our knowledge' is ungrammatical and should be rewritten; additionally, 'the system X' in §III.A is undefined, since context C is only defined later in Definition III.3.
  7. [Table III] The blank cells in Table III are ambiguous: it is unclear whether a blank means the condition is not satisfied, not specified by the source, or not assessed by the authors; a legend or explicit ✗ marks would improve reproducibility of the checklist application.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Mild definitional circularity: the observer-dependence thesis is assumed in the informal discussion of Section III.C and then restated as the paper's conclusion, rather than derived from the formal Type I/II/III definitions, which tie emergence type to the actual hidden dynamics of the context.

  1. self definitional [Section III.B (Type definitions); Section III.C (Importance of Observer); Section IV (after Proposition IV.2)]
    "With full knowledge of how agents in a system interact, we can further define and distinguish the various types of emergence. Remarkably, we will show that all these definitions are mostly dependent on their internal (often hidden) dynamics (1). ... It is fully on the observer to not only identify when emergence has occurred but also to determine the type of emergence. ... the type of emergence that occurs is not fixed and dependent on an observer's perception and knowledge. On the contrary, we find that it is entirely dependent on it."

    The formal definitions make emergence type a property of the actual context C: Type I is '˙pi = fi(pi, ui, t)', Type II is '˙pi = fi(P, ui, t)', and Type III requires a time-varying context C(t). These conditions do not mention the observer's perception or prior knowledge, so the conclusion that type is 'entirely dependent' on the observer cannot be derived from them. Instead, the observer-dependence claim is introduced as an assertion in Section III.C and then restated as the paper's finding after Proposition IV.2. Proposition IV.2, even if proved, would only show that two different contexts C and C′ can share the same observable information F(P); it would not show that the same actual system has an observer-relative emergence type.

full rationale

The paper contains no fitted parameters and no case of a fitted input being renamed as a prediction. Its formal scaffolding (contexts, information markers, group behaviors) is explicitly borrowed from the external Swarm Analytics framework [73], and the authors' self-citations ([87], [96], [97], [136], [162]) appear as background applications rather than load-bearing premises. The principal circularity concern is definitional rather than statistical: the formal Type I/II/III labels are attached to the functional form of the hidden dynamics f_i in the actual context C, while the advertised conclusion is that the type of emergence is 'entirely dependent' on an observer's perception and knowledge. That conclusion is not obtained by applying the formal definitions; it is assumed in Section III.C and then restated after Proposition IV.2. Proposition IV.2, if true, would establish observational underdetermination (the same trajectories P(t) can arise from different contexts), not that the same actual system has an observer-relative type. There are legitimate correctness concerns about the unproved equifinality claim and the absence of a system-identifiability analysis, but those are not themselves circularity and do not raise the circularity score above 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on the unobservability of hidden dynamics and on an unproved existence statement for alternative contexts; no free parameters are fitted to data, and no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • Behavior thresholds eta_j (e.g., milling requires Y3=0, average speed>0)
    Chosen by hand to define example group behaviors in Fig. 3 and Example II.5; they are illustrative and do not enter the equifinality proposition.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The trajectories P(t) do not reveal the functional form of the latent dynamics fi(pi, ui, wi).
    Invoked in Section III.A to argue that an observer cannot determine the emergence type from observable data alone.
  • domain assumption For every emergence type T there exists a context C' with the same observable behavior but type T-1 (equifinality).
    This is the content of Proposition IV.2, asserted without proof; it is load-bearing for the subjectivity conclusion.
  • domain assumption A system with N components at a given resolution/scope may be a single object at another resolution (N depends on observer).
    Adopted from Ryan [58] and used in Example III.5 to argue Type 0 vs Type I ambiguity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Classifying Emergence in Robot Swarms: An Observer-Dependent Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OAFNGXCN

@misc{pith2026250707315,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Classifying Emergence in Robot Swarms: An Observer-Dependent Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OAFNGXCN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07315}
}
read the original abstract

Emergence and swarms are widely discussed topics, yet no consensus exists on their formal definitions. This lack of agreement makes it difficult not only for new researchers to grasp these concepts, but also for experts who may use the same terms to mean different things. Many attempts have been made to objectively define 'swarm' or 'emergence,' with recent work highlighting the role of the external observer. Still, several researchers argue that once an observer's vantage point (e.g., scope, resolution, context) is established, the terms can be made objective or measured quantitatively. In this note, we propose a framework to discuss these ideas rigorously by separating externally observable states from latent, unobservable ones. This allows us to compare and contrast existing definitions of swarms and emergence on common ground. We argue that these concepts are ultimately subjective-shaped less by the system itself than by the perception and tacit knowledge of the observer. Specifically, we suggest that a 'swarm' is not defined by its group behavior alone, but by the process generating that behavior. Our broader goal is to support the design and deployment of robotic swarm systems, highlighting the critical distinction between multi-robot systems and true swarms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07315 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of candidate swarm systems including (a) The Chicago Ducky Derby, (b) a drone light show, and (c) a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Diagrams showing how the macro-level is affected by the micro-level:(a) “The basic idea of Erik Hoel’s causal emergence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Observable Data to processed Information to Information Markers to Group Behavior Classification. For each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 6 agents moving in a counter-clockwise circle. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plot of circliness Y3 crossing the η 1 2 threshold into the milling behavior state with snapshots of system throughout run. III. EMERGENCE AS A PROCESS With the formal definitions now in place we would like to be able to objectively answer the two questions: Problem II…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Type of Emergence is dependent on perception of internal dynamics. The observer in (a) believes that the agents are all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A change in scope/resolution reveals in (a) what looked like 6 independent agents as parts of a single object, similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Given the proper conditions, reactive agents using simple feedback controller can lead to a milling swarm behavior [92], [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: By simply applying our swarm checklist we can conclude (summarized in Table III): [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

176 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [73]

    Swarm analytics: Designing information markers to characterise swarm systems in shepherding contexts,

    A. J. Hepworth, A. Hussein, D. J. Reid, and H. A. Abbass, “Swarm analytics: Designing information markers to characterise swarm systems in shepherding contexts,” Adaptive behavior, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 323–349, 2023

    2023

  2. [78]

    Limit-cycle-based decoupled design of circle formation control with collision avoidance for anonymous agents in a plane,

    C. Wang and G. Xie, “Limit-cycle-based decoupled design of circle formation control with collision avoidance for anonymous agents in a plane,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 62, no. 12, pp. 6560–6567, 2017

    2017

  3. [1]

    T. S. Kuhn, The structure of scientific revolutions . University of Chicago Press, 1997

    1997

  4. [2]

    On the relationship between the second fundamental theorem of the mechanical theory of heat and probability calculations regarding the conditions for thermal equilibrium,

    L. Boltzmann, “On the relationship between the second fundamental theorem of the mechanical theory of heat and probability calculations regarding the conditions for thermal equilibrium,” Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Classe, Abteilung II , vol. 76, pp. 373–435, 1877

  5. [3]

    Information theory and statistical mechanics,

    E. T. Jaynes, “Information theory and statistical mechanics,” Physical review, vol. 106, no. 4, p. 620, 1957

    1957

  6. [4]

    Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,

    H. B. Callen and H. L. Scott, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” 1998

    1998

  7. [5]

    More is different: Broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical structure of science.,

    P. W. Anderson, “More is different: Broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical structure of science.,” Science, vol. 177, no. 4047, pp. 393–396, 1972

    1972

  8. [6]

    Origins of order in evolution: self-organization and selection,

    S. A. Kauffman, “Origins of order in evolution: self-organization and selection,” in Understanding origins: Contemporary views on the origin of life, mind and society , pp. 153–181, Springer, 1992

    1992

Show all 176 references
  1. [7]

    Life is physics: evolution as a collective phenomenon far from equilibrium,

    N. Goldenfeld and C. Woese, “Life is physics: evolution as a collective phenomenon far from equilibrium,” Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. , vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 375–399, 2011

    2011

  2. [8]

    The middle way,

    R. B. Laughlin, D. Pines, J. Schmalian, B. P. Stojkovi ´c, and P. Wolynes, “The middle way,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 97, no. 1, pp. 32–37, 2000

    2000

  3. [9]

    Wallace, The emergent multiverse: Quantum theory according to the Everett interpretation

    D. Wallace, The emergent multiverse: Quantum theory according to the Everett interpretation . OUP Oxford, 2012

    2012

  4. [10]

    Physics and the real world,

    G. F. R. Ellis, “Physics and the real world,” Foundations of Physics, vol. 36, pp. 227–262, 2006

    2006

  5. [11]

    Newton, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica

    I. Newton, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica . Londini: Jussu Societatis Regiæ ac Typis Josephi Streater, 1687

  6. [12]

    Dayan and L

    P. Dayan and L. F. Abbott, Theoretical neuroscience: computational and mathematical modeling of neural systems . MIT press, 2005

    2005

  7. [13]

    Hidden order,

    J. H. Holland, “Hidden order,” Business Week-Domestic Edition, vol. 21, pp. 93–136, 1995

    1995

  8. [14]

    Sporns, Networks of the Brain

    O. Sporns, Networks of the Brain . MIT press, 2016

    2016

  9. [15]

    Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems,

    S. A. Levin, “Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems,” Ecosystems, vol. 1, pp. 431–436, 1998

    1998

  10. [16]

    D. J. Chalmers, The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory . Oxford Paperbacks, 1997

    1997

  11. [17]

    J. R. Searle, The rediscovery of the mind . MIT press, 1992

    1992

  12. [18]

    Mind in a physical world: An essay on the mind-body problem and mental causation,

    J. Kim, “Mind in a physical world: An essay on the mind-body problem and mental causation,” MIT press, 2000

    2000

  13. [19]

    Computation at the edge of chaos: Phase transitions and emergent computation,

    C. G. Langton, “Computation at the edge of chaos: Phase transitions and emergent computation,” Physica D: nonlinear phenomena, vol. 42, no. 1-3, pp. 12–37, 1990

    1990

  14. [20]

    Mitchell, Complexity: A guided tour

    M. Mitchell, Complexity: A guided tour . Oxford university press, 2009

    2009

  15. [21]

    E. M. Izhikevich, Dynamical systems in neuroscience . MIT press, 2007

    2007

  16. [22]

    H. R. Maturana and F. J. Varela, Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living , vol. 42. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  17. [23]

    An information integration theory of consciousness,

    G. Tononi, “An information integration theory of consciousness,” BMC neuroscience, vol. 5, pp. 1–22, 2004

    2004

  18. [24]

    T. W. Deacon, Incomplete nature: How mind emerged from matter . WW Norton & Company, 2011

    2011

  19. [25]

    F. J. Varela, E. Thompson, and E. Rosch, The embodied mind, revised edition: Cognitive science and human experience . MIT press, 2017

    2017

  20. [26]

    Emergence in cyber-physical systems-of- systems (cpsoss),

    H. Kopetz, A. Bondavalli, F. Brancati, B. Fr ¨omel, O. H ¨oftberger, and S. Iacob, “Emergence in cyber-physical systems-of- systems (cpsoss),” Cyber-Physical Systems of Systems: Foundations–A Conceptual Model and Some Derivations: The AMADEOS Legacy, pp. 73–96, 2016

    2016

  21. [27]

    Emergent phenomena and complexity,

    V . Darley, “Emergent phenomena and complexity,” Artificial Life, vol. 4, pp. 411–416, 1994

    1994

  22. [28]

    Defining and addressing the risk of undesirable emergent properties,

    S. Ferreira, M. Faezipour, and H. W. Corley, “Defining and addressing the risk of undesirable emergent properties,” in 2013 IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon) , pp. 836–840, IEEE, 2013

    2013

  23. [29]

    Detecting emergence in engineered systems: A literature review and synthesis approach,

    R. A. Haugen, N. O. Skeie, G. Muller, and E. Syverud, “Detecting emergence in engineered systems: A literature review and synthesis approach,” Systems Engineering, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 463–481, 2023

    2023

  24. [30]

    Emergence and causality in complex systems: A survey of causal emergence and related quantitative studies,

    B. Yuan, J. Zhang, A. Lyu, J. Wu, Z. Wang, M. Yang, K. Liu, M. Mou, and P. Cui, “Emergence and causality in complex systems: A survey of causal emergence and related quantitative studies,” Entropy, vol. 26, no. 2, p. 108, 2024

    2024

  25. [31]

    A formal framework for reasoning emergent behaviors in swarm robotic systems,

    Q. Li, J. Wang, Q. Xu, Y . Huang, and H. Zhu, “A formal framework for reasoning emergent behaviors in swarm robotic systems,” in 2015 20th International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS) , pp. 150–159, IEEE, 2015

    2015

  26. [32]

    Elements about the emergence issue: A survey of emergence definitions,

    J. Deguet, Y . Demazeau, and L. Magnin, “Elements about the emergence issue: A survey of emergence definitions,” Complexus, vol. 3, no. 1-3, pp. 24–31, 2006

    2006

  27. [33]

    Simulating multi-agent interdependencies. a two-way approach to the micro-macro link,

    R. Conte and C. Castelfranchi, “Simulating multi-agent interdependencies. a two-way approach to the micro-macro link,” in Social science microsimulation , pp. 394–415, Springer, 1996

    1996

  28. [34]

    Four types of emergence: a typology of complexity and its implications for a science of management,

    B. B. Lichtenstein and B. McKelvey, “Four types of emergence: a typology of complexity and its implications for a science of management,” International Journal of Complexity in Leadership and Management , vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 339–378, 2011

    2011

  29. [35]

    The rise and fall of british emergentism,

    B. McLaughlin, “The rise and fall of british emergentism,” Emergence or reduction, pp. 49–93, 1992

    1992

  30. [36]

    M. A. Bedau and P. Humphreys, Emergence: Contemporary readings in philosophy and science . MIT press, 2008

    2008

  31. [37]

    An information-theoretic primer on complexity, self-organization, and emergence,

    M. Prokopenko, F. Boschetti, and A. J. Ryan, “An information-theoretic primer on complexity, self-organization, and emergence,” Complexity, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 11–28, 2009

    2009

  32. [38]

    Archer, Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach

    M. Archer, Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach . Cambridge university press, 1995

    1995

  33. [39]

    Micro foundations and macrosocial behavior,

    J. S. Coleman, “Micro foundations and macrosocial behavior,” Angewandte Sozialforschung anc AIAS Informationen Wien , vol. 12, no. 1-2, pp. 25–37, 1984

    1984

  34. [40]

    Micro-macro models in sociology: antecedents of coleman’s diagram,

    W. Raub and T. V oss, “Micro-macro models in sociology: antecedents of coleman’s diagram,” Social dilemmas, institutions, and the evolution of cooperation , pp. 11–36, 2017

    2017

  35. [41]

    Variables, mechanisms, and simulations: Can the three methods be synthesized?,

    G. Manzo, “Variables, mechanisms, and simulations: Can the three methods be synthesized?,” Revue franc ¸aise de sociologie, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 37–74, 2005

    2005

  36. [42]

    Multiple levels of analysis and the limitations of methodological individualisms,

    R. Jepperson and J. W. Meyer, “Multiple levels of analysis and the limitations of methodological individualisms,” Sociological Theory, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 54–73, 2011

    2011

  37. [43]

    Building micro-foundations for the routines, capabilities, and performance links,

    P. Abell, T. Felin, and N. Foss, “Building micro-foundations for the routines, capabilities, and performance links,” Managerial and decision economics , vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 489–502, 2008

    2008

  38. [44]

    Strong and weak emergence,

    D. Chalmers, “Strong and weak emergence,” The re-emergence of emergence , vol. 675, pp. 244–256, 2006

    2006

  39. [45]

    Emergence, entities, entropy, and binding forces,

    R. Abbott, “Emergence, entities, entropy, and binding forces,” in The Agent 2004 Conference on: Social Dynamics: Interaction, Reflexivity, and Emergence , p. 17, 2004

    2004

  40. [46]

    Predicting the unpredictable,

    E.Bonabeau, “Predicting the unpredictable,” Harvard Business Review , vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 109–134, 2002

    2002

  41. [47]

    Design, observation, surprise! a test of emergence,

    E. M. A. Ronald, M. Sipper, and M. S. Capcarr `ere, “Design, observation, surprise! a test of emergence,” Artificial Life, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 225–239, 1999

    1999

  42. [48]

    Complexification: Explaining a paradoxical world through the science of surprise,

    J. L. Casti, “Complexification: Explaining a paradoxical world through the science of surprise,” 1994

    1994

  43. [49]

    What emergence can possibly mean,

    S. M. Carroll and A. Parola, “What emergence can possibly mean,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15468 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  44. [50]

    Emergence: The connected lives of ants, brains, cities, and software,

    S. Johnson, “Emergence: The connected lives of ants, brains, cities, and software,” 2002

    2002

  45. [51]

    Weak emergence,

    M. A. Bedau, “Weak emergence,” Philosophical perspectives, vol. 11, pp. 375–399, 1997

    1997

  46. [52]

    Quantitative emergence,

    M. Mnif and C. M ¨uller-Schloer, “Quantitative emergence,” Organic Computing—A Paradigm Shift for Complex Systems , pp. 39–52, 2011

    2011

  47. [53]

    Harnessing emergence: The control and design of emergent behavior in system of systems engineering,

    S. Mittal and L. Rainey, “Harnessing emergence: The control and design of emergent behavior in system of systems engineering,” in Proceedings of the conference on summer computer simulation , pp. 1–10, 2015

    2015

  48. [54]

    Self-organizing systems: what, how, and why?,

    C. Gershenson, “Self-organizing systems: what, how, and why?,” npj Complexity, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 10, 2025

    2025

  49. [55]

    A mathematical theory of strong emergence using multiscale variety,

    Y . Bar-Yam, “A mathematical theory of strong emergence using multiscale variety,” Complexity, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 15–24, 2004

    2004

  50. [56]

    Detection and emergence,

    E. Bonabeau and J. Dessalles, “Detection and emergence,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1108.4279 , 2011

    2011 arXiv

  51. [57]

    The calculi of emergence: computation, dynamics and induction,

    J. P. Crutchfield, “The calculi of emergence: computation, dynamics and induction,” Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena , vol. 75, no. 1-3, pp. 11–54, 1994

    1994

  52. [58]

    Emergence is coupled to scope, not level,

    A. J. Ryan, “Emergence is coupled to scope, not level,” Complexity, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 67–77, 2007

    2007

  53. [59]

    A package for measuring emergence, self-organization, and complexity based on shannon entropy,

    G. Santamar´ıa-Bonfil, C. Gershenson, and N. Fern ´andez, “A package for measuring emergence, self-organization, and complexity based on shannon entropy,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI , vol. 4, p. 10, 2017

    2017

  54. [60]

    Measuring emergence via nonlinear granger causality.,

    A. K. Seth, “Measuring emergence via nonlinear granger causality.,” in alife, vol. 2008, pp. 545–552, 2008

    2008

  55. [61]

    Downward causation and the autonomy of weak emergence,

    M. Bedau, “Downward causation and the autonomy of weak emergence,” Principia: an international journal of epistemology, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 5–50, 2002

    2002

  56. [62]

    The philosophies of science,

    R. Harr ´e, “The philosophies of science,” 1985

    1985

  57. [63]

    Emergence, hierarchies, and hyperstructures,

    N. A. Baas, “Emergence, hierarchies, and hyperstructures,” Artificial Life III, SFI Studies in the Science of Complexity, XVII, pp. 515–537, 1994

    1994

  58. [64]

    ‘downward causation’in emergentism and nonreductive physicalism,

    J. Kim, “‘downward causation’in emergentism and nonreductive physicalism,” Emergence or reduction, pp. 119–138, 1992

    1992

  59. [65]

    Emergent properties,

    T. O’connor, “Emergent properties,” 2020

    2020

  60. [66]

    Luhmann, Social systems

    N. Luhmann, Social systems. Stanford university Press, 1995

    1995

  61. [67]

    Holland, Emergence: From chaos to order

    J. Holland, Emergence: From chaos to order . OUP Oxford, 2000

    2000

  62. [68]

    Dynamic programming solution for a class of pursuit evasion problems: the herding problem,

    P. Kachroo, S. A. Shedied, and H. Vanlandingham, “Dynamic programming solution for a class of pursuit evasion problems: the herding problem,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) , vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 35–41, 2002

    2002

  63. [69]

    Pursuit evasion: The herding noncooperative dynamic game—the stochastic model,

    P. Kachroo, S. A. Shedied, and H. Vanlandingham, “Pursuit evasion: The herding noncooperative dynamic game—the stochastic model,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews , vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 37–42, 2002

    2002

  64. [70]

    An effective simple shepherding algorithm suitable for implementation to a multi-mobile robot system,

    T. Miki and T. Nakamura, “An effective simple shepherding algorithm suitable for implementation to a multi-mobile robot system,” in First International Conference on Innovative Computing, Information and Control (ICICIC’06) , vol. 3, pp. 161–165, IEEE, 2006

    2006

  65. [71]

    Immune inspired cooperative mechanism with refined low-level behaviors for multi-robot shepherding,

    S. Razali, Q. Meng, and S. Yang, “Immune inspired cooperative mechanism with refined low-level behaviors for multi-robot shepherding,” International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Applications , vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2011

    2011

  66. [72]

    A comparative investigation of herding algorithms,

    B. Bennett and M. Trafankowski, “A comparative investigation of herding algorithms,” in Proceedings of the Symposium on Understanding and Modelling Collective Phenomena (UMoCoP) , (Birmingham, UK), pp. 33–38, 2012

    2012

  67. [74]

    Bullo, J

    F. Bullo, J. Cort ´es, and S. Martinez, Distributed control of robotic networks: a mathematical approach to motion coordination algorithms. Princeton University Press, 2009

    2009

  68. [75]

    Formations of vehicles in cyclic pursuit,

    J. Marshall, M. Broucke, and B. Francis, “Formations of vehicles in cyclic pursuit,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 49, no. 11, pp. 1963–1974, 2004

    1963

  69. [76]

    Local control strategies for groups of mobile autonomous agents,

    Z. Lin, M. Broucke, and B. Francis, “Local control strategies for groups of mobile autonomous agents,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 622–629, 2004

    2004

  70. [77]

    The formation control of multi-agent systems on a circle,

    Q. Wang, Y . Wang, and H. Zhang, “The formation control of multi-agent systems on a circle,” International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems , vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1234–1242, 2016

    2016

  71. [79]

    Enclosing a target by nonholonomic mobile robots with bearing-only measurements,

    R. Zheng, Y . Liu, and D. Sun, “Enclosing a target by nonholonomic mobile robots with bearing-only measurements,” Automatica, vol. 53, pp. 400–407, 2015

    2015

  72. [80]

    Moving target circular formation control of multiple non-holonomic vehicles without global position measurements,

    X. Yu and L. Liu, “Moving target circular formation control of multiple non-holonomic vehicles without global position measurements,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 3448–3454, 2017

    2017

  73. [81]

    Vision-based, distributed control laws for motion coordination of nonholonomic robots,

    N. Moshtagh, N. Michael, A. Jadbabaie, and K. Daniilidis, “Vision-based, distributed control laws for motion coordination of nonholonomic robots,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 851–860, 2009

    2009

  74. [82]

    Collective circular motion of multi-vehicle systems,

    N. Ceccarelli, M. D. Marco, A. Garulli, and A. Giannitrapani, “Collective circular motion of multi-vehicle systems,” Automatica, vol. 44, no. 12, pp. 3025–3035, 2008

    2008

  75. [83]

    Behaviour-based circle formation control simulation for cooperative uuvs,

    Y . Hou and R. Allen, “Behaviour-based circle formation control simulation for cooperative uuvs,” in Proceedings of the 17th IFAC World Congress, vol. 41, pp. 119–124, Elsevier, 2008

    2008

  76. [84]

    Distributed control for uniform circumnavigation of ring-coupled unicycles,

    R. Zheng, Z. Lin, M. Fu, and D. Sun, “Distributed control for uniform circumnavigation of ring-coupled unicycles,” Automatica, vol. 53, pp. 23–29, 2015

    2015

  77. [85]

    Coordinated standoff tracking of moving targets using lyapunov guidance vector fields,

    E. Frew, D. Lawrence, and S. Morris, “Coordinated standoff tracking of moving targets using lyapunov guidance vector fields,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 290–306, 2008

    2008

  78. [86]

    Circular motion guidance law for coordinated standoff tracking of a moving target,

    S. Yoon, S. Park, and Y . Kim, “Circular motion guidance law for coordinated standoff tracking of a moving target,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1454–1465, 2013

    2013

  79. [87]

    On the effects of collision avoidance on emergent swarm behavior,

    C. Taylor, C. Luzzi, and C. Nowzari, “On the effects of collision avoidance on emergent swarm behavior,” in 2020 American Control Conference (ACC) , pp. 931–936, IEEE, 2020

    2020

  80. [88]

    Taxonomy for the modeling and simulation of emergent behavior systems,

    O. Holland, “Taxonomy for the modeling and simulation of emergent behavior systems,” in Proceedings of the 2007 spring simulation multiconference-Volume 2 , pp. 28–35, 2007

    2007

  81. [89]

    Self-organization in the nervous system,

    D. Willshaw, “Self-organization in the nervous system,” Cognitive systems: Information processing meet brain science , pp. 5–33, 2006

    2006

  82. [90]

    Types and forms of emergence,

    J. Fromm, “Types and forms of emergence,” arXiv preprint nlin/0506028 , 2005

    2005 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Ten questions about emergence,

    J. Fromm, “Ten questions about emergence,” arXiv preprint nlin/0509049 , 2005

    2005 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Evolving aggregation behaviors in multi-robot systems with binary sensors,

    M. Gauci, J. Chen, T. J. Dodd, and R. Groß, “Evolving aggregation behaviors in multi-robot systems with binary sensors,” in Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems (M. Ani Hsieh and G. Chirikjian, eds.), (Berlin, Heidelberg), pp. 355–367, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2014

    2014

  85. [93]

    Discovery and exploration of novel swarm behaviors given limited robot capabilities,

    D. S. Brown, R. Turner, O. Hennigh, and S. Loscalzo, “Discovery and exploration of novel swarm behaviors given limited robot capabilities,” in Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems , Springer International Publishing AG, 2018

    2018

  86. [94]

    Circle formation with computation-free robots shows emergent behavioral structure,

    D. St-Onge, C. Pinciroli, and G. Beltrame, “Circle formation with computation-free robots shows emergent behavioral structure,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pp. 5344–5349, IEEE, 2018

    2018

  87. [95]

    Implicit coordination for 3d underwater collective behaviors in a fish-inspired robot swarm,

    F. Berlinger, M. Gauci, and R. Nagpal, “Implicit coordination for 3d underwater collective behaviors in a fish-inspired robot swarm,” Science Robotics, vol. 6, no. 50, 2021

    2021

  88. [96]

    Agent-based emulation for deploying robot swarm behaviors,

    R. Vega, K. Zhu, C. Mattson, D. Brown, and C. Nowzari, “Agent-based emulation for deploying robot swarm behaviors,” arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2410.16444, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Indirect swarm control: Characterization and analysis of emergent swarm behaviors,

    R. Vega, C. Mattson, D. Brown, and C. Nowzari, “Indirect swarm control: Characterization and analysis of emergent swarm behaviors,” arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2309.11408, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  90. [98]

    A survey on techniques in the circular formation of multi-agent systems,

    H. Litimein, Z. Huang, and A. Hamza, “A survey on techniques in the circular formation of multi-agent systems,” Electronics, vol. 10, no. 23, p. 2959, 2021

    2021

  91. [99]

    Contextually aware intelligent control agents for heterogeneous swarms,

    A. J. Hepworth, A. S. M. Hussein, D. J. Reid, and H. A. Abbass, “Contextually aware intelligent control agents for heterogeneous swarms,” Swarm Intelligence, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 275–310, 2024

    2024

  92. [100]

    Kilobot: A low cost scalable robot system for collective behaviors,

    M. Rubenstein, C. Ahler, and R. Nagpal, “Kilobot: A low cost scalable robot system for collective behaviors,” in 2012 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation , pp. 3293–3298, IEEE, 2012

    2012

  93. [101]

    Hamann, Swarm robotics: A formal approach , vol

    H. Hamann, Swarm robotics: A formal approach , vol. 221. Springer, 2018

    2018

  94. [102]

    Defining the swarm: Challenges in developing nato-agreed terminology across all domains,

    A. Haider and A. Schmidt, “Defining the swarm: Challenges in developing nato-agreed terminology across all domains,” The Journal of the JAPCC , vol. 34, pp. 60–65, 2022

    2022

  95. [103]

    What is a robot swarm: a definition for swarming robotics,

    R. Arnold, K. Carey, B. Abruzzo, and C. Korpela, “What is a robot swarm: a definition for swarming robotics,” in 2019 IEEE 10th annual ubiquitous computing, electronics & mobile communication conference (uemcon) , pp. 0074–0081, IEEE, 2019

    2019

  96. [104]

    Swarm intelligence in cellular robotic systems,

    G. Beni and J. Wang, “Swarm intelligence in cellular robotic systems,” in Robots and biological systems: towards a new bionics?, pp. 703–712, Springer, 1993

    1993

  97. [105]

    Automatic design of stigmergy-based behaviours for robot swarms,

    M. Salman, D. G. Ramos, and M. Birattari, “Automatic design of stigmergy-based behaviours for robot swarms,” Communications Engineering, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 30, 2024

    2024

  98. [106]

    Automatic off-line design of robot swarms: a manifesto,

    M. Birattari, A. Ligot, D. Bozhinoski, M. Brambilla, G. Francesca, L. Garattoni, D. G. Ramos, K. Hasselmann, M. Kegeleirs, J. Kuckling, et al., “Automatic off-line design of robot swarms: a manifesto,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI , vol. 6, p. 59, 2019

    2019

  99. [107]

    Swarm robotics: From sources of inspiration to domains of application,

    E. S ¸ahin, “Swarm robotics: From sources of inspiration to domains of application,” in International workshop on swarm robotics, pp. 10–20, Springer, 2004

    2004

  100. [108]

    The road forward with swarm systems,

    H. Abbass and S. Mostaghim, “The road forward with swarm systems,” 2025

    2025

  101. [109]

    On mimicking the effects of the reality gap with simulation-only experiments,

    A. Ligot and M. Birattari, “On mimicking the effects of the reality gap with simulation-only experiments,” in Swarm Intelligence: 11th International Conference, ANTS 2018, Rome, Italy, October 29–31, 2018, Proceedings 11 , pp. 109–122, Springer, 2018

    2018

  102. [110]

    Human interaction with robot swarms: A survey,

    A. Kolling, P. Walker, N. Chakraborty, K. Sycara, and M. Lewis, “Human interaction with robot swarms: A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems , vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 9–26, 2015

    2015

  103. [111]

    Swarm robotics: a review from the swarm engineering perspective,

    M. Brambilla, E. Ferrante, M. Birattari, and M. Dorigo, “Swarm robotics: a review from the swarm engineering perspective,” Swarm Intelligence, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–41, 2013

    2013

  104. [112]

    An introduction to swarm robotics,

    I. Navarro and F. Mat ´ıa, “An introduction to swarm robotics,” International Scholarly Research Notices , vol. 2013, no. 1, p. 608164, 2013

    2013

  105. [113]

    Swarm robotics: Simulators, platforms and applications review,

    C. Calder ´on-Arce, J. C. Brenes-Torres, and R. Solis-Ortega, “Swarm robotics: Simulators, platforms and applications review,” Computation, vol. 10, no. 6, p. 80, 2022

    2022

  106. [114]

    Eliminating the mystery from the concept of emergence,

    B. R. Johnson, “Eliminating the mystery from the concept of emergence,” Biology & Philosophy, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 843–849, 2010

    2010

  107. [115]

    Statistical mechanics of a dynamical system based on conway’s game of life,

    L. Schulman and P. Seiden, “Statistical mechanics of a dynamical system based on conway’s game of life,” Journal of Statistical Physics, vol. 19, pp. 293–314, 1978

    1978

  108. [116]

    Emergence and reductionism: from the game of life to science of life,

    V . Bauchau, “Emergence and reductionism: from the game of life to science of life,” in Self-Organization and Emergence in Life Sciences (B. Feltz, M. Crommelinck, and P. Goujon, eds.), pp. 29–40, Springer, 2006

    2006

  109. [117]

    Wolfram, A New Kind of Science

    S. Wolfram, A New Kind of Science . Champaign, IL: Wolfram Media, 2002

    2002

  110. [118]

    A survey on aerial swarm robotics,

    S. Chung, A. A. Paranjape, P. Dames, S. Shen, and V . Kumar, “A survey on aerial swarm robotics,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 837–855, 2018

    2018

  111. [119]

    A survey on swarm microrobotics,

    L. Yang, J. Yu, S. Yang, B. Wang, B. J. Nelson, and L. Zhang, “A survey on swarm microrobotics,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 1531–1551, 2021

    2021

  112. [120]

    Reactivity and deliberation: A survey on multi-robot systems,

    L. Iocchi, D. Nardi, and M. Salerno, “Reactivity and deliberation: A survey on multi-robot systems,” in Balancing Reactivity and Social Deliberation in Multi-Agent Systems , (Berlin, Heidelberg), pp. 9–32, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2001

    2001

  113. [121]

    Swarm robotic behaviors and current applications,

    M. Schranz, M. Umlauft, M. Sende, and W. Elmenreich, “Swarm robotic behaviors and current applications,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI , vol. 7, p. 36, 2020

    2020

  114. [122]

    Swarm robotics: past, present, and future [point of view],

    M. Dorigo, G. Theraulazand, and V . Trianni, “Swarm robotics: past, present, and future [point of view],” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 109, no. 7, pp. 1152–1165, 2021

    2021

  115. [123]

    Past, present, and future of swarm robotics,

    A. R. Cheraghi, S. Shahzad, and K. Graffi, “Past, present, and future of swarm robotics,” in Intelligent Systems and Applications: Proceedings of the 2021 Intelligent Systems Conference (IntelliSys) Volume 3 , pp. 190–233, Springer, 2022

    2021

  116. [124]

    An extensive review of research in swarm robotics,

    Y . Mohan and S. G. Ponnambalam, “An extensive review of research in swarm robotics,” in 2009 world congress on nature & biologically inspired computing (nabic) , pp. 140–145, IEEE, 2009

    2009

  117. [125]

    Swarm robotics reviewed,

    J. C. Barca and Y . A. Sekercioglu, “Swarm robotics reviewed,” Robotica, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 345–359, 2013

    2013

  118. [126]

    A review of swarm robotics in a nutshell,

    M. M. Shahzad, Z. Saeed, A. Akhtar, H. Munawar, M. H. Yousaf, N. K. Baloach, and F. Hussain, “A review of swarm robotics in a nutshell,” Drones, vol. 7, no. 4, p. 269, 2023

    2023

  119. [127]

    A review of morphogenetic engineering,

    R. Doursat, H. Sayama, and O. Michel, “A review of morphogenetic engineering,” Natural Computing, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 517–535, 2013

    2013

  120. [128]

    Morphogenetic robotics: An emerging new field in developmental robotics,

    Y . Jin and Y . Meng, “Morphogenetic robotics: An emerging new field in developmental robotics,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews , vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 145–160, 2011

    2011

  121. [129]

    Doursat, H

    R. Doursat, H. Sayama, and O. Michel, Morphogenetic engineering: toward programmable complex systems . Springer, 2012

    2012

  122. [130]

    Strandbeests,

    T. Jansen, “Strandbeests,” Architectural Design, vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 22–27, 2008

    2008

  123. [131]

    Analysis of theo jansen mechanism (strandbeest) and its comparative advantages over wheel based mine escavation system,

    S. Patnaik, “Analysis of theo jansen mechanism (strandbeest) and its comparative advantages over wheel based mine escavation system,” IOSR J Eng , vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 43–52, 2015

    2015

  124. [132]

    The design of self-organizing human–swarm intelligence,

    J. D. Hasbach and M. Bennewitz, “The design of self-organizing human–swarm intelligence,” Adaptive Behavior, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 361–386, 2021

    2021

  125. [133]

    Swarm chemistry,

    H. Sayama, “Swarm chemistry,” Artificial life, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 105–114, 2009

    2009

  126. [134]

    Thermodynamics-inspired macroscopic states of bounded swarms,

    H. Haeri, K. Jerath, and J. Leachman, “Thermodynamics-inspired macroscopic states of bounded swarms,” ASME Letters in Dynamic Systems and Control , vol. 1, no. 1, p. 011015, 2021

    2021

  127. [135]

    Leveraging human feedback to evolve and discover novel emergent behaviors in robot swarms,

    C. Mattson and D. Brown, “Leveraging human feedback to evolve and discover novel emergent behaviors in robot swarms,” in Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference , pp. 56–64, 2023

    2023

  128. [136]

    Discovery and deployment of emergent robot swarm behaviors via representation learning and real2sim2real transfer,

    C. Mattson, V . Raveendra, R. Vega, C. Nowzari, D. S. Drew, and D. S. Brown, “Discovery and deployment of emergent robot swarm behaviors via representation learning and real2sim2real transfer,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.15937 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  129. [137]

    Task-agnostic evolution of diverse repertoires of swarm behaviours,

    J. Gomes and A. Christensen, “Task-agnostic evolution of diverse repertoires of swarm behaviours,” in Swarm Intelligence: 11th International Conference, ANTS 2018, Rome, Italy, October 29–31, 2018, Proceedings 11 , pp. 225–238, Springer, 2018

    2018

  130. [138]

    Evolution of swarm robotics systems with novelty search,

    J. Gomes, P. Urbano, and A. L. Christensen, “Evolution of swarm robotics systems with novelty search,” Swarm Intelligence, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 115–144, 2013

    2013

  131. [139]

    Reaching a consensus via pinning control,

    F. Chen, Z. Chen, L. Xiang, Z.-X. Liu, and Z. Yuan, “Reaching a consensus via pinning control,” Automatica, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 1215–1220, 2009

    2009

  132. [140]

    Pinning control of scale-free dynamical networks,

    X. Wang and G. Chen, “Pinning control of scale-free dynamical networks,” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, vol. 310, no. 3–4, p. 521–531, 2002

    2002

  133. [141]

    Control and flocking of networked systems via pinning,

    X. Wang, X. Li, and J. Lu, “Control and flocking of networked systems via pinning,” IEEE Circuits and Systems Magazine , vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 83–91, 2024

    2024

  134. [142]

    Assessing coordination overhead in control of robot teams,

    J. Wang and L. M. Lewis, “Assessing coordination overhead in control of robot teams,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics , pp. 2645–2650, IEEE, 2007

    2007

  135. [143]

    Human-swarm interaction: sources of uncertainty,

    A. Hussein and H. Abbass, “Human-swarm interaction: sources of uncertainty,” in Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction , pp. 166–167, ACM, 2014

    2014

  136. [144]

    Neglect benevolence in human control of swarms in the presence of latency,

    P. Walker, S. Nunnally, M. Lewis, A. Kolling, N. Chakraborty, and K. Sycara, “Neglect benevolence in human control of swarms in the presence of latency,” in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC ’12), pp. 309–314, IEEE, 2012

    2012

  137. [145]

    Distributed design of ultra large-scale control systems: Progress, challenges, and prospects,

    L. Pedroso, P. Batista, and W. P. M. H. M. Heemels, “Distributed design of ultra large-scale control systems: Progress, challenges, and prospects,” Annual Reviews in Control , vol. 59, p. 100987, 2025

    2025

  138. [146]

    Research advance in swarm robotics,

    Y . Tan and Z. Zheng, “Research advance in swarm robotics,” Defence Technology, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 18–39, 2013

    2013

  139. [147]

    An overview of swarm robotics: Swarm intelligence applied to multi-robotics,

    B. Khaldi and F. Cherif, “An overview of swarm robotics: Swarm intelligence applied to multi-robotics,” International Journal of Computer Applications , vol. 126, no. 2, 2015

    2015

  140. [148]

    Design of decentralized chemotactic control law for area coverage using swarm of mobile robots,

    A. M. Schroeder and M. Kumar, “Design of decentralized chemotactic control law for area coverage using swarm of mobile robots,” in 2016 American Control Conference (ACC) , pp. 4317–4322, IEEE, 2016

    2016

  141. [149]

    Robot swarm for efficient area coverage inspired by ant foraging: the case of adaptive switching between brownian motion and l ´evy flight,

    A. Deshpande, M. Kumar, and S. Ramakrishnan, “Robot swarm for efficient area coverage inspired by ant foraging: the case of adaptive switching between brownian motion and l ´evy flight,” in Dynamic Systems and Control Conference , vol. 58288, p. V002T14A009, American Society o...

    2017

  142. [150]

    Surveillance task optimized by evolutionary shared tabu inverted ant cellular automata model for swarm robotics navigation control,

    H. J. M. Lopes and D. A. Lima, “Surveillance task optimized by evolutionary shared tabu inverted ant cellular automata model for swarm robotics navigation control,” Results in Control and Optimization , vol. 8, p. 100141, 2022

    2022

  143. [151]

    Spatial coverage without computation,

    A. ¨Ozdemir, M. Gauci, A. Kolling, M. Hall, and R. Groß, “Spatial coverage without computation,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 9674–9680, IEEE, 2019

    2019

  144. [152]

    A self-organizing area coverage method for swarm robots based on gradient and grouping,

    Q. Wang and H. Zhang, “A self-organizing area coverage method for swarm robots based on gradient and grouping,” Symmetry, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 680, 2021

    2021

  145. [153]

    A cellular automata ant memory model of foraging in a swarm of robots,

    D. A. Lima and G. M. B. Oliveira, “A cellular automata ant memory model of foraging in a swarm of robots,” Applied Mathematical Modelling, vol. 47, pp. 551–572, 2017

    2017

  146. [154]

    Particle swarm optimization-based source seeking,

    R. Zou, V . Kalivarapu, E. Winer, J. Oliver, and S. Bhattacharya, “Particle swarm optimization-based source seeking,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering , vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 865–875, 2015

    2015

  147. [155]

    Search and rescue operations using robotic darwinian particle swarm optimization,

    A. S. Kumar, G. Manikutty, R. R. Bhavani, and M. S. Couceiro, “Search and rescue operations using robotic darwinian particle swarm optimization,” in 2017 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics (ICACCI), pp. 1839–1843, IEEE, 2017

    2017

  148. [156]

    An performance analysis of a pso-based algorithm for swarm robotics,

    R. Melo, C. S. Junior, and C. Victor, “An performance analysis of a pso-based algorithm for swarm robotics,” in Proc. 9th Int. Multi-Conf. Complex., Inform. Cybern.(IMCIC) , pp. 1–7, 2018

    2018

  149. [157]

    Exploration enhanced rpso for collaborative multitarget searching of robotic swarms,

    J. Yang, R. Xiong, X. Xiang, and Y . Shi, “Exploration enhanced rpso for collaborative multitarget searching of robotic swarms,” Complexity, vol. 2020, no. 1, p. 8863526, 2020

    2020

  150. [158]

    Aerpso—an adaptive exploration robotic pso based cooperative algorithm for multiple target searching,

    V . Garg, A. Shukla, and R. Tiwari, “Aerpso—an adaptive exploration robotic pso based cooperative algorithm for multiple target searching,” Expert Systems with Applications , vol. 209, p. 118245, 2022

    2022

  151. [159]

    Self-organized swarm robot for target search and trapping inspired by bacterial chemotaxis,

    B. Yang, Y . Ding, Y . Jin, and K. Hao, “Self-organized swarm robot for target search and trapping inspired by bacterial chemotaxis,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems , vol. 72, pp. 83–92, 2015

    2015

  152. [160]

    Bee-inspired algorithm for groups of cyber-physical robotic cleaners with swarm intelligence,

    O. Y . Maryasin, “Bee-inspired algorithm for groups of cyber-physical robotic cleaners with swarm intelligence,” Cyber- Physical Systems: Modelling and Intelligent Control , pp. 167–177, 2021

    2021

  153. [161]

    Group explosion strategy for searching multiple targets using swarm robotic,

    Z. Zheng and Y . Tan, “Group explosion strategy for searching multiple targets using swarm robotic,” in 2013 IEEE Congress on evolutionary computation , pp. 821–828, IEEE, 2013

    2013

  154. [162]

    Real-time distributed infrastructure-free searching and target tracking via virtual pheromones,

    J. P. Mathew and C. Nowzari, “Real-time distributed infrastructure-free searching and target tracking via virtual pheromones,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.13035 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  155. [163]

    The multi-target search problem with environmental restrictions in swarm robotics,

    J. Li and Y . Tan, “The multi-target search problem with environmental restrictions in swarm robotics,” in 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO 2014) , pp. 2685–2690, IEEE, 2014

    2014

  156. [164]

    Avoiding decoys in multiple targets searching problems using swarm robotics,

    Z. Zheng, J. Li, J. Li, and Y . Tan, “Avoiding decoys in multiple targets searching problems using swarm robotics,” in 2014 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC) , pp. 784–791, IEEE, 2014

    2014

  157. [165]

    A grouping method for multiple targets search using swarm robots,

    Q. Tang, F. Yu, and L. Ding, “A grouping method for multiple targets search using swarm robots,” in Advances in Swarm Intelligence: 7th International Conference, ICSI 2016, Bali, Indonesia, June 25-30, 2016, Proceedings, Part II 7 , pp. 470–478, Springer, 2016

    2016

  158. [166]

    Triangle formation based multiple targets search using a swarm of robots,

    J. Li and Y . Tan, “Triangle formation based multiple targets search using a swarm of robots,” in International Conference in Swarm Intelligence , pp. 544–552, Springer, 2016

    2016

  159. [167]

    Triangular lattice formation in robot swarms with minimal local sensing,

    Z. Nie, Q. Zhang, X. Wang, F. Wang, and T. Hu, “Triangular lattice formation in robot swarms with minimal local sensing,” IET Cyber-Systems and Robotics , vol. 5, no. 2, p. e12087, 2023

    2023

  160. [168]

    Self-organized aggregation without computation,

    M. Gauci, J. Chen, W. Li, T. Dodd, and R. Groß, “Self-organized aggregation without computation,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1145–1161, 2014

    2014

  161. [169]

    Swarm aggregations using artificial potentials and sliding-mode control,

    V . Gazi, “Swarm aggregations using artificial potentials and sliding-mode control,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1208–1214, 2005

    2005

  162. [170]

    Swarm aggregation without communication and global positioning,

    D. Shah and L. Vachhani, “Swarm aggregation without communication and global positioning,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 886–893, 2019

    2019

  163. [171]

    Collective decision-making and behaviour transitions in distributed ad hoc wireless networks of mobile robots: Target-hunting,

    J. Wessnitzer and C. Melhuish, “Collective decision-making and behaviour transitions in distributed ad hoc wireless networks of mobile robots: Target-hunting,” in European Conference on Artificial Life , pp. 893–902, Springer, 2003

    2003

  164. [172]

    Self-organized aggregation triggers collective decision making in a group of cockroach-like robots,

    S. Garnier, J. Gautrais, M. Asadpour, C. Jost, and G. Theraulaz, “Self-organized aggregation triggers collective decision making in a group of cockroach-like robots,” Adaptive Behavior, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 109–133, 2009

    2009

  165. [173]

    Self-organized discrimination of resources,

    A. Campo, S. Garnier, O. D ´edriche, M. Zekkri, and M. Dorigo, “Self-organized discrimination of resources,” PLoS One, vol. 6, no. 5, p. e19888, 2011

    2011

  166. [174]

    Collective decision-making based on social odometry,

    A. Guti ´errez, A. Campo, F. Monasterio-Huelin, L. Magdalena, and M. Dorigo, “Collective decision-making based on social odometry,” Neural Computing and Applications , vol. 19, pp. 807–823, 2010

    2010

  167. [175]

    Biologically inspired collective comparisons by robotic swarms,

    C. A. C. Parker and H. Zhang, “Biologically inspired collective comparisons by robotic swarms,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 524–535, 2011

    2011

  168. [176]

    On the evolution of mechanisms for collective decision making in a swarm of robots,

    A. Almansoori, M. Alkilabi, J. Colin, and E. Tuci, “On the evolution of mechanisms for collective decision making in a swarm of robots,” in Italian Workshop on Artificial Life and Evolutionary Computation , pp. 109–120, Springer, 2021

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.