Inferring effective forces in collective motion
description
Transcript of Inferring effective forces in collective motion
Inferring effective forces in collective motion
Yael Katz, Christos Ioannou, Kolbjørn Tunstrøm and Iain Couzin Dept. of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology Princeton University
Cristián Huepe Unaffiliated NSF Grantee Cristian Huepe Labs Inc. - Chicago IL
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants No. DMS-0507745 & PHY-0848755
Outline• Overview
Background Some basic models of collective
motion Challenge: The inverse problem
• A detailed effective-force analysis Fish schooling: quasi 2D experiments Model-free approach Effective-forces: results
Motivation Collective motion is observed in diverse animal species,
not only in bacteria. Fish schools & bird flocks can involve from a few
individuals to several thousands Locust swarms can contain 109 individuals traveling
thousands of kilometers
– Background
Current efforts Quantitative experiments Distinguishing generic and specific behaviors
Challenges in modeling Different models produce similar dynamics We can be prejudiced by familiar interactions
The inverse problem: Deducing the interaction rules from collective
dynamics
– Challenges
Intuitive flocking algorithm (Craig Reynolds – Sony)
Generic rules (from computer graphics)
– Flocks, Herds, and Schools: A Distributed Behavioral Model Computer Graphics, 21(4), pp. 25-34, 1987
– Defined Boids and simple interaction rules:
▪ Separation
▪ Alignment
▪ Cohesion
Motivation Non-equilibrium swarming dynamics Emerging collective behavior Statistical description Complex behavior
The Vicsek model
Other models Agent-based algorithms
Discrete time Continuous time (ODEs)
Field-based descriptions (PDEs)
– The Vicsek model
The “zones” model
– A more biological model
Journal of Theoretical Biology (2002) 218, 1-11I. D. Couzin, J. Krause, R. James, G. D. Ruxton &N. R. Franks
- “Insect-like” swarm:
- Torus, “milling”:
- Migration, flocking:
Different algorithms yield similar collective motion What interactions are animal swarms actually using? Are we making underlying assumptions? In other words:
Can we properly address the inverse problem?
- Challenge: The inverse problem
Outline• Overview
Background Some basic models of collective
motion Challenge: The inverse problem
• A detailed effective-force analysis Fish schooling: quasi 2D experiments Model-free approach Effective-forces: results
Experimental System
Work with:
Prof Iain Couzin, Dr Yael Katz,
Dr Kolbjørn Tunstrøm
Dr Christos Ioannou
Other collaborators:Dr Andrey SokolovAndrew Hartnett,
Etc.
Princeton University
1000 fish dynamics
1000 fish dynamics
Method Measure mean effective forces on 2-fish & 3-fish systems Use large dataset: 14 experiments of 56 minutes each Use classical mechanics formalism (force-driven systems)
F=ma & trajectories given by (q,p) per degree of freedom
Goals “Model-free” approach on clear mathematical grounds Gain intuition over multiple possible dynamical dependencies Study deviations from classical mechanics
Memory, higher-order interactions, etc.
Other methods Maximum entropy Bayesian inference
The effective-force approach
Space-like variables: Distance front-back Distance left-right
Velocity-like variables: Neighbor fish speed Focal fish speed Relative heading
Acceleration-like variables? Neighbor fish turning rate Neighbor fish speeding Focal fish turning rate Focal fish speeding
The two-fish system
Position-dependent forces
• Zero force high density
• ||v||>0.5 BL/s
• F||(y), F=(x)
Velocity-dependent forces
• Higher speed larger forces & preferred y-distance
• Aligned Higher F||
• Misaligned Higher F
Temporal correlation
Orientation information Front to back
Speed information Both ways
The three-body problem
Intrinsic 3-body interaction
Best match:
2neigbor 1neigbor 223 7.0 SS FFF 2neigbor 1neigbor 223 4.0 TT FFF
Residual 3-body interaction:“Non-negligible” “Negligible”
Best match:
Residual 3-body interaction:
Conclusions
Using an effective-force approach we found that: Within the interaction zone, speeding depends mainly on front-back
distance, and turning on left-right distance Trailing fish turn to follow fish in front but adjust speed to follow
neighbors in front or behind Alignment emerges from attraction/repulsion interactions:
No evidence for explicit alignment Tuning response is approximately averaged while speeding is between
averaging and additive Speeding response follows no linear superposition principle: Residual
intrinsic three-body interaction
New models and simulations to analyze
New statistical/emergent properties to find … Fin
… Fin