Abstract

Self-organization can be broadly defined as the ability of a system to display ordered spatiotemporal patterns solely as the result of the interactions among the system components. Processes of this kind characterize both living and artificial systems, making self-organization a concept that is at the basis of several disciplines, from physics to biology and engineering. Placed at the frontiers between disciplines, artificial life (ALife) has heavily borrowed concepts and tools from the study of self-organization, providing mechanistic interpretations of lifelike phenomena as well as useful constructivist approaches to artificial system design. Despite its broad usage within ALife, the concept of self-organization has been often excessively stretched or misinterpreted, calling for a clarification that could help with tracing the borders between what can and cannot be considered self-organization. In this review, we discuss the fundamental aspects of self-organization and list the main usages within three primary ALife domains, namely “soft” (mathematical/computational modeling), “hard” (physical robots), and “wet” (chemical/biological systems) ALife. We also provide a classification to locate this research. Finally, we discuss the usefulness of self-organization and related concepts within ALife studies, point to perspectives and challenges for future research, and list open questions. We hope that this work will motivate discussions related to self-organization in ALife and related fields.

1 What Is Self-Organization?

The idea of self-organization can be traced to antiquity, including Greek and Buddhist philosophies [68, 108]. The term “self-organization” was used sparingly in the 19th century, mainly applied to social systems. Similar concepts had been proposed earlier by Kant [98], and in the 1930s, it was introduced into embryology [184].

The modern term “self-organizing system” was coined by Ashby [8] to describe phenomena where local interactions between independent elements lead to global behaviors or patterns. The phrase is used when an external observer perceives a pattern in a system with many components, and this pattern is not imposed by a central authority among or external to those components, but rather arises from the collective behavior of the elements themselves. Natural examples are found in areas such as collective motion [198], as when birds or fish move in flocks or schools exhibiting complex group behavior; morphogenesis [120], in which cells in a living body divide and specialize to develop into a complex body plan; and pattern formation [36] in a variety of physical, chemical, and biological systems [29, 49], such as convection and crystal growth as well as the formation of patterns like stripes and spots on animal coats.

A formal definition of the term runs into difficulties in agreeing on what is a system, what is organization, and what is self [72], none of which is perfectly straightforward. However, a pragmatic approach focuses on when it is useful to describe a system as self-organizing [64]. This utility typically comes when an observer identifies a pattern at a higher scale but is also interested in phenomena at a lower scale; there then arise questions of how the lower scale produces the observables at the higher scale, as well as how the higher scale constrains and promotes observables at the lower scale. For example, bird behavior leads to flock formation, and descriptors at the level of the flock can also be used to understand regulation of individual bird behavior [105].

Self-organization has been an important concept within a number of disciplines [179], including statistical mechanics [37, 210], supramolecular chemistry [123], and computer science [110, 129]. Artificial life (ALife) frequently draws heavily on self-organizing systems in different contexts [5], starting in the early days of the field with studies of systems like snowflake formation [140] and agent flocking [161], and continuing to the present day. However, there are often confusions and misinterpretations involved with this concept, possibly due to an apparent lack of recent systematic literature.

In this work, we intend to:

  • 1. 

    Review research at the intersection of self-organization and ALife.

  • 2. 

    Provide a classification to locate this research.

  • 3. 

    Guide newcomers to the field with this classification.

  • 4. 

    Synthesize relevant concepts, challenges, and open questions.

  • 5. 

    Open discussions on this topic within ALife and related fields.

We first articulate some fundamental aspects of self-organization, outline ways the term has been used by researchers in the field, and then summarize work based on self-organization within soft (simulated), hard (robotic), and wet (chemical and biochemical) domains of ALife. We then present a classification for categorizing different types of self-organization. We also provide perspectives for further research. A list of open questions closes this article.

2 Usage

Ashby coined the term “self-organizing system” to show that a machine could be strictly deterministic and yet exhibit a self-induced change of organization [8]. This notion was further developed within cybernetics [9, 200]. In many contexts, a thermodynamical perspective has been taken [81, 82, 96], where “organization” is viewed as a reduction of entropy in a(n) (open) system [137]. Since there is an equivalence between Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy and Shannon information, this notion has also been applied in contexts related to information theory [50, 146, 147, 152]. In this view, a self-organizing system is one whose dynamics lead it to decrease its information content, hence becoming more predictable. Based on information theory, the recent subfield of guided self-organization explores mechanisms by which self-organization can be regulated for specific purposes—that is, how to find or design dynamics for a system such that it will have particular attractors or outcomes [10, 148, 150, 151, 153]. For example, the self-organization of random Boolean networks [100, 101] can be guided to specific dynamical regimes [65].

There are several other definitions of self-organization as well. [176] defines self-organization as an increase in statistical complexity, which in turn is defined as the amount of information required to minimally specify the state of the system's causal architecture. As an alternative to entropy, the use of the mean value of random variables has also been proposed [92].

The concept of self-organization is also heavily used in organization science, with relevance to early artificial society models [46, 74], which have evolved into what is known today as computational social science [121].

Self-organization is commonly used in a broad sense that encompasses self-assembly and other processes, but the term has at times been used in a more restrictive sense for far-from-equilibrium processes [132].

While there may be no single agreed-on definition of self-organization, this lack need not be an insurmountable obstacle for its study, any more than a lack of a unanimous formal definition of “life” has been an obstacle for progress in the fields of biology or ALife. In what follows, we provide a concise review of how the idea of self-organization has contributed to the progress of ALife.

3 Domains

One way to classify ALife research is to divide it into soft, hard, and wet domains, roughly referring to computer simulations, physical robots, and chemical/biological research (including living technology as the application of ALife [21]), respectively. Self-organization has played a central role in work in all three domains.

3.1 Soft ALife

Soft ALife, or mathematical and computational modeling and simulation of lifelike behaviors, has been linked to self-organization in many subdomains. Cellular automata (CAs) [94], one of the most popular modeling frameworks used in earlier forms of soft ALife, are well-explored, illustrative examples of self-organizing systems. A CA consists of many units (cells), each of which can be in any of a number of discrete states, and each of which repeatedly determines its next state in a fully distributed manner, based on its current state and those of its neighbors. With no central controller involved, CAs can organize their state configurations to demonstrate various forms of self-organization: dynamical critical states such as in sand-pile models [15] and in the Game of Life [14], spontaneous formation of spatial patterns [47, 211, 216] (Figure 1(a)), self-replication1 [116, 117, 158, 178], and evolution by variation and natural selection [138, 139, 164, 166, 167, 185]. Similarly, partial differential equations (PDEs), a continuous counterpart of CAs, have an even longer history of demonstrating self-organizing dynamics [52, 76, 142, 190] (Figure 1(b)).

Figure 1. 

Turing pattern formation [190] as an illustrative example of self-organization in computational models. (a) Simulation in CA using Young's discrete model [216]. (b) Simulation in PDE using Turing's original formulation. Figures from [171].

Figure 1. 

Turing pattern formation [190] as an illustrative example of self-organization in computational models. (a) Simulation in CA using Young's discrete model [216]. (b) Simulation in PDE using Turing's original formulation. Figures from [171].

Another representative class of soft ALife that shows self-organization comprises models of collective behavior of self-propelled agents [198]. Reynolds' “Boids” model [161] is probably the best known in this category. In this work, self-propelled agents move in a continuous space according to three kinetic rules: cohesion (to maintain positional proximity), alignment (to maintain directional similarity), and separation (to avoid overcrowding and collision). A variety of related models have since been proposed and studied, including simplified, statistical-physics-oriented ones [6, 125, 135, 197] and more detailed, behavioral-ecology-oriented ones [35, 90, 115]. These models produce natural-looking flocking/schooling/swarming collective behaviors out of simple decentralized behavioral rules, and they also exhibit phase transitions between distinct macroscopic states. They have also been used as inspiration for a variety of optimization algorithms [40, 103, 114, 145, 214].

Such collective behavior models have been brought into artificial chemistry studies as well [17, 39], such as swarm chemistry, its variants, and similar models [48, 112, 137, 168, 169, 170, 175], in which kinetically and chemically distinct species of idealized agents interact to form nontrivial spatiotemporal dynamic patterns. More recently, these collective behavior models have also been actively utilized in morphogenetic engineering [43, 44], in which researchers attempt to achieve a successful merger of self-organization and programmable architectural design, by discovering or designing agent rules that result in specific desired high-level patterns.

Other examples of self-organization in soft ALife are found in simulation models of artificial societies. Their roots can be traced back to the famous segregation models developed by Sakoda and Schelling back in the early 1970s [87, 163, 174], in which simple, independent decision making by individual agents would eventually cause a spatially segregated state of society at a macroscopic level. Agent-based simulation of artificial societies has been one of the core topics discussed in the ALife community [46, 118], and has elucidated self-organization of phenomena in social order such as geographical resource management [23, 119], cooperative strategies [4, 25, 93, 126], and common languages [107, 127, 181, 183]. The literature on adaptive social network models may also be included in this category [28, 38, 62, 80, 172, 193], as those “artificial society” models describe self-organization of society into a nontrivial configuration through coevolution of autonomous dynamic state changes of social constituents and topological changes of social ties.

As adaptive networks at an individual organism level, brains and nervous systems also have been described for decades as self-organizing systems [88, 108], in that neurons interact to produce behavioral and cognitive patterns. Self-organization of such neural systems has been particularly useful in computer science, and in the study of artificial neural networks [63]; as a particularly conspicuous example, Kohonen networks [110] are also called self-organizing maps. Since a large part of soft and hard ALife research deals with agents, animats, or robots (virtual or physical) being controlled by artificial neural networks, it can be said that self-organization is present not only at the behavioral level, but also at the controller level in many cases.

Similar approaches have also been used in search and optimization techniques [45]. For example, Watson and colleagues have proposed using Hebbian learning [86] to self-organize components of a complex system to resolve conflicts [205, 206]. This mechanism probably has also been exploited beyond neural systems, as computational anthropology studies suggest [56, 57].

3.2 Hard ALife

Robots can be considered to be lifelike artefacts in their ability to sense their physical environment and take action in response. Physical agents, even very simple ones, can evoke in the observer a particularly strong sense of being animate. From W. Grey Walter's tortoises [203, 204] to simple machines based on the principles of Braitenberg's vehicles [24], from behavior-based reactive robots [26] to recent biomimetic and bioinspired designs [106, 165, 213], ALife built into machines stems from the rich dynamics underlying the interaction between the embodied agent and its environment, so that even simple mechanisms and behavioral rules can confer sophisticated lifelike attributes on limited machines [177]. Complex ALife forms can be attained either by increasing the sophistication of a single robot, or by increasing the number of robots in a system that, through the resulting interaction and self-organization, can then display more sophisticated abilities collectively, from adaptive responses to group decision making.

Hardware has the strong advantage that the physical characteristics of the system (dynamics, sensor performance, actuator noise profiles, etc.) are by definition realistic, whereas simulations are necessarily simplified and typically fail to capture phenomena that only become evident through material experimentation [27, 97, 162]. Conversely, while simulation can readily handle very large numbers of agents, hardware considerations (cost, space, scalability of operation, etc.) have traditionally limited hard ALife studies to using a small number of robots. In some scenarios, self-organizing phenomena of interest do not necessarily require many robots. When the mechanism for coordination is based on stigmergy (persistent information left in a shared environment), the important element is a large number of interactions between robots and environment, and even a single robot could suffice to generate complex patterns [18, 208]. More recently, hardware advances have made it possible to conduct physical experiments with robots in numbers exceeding a thousand [162].

Physical experiments have been used to explore self-organizing phenomena in a variety of areas. Aggregation of objects has been studied from a physics perspective [75] in ways inspired by behavior observed in living systems, such as cockroaches or bees [61, 83, 104] and using controllers designed through automatic methods such as artificial evolution [41, 53]. Another topic is collective navigation, in which groups of robots coordinate their overall direction of motion and collectively avoid obstacles [16, 188, 189]. The coordination of flying robots has also been explored using self-organization [196, 199]. In other studies, collective decision-making processes are determined by positive feedback from recruitment and negative feedback from cross-inhibition [53, 59, 60, 104, 159, 173, 191, 192]. Self-assembly [209] is another form of self-organization largely studied in hard ALife with self-assembling or self-reconfiguring robots [7, 42, 78, 134, 162, 180, 215, 217].

3.3 Wet ALife

Wet ALife, or physico-chemical synthesis of lifelike behaviors, extensively utilizes self-organization as its core principle. A classic example is spatial pattern formation in experimentally realized reaction-diffusion systems, such as the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction [3, 192] and Gray-Scott-like self-replicating spots [55, 122], where dynamic patterns self-organize entirely from spatially localized chemical reactions. Similar approaches can also be taken by using microscopic biological organisms (e.g., slime molds) as the media of self-organization [2, 3, 58, 91, 130].

In research on the origins of life, molecular self-assembly plays the essential role in producing protocell structures and their metabolic dynamics [84, 155, 156, 157]. Chemical autopoiesis such as dynamic formation and maintenance of micelles and vesicles [12, 13, 128, 202] may also be included in this context.

More recently, dynamic behaviors of macroscopically visible chemical droplets, AKA liquid robots [31], have become a focus of active study in ALife. In this line of research, interactions among chemical reactions, physical microfluid dynamics, and possibly other not yet fully understood microscopic mechanisms cause self-organization of spontaneous movements [33, 85] and complex morphology [32] of those droplets. Moreover, droplet-based systems have also been used to demonstrate artificial evolution in experimental chemical systems [141].

Recently, there have been a few studies on the collective behavior of protocells (e.g., [154]) and droplets [31]. The potential chemical interaction space is vast, so it is difficult to explore with traditional techniques. Still, the automation of this exploration offers a promising approach [79].

Wet ALife has developed more recently than the soft and hard perspectives, but it has great potential to better understand living processes and also to exploit and regulate them with engineering principles and purposes.

4 A Classification

There are different potential classifications that could be considered to characterize self-organization in the context of ALife studies. One fundamental aspect concerns the level at which self-organization takes place with respect to the lifelike process under consideration. In this respect, we can distinguish between internal and external self-organization. Internal self-organization would occur within an individual or agent, and could be functional for the production of lifelike properties (e.g., morphogenesis) as well as useful for determining physical characteristics or behavioral responses that determine the way in which the individual agent interacts with its environment (e.g., pattern formation, neural plasticity). External self-organization is that occurring among individuals or agents. Such forms of self-organization pertain to the social aspects of life like processes, which are often fundamental to support reproduction and survival. These include collective behavior, social coordination, and ecological organization. Note that in some cases the same process could be considered internal or external, depending on the observation level. For example, morphogenesis would be external at the cell level, but internal at the organism level. Behavior can be external at the individual level, but internal at the social level.

An orthogonal direction that characterizes a self-organizing system concerns the nature of the interactions among the system components that bring about the lifelike spatiotemporal patterns. In this respect, it is customary to distinguish between direct and indirect (e.g., stigmergic) forms of interaction. When elements, individuals, or agents interact directly, their coordination can be fast. However, they need to be synchronized in time and space, and this sometimes can be challenging. Additionally, mechanisms must be concurrently provided for interactions to be encoded into a communication act and then suitably decoded. Indirect, stigmergic interactions take place by means of traces left in the environment, usually as a result of a unit of work performed by some agent that is recognized by a fellow agent [187]. Initially used to describe the organization of work in social insects (e.g., nest construction in termites or pheromone communication in ants), the concept of indirect interactions has been expanded to include any external medium that can store information and thus allow for coordination without the need of synchronous, direct communication. Indeed, the persistence of indirect interactions within the environment facilitates asynchronous coordination and the stratification of information, which can lead to complex patterns that extend in space and time. Note that internal self-organization is usually direct. This is because the environment in most cases is considered external to agents.

Examples of different types of self-organization belonging to different domains are given in Table 1.

Table 1. 
Examples of ALife systems classified according to different types of self-organization and domains. Depending on the observer's purposes, the same ALife system could be considered as exhibiting different types of self-organization. Therefore, the types are non-exclusive, and the boundaries between them are not sharp.
Level: Internal External 
Interactions: Direct Indirect 
Soft Pattern formation, cellular automata, artificial neural networks Boids [161], swarm chemistry [168Ant colony optimization [40
Hard Self-modeling robots [22], swarm-bots [42Alice [61], Jasmine [104], Kilobots [162TERMES [208
Wet Protocells [155], active droplets [31Xenobots [113], Predator protocells [154Slime mold machines [1], collective behavior of droplets [31
Level: Internal External 
Interactions: Direct Indirect 
Soft Pattern formation, cellular automata, artificial neural networks Boids [161], swarm chemistry [168Ant colony optimization [40
Hard Self-modeling robots [22], swarm-bots [42Alice [61], Jasmine [104], Kilobots [162TERMES [208
Wet Protocells [155], active droplets [31Xenobots [113], Predator protocells [154Slime mold machines [1], collective behavior of droplets [31

5 Perspectives

As mentioned above, we can understand a self-organizing system as one in which organization increases in time, without an external agency imposing this change. However, it can be shown that, depending on how the variables of a system are chosen, the same system can be said to be either organizing or disorganizing [72]. Moreover, in several examples of self-organization, it is not straightforward to identify the self of the system, as oftentimes all elements composing the system can be ascribed equal agency. Finally, in cybernetics and systems theory, the dependence of the boundaries of a system on the observer has been thoroughly discussed [70]: One wants to have an objective description of phenomena, but descriptions are necessarily made by observers, making them partially subjective.

It becomes clear, then, that discussing self-organization requires the identification of what is self and what is other, and what are the elements that are increasing in their organization. Similar issues have been tackled in [131] in the definition of living systems as autopoietic systems. According to this tradition, a living system is inherently self-organizing because the self is continuously produced or renewed by processes brought forth by the system's internal components. In other words, an autopoietic system can be recognized as a unity with boundaries that encompass a number of simpler elementary components that are at the basis of the organization of the system, as they are responsible for the definition of the system boundaries and for the (re)production of the very same components [195]. This is a peculiar characteristic of living systems. If life is deeply rooted in self-organization, so can be ALife, and the several acceptations of ALife discussed above demonstrate the richness of the links it holds with self-organization. Nevertheless, the tradition of autopoiesis did not originally consider evolution (history), an essential aspect of biology.

Whether evolution itself is an example of self-organization warrants discussion, too. Evolution is often depicted as synonymous with adaptation, a convergent process toward optimal types that are driven by external mechanisms (selection criteria or fitness landscapes). This has often been discussed as opposed or complementary to self-organization, most notably by [77] and [101]. Meanwhile, there is also an effort toward re-describing biological evolution as a kind of self-organization [207], as all the mechanisms of evolution, such as variation, reproduction, and selection, are ultimately grounded upon local, uncontrolled physical/chemical processes. Also, if one uses a very large spatial/temporal-scale perspective to observe evolution, it can be regarded as a self-organizing process of the population of evolving organisms in that they may spontaneously generate more diverse species, more complex interspecific interactions, and even higher-order evolving entities, as diverse scales of space, time, and complexity are relevant [124].

Looking at the perspectives of ALife, it can be useful to think of self-organization as a common language that unifies the soft, hard, and wet domains. The term is broadly used across many areas, pointing to the existence of common features that can tie together otherwise disparate studies. By recognizing and exploiting these commonalities, a better understanding of self-organization should help the advancement of ALife. The ALife community can progress owing to shared concepts and definitions, and despite the mentioned difficulties, self-organization stands as a common ground on which to build consensus. Most importantly, we believe that the identification and classifications of the mechanisms that underpin self-organization can be extremely useful to synthesize novel forms of ALife and gain a better understanding of life itself.

These mechanisms should be identified at the level of the system components and characterized by the effects they have on the system organization. Mechanisms pertain to the modalities of interaction among system components (e.g., collisions, perceptions, direct communication, stigmergy), to behavioral patterns pertaining to individual components (e.g., exploration versus exploitation), and to information enhancement or suppression (e.g., recruitment or inhibitory processes). The effects of the mechanisms should be visible in the creation of feedback loops—positive or negative—at the system level, which determine the complex dynamics underlying self-organization. We believe that, by identifying and characterizing the mechanisms that support self-organization, the synthesis of artefacts with lifelike properties would be much simplified. In this perspective, mechanisms underlying self-organization could potentially be thought of as design patterns to generate ALife systems [11, 52, 160]. By exploiting and composing them, different forms of ALife could be designed with a principled approach, owing to the understanding of the relationship between mechanisms and system organization.

The possibility of exploiting self-organization for design purposes is especially relevant to the development of living technologies, that is, technologies presenting features of living systems [21], such as robustness, adaptability, and self-organization, which can include self-reconfiguration, self-healing, self-management, self-assembly, and so on, often named together as “self-*” in the context of autonomic computing [149].

Self-organization has been used directly in living technologies within a variety of domains [20], from protocells [155] to cities [67]. Recent work programming [1] or designing multicellular organisms [99, 112] also falls within this category. Also, several methodologies that use self-organization have been proposed in engineering [54]. A major leap forward can be expected when principled design methodologies are laid down, and a better understanding of self-organization for ALife can be at the forefront of the development of such methods.

It is also worth considering when self-organization is not useful in the context of ALife. Tracing a clear line across the domain is of course impossible, but our reasoning above provides some suggestions. Indeed, self-organization does not account for every lifelike process, for instance when there is no clear increase in organization. For instance, hard ALife has strongly developed the concept of embodied cognition and morphological computation [143, 144], where the dynamics of mind-body-environment interaction are fundamental aspects. These dynamics, albeit very complex, are not easily described within the framework of self-organization. Self-organization is useful when we are interested in observing phenomena at more than one scale, as it allows us to describe how elements interact to produce systemic properties. Still, if we are only interested in observing phenomena at a single scale, then perhaps self-organization would not offer any descriptive advantage. Examples include embodied cognition (when we are focusing on a single cognitive agent and its interaction with its environment) and most of the traditional types of evolutionary algorithms (when there are no interactions between individuals of a population).

Depending on the desired function of a system and the properties of its environment, several balances have to be considered, for example, between order and chaos, between robustness and adaptability, between production and destruction, and between exploration and exploitation. Self-organization can be useful for letting systems find by themselves the appropriate balances for their current context, as the optimal balance can change [71].

6 Open Questions

There are several open questions that make for promising lines of research in the near future within ALife:

  • 1. 

    How can self-organization be programmed? Self-organization relies on interactions (direct or indirect). Thus, it makes sense to focus on designing interactions to regulate and guide self-organization. Mediators [89, 132] can promote or constrain individual behaviors, precisely to achieve the proper interactions that will lead to the desired self-organization [64]. Information-theoretical approaches can also be used to program self-organization [111, 151]. Still, proposed approaches have been either too general or too specific. This makes it difficult to replicate successful self-organizing solutions beyond the original problems and remains an open challenge.

  • 2. 

    Can the macroscopic outcomes of self-organization be predicted? Interactions in complex systems generate novel information that is not present in initial or boundary conditions, limiting predictability. This is referred to as “computational irreducibility” [66, 212]: There is no shortcut to the future; a system has to go through all intermediate steps. Thus, a priori claims are limited, and we often work with a posteriori approaches. In some cases, coarse-grained descriptions can be found to predict self-organization and other properties (e.g., [95]). Still, this has not been generalized. In the ALife community, we rely on the synthetic method [182]: We build artificial systems to contrast theories, but of course this is a posteriori. Even when prediction is limited by the complex nature of phenomena studied within ALife, forecasting could be useful. Just as with the weather, precise prediction is not possible (e.g., when, where, and how much will it rain?), but within a certain range, forecasts can be made with a high probability (e.g., 80% chance of rain).

  • 3. 

    What is the role of self-organization in the open problems of ALife? [19] listed fourteen challenges grouped in three broad subjects: the transition to life; the evolutionary potential of life; and the relation between life, mind, and culture. It can be argued that self-organization is present in all of these, and thus relevant. Certainly, solving problems related to self-organization will not solve all ALife problems, but it can provide useful advances. For example, research related to open-ended evolution [186] goes beyond self-organization. Still, better understanding self-organizing mechanisms could assist in the development and characterization of systems that exhibit open-ended evolution.

  • 4. 

    What are the theoretical and practical limits of self-organization? Even when it has demonstrated its usefulness, self-organization is no panacea. Self-organization is most appropriate when there is multiscale causality and high complexity [69], but centralized or distributed approaches can be more appropriate for other contexts (when there is only bottom-up or top-down causality, or when complexity is low or medium). Still, further work is needed to be able to identify qualitative and quantitative limits of self-organization.

  • 5. 

    How can understanding of self-organization in ALife benefit other disciplines? These include biology, medicine, engineering, philosophy, sociology, economics, and more. Independent of whether ALife is credited or not, the question is whether ALife research will be able to contribute to the solution of problems that otherwise would not be solvable. There are promising examples and successful case studies (e.g., [30, 109]), but broader adoption and dissemination are required to make a difference.

These and more questions highlight the strong role that self-organization has within ALife. Searching for their answers will be challenging, but the insights provided will permeate beyond ALife.

Acknowledgments

This article benefited from comments by Luis Rocha and reviewers from the ALIFE 2018 conference on an earlier version of this work [73].

Note

1 

Note that earlier literature on self-reproducing cellular automata [34, 201] is not included here, because those models typically had a clear separation between a central universal controller and a structure that is procedurally constructed by the controller; thus they may not constitute a good example of self-organization as discussed in this article.

References

1
Adamatzky
,
A.
(
2010
).
Physarum machines
.
Singapore
:
World Scientific
.
2
Adamatzky
,
A.
(
2015
).
A would-be nervous system made from a slime mold
.
Artificial Life
,
21
,
73
91
.
3
Adamatzky
,
A.
,
de Lacy Costello
,
B.
, &
Shirakawa
,
T.
(
2008
).
Universal computation with limited resources: Belousov–Zhabotinsky and Physarum computers
.
International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos
,
18
,
2373
2389
.
4
Adami
,
C.
,
Schossau
,
J.
, &
Hintze
,
A.
(
2016
).
Evolutionary game theory using agent-based methods
.
Physics of Life Reviews
,
19
,
1
26
.
5
Aguilar
,
W.
,
Santamaría Bonfil
,
G.
,
Froese
,
T.
, &
Gershenson
,
C.
(
2014
).
The past, present, and future of artificial life
.
Frontiers in Robotics and AI
,
1
.
6
Aldana
,
M.
,
Dossetti
,
V.
,
Huepe
,
C.
,
Kenkre
,
V. M.
, &
Larralde
,
H.
(
2007
).
Phase transitions in systems of self-propelled agents and related network models
.
Physical Review Letters
,
98
,
095702
.
7
Ampatzis
,
C.
,
Tuci
,
E.
,
Trianni
,
V.
,
Christensen
,
A.
, &
Dorigo
,
M.
(
2009
).
Evolving self-assembly in autonomous homogeneous robots: Experiments with two physical robots
.
Artificial Life
,
15
(
4
),
465
484
.
8
Ashby
,
W. R.
(
1947
).
Principles of the self-organizing dynamic system
.
Journal of General Psychology
,
37
,
125
128
.
9
Ashby
,
W. R.
(
1962
).
Principles of the self-organizing system
. In
H. V.
Foerster
, &
G. W.
Zopf
, Jr.
(Eds.),
Principles of self-organization
(pp.
255
278
).
Oxford
:
Pergamon
.
10
Ay
,
N.
,
Der
,
R.
, &
Prokopenko
,
M.
(
2012
).
Guided self-organization: Perception–action loops of embodied systems
.
Theory in Biosciences
,
131
,
125
127
.
11
Babaoglu
,
O.
, et al
(
2006
).
Design patterns from biology for distributed computing
.
ACM Transactions on Autonomous Adaptive Systems
,
1
,
26
66
.
12
Bachmann
,
P. A.
,
Luisi
,
P. L.
, &
Lang
,
J.
(
1992
).
Autocatalytic self-replicating micelles as models for prebiotic structures
.
Nature
,
357
,
57
.
13
Bachmann
,
P. A.
,
Walde
,
P.
,
Luisi
,
P. L.
, &
Lang
,
J.
(
1990
).
Self-replicating reverse micelles and chemical autopoiesis
.
Journal of the American Chemical Society
,
112
,
8200
8201
.
14
Bak
,
P.
,
Chen
,
K.
, &
Kreutz
,
M.
(
1989
).
Self-organized criticality in the “game of life.”
Nature
,
342
,
780
782
.
15
Bak
,
P.
,
Tang
,
C.
, &
Wiesenfeld
,
K.
(
1988
).
Self-organized criticality
.
Physical Review A
,
38
,
364
.
16
Baldassarre
,
G.
,
Trianni
,
V.
,
Bonani
,
M.
,
Mondada
,
F.
,
Dorigo
,
M.
, &
Nolfi
,
S.
(
2007
).
Self-organized coordinated motion in groups of physically connected robots
.
IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics)
,
37
,
224
239
.
17
Banzhaf
,
W.
, &
Yamamoto
,
L.
(
2015
).
Artificial chemistries
.
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
18
Beckers
,
R.
,
Holland
,
O. E.
, &
Deneubourg
,
J.-L.
(
1994
).
From local actions to global tasks: Stigmergy and collective robotics
. In
Proceedings of ALife IV
.
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
19
Bedau
,
M.
,
McCaskill
,
J.
,
Packard
,
P.
,
Rasmussen
,
S.
,
Green
,
D.
,
Ikegami
,
T.
,
Kaneko
,
K.
, &
Ray
,
T.
(
2000
).
Open Problems in Artificial Life
.
Artificial Life
,
6
,
363
376
.
20
Bedau
,
M. A.
,
McCaskill
,
J. S.
,
Packard
,
N. H.
,
Parke
,
E. C.
, &
Rasmussen
,
S. R.
(
2013
).
Introduction to recent developments in living technology
.
Artificial Life
,
19
,
291
298
.
21
Bedau
,
M. A.
,
McCaskill
,
J. S.
,
Packard
,
N. H.
, &
Rasmussen
,
S.
(
2009
).
Living technology: Exploiting life's principles in technology
.
Artificial Life
,
16
,
89
97
.
22
Bongard
,
J.
,
Zykov
,
V.
, &
Lipson
,
H.
(
2006
).
Resilient machines through continuous self-modeling
.
Science
,
314
,
1118
1121
.
23
Bousquet
,
F.
, &
Page
,
C. L.
(
2004
).
Multi-agent simulations and ecosystem management: A review
.
Ecological Modelling
,
176
,
313
332
.
24
Braitenberg
,
V.
(
1986
).
Vehicles: Experiments in synthetic psychology
.
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
25
Brede
,
M.
(
2011
).
The evolution of cooperation on correlated payoff landscapes
.
Artificial Life
,
17
,
365
373
.
26
Brooks
,
R. A.
(
1989
).
A robot that walks; emergent behaviors from a carefully evolved network
.
Neural Computation
,
1
(
2
),
253
262
.
27
Brooks
,
R. A.
, &
Matarić
,
M. J.
(
1993
).
Real robots, real learning problems
. In
J. H.
Connell
&
S.
Mahadevan
(Eds.),
Robot learning
(pp.
193
213
).
Dordrecht
:
Kluwer Academic Press
.
28
Bryden
,
J.
,
Funk
,
S.
,
Geard
,
N.
,
Bullock
,
S.
, &
Jansen
,
V. A. A.
(
2010
).
Stability in flux: Community structure in dynamic networks
.
Journal of the Royal Society Interface
,
8
,
1031
1040
.
29
Camazine
,
S.
,
Deneubourg
,
J.-L.
,
Franks
,
N. R.
,
Sneyd
,
J.
,
Theraulaz
,
G.
, &
Bonabeau
,
E.
(
2003
).
Self-organization in biological systems
.
Princeton, NJ
:
Princeton University Press
.
30
Carreón
,
G.
,
Gershenson
,
C.
, &
Pineda
,
L. A.
(
2017
).
Improving public transportation systems with self-organization: A headway-based model and regulation of passenger alighting and boarding
.
PLoS ONE
,
12
,
1
20
.
31
Čejková
,
J.
,
Banno
,
T.
,
Hanczyc
,
M. M.
, &
Štěpánek
,
F.
(
2017
).
Droplets as liquid robots
.
Artificial Life
,
23
,
528
549
.
32
Čejková
,
J.
,
Hanczyc
,
M. M.
, &
Štěpánek
,
F.
(
2018
).
Multi-armed droplets as shape-changing protocells
.
Artificial Life
,
24
,
71
79
.
33
Čejková
,
J.
,
Novak
,
M.
,
Štěpánek
,
F.
, &
Hanczyc
,
M. M.
(
2014
).
Dynamics of chemotactic droplets in salt concentration gradients
.
Langmuir
,
30
,
11937
11944
.
34
Codd
,
E. F.
(
1968
).
A self-reproducing universal computer-constructor
. In
Cellular automata
(pp.
81
105
).
Cambridge, MA
:
Academic Press
.
35
Couzin
,
I. D.
,
Krause
,
J.
,
James
,
R.
,
Ruxton
,
G. D.
, &
Franks
,
N. R.
(
2002
).
Collective memory and spatial sorting in animal groups
.
Journal of Theoretical Biology
,
218
,
1
11
.
36
Cross
,
M. C.
, &
Hohenberg
,
P. C.
(
1993
).
Pattern formation outside of equilibrium
.
Reviews of Modern Physics
,
65
,
851
1112
.
37
Crutchfield
,
J. P.
(
2011
).
Between order and chaos
.
Nature Physics
,
8
,
17
24
.
38
Davies
,
A. P.
,
Watson
,
R. A.
,
Mills
,
R.
,
Buckley
,
C. L.
, &
Noble
,
J.
(
2011
).
“If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with”: How individual habituation of agent interactions improves global utility
.
Artificial Life
,
17
,
167
181
.
39
Dittrich
,
P.
,
Ziegler
,
J.
, &
Banzhaf
,
W.
(
2001
).
Artificial chemistries—a review
.
Artificial Life
,
7
,
225
275
.
40
Dorigo
,
M.
, &
Stützle
,
T.
(
2004
).
Ant colony optimization
.
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
41
Dorigo
,
M.
,
Trianni
,
V.
,
Sahin
,
E.
,
Groß
,
R.
,
Labella
,
T. H.
,
Baldassarre
,
G.
,
Nolfi
,
S.
,
Deneubourg
,
J.-L.
,
Mondada
,
F.
,
Floreano
,
D.
, &
Gambardella
,
L. M.
(
2004
).
Evolving self-organizing behaviors for a swarm-bot
.
Autonomous Robots
,
17
,
223
245
.
42
Dorigo
,
M.
,
Tuci
,
E.
,
Trianni
,
V.
,
Groß
,
R.
,
Nouyan
,
S.
,
Ampatzis
,
C.
,
Labella
,
T. H.
,
O'Grady
,
R.
,
Bonani
,
M.
, &
Mondada
,
F.
(
2006
).
SWARM-BOT: Design and implementation of colonies of self-assembling robots
. In
Computational intelligence: Principles and practice
.
New York
:
IEEE Computational Intelligence Society
.
43
Doursat
,
R.
(
2011
).
The myriads of ALife: Importing complex systems and self-organization into engineering
. In
2011 IEEE Symposium on Artificial Life
(pp.
1
8
).
New York
:
IEEE
.
44
Doursat
,
R.
,
Sayama
,
H.
, &
Michel
,
O.
(Eds.) (
2012
).
Morphogenetic engineering: Toward programmable complex systems
.
New York
:
Springer-Verlag
.
45
Downing
,
K. L.
(
2015
).
Intelligence emerging: Adaptivity and search in evolving neural systems
.
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
46
Epstein
,
J. M.
, &
Axtell
,
R. L.
(
1996
).
Growing artificial societies: Social science from the bottom up
.
Washington, DC
:
Brookings Institution Press
,
& Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
.
47
Ermentrout
,
G. B.
, &
Edelstein-Keshet
,
L.
(
1993
).
Cellular automata approaches to biological modeling
.
Journal of Theoretical Biology
,
160
,
97
133
.
48
Erskine
,
A.
, &
Herrmann
,
J. M.
(
2015
).
Cell-division behavior in a heterogeneous swarm environment
.
Artificial Life
,
21
(
4
),
481
500
.
49
Feltz
,
B.
,
Crommelinck
,
M.
, &
Goujon
,
P.
(Eds.) (
2006
).
Self-organization and emergence in life sciences
.
New York
:
Springer
.
50
Fernández
,
N.
,
Maldonado
,
C.
, &
Gershenson
,
C.
(
2014
).
Information measures of complexity, emergence, self-organization, homeostasis, and autopoiesis
. In
M.
Prokopenko
(Ed.),
Guided self-organization: Inception
(pp.
19
51
),
New York
:
Springer
.
51
Fernandez-Marquez
,
J. L.
,
Di Marzo Serugendo
,
G.
,
Montagna
,
S.
,
Viroli
,
M.
, &
Arcos
,
J. L.
(
2013
).
Description and composition of bio-inspired design patterns: A complete overview
.
Natural Computing
,
12
,
43
67
.
52
Field
,
R. J.
, &
Noyes
,
R. M.
(
1974
).
Oscillations in chemical systems. IV. Limit cycle behavior in a model of a real chemical reaction
.
The Journal of Chemical Physics
,
60
,
3349
.
53
Francesca
,
G.
,
Brambilla
,
M.
,
Brutschy
,
A.
,
Trianni
,
V.
, &
Birattari
,
M.
(
2014
).
Automode: A novel approach to the automatic design of control software for robot swarms
.
Swarm Intelligence
,
8
,
89
112
.
54
Frei
,
R.
, &
Di Marzo Serugendo
,
G.
(
2011
).
Advances in complexity engineering
.
International Journal of Bio-Inspired Computation
,
3
,
199
212
.
55
Froese
,
T.
,
Virgo
,
N.
, &
Ikegami
,
T.
(
2014
).
Motility at the origin of life: Its characterization and a model
.
Artificial Life
,
20
,
55
76
.
56
Froese
,
T.
,
Gershenson
,
C.
, &
Manzanilla
,
L. R.
(
2014
).
Can government be self-organized? A mathematical model of the collective social organization of ancient Teotihuacan, central Mexico
.
PLoS ONE
,
9
,
e109966
.
57
Froese
,
T.
, &
Manzanilla
,
L. R.
(
2018
).
Modeling collective rule at ancient Teotihuacan as a complex adaptive system: Communal ritual makes social hierarchy more effective
.
Cognitive Systems Research
,
52
,
862
874
.
58
Garfinkel
,
A.
(
1987
).
The slime mold Dictyostelium as a model of self-organization in social systems
. In
Self-organizing systems
(pp.
181
213
).
New York
:
Springer
.
59
Garnier
,
S.
,
Combe
,
M.
,
Jost
,
C.
, &
Theraulaz
,
G.
(
2013
).
Do ants need to estimate the geometrical properties of trail bifurcations to find an efficient route? A swarm robotics test bed
.
PLoS Computational Biology
,
9
,
e1002903
.
60
Garnier
,
S.
,
Gautrais
,
J.
,
Asadpour
,
M.
,
Jost
,
C.
, &
Theraulaz
,
G.
(
2009
).
Self-organized aggregation triggers collective decision making in a group of cockroach-like robots
.
Adaptive Behavior
,
17
,
109
133
.
61
Garnier
,
S.
,
Jost
,
C.
,
Gautrais
,
J.
,
Asadpour
,
M.
,
Caprari
,
G.
,
Jeanson
,
R.
,
Grimal
,
A.
, &
Theraulaz
,
G.
(
2008
).
The embodiment of cockroach aggregation behavior in a group of micro-robots
.
Artificial Life
,
14
,
387
408
.
62
Geard
,
N.
, &
Bullock
,
S.
(
2010
).
Competition and the dynamics of group affiliation
.
Advances in Complex Systems
,
13
,
501
.
63
Gershenson
,
C.
(
2003
).
Artificial neural networks for beginners, teaching package
.
arXiv preprint cs/0308031
.
64
Gershenson
,
C.
(
2007
).
Design and control of self-organizing systems
.
CopIt Arxives
, http://tinyurl.com/DCSOS2007.
65
Gershenson
,
C.
(
2012
).
Guiding the self-organization of random Boolean networks
.
Theory in Biosciences
,
131
,
181
191
.
66
Gershenson
,
C.
(
2013
).
The implications of interactions for science and philosophy
.
Foundations of Science
,
18
,
781
790
.
67
Gershenson
,
C.
(
2013
).
Living in living cities
.
Artificial Life
,
19
,
401
420
.
68
Gershenson
,
C.
(
2018
).
Information in science and Buddhist philosophy: Towards a non-materialistic worldview, preprint
. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201812.0042.
69
Gershenson
,
C.
(
2020
).
Guiding the self-organization of cyber-physical systems
.
Frontiers in Robotics and AI
,
7
,
41
.
70
Gershenson
,
C.
,
Csermely
,
P.
,
Erdi
,
P.
,
Knyazeva
,
H.
, &
Laszlo
,
A.
(
2014
).
The past, present and future of cybernetics and systems research
.
Systema: Connecting matter, life, culture and technology
,
1
,
4
13
.
71
Gershenson
,
C.
, &
Helbing
,
D.
(
2015
).
When slower is faster
.
Complexity
,
21
,
9
15
.
72
Gershenson
,
C.
, &
Heylighen
,
F.
(
2003
).
When can we call a system self-organizing?
In
W.
Banzhaf
,
T.
Christaller
,
P.
Dittrich
,
J. T.
Kim
, &
J.
Ziegler
(Eds.),
Advances in Artificial Life, 7th European Conference, ECAL 2003, LNAI 2801
(pp.
606
614
).
New York
:
Springer
.
73
Gershenson
,
C.
,
Trianni
,
V.
,
Werfel
,
J.
, &
Sayama
,
H.
(
2018
).
Self-organization and artificial life: A review
. In
T.
Ikegami
,
N.
Virgo
,
O.
Witkowski
,
M.
Oka
,
R.
Suzuki
, &
H.
Iizuka
(Eds.),
The 2018 Conference on Artificial Life: A hybrid of the European Conference on Artificial Life (ECAL) and the International Conference on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems (ALife)
(pp.
510
517
).
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
74
Gilbert
,
N.
, &
Conte
,
R.
(Eds.) (
1995
).
Artificial Societies: The computer simulation of social life
.
Milton Park, UK
:
Taylor & Francis
.
75
Giomi
,
L.
,
Hawley-Weld
,
N.
, &
Mahadevan
,
L.
(
2013
).
Swarming, swirling and stasis in sequestered bristle-bots
.
Proceedings of the Royal Society A
,
469
,
20120637
.
76
Glansdorff
,
P.
, &
Prigogine
,
I.
(
1971
).
Thermodynamic theory of structure, stability and fluctuations
.
Hoboken, NJ
:
Wiley-Interscience
.
77
Gould
,
S. J.
(
1990
).
Wonderful life: The Burgess shale and the nature of history
.
New York
:
W.W. Norton
.
78
Griffith
,
S.
,
Goldwater
,
D.
, &
Jacobson
,
J.
(
2005
).
Self-replication from random parts
.
Nature
,
437
,
636
.
79
Gromski
,
P. S.
,
Granda
,
J. M.
, &
Cronin
,
L.
(
2020
).
Universal chemical synthesis and discovery with ‘the chemputer.’
Trends in Chemistry
,
2
,
4
12
.
80
Gross
,
T.
, &
Sayama
,
H.
(Eds.) (
2009
).
Adaptive networks: Theory, models and applications (understanding complex systems)
.
New York
:
Springer
.
81
Haken
,
H.
(
1981
).
Synergetics and the problem of selforganization
. In
G.
Roth
&
H.
Schwegler
(Eds.),
Self-organizing systems: An interdisciplinary approach
(pp.
9
13
).
New York
:
Campus Verlag
.
82
Haken
,
H.
(
1988
).
Information and self-organization: A macroscopic approach to complex systems
.
New York
:
Springer-Verlag
.
83
Halloy
,
J.
,
Sempo
,
G.
,
Caprari
,
G.
,
Rivault
,
C.
,
Asadpour
,
M.
,
Tâche
,
F.
,
Saïd
,
I.
,
Durier
,
V.
,
Canonge
,
S.
,
Amé
,
J. M.
,
Detrain
,
C.
,
Correll
,
N.
,
Martinoli
,
A.
,
Mondada
,
F.
,
Siegwart
,
R.
, &
Deneubourg
,
J. L.
(
2007
).
Social integration of robots into groups of cockroaches to control self-organized choices
.
Science
,
318
,
1155
1158
.
84
Hanczyc
,
M. M.
,
Fujikawa
,
S. M.
, &
Szostak
,
J. W.
(
2003
).
Experimental models of primitive cellular compartments: Encapsulation, growth, and division
.
Science
,
302
,
618
622
.
85
Hanczyc
,
M. M.
,
Toyota
,
T.
,
Ikegami
,
T.
,
Packard
,
N.
, &
Sugawara
,
T.
(
2007
).
Fatty acid chemistry at the oil-water interface: Self-propelled oil droplets
.
Journal of the American Chemical Society
,
129
,
9386
9391
.
86
Hebb
,
D. O.
(
1949
).
The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological theory
.
New York
:
Wiley
.
87
Hegselmann
,
R.
(
2017
).
Thomas C. Schelling and James M. Sakoda: The intellectual, technical, and social history of a model
.
Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation
,
20
,
15
.
88
Hesse
,
J.
, &
Gross
,
T.
(
2014
).
Self-organized criticality as a fundamental property of neural systems
.
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
,
8
,
166
.
89
Heylighen
,
F.
(
2006
).
Mediator evolution: A general scenario for the origin of dynamical hierarchies
. In
D.
Aerts
,
B.
D'Hooghe
, &
N.
Note
(Eds.),
Worldviews, science and us
(pp.
45
48
).
Singapore
:
World Scientific
.
90
Hildenbrandt
,
H.
,
Carere
,
C.
, &
Hemelrijk
,
C.
(
2010
).
Self-organized aerial displays of thousands of starlings: A model
.
Behavioral Ecology
,
21
,
1349
1359
.
91
Höfer
,
T.
,
Sherratt
,
J. A.
, &
Maini
,
P. K.
(
1995
).
Dictyostelium discoideum: Cellular self-organization in an excitable biological medium
.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
,
259
,
249
257
.
92
Holzer
,
R.
, &
De Meer
,
H.
(
2011
).
Methods for approximations of quantitative measures in self-organizing systems
. In
C.
Bettstetter
&
C.
Gershenson
(Eds.),
Self-organizing systems
(pp.
1
15
).
New York
:
Springer
.
93
Ichinose
,
G.
, &
Sayama
,
H.
(
2017
).
Invasion of cooperation in scale-free networks: Accumulated versus average payoffs
.
Artificial Life
,
23
,
25
33
.
94
Ilachinski
,
A.
(
2001
).
Cellular automata: A discrete universe
.
Singapore
:
World Scientific
.
95
Israeli
,
N.
, &
Goldenfeld
,
N.
(
2004
).
Computational irreducibility and the predictability of complex physical systems
.
Physical Review Letters
,
92
,
074105
.
96
Jaffe
,
K.
(
2017
).
The scientific roots of synergy: And how to make cooperation successful
.
Seattle, WA
:
Amazon Books
.
97
Jakobi
,
N.
(
1997
).
Evolutionary robotics and the radical envelope of noise hypothesis
.
Adaptive Behavior
,
6
,
325
368
.
98
Juarrero-Roqué
,
A.
(
1985
).
Self-organization: Kant's concept of teleology and modern chemistry
.
The Review of Metaphysics
,
39
,
107
135
.
99
Kamm
,
R. D.
, et al
(
2018
).
Perspective: The promise of multi-cellular engineered living systems
.
APL Bioengineering
,
2
,
040901
.
100
Kauffman
,
S. A.
(
1969
).
Metabolic stability and epigenesis in randomly constructed genetic nets
.
Journal of Theoretical Biology
,
22
,
437
467
.
101
Kauffman
,
S. A.
(
1993
).
The origins of order
.
Oxford, UK
:
Oxford University Press
.
102
Kelso
,
J. S.
(
1997
).
Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior
.
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
103
Kennedy
,
J.
, &
Eberhart
,
R.
(
1995
).
Particle swarm optimization
. In
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks
(pp.
1942
1948
).
New York
:
IEEE Press
.
104
Kernbach
,
S.
,
Thenius
,
R.
,
Kernbach
,
O.
, &
Schmickl
,
T.
(
2009
).
Re-embodiment of honeybee aggregation behavior in an artificial micro-robotic system
.
Adaptive Behavior
,
17
,
237
259
.
105
Keys
,
G. C.
, &
Dugatkin
,
L. A.
(
1990
).
Flock size and position effects on vigilance, aggression, and prey capture in the European starling
.
The Condor
,
92
,
151
159
.
106
Kim
,
S.
, &
Wensing
,
P. M.
(
2017
).
Design of dynamic legged robots
.
Foundations and Trends in Robotics
,
5
(
2
),
117
190
.
107
Kirby
,
S.
(
2002
).
Natural language from artificial life
.
Artifical Life
,
8
,
185
215
.
108
Kirk
,
G. S.
(
1951
).
Natural change in Heraclitus
.
Mind
,
60
,
35
42
.
109
Knight
,
C. J. K.
,
Penn
,
A. S.
, &
Hoyle
,
R. B.
(
2014
).
Comparing the effects of mutualism and competition on industrial districts
.
Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications
,
416
,
541
557
.
110
Kohonen
,
T.
(
2000
).
Self-organizing maps
(3rd ed.).
New York
:
Springer
.
111
Krakauer
,
D.
,
Bertschinger
,
N.
,
Olbrich
,
E.
,
Flack
,
J. C.
, &
Ay
,
N.
(
2020
).
The information theory of individuality
.
Theory in Biosciences
,
139
,
209
223
.
112
Kreyssig
,
P.
, &
Dittrich
,
P.
(
2011
).
Reaction flow artificial chemistries
. In
ECAL 2011
(pp.
431
437
).
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
113
Kriegman
,
S.
,
Blackiston
,
D.
,
Levin
,
M.
, &
Bongard
,
J.
(
2020
).
A scalable pipeline for designing reconfigurable organisms
.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA
,
117
,
1853
1859
.
114
Krishnanand
,
K. N.
, &
Ghose
,
D.
(
2009
).
Glowworm swarm optimization for simultaneous capture of multiple local optima of multimodal functions
.
Swarm Intelligence
,
3
,
87
124
.
115
Kunz
,
H.
, &
Hemelrijk
,
C. K.
(
2003
).
Artificial fish schools: Collective effects of school size, body size, and body form
.
Artificial Life
,
9
,
237
253
.
116
Langton
,
C. G.
(
1984
).
Self-reproduction in cellular automata
.
Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena
,
10
,
135
144
.
117
Langton
,
C. G.
(
1986
).
Studying artificial life with cellular automata
.
Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena
,
22
,
129
149
.
118
Lansing
,
J. S.
(
2002
).
“Artificial Societies” and the social sciences
.
Artificial Life
,
8
,
279
292
.
119
Lansing
,
J. S.
&
Kremer
,
J. N.
(
1993
).
Emergent properties of Balinese water temple networks: Coadaptation on a rugged fitness landscape
.
American Anthropologist
,
95
,
97
114
.
120
Lawrence
,
P. A.
(
1992
).
The making of a fly: The genetics of animal design
.
Hoboken, NJ
:
Blackwell Scientific Publications
.
121
Lazer
,
D.
, et al
(
2009
).
Life in the network: The coming age of computational social science
.
Science
,
323
,
721
.
122
Lee
,
K.-J.
,
McCormick
,
W. D.
,
Pearson
,
J. E.
, &
Swinney
,
H. L.
(
1994
).
Experimental observation of self-replicating spots in a reaction–diffusion system
.
Nature
,
369
,
215
.
123
Lehn
,
J.-M.
(
2017
).
Supramolecular chemistry: Where from? Where to?
Chemical Society Reviews
,
46
,
2378
2379
.
124
Levin
,
S. A.
(
2005
).
Self-organization and the emergence of complexity in ecological systems
.
AIBS Bulletin
,
55
,
1075
1079
.
125
Levine
,
H.
,
Rappel
,
W.-J.
, &
Cohen
,
I.
(
2000
).
Self-organization in systems of self-propelled particles
.
Physical Review E
,
63
,
017101
.
126
Lindgren
,
K.
, &
Nordahl
,
M. G.
(
1993
).
Cooperation and community structure in artificial ecosystems
.
Artificial Life
,
1
,
15
37
.
127
Lipowska
,
D.
, &
Lipowski
,
A.
(
2012
).
Naming game on adaptive weighted networks
.
Artificial Life
,
18
,
311
323
.
128
Luisi
,
P. L.
, &
Varela
,
F. J.
(
1989
).
Self-replicating micelles—a chemical version of a minimal autopoietic system
.
Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere
,
19
,
633
643
.
129
Mamei
,
M.
,
Menezes
,
R.
,
Tolksdorf
,
R.
, &
Zambonelli
,
F.
(
2006
).
Case studies for self-organization in computer science
.
Journal of Systems Architecture
,
52
,
443
460
.
130
Marée
,
A. F.
, &
Hogeweg
,
P.
(
2001
).
How amoeboids self-organize into a fruiting body: Multicellular coordination in Dictyostelium discoideum
.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA
,
98
,
3879
3883
.
131
Maturana
,
H.
, &
Varela
,
F.
(
1980
).
Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living
(2nd ed.).
Dordrecht
:
D. Reidel
.
132
Michod
,
R. E.
(
2003
).
Cooperation and conflict mediation during the origin of multicellularity
. In
P.
Hammerstein
(Ed.),
Genetic and cultural evolution of cooperation
(pp.
261
307
).
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
133
Moreno
,
A.
, &
Ruiz-Mirazo
,
K.
(
2009
).
The problem of the emergence of functional diversity in prebiotic evolution
.
Biology & Philosophy
,
24
,
585
605
.
134
Murata
,
S.
,
Kurokawa
,
H.
, &
Kokaji
,
S.
(
1994
).
Self-assembling machine
. In
Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation
.
New York
:
IEEE
.
135
Newman
,
J. P.
, &
Sayama
,
H.
(
2008
).
Effect of sensory blind zones on milling behavior in a dynamic self-propelled particle model
.
Physical Review E
,
78
,
011913
.
136
Nicolis
,
G.
, &
Prigogine
,
I.
(
1977
).
Self-organization in non-equilibrium systems: From dissipative structures to order through fluctuations
.
Hoboken, NJ
:
Wiley
.
137
Nishikawa
,
N.
,
Suzuki
,
R.
, &
Arita
,
T.
(
2018
).
Exploration of swarm dynamics emerging from asymmetry
.
Applied Sciences
,
8
,
2076
3417
.
138
Oros
,
N.
, &
Nehaniv
,
C. L.
(
2007
).
Sexyloop: Self-reproduction, evolution and sex in cellular automata
. In
2007 IEEE Symposium on Artificial Life
.
New York
:
IEEE
.
139
Oros
,
N.
, &
Nehaniv
,
C. L.
(
2009
).
Dude, where is my sex gene?—persistence of sex over evolutionary time in cellular automata
. In
2009 IEEE Symposium on Artificial Life
.
New York
:
IEEE
.
140
Packard
,
N.
(
1986
).
Lattice models for solidification and aggregation
. In
S.
Wolfram
(Ed.),
Theory and application of cellular automata
(pp.
305
310
).
Singapore
:
World Scientific
.
141
Parrilla-Gutierrez
,
J. M.
,
Tsuda
,
S.
,
Grizou
,
J.
,
Taylor
,
J.
,
Henson
,
A.
, &
Cronin
,
L.
(
2017
).
Adaptive artificial evolution of droplet protocells in a 3d-printed fluidic chemorobotic platform with configurable environments
.
Nature Communications
,
8
,
1144
.
142
Pearson
,
J. E.
(
1993
).
Complex patterns in a simple system
.
Science
,
261
,
189
192
.
143
Pfeifer
,
R.
,
Lungarella
,
M.
, &
Iida
,
F.
(
2007
).
Self-organization, embodiment, and biologically inspired robotics
.
Science
,
318
,
1088
1093
.
144
Pfeifer
,
R.
, &
Gómez
,
G.
(
2009
).
Morphological computation—connecting brain, body, and environment
. In
B.
Sendhoff
,
E.
Körner
,
O.
Sporns
,
H.
Ritter
, &
K.
Doya
(Eds.),
Creating brain-like intelligence
(pp.
66
83
).
Berlin, Heidelberg
:
Springer
.
145
Pham
,
D.
,
Ghanbarzadeh
,
A.
,
Koc
,
E.
,
Otri
,
S.
,
Rahim
,
S.
, &
Zaidi
,
M.
(
2006
).
The bees algorithm—a novel tool for complex optimisation problems
. In
Intelligent Production Machines and Systems: 2nd I*PROMS virtual conference
(p.
454
).
Amsterdam
:
Elsevier Science
.
146
Polani
,
D.
(
2003
).
Measuring self-organization via observers
. In
W.
Banzhaf
,
J.
Ziegler
,
T.
Christaller
,
P.
Dittrich
, &
J. T.
Kim
(Eds.),
Advances in artificial life
(pp.
667
675
).
Berlin, Heidelberg
:
Springer
.
147
Polani
,
D.
(
2008
).
Foundations and formalizations of self-organization
. In
M.
Prokopenko
(Ed.),
Advances in applied self-organizing systems
(pp.
19
37
).
London
:
Springer
.
148
Polani
,
D.
,
Prokopenko
,
M.
, &
Yaeger
,
L. S.
(
2013
).
Information and self-organization of behavior
.
Advances in Complex Systems
,
16
,
1303001
.
149
Poslad
,
S.
(
2009
).
Ubiquitous computing
. In
Autonomous systems and artificial life
(pp.
317
341
).
Hoboken, NJ
:
Wiley-Blackwell
.
150
Prokopenko
,
M.
(
2009
).
Guided self-organization
.
HFSP Journal
,
3
,
287
289
.
151
Prokopenko
,
M.
(Ed.) (
2014
).
Guided self-organization: Inception
.
New York
:
Springer
.
152
Prokopenko
,
M.
,
Boschetti
,
F.
, &
Ryan
,
A.
(
2009
).
An information-theoretic primer on complexity, self-organisation and emergence
.
Complexity
,
15
,
11
28
.
153
Prokopenko
,
M.
, &
Gershenson
,
C.
(
2014
).
Entropy methods in guided self-organisation
.
Entropy
,
16
,
5232
5241
.
154
Qiao
,
Y.
,
Li
,
M.
,
Booth
,
R.
, &
Mann
,
S.
(
2017
).
Predatory behaviour in synthetic protocell communities
.
Nature Chemistry
,
9
,
110
119
.
155
Rasmussen
,
S.
,
Bedau
,
M. A.
,
Chen
,
L.
,
Deamer
,
D.
,
Krakauer
,
D. C.
,
Packard
,
N. H.
, &
Stadler
,
P. F.
(Eds.) (
2008
).
Protocells: Bridging nonliving and living matter
.
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
156
Rasmussen
,
S.
,
Chen
,
L.
,
Deamer
,
D.
,
Krakauer
,
D. C.
,
Packard
,
N. H.
,
Stadler
,
P. F.
, &
Bedau
,
M. A.
(
2004
).
Transitions from nonliving to living matter
.
Science
,
303
,
963
965
.
157
Rasmussen
,
S.
,
Chen
,
L.
,
Nilsson
,
M.
, &
Abe
,
S.
(
2003
).
Bridging nonliving and living matter
.
Artificial Life
,
9
,
269
316
.
158
Reggia
,
J. A.
,
Armentrout
,
S. L.
,
Chou
,
H.-H.
, &
Peng
,
Y.
(
1993
).
Simple systems that exhibit self-directed replication
.
Science
,
259
,
1282
1287
.
159
Reina
,
A.
,
Bose
,
T.
,
Trianni
,
V.
, &
Marshall
,
J. A. R.
(
2018
).
Effects of spatiality on value-sensitive decisions made by robot swarms
. In
R.
Groß
,
A.
Kolling
,
S.
Berman
,
E.
Frazzoli
,
A.
Martinoli
,
F.
Matsuno
, &
M.
Gauci
(Eds.),
Distributed autonomous robotic systems
(pp.
461
473
).
New York
:
Springer International
.
160
Reina
,
A.
,
Valentini
,
G.
,
Fernández-Oto
,
C.
,
Dorigo
,
M.
, &
Trianni
,
V.
(
2015
).
A design pattern for decentralised decision making
.
PLoS ONE
,
10
,
e0140950–18
.
161
Reynolds
,
C. W.
(
1987
).
Flocks, herds, and schools: A distributed behavioral model
.
Computer Graphics
,
21
,
25
34
.
162
Rubenstein
,
M.
,
Cornejo
,
A.
, &
Nagpal
,
R.
(
2014
).
Programmable self-assembly in a thousand-robot swarm
.
Science
,
345
,
795
799
.
163
Sakoda
,
J. M.
(
1971
).
The checkerboard model of social interaction
.
The Journal of Mathematical Sociology
,
1
,
119
132
.
164
Salzberg
,
C.
, &
Sayama
,
H.
(
2004
).
Complex genetic evolution of artificial self-replicators in cellular automata
.
Complexity
,
10
,
33
39
.
165
Saranli
,
U.
,
Buehler
,
M.
, &
Koditschek
,
D. E.
(
2001
).
Rhex: A simple and highly mobile robot
.
International Journal of Robotics Research
,
20
,
616
631
.
166
Sayama
,
H.
(
1999
).
A new structurally dissolvable self-reproducing loop evolving in a simple cellular automata space
.
Artificial Life
,
5
,
343
365
.
167
Sayama
,
H.
(
2004
).
Self-protection and diversity in self-replicating cellular automata
.
Artificial Life
,
10
,
83
98
.
168
Sayama
,
H.
(
2008
).
Swarm chemistry
.
Artificial Life
,
15
,
105
114
.
169
Sayama
,
H.
(
2011
).
Seeking open-ended evolution in swarm chemistry
. In
2011 IEEE Symposium on Artificial Life
(pp.
186
193
).
New York
:
IEEE
.
170
Sayama
,
H.
(
2012
).
Morphologies of self-organizing swarms in 3d swarm chemistry
. In
Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation
(pp.
577
584
).
New York
:
ACM
.
171
Sayama
,
H.
(
2015
).
Introduction to the modeling and analysis of complex systems
.
Open SUNY Textbooks
.
New York
:
State University of New York
.
172
Sayama
,
H.
, &
Yamanoi
,
J.
(
2020
).
Beyond social fragmentation: Coexistence of cultural diversity and structural connectivity is possible with social constituent diversity
. In
International Conference on Network Science
(pp.
171
181
).
New York
:
Springer
.
173
Scheidler
,
A.
,
Brutschy
,
A.
,
Ferrante
,
E.
, &
Dorigo
,
M.
(
2016
).
The k-unanimity rule for self-organized decision-making in swarms of robots
.
IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics
,
46
,
1175
1188
.
174
Schelling
,
T. C.
(
1971
).
Dynamic models of segregation
.
The Journal of Mathematical Sociology
,
1
,
143
186
.
175
Schmickl
,
T.
,
Stefanec
,
M.
, &
Crailsheim
,
K.
(
2016
).
How a life-like system emerges from a simple particle motion law
.
Scientific Reports
,
6
,
37969
.
176
Shalizi
,
C. R.
(
2001
).
Causal architecture, complexity and self-organization in time series and cellular automata
.
PhD thesis
,
University of Wisconsin at Madison
.
177
Simon
,
H. A.
(
1969
).
The sciences of the artificial
.
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
178
Sipper
,
M.
(
1998
).
Fifty years of research on self-replication: An overview
.
Artificial Life
,
4
,
237
257
.
179
Skår
,
J.
, &
Coveney
,
P. V.
(Eds.) (
2003
).
Self-organization: The quest for the origin and evolution of structure
.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A
,
361
(
1807
).
180
Slavkov
,
I.
,
Carrillo-Zapata
,
D.
,
Carranza
,
N.
,
Diego
,
X.
,
Jansson
,
F.
,
Kaandorp
,
J.
,
Hauert
,
S.
, &
Sharpe
,
J.
(
2018
).
Morphogenesis in robot swarms
.
Science Robotics
,
3
.
181
Smith
,
K.
,
Kirby
,
S.
, &
Brighton
,
H.
(
2003
).
Iterated learning: A framework for the emergence of language
.
Artificial Life
,
9
,
371
386
.
182
Steels
,
L.
(
1993
).
Building agents out of autonomous behavior systems
. In
L.
Steels
&
R. A.
Brooks
(Eds.),
The artificial life route to artificial intelligence: Building embodied situated agents
(pp.
102
137
).
Mahwah, NJ
:
Lawrence Erlbaum
.
183
Steels
,
L.
(
1995
).
A self-organizing spatial vocabulary
.
Artificial Life
,
2
,
319
332
.
184
Stengers
,
I.
(
1985
).
Généalogies de l'auto-organisation
.
Cahiers du CREA
,
8
.
185
Suzuki
,
K.
, &
Ikegami
,
T.
(
2006
).
Spatial-pattern-induced evolution of a self-replicating loop network
.
Artificial Life
,
12
,
461
485
.
186
Taylor
,
T.
, et al
(
2016
).
Open-ended evolution: Perspectives from the OEE workshop in York
.
Artificial Life
,
22
,
408
423
.
187
Theraulaz
,
G.
, &
Bonabeau
,
E.
(
1999
).
A brief history of stigmergy
.
Artificial Life
,
5
,
97
116
.
188
Trianni
,
V.
, &
Dorigo
,
M.
(
2006
).
Self-organisation and communication in groups of simulated and physical robots
.
Biological Cybernetics
,
95
,
213
231
.
189
Turgut
,
A. E.
,
Çelikkanat
,
H.
,
Gökçe
,
F.
, &
Şahin
,
E.
(
2008
).
Self-organized flocking in mobile robot swarms
.
Swarm Intelligence
,
2
,
97
120
.
190
Turing
,
A.
(
1952
).
The chemical basis of morphogenesis
.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences
,
237
,
37
72
.
191
Valentini
,
G.
,
Ferrante
,
E.
, &
Dorigo
,
M.
(
2017
).
The best-of-n problem in robot swarms: Formalization, state of the art, and novel perspectives
.
Frontiers in Robotics and AI
,
4
.
192
Valentini
,
G.
,
Ferrante
,
E.
,
Hamann
,
H.
, &
Dorigo
,
M.
(
2015
).
Collective decision with 100 kilobots: Speed versus accuracy in binary discrimination problems
.
Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems
,
30
,
553
580
.
193
Van Segbroeck
,
S.
,
Santos
,
F. C.
,
Lenaerts
,
T.
, &
Pacheco
,
J. M.
(
2009
).
Emergence of cooperation in adaptive social networks with behavioral diversity
. In
European Conference on Artificial Life
(pp.
434
441
).
New York
:
Springer
.
194
Vanag
,
V. K.
, &
Epstein
,
I. R.
(
2001
).
Pattern formation in a tunable medium: The Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction in an aerosol OT microemulsion
.
Physical Review Letters
,
87
,
228301
.
195
Varela
,
F. J.
,
Maturana
,
H. R.
, &
Uribe
,
R.
(
1974
).
Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems, its characterization and a model
.
Biosystems
,
5
,
187
196
.
196
Vásárhelyi
,
G.
,
Virágh
,
C.
,
Somorjai
,
G.
,
Nepusz
,
T.
,
Eiben
,
A. E.
, &
Vicsek
,
T.
(
2018
).
Optimized flocking of autonomous drones in confined environments
.
Science Robotics
,
3
(
20
).
197
Vicsek
,
T.
,
Czirók
,
A.
,
Ben-Jacob
,
E.
,
Cohen
,
I.
, &
Shochet
,
O.
(
1995
).
Novel type of phase transition in a system of self-driven particles
.
Physical Review Letters
,
75
,
1226
.
198
Vicsek
,
T.
, &
Zafeiris
,
A.
(
2012
).
Collective motion
.
Physics Reports
,
517
,
71
140
.
199
Virágh
,
C.
,
Nagy
,
M.
,
Gershenson
,
C.
, &
Vásárhelyi
,
G.
(
2016
).
Self-organized UAV traffic in realistic environments
. In
2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)
(pp.
1645
1652
).
New York
:
IEEE
.
200
von Foerster
,
H.
(
1960
).
On self-organizing systems and their environments
. In
M. C.
Yovitts
&
S.
Cameron
(Eds.),
Self-organizing systems
(pp.
31
50
).
New York
:
Pergamon
.
201
von Neumann
,
J.
(
1966
).
The theory of self-reproducing automata
.
Champaign, IL
:
University of Illinois Press
.
202
Walde
,
P.
,
Wick
,
R.
,
Fresta
,
M.
,
Mangone
,
A.
, &
Luisi
,
P. L.
(
1994
).
Autopoietic self-reproduction of fatty acid vesicles
.
Journal of the American Chemical Society
,
116
,
11649
11654
.
203
Walter
,
W. G.
(
1950
).
An imitation of life
.
Scientific American
,
182
,
42
45
.
204
Walter
,
W. G.
(
1951
).
A machine that learns
.
Scientific American
,
185
,
60
63
.
205
Watson
,
R. A.
,
Buckley
,
C. L.
, &
Mills
,
R.
(
2011
).
Optimisation in “self-modelling” complex adaptive systems
.
Complexity
,
16
(
5
),
17
26
.
206
Watson
,
R. A.
,
Mills
,
R.
, &
Buckley
,
C. L.
(
2011
).
Global adaptation in networks of selfish components: Emergent associative memory at the system scale
.
Artificial Life
,
17
,
147
166
.
207
Weber
,
B. H.
, &
Depew
,
D. J.
(
1996
).
Natural selection and self-organization
.
Biology and Philosophy
,
11
,
33
65
.
208
Werfel
,
J.
,
Petersen
,
K.
, &
Nagpal
,
R.
(
2014
).
Designing collective behavior in a termite-inspired robot construction team
.
Science
,
343
,
754
758
.
209
Whitesides
,
G. M.
, &
Grzybowski
,
B.
(
2002
).
Self-assembly at all scales
.
Science
,
295
,
2418
2421
.
210
Wolfram
,
S.
(
1983
).
Statistical mechanics of cellular automata
.
Reviews of Modern Physics
,
55
,
601
644
.
211
Wolfram
,
S.
(
1984
).
Cellular automata as models of complexity
.
Nature
,
311
,
419
424
.
212
Wolfram
,
S.
(
2002
).
A new kind of science
.
Champaign, IL
:
Wolfram Media
.
213
Wood
,
R.
,
Nagpal
,
R.
, &
Wei
,
G.-Y.
(
2013
).
Flight of the robobees
.
Scientific American
,
308
(
3
),
60
65
.
214
Yang
,
X.-S.
(
2009
).
Firefly algorithms for multimodal optimization
. In
O.
Watanabe
&
T.
Zeugmann
(Eds.),
Saga
(pp.
169
178
).
New York
:
Springer
.
215
Yim
,
M.
,
Shen
,
W.-M.
,
Salemi
,
B.
,
Rus
,
D.
,
Moll
,
M.
,
Lipson
,
H.
,
Klavins
,
E.
, &
Chirikjian
,
G. S.
(
2007
).
Modular self-reconfigurable robot systems: Challenges and opportunities for the future
.
IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine
,
14
,
43
52
.
216
Young
,
D. A.
(
1984
).
A local activator-inhibitor model of vertebrate skin patterns
.
Mathematical Biosciences
,
72
,
51
58
.
217
Zykov
,
V.
,
Mytilinaios
,
E.
,
Adams
,
B.
, &
Lipson
,
H.
(
2005
).
Robotics: Self-reproducing machines
.
Nature
,
435
,
163
164
.