research/boids/Craig Reynolds Flocks, Herd...

<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<title>Craig Reynolds: Flocks, Herds, and Schools: A Distributed Behavioral Model</title>
</head>
<body><p>
 </p><hr>
Published in <i>Computer Graphics</i>, <b>21</b>(4), July 1987, pp. 25-34.<br>(ACM SIGGRAPH '87 Conference Proceedings, Anaheim, California, July 1987.)
<hr> <p>
</p><p>

</p><center>
<h2>Flocks, Herds, and Schools:<br>
A Distributed Behavioral Model <a href="#foot1"><sup>1</sup></a></h2>
<p>
Craig W. Reynolds<br>
Symbolics Graphics Division
</p><p></p><p>
[obsolete addresses removed <a href="#foot2"><sup>2</sup></a>]
</p></center>

<h3>Abstract</h3>

<p> The aggregate motion of a flock of birds, a herd of land animals,
or a school of fish is a beautiful and familiar part of the natural
world. But this type of complex motion is rarely seen in computer
animation. This paper explores an approach based on simulation as an
alternative to scripting the paths of each bird individually. The
simulated flock is an elaboration of a particle system, with the
simulated birds being the particles. The aggregate motion of the
simulated flock is created by a distributed behavioral model much like
that at work in a natural flock; the birds choose their own
course. Each simulated bird is implemented as an independent actor
that navigates according to its local perception of the dynamic
environment, the laws of simulated physics that rule its motion, and a
set of behaviors programmed into it by the "animator." The aggregate
motion of the simulated flock is the result of the dense interaction
of the relatively simple behaviors of the individual simulated birds.

</p><p> <i>Categories and Subject Descriptors:</i> 1.2.10 [Artificial
Intelligence]: Vision and Scene Understanding; 1.3.5 [Computer
Graphics]: Computational Geometry and Object Modeling; 1.3.7 [Computer
Graphics]: Three Dimensional Graphics and Realism-Animation: 1.6.3
[Simulation and Modeling]: Applications.

</p><p> <i>General Terms:</i> Algorithms, design.b

</p><p> <i>Additional Key Words, and Phrases:</i> flock, herd, school,
bird, fish, aggregate motion, particle system, actor, flight,
behavioral animation, constraints, path planning.

</p><h3>Introduction</h3>

<p> The motion of a flock of birds is one of nature's delights. Flocks
and related synchronized group behaviors such as schools of fish or
herds of land animals are both beautiful to watch and intriguing to
contemplate. A flock<a href="#foot*"><sup>*</sup></a> exhibits many
contrasts. It is made up of discrete birds yet overall motion seems
fluid; it is simple in concept yet is so visually complex, it seems
randomly arrayed and yet is magnificently synchronized. Perhaps most
puzzling is the strong impression of intentional, centralized
control. Yet all evidence indicates that flock motion must be merely
the aggregate result of the actions of individual animals, each acting
solely on the basis of its own local perception of the world.

</p><p> One area of interest within computer animation is the description and
control of all types of motion. Computer animators seek both to invent
wholly new types of abstract motion and to duplicate (or make
variations on) the motions found in the real world. At first glance,
producing an animated, computer graphic portrayal of a flock of birds
presents significant difficulties. Scripting the path of a large
number of individual objects using traditional computer animation
techniques would be tedious. Given the complex paths that birds
follow, it is doubtful this specification could be made without
error. Even if a reasonable number of suitable paths could be
described, it is unlikely that the constraints of flock motion could
be maintained (for example, preventing collisions between all birds at
each frame). Finally, a flock scripted in this manner would be hard to
edit (for example, to alter the course of all birds for a portion of
the animation). It is not impossible to script flock motion, but a
better approach is needed for efficient, robust, and believable
animation of flocks and related group motions.

</p><p> This paper describes one such approach. This approach assumes a
flock is simply the result of the interaction between the behaviors of
individual birds. To simulate a flock we simulate the behavior of an
individual bird (or at least that portion of the bird's behavior that
allows it to participate in a flock). To support this behavioral
"control structure," we must also simulate portions of the bird's
perceptual mechanisms and aspects of the physics of aerodynamic
flight. If this simulated bird model has the correct flock-member
behavior, all that should be required to create a simulated flock is
to create some instances of the simulated bird model and allow them to
interact.<a href="#foot**"><sup>**</sup></a>

</p><p> Some experiments with this sort of simulated flock are described
in more detail in the remainder of this paper.  The success and
validity of these simulations is difficult to measure
objectively. They do seem to agree well with certain criteria [<a href="#ref25">25</a>] and some statistical properties [<a href="#ref23">23</a>] of natural flocks and schools which have been
reported by the zoological and behavioral sciences. Perhaps more
significantly, many people who view these animated flocks immediately
recognize them as a representation of a natural flock, and find them
similarly delightful to watch.

</p><h3>Our Foreflocks</h3>

<p> The computer graphics community has seen simulated bird flocks
before. The Electronic Theater at SIGGRAPH `85 presented a piece
labeled "motion studies for a work in progress entitled `Eurythmy'"
[<a href="#ref4">4</a>] by Susan Amkraut, Michael Girard, and George
Karl from the Computer Graphics Research Group of Ohio State
University. In the film, a flock of birds flies up out of a minaret
and, passing between a series of columns, flies down into a lazy
spiral around a courtyard. All the while the birds slowly flap their
wings and avoid collision with their flockmates.

</p><p> That animation was produced using a technique completely unlike
the one described in this paper and apparently not specifically
intended for flock modeling. But the underlying concept is useful and
interesting in its own right.  The following overview is based on
unpublished communications [<a href="#ref3">3</a>]. The software is
informally called "the force field animation system."  Force fields
are defined by a 3 x 3 matrix operator that transform from a point in
space (where an object is located) to an acceleration vector: the
birds trace paths along the "phase portrait" of the force field.
There are "rejection forces" around each bird and around static
objects. The force field associated with each object has a bounding
box, so object interactions can be culled according to bounding box
tests. An incremental, linear time algorithm finds bounding box
intersections. The "animator" defines the space field(s) and sets the
initial positions, orientations, and velocities of objects. The rest
of the simulation is automatic.

</p><p> Karl Sims of MIT's Media Lab has constructed some behaviorally
controlled animation of groups of moving objects (spaceships,
inchworms, and quadrupeds), but they are not organized as flocks [<a href="#ref35">35</a>]. Another author kept suggesting [<a href="#ref28">28</a>, <a href="#ref29">29</a>, <a href="#ref30">30</a>] implementing a flock simulation based on a
distributed behavioral model.

</p><h3>Particle Systems</h3>

<p> The simulated flock described here is closely related to particle
systems [<a href="#ref27">27</a>], which are used to represent dynamic
"fuzzy objects" having irregular and complex shapes. Particle systems
have been used to model fire, smoke, clouds, and more recently, the
spray and foam of ocean waves [<a href="#ref27">27</a>]. Particle
systems are collections of large numbers of individual particles, each
having its own behavior. Particles are created, age, and die
off. During their life they have certain behaviors that can alter the
particle's own state, which consists of color, opacity, location, and
velocity.

</p><p> Underlying the boid flock model is a slight generalization of
particle systems. In what might be called a "subobject system,"
Reeves's dot-like particles are replaced by an entire geometrical
object consisting of a full local coordinate system and a reference to
a geometrical shape model. The use of shapes instead of dots is
visually significant, but the more fundamental difference is that
individual subobjects have a more complex geometrical state; they now
have orientation.

</p><p> Another difference between boid flocks and particle systems is not
as well defined. The behavior of boids is generally more complex than
the behaviors for particles as described in the literature. The
present boid behavior model might be about one or two orders of
magnitude more complex than typical particle behavior. However this is
a difference of degree, not of kind. And neither simulated behavior is
nearly as complex as that of a real bird.

</p><p> Also, as presented, particles in particle Systems do not interact
with one another, although this is not ruled out by definition. But
birds and hence boids must interact strongly in order to flock
correctly. Boid behavior is dependent not only on internal state but
also on external state.

</p><h3>Actors and Distributed Systems</h3>

<p> The behavioral model that controls the boid's flight and flocking
is complicated enough that rather than use an ad hoc approach, it is
worthwhile to pursue the most appropriate formal computational
model. The behaviors will be represented as rules or programs in some
sense, and the internal state of each boid must be held in some sort
of data structure. It is convenient to encapsulate these behaviors and
state as an object, in the sense of object-oriented programming
systems [<a href="#ref10">10</a>, <a href="#ref11">11</a>, <a href="#ref21">21</a>]. Each instance of these objects needs a
computational process to apply the behavioral programs to the internal
data. The computational abstraction that combines process, procedure,
and state is called an actor [<a href="#ref12">12</a>, <a href="#ref26">26</a>, <a href="#ref2">2</a>]. An actor is essentially
a virtual computer that communicates with other virtual computers by
passing messages. The actor model has been proposed as a natural
structure for animation control by several authors [<a href="#ref28">28</a>, <a href="#ref13">13</a>, <a href="#ref29">29</a>, <a href="#ref18">18</a>]. It seems particularly
apt for situations involving interacting characters and behavior
simulation. In the literature of parallel and distributed computer
systems, flocks and schools are given as examples of robust
self-organizing distributed systems [<a href="#ref15">15</a>].

</p><h3>Behavioral Animation</h3>

<p> Traditional hand-drawn cel animation was produced with a medium
that was completely inert. Traditional computer animation uses an
active medium (computers running graphics software), but most
animation systems do not make much use of the computer's ability to
automate motion design. Using different tools, contemporary computer
animators work at almost the same low level of abstraction as do cel
animators. They tell their story by directly describing the motion of
their characters. Shortcuts exist in both media: it is common for
computer animators and cel animators to use helpers to interpolate
between specified keyframes. But little progress has been made in
automating motion description; it is up to the animator to translate
the nuances of emotion and characterization into the motions that the
character performs. The animator cannot simply tell the character to
"act happy" but must tediously specify the motion that conveys
happiness.

</p><p> Typical computer animation models only the shape and physical
properties of the characters, whereas behavioral or character-based
animation seeks to model the behavior of the character. The goal is
for such simulated characters to handle many of the details of their
actions, and hence their motions. These behaviors include a whole
range of activities from simple path planning to complex "emotional"
interactions between characters. The construction of behavioral
animation characters has attracted many researchers [<a href="#ref19">19</a>, <a href="#ref21">21</a>, <a href="#ref13">13</a>, <a href="#ref14">14</a>, <a href="#ref29">29</a>, <a href="#ref30">30</a>, <a href="#ref41">41</a>, <a href="#ref40">40</a>], but it is still a
young field in which more work is needed.

</p><p> Because of the detached nature of the control, the person who
creates animation with character simulation might not strictly he an
animator. Traditionally, the animator is directly responsible for all
motion in animation production [<a href="#ref40">40</a>]. It might he
more proper to call the person who directs animation via simulated
characters a meta-animator, since the animator is less a designer of
motion and more a designer of behavior. These behaviors, when acted
out by the simulated characters, lead indirectly to the final
action. Thus the animator's job becomes somewhat like that of a
theatrical director: the character's performance is the indirect
result of the director's instructions to the actor. One of the
charming aspects of the work reported here is not knowing how a
simulation is going to proceed from the specified behaviors and
initial conditions; there are many unexpected, pleasant surprises. On
the other hand, this charm starts to wear thin as deadlines approach
and the unexpected annoyances pop up. This author has spent a lot of
time recently trying to get uncooperative flocks to move as intended
("these darn boids seem to have a mind of their own!").

</p><h3>Geometric Flight</h3>

<p> A fundamental part of the boid model is the geometric ability to
fly. The motion of the members of a simulated school or herd can be
considered a type of "flying" by glossing over the considerable
intricacies of wing, fin, and leg motion (and in the case of herds, by
restricting freedom of motion in the third dimension). In this paper
the term geometric flight refers to a certain type of motion along a
path: a dynamic, incremental, rigid geometrical transformation of an
object, moving along and tangent to a 3D curve. While the motion is
rigid, the object's underlying geometric model is free to articulate
or change shape within this "flying coordinate system." Unlike more
typical animated motion along predefined spline curves, the shape of a
flight path is not specified in advance.

</p><p> Geometric flight is based on incremental translations along the
object's "forward direction," its local positive Z axis. These
translations are intermixed with steering-rotations about the local X
and Y axes (pitch and yaw), which realign the global orientation of
the local Z axis. In real flight, turning and moving happen
continuously and simultaneously. Incremental geometric flight is a
discrete approximation of this; small linear motions model a
continuous curved path. In animation the motion must increment at
least once per frame. Running the simulation at a higher rate can
reduce the discrete sampling error of the flight model and refine the
shape of motion blur patterns.

</p><p> Flight modeling makes extensive use of the object's own coordinate
system. Local space represents the "boid's eye view;" it implies
measuring things relative to the boid's own position and
orientation. In Cartesian terms, the left/right axis is X, up/down is
Y, and forward/pack is Z. The conversion of geometric data between the
local and global reference frames is handled by the geometric
operators localize and globalize. It is convenient to use a local
scale so that the unit of length of the coordinate system is one body
length. Biologists routinely specify' flock and school statistics in
terms of body lengths.

</p><p> Geometric flight models conservation of momentum. An object in
flight tends to stay in flight. There is a simple model of viscous
speed damping, so even if the boid continually accelerates in one
direction, it will not exceed a certain maximum speed. A minimum speed
can also be specified but defaults to zero. A maximum acceleration,
expressed as a fraction of the maximum speed, is used to truncate
over-anxious requests for acceleration, hence providing for smooth
changes of speed and heading. This is a simple model of a creature
with a finite amount of available energy.

</p><p> Many physical forces are not supported in the current boid
model. Gravity is modeled but used only to define banking behavior. It
is defined procedurally to allow the construction of arbitrarily
shaped fields. If each boid was accelerated by gravity each frame, it
would tend to fall unless gravity was countered by lift or
buoyancy. Buoyancy is aligned against gravity, but aerodynamic lift is
aligned with the boid's local "up" direction and related to velocity.
This level of modeling leads to effects like normally level flight,
going faster when flying down (or slower up), and the "stall"
maneuver. The speed limit parameter could be more realistically
modeled as a frictional drag, a backward pointing force related to
velocity. In the current model steering is done by directing the
available thrust in the appropriate direction. It would be more
realistic to separately model the tangential thrusting forces and the
lateral steering forces, since they normally have different
magnitudes.

</p><h3>Banking</h3>

<p> Geometric flight relates translation, pitch, and yaw, but does not
constrain roil, the rotation about the local Z axis.  This degree of
freedom is used for banking-rolling the object to align the local Y
axis with the (local XY component of the total) acceleration acting
upon it. Normally banking is based on the lateral component of the
acceleration, but the tangential component can be used for certain
applications. The lateral components are from steering and gravity.
In straight flight there is no radial force, so the gravitational term
dominates and banking aligns the object's -Y axis with "gravitational
down" direction. When turning, the radial component grows larger and
the "accelerational down" direction swings outward, like a pendulum
hanging from the flying object. The magnitude of the turning
acceleration varies directly with the object's velocity and with the
curvature of its path (so inversely with the radius of its turn).  The
limiting case of infinite velocity resembles banking behavior in the
absence of gravity. In these cases the local + Y (up) direction points
directly at the center of curvature defined by the current turn.

</p><p>
</p><center>
<a href="http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~dt/siggraph97-course/cwr87/cwr87f1.gif"><img src="Craig%20Reynolds%20Flocks,%20Herds,%20and%20Schools%20A%20Distributed%20Behavioral%20Model_files/cwr87f1.gif" width="60%"></a><p>
Figure 1.
</p></center>

<p> With correct banking (what pilots call a coordinated turn) the
object's local space remains aligned with the "perceptual" or
"accelerational" coordinate system. This has several advantages: it
simplifies the bird's (or pilot's) orientation task, it keeps the lift
from the airfoils of the wings pointed in the most efficient direction
("accelerational up"), it keeps the passengers coffee in their cups,
and most importantly for animation, it makes the flying boid fit the
viewer's expectation of how flying objects should move and orient
themselves. On the other hand, realism is not always the goal in
animation. By simply reversing the angle of bank we obtain a cartoony
motion that looks like the object is being flung outward by the
centrifugal force of the turn.

</p><h3>Boids and Turtles</h3>

<p> The incremental mixing of forward translations and local rotations
that underlies geometric flight is the basis of "turtle graphics" in
the programming language Logo [<a href="#ref5">5</a>]. Logo was first
used as an educational tool to allow children to learn experimentally
about geometry, arithmetic, and programming [<a href="#ref22">22</a>]. The Logo turtle was originally a little
mechanical robot that crawled around on large sheets of paper laid on
the classroom floor, drawing graphic figures by dragging a felt tip
marker along the paper as it moved, Abstract turtle geometry is a
system based on the frame of reference of the turtle, an object that
unites position and heading. Under program control the Logo turtle
could move forward or back from its current position, turn left or
right from its current heading, or put the pen up or down on the
paper. The turtle geometry has been extended from the plane onto
arbitrary manifolds and into 3D space [<a href="#ref1">1</a>].  These
"3d turtles" and their paths are exactly equivalent to the boid
objects and their flight paths.

</p><h3>Natural Flocks, Herds, and Schools</h3>

<pre>"...and the thousands off fishes moved as a huge beast, piercing
the water. They appeared united, inexorably  bound to a common
fate. How comes this unity?"
                           --Anonymous, 17th century (from Shaw)
</pre>

<p> For a bird to participate in a flock, it must have behaviors that
allow it to coordinate its movements with those of its
flockmates. These behaviors are not particularly unique; all creatures
have them to some degree. Natural flocks seem to consist of two
balanced, opposing behaviors: a desire to stay close to the flock and
a desire to avoid collisions within the flock [<a href="#ref34">34</a>]. It is clear why an individual bird wants to
avoid collisions with its flockmates. But why do birds seem to seek
out the airborne equivalent of a nasty traffic jam? The basic urge to
join a flock seems to be the result of evolutionary pressure from
several factors: protection from predators, statistically improving
survival of the (shared) gene pool from attacks from predators,
profiting from a larger effective search pattern in the quest for
food, and advantages for social and mating activities [<a href="#ref33">33</a>].

</p><p> There is no evidence that the complexity of natural flocks is
bounded in any way. Flocks do not become "full" or "overloaded" as new
birds join. When herring migrate toward their spawning grounds, they
run in schools extending as long as 17 miles and containing millions
of fish [<a href="#ref32">32</a>]. Natural flocks seem to operate in
exactly the same fashion over a huge range of flock populations. It
does not seem that an individual bird can be paying much attention to
each and every one of its flockmates. But in a huge flock spread over
vast distances, an individual bird must have a localized and filtered
perception of the rest of the flock. A bird might be aware of three
categories: itself, its two or three nearest neighbors, and the rest
of the flock [<a href="#ref23">23</a>].

</p><p> These speculations about the "computational complexity" of
flocking are meant to suggest that birds can flock with any number of
flockmates because they are using what would be called in formal
computer science a constant time algorithm. That is, the amount of
"thinking" that a bird has to do in order to flock must be largely
independent of the number of birds in the flock. Otherwise we would
expect to see a sharp upper bound on the size of natural flocks when
the individual birds became overloaded by the complexity of their
navigation task.  This has not be observed in nature.

</p><p> Contrast the insensitivity to complexity of real flocks with the
situation for the simulated flocks described below. The complexity of
the flocking algorithm described is basically O(N 2 ). That is, the
work required to run the algorithm grows as the square of the flock's
population. We definitely do see an upper bound on the size of
simulated flocks implemented as described here. Some techniques to
address this performance issue are discussed in the section
Algorithmic Considerations.

</p><h3>Simulated Flocks</h3>

<p> To build a simulated flock, we start with a boid model that
supports geometric flight. We add behaviors that correspond to the
opposing forces of collision avoidance and the urge to join the
flock. Stated briefly as rules, and in order of decreasing precedence,
the behaviors that lead to simulated flocking are:

</p><ol>
<li> Collision Avoidance: avoid collisions with nearby flockmates <p>
</p></li><li> Velocity Matching: attempt to match velocity with nearby flockmates <p>
</p></li><li> Flock Centering: attempt to stay close to nearby flockmates <p>
</p></li></ol>

<p> Velocity is a vector quantity, referring to the combination of
heading and speed. The manner in which the results from each of these
behaviors is reconciled and combined is significant and is discussed
in more detail later. Similarly, the meaning nearby in these rules is
key to the flocking process. This is also discussed in more detail
later, but generally one boid's awareness of another is based on the
distance and direction of the offset vector between them.

</p><p> Static collision avoidance and dynamic velocity matching are
complementary. Together they ensure that the members of a simulated
flock are free to fly within the crowded skies of the flock's interior
without running into one another. Collision avoidance is the urge to
steer a way from an imminent impact. Static collision avoidance is
based on the relative position of the flockmates and ignores their
velocity. Conversely, velocity matching is based only on velocity and
ignores position. It is a predictive version of collision avoidance:
if the boid does a good job of matching velocity with its neighbors,
it is unlikely that it will collide with any of them any time
soon. With velocity matching, separations between boids remains
approximately invariant with respect to ongoing geometric
flight. Static collision avoidance serves to establish the minimum
required separation distance; velocity matching tends to maintain it.

</p><p> Flock centering makes a boid want to be near the center of the
flock. Because each boid has a localized perception of the
world. "center of the flock" actually means the center of the nearby
flockmates. Flock centering causes the boid to fly in a direction that
moves it closer to the centroid of the nearby boids. if a boid is deep
inside a flock, the population density in its neighborhood is roughly
homogeneous; the boid density is approximately the same in all
directions. In this case, the centroid of the neighborhood boids is
approximately at the center of the neighborhood, so the flock
centering urge is small. But if a boid is on the boundary of the
flock, its neighboring boids are on one side. The centroid of the
neighborhood boids is displaced from the center of the neighborhood
toward the body of the flock. Here the flock centering urge is
stronger and the flight path will be deflected somewhat toward the
local flock center.

</p><p> Real flocks sometimes split apart to go around an obstacle. To be
realistic, the simulated flock model must also have this
ability. Flock centering correctly allows simulated flocks to
bifurcate. As long as an individual boid can stay close to its nearby
neighbors, it does not care if the rest of the flock turns away. More
simplistic models proposed for flock organization (such as a central
force model or a follow the designated leader model) do not allow
splits.

</p><p> The flock model presented here is actually a better model of a
school or a herd than a flock. Fish in murky water (and land animals
with their inability to see past their herdmates) have a limited,
short-range perception of their environment. Birds, especially those
on the outside of a flock, have excellent long-range "visual
perception."  Presumably this allows widely separated flocks to join
together. If the flock centering urge was completely localized, when
two flocks got a certain distance apart they would ignore each
other. Long-range vision seems to play a part in the incredibly rapid
propagation of a maneuver wave" through a flock of birds. It has been
shown that the speed of propagation of this wavefront reaches three
times the speed implied by the measured startle reaction time of the
individual birds. The explanation advanced by Wayne Potts is that the
birds perceive the motion of the oncoming "maneuver wave" and time
their own turn to match it [<a href="#ref25">25</a>]. Potts refers to
this as the "chorus line" hypothesis.

</p><h3>Arbitrating Independent Behaviors</h3>

<p> The three behavioral urges associated with flocking (and others to
be discussed below) each produce an isolated suggestion about which
way to steer the boid. These are expressed as acceleration
requests. Each behavior says: "if I were in charge, I would accelerate
in that direction." The acceleration request is in terms of a 3D
vector that, by system convention, is truncated to unit magnitude or
less. Each behavior has several parameters that control its function;
one is a "strength," a fractional value between zero and one that can
further attenuate the acceleration request. It is up to the navigation
module of the boid brain to collect all relevant acceleration requests
and then determine a single behaviorally desired acceleration. It must
combine, prioritize, and arbitrate between potentially conflicting
urges. The pilot module takes the acceleration desired by the
navigation module and passes it to the flight module, which attempts
to fly in that direction.

</p><p> The easiest way to combine acceleration requests is to average
them. Because of the included "strength" factors, this is actually a
weighted average. The relative strength of one behavior to another can
be defined this way, but it is a precarious interrelationship that is
difficult to adjust. An early version of the boid model showed that
navigation by simple weighted averaging of acceleration requests works
"pretty well." A boid that chooses its course this way will fly a
reasonable course under typical conditions. But in critical
situations, such as potential collision with obstacles, conflicts must
be resolved in a timely manner. During high-speed flight, hesitation
or indecision is the wrong response to a brick wall dead ahead.

</p><p> The main cause of indecision is that each behavior might be
shouting advice about which way to turn to avoid disaster, but if
those acceleration requests happen to lie in approximately opposite
directions, they will largely cancel out under a simple weighted
averaging scheme. The boid would make a very small turn and so
continue in the same direction, perhaps to crash into the
obstacle. Even when the urges do not cancel out, averaging leads to
other problems. Consider flying over a gridwork of city streets
between the skyscrapers; while "fly north" or "fly east" might be good
ideas, it would be a bad idea to combine them as "fly northeast."

</p><p> Techniques from artificial intelligence, such as expert systems,
can be used to arbitrate conflicting opinions.  However, a less
complex approach is taken in the current implementation. Prioritized
acceleration allocation is based on a strict priority ordering of all
component behaviors, hence of the consideration of their acceleration
requests.  (This ordering can change to suit dynamic conditions.) The
acceleration requests are considered in priority order and added into
an accumulator. The magnitude of each request is measured and added
into another accumulator. This process continues until the sum of the
accumulated magnitudes gets larger than the maximum acceleration
value, which is a parameter of each boid. The last acceleration
request is trimmed back to compensate for the excess of accumulated
magnitude. The point is that a fixed amount of acceleration is under
the control of the navigation module; this acceleration is parceled
out to satisfy the acceleration request of the various behaviors in
order of priority. In an emergency the acceleration would be allocated
to satisfy the most pressing needs first; if all available
acceleration is "used up," the less pressing behaviors might be
temporarily unsatisfied. For example. the flock centering urge could
be correctly ignored temporarily in favor of a maneuver to avoid a
static obstacle.

</p><h3>Simulated Perception</h3>

<p> The boid model does not directly simulate the senses used by real
animals during flocking (vision and hearing) or schooling (vision and
fishes' unique "lateral line" structure that provides a certain amount
of pressure imaging ability [<a href="#ref23">23</a>, <a href="#ref24">24</a>]). Rather the perception model tries to make
available to the behavior model approximately the same information
that is available to a real animal as the end result of its perceptual
and cognitive processes.

</p><p> This is primarily a matter of filtering out the surplus
information that is available to the software that implements the
boid's behavior. Simulated boids have direct access to the geometric
database that describes the exact position, orientation, and velocity
of all objects in the environment. The real bird's information about
the world is severely limited because it perceives through imperfect
senses and because its nearby flockmates hide those farther away. This
is even more pronounced in herding animals because they are all
constrained to be in the same plane. In fish schools. visual
perception of neighboring fish is further limited by the scattering
and absorption of light by the sometimes murky water between them
These factors combine to strongly localize the information available
to each animal.

</p><p> Not only is it unrealistic to give each simulated boid perfect and
complete information about the world, it is just plain wrong and leads
to obvious failures of the behavior model. Before the current
implementation of localized flock centering behavior was
implemented. the flocks used a central force model. This leads to
unusual effects such as causing all members of a widely scattered
flock to simultaneously converge toward the flock's centroid. An
interesting result of the experiments reported in this paper is that
the aggregate motion that we intuitively recognize as "flocking" (or
schooling or herding) depends upon a limited, localized view of the
world.

</p><p> The behaviors that make up the flocking model are stated in terms
of "nearby flockmates." In the current implementation, the
neighborhood is defined as a spherical zone of sensitivity centered at
the boid's local origin. The magnitude of the sensitivity is defined
as an inverse exponential of distance. Hence the neighborhood is
defined by two parameters: a radius and exponent. There is reason to
believe that this field of sensitivity should realistically be
exaggerated in the forward direction and probably by an amount
proportional to the boid's speed. Being in motion requires an
increased awareness of what lies ahead, and this requirement increases
with speed. A forward-weighted sensitivity zone would probably also
improve the behavior in the current implementation of boids at the
leading edge of a flock, who tend to get distracted by the flock
behind them. Because of the way their heads and eyes are arranged,
real birds have a wide field of view (about 300 degrees), but the zone
of overlap from both eyes is small (10 to 15 degrees). Hence the bird
has stereo depth perception only in a very small, forward-oriented
cone. Research is currently under way on models of forward-weighted
perception for boids.

</p><p> In an early version of the flock model, the metrics of attraction
and repulsion were weighted linearly by distance.  This spring-like
model produced a bouncy flock action, fine perhaps for a cartoony
characterization, but not very realistic. The model was changed to use
an inverse square of the distance. This more gravity-like model
produced what appeared to be a more natural, better damped flock
model. This correlated well with the carefully controlled quantitative
studies that Brian Partridge made of the spatial relationships of
schooling fish [<a href="#ref23">23</a>]; he found that "a fish is
much more strongly influenced by its near neighbors than it is by the
distant members of the school. The contribution of each fish to the
[influence] is inversely proportional to the square or the cube of the
distance." In previous work he and colleagues [<a href="#ref23">23</a>, <a href="#ref24">24</a>] demonstrated that
fishes school based on information from both their visual system and
from their "lateral line" organ which senses pressure waves. The area
of a perspective image of the silhouette of an object (its "visual
angle") varies inversely with the square of its distance, and that
pressure waves traveling through a 3D medium like water fall off
inversely with the cube of the distance.

</p><p> The boid perception model is quite ad hoc and avoids actually
simulating vision. Artificial vision is an extremely complex problem
[<a href="#ref38">38</a>] and is far beyond the scope of this
work. But if boids could "see" their environment, they would be better
at path planning than the current model. It is possible to construct
simple maze like shapes that would confuse the current boid model but
would be easily solved by a boid with vision.

</p><h3>Impromptu Flocking</h3>

<p> The flocking model described above gives boids an eagerness to
participate in an acceptable approximation of flock like motion. Boids
released near one another begin to flock together, cavorting and
jostling for position. The boids stay near one another (flock
centering) but always maintain prudent separation from their
neighbors' (collision avoidance), and the flock quickly becomes
"polarized"-its members heading in approximately the same direction at
approximately the same speed (velocity marching); when they change
direction they do it in synchronization.  Solitary boids and smaller
flocks join to become larger flocks, and in the presence of external
obstacles (discussed below), larger flocks can split into smaller
flocks.

</p><p> For each simulation run, the initial position (within a specified
ellipsoid), heading, velocity, and various other parameters of the
boid model are initialized to values randomized within specified
distributions. A restartable random number generator is used to allow
repeatability. This randomization is not required; the boids could
just as well start out arranged in a regular pattern, all other
aspects of the flock model are completely deterministic and
repeatable.

</p><p> When the simulation is run, the flock's first action is a reaction
to the initial conditions. If the boids started out too closely
crowded together, there is an initial "flash expansion" where the
mutual desire to avoid collision drives the boids radially away from
the site of the initial over-pressure. If released in a spherical
shell with a radius smaller than the "neighborhood" radius, the boids
contract toward the sphere's center; otherwise they begin to coalesce
into small flockettes that might themselves begin to join together. If
the boids are confined within a certain region, the smaller flocks
eventually conglomerate into a single flock if left to wander long
enough.

</p><h3>Scripted Flocking</h3>

<p> The behaviors discussed so far provide for the ability of
individual birds to fly and participate in happy aimless flocking. But
to combine flock simulations with other animated action, we need more
direct control over the flock.  We would like to direct specific
action at specific times (for example, "the flock enters from the left
at :02.3 seconds into the sequence, turns to fly directly upward at
:03.5, and is out of the frame at :04.0").

</p><p> The current implementation of the boid model has several
facilities to direct the motion and timing of the flock action. First,
the simulations are run under the control of a general-purpose
animation scripting system [<a href="#ref36">36</a>]. The details of
that scripting system are not relevant here except that, in addition
to the typical interactive motion control facilities, it provides the
ability to schedule the invocation of user-supplied software (such as
the flock model) on a frame-by-frame basis. This scripting facility is
the basic tool used to describe the timing of various flock
actions. It also allows flexible control over the time-varying values
of parameters, which can be passed down to the simulation
software. Finally the script is used to set up and animate all
nonbehavioral aspects of the scene, such as backgrounds, lighting,
camera motion, and other visible objects.

</p><p> The primary tool for scripting the flock's path is the migratory
urge built into the boid model. In the current model this urge is
specified in terms of a global target, either as a global direction
(as in "going Z for the winter") or as a global position-a target
point toward which all birds fly. The model computes a bounded
acceleration that incrementally turns the boid toward its migratory
target.

</p><p> With the scripting system. we can animate a dynamic parameter
whose value is. a global position vector or a global direction
vector. This parameter can be passed to the flock, which can in turn
pass it along to all boids, each of which sets its own "migratory goal
register."  Hence the global migratory behavior of all birds can be
directly controlled from the script. (Of course, it is not necessary
to alter all boids at the same time, for example, the delay could be a
function of their present position in space. Real flocks do not change
direction simultaneously [<a href="#ref25">25</a>], but rather the
turn starts with a single bird and spreads quickly across the flock
like a shock wave.)

</p><p> We can lead the flock around by animating the goal point along the
desired path, somewhat ahead of the flock.  Even if the migratory goal
point is changed abruptly the path of each boid still is relatively
smooth because of the flight model's simulated conservation of
momentum. This means that the boid's own flight dynamics implement a
form of smoothing interpolation between "control points."

</p><p>
</p><center>
<a href="http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~dt/siggraph97-course/cwr87/cwr87p1.gif"><img src="Craig%20Reynolds%20Flocks,%20Herds,%20and%20Schools%20A%20Distributed%20Behavioral%20Model_files/cwr87p1.gif" width="90%"></a><p>
</p></center>

<h3>Avoiding Environmental Obstacles</h3>

<p> The most interesting motion of a simulated flock comes from
interaction with other objects in the environment. The isolated
behavior of a flock tends to reach a steady state and becomes rather
sterile. The flock can be seen as a relaxation solution to the
constraints implied by its behaviors. For example, the conflicting
urges of flock centering and collision avoidance do not lead to
constant back and forth motion, but rather the boids eventually strike
a balance between the two urges (the degree of damping controls how
soon this balance is reached). Environmental obstacles and the boid's
attempts to navigate around them increase the apparent complexity of
the behavior of the flock. (In fact the complexity of real flocks
might be due largely to the complexity of the natural environment.)

</p><p> Environmental obstacles are also important from the standpoint of
modeling the scene in which we wish to place the flock. If the flock
is scripted to fly under a bridge and around a tree, we must be able
to represent the geometric shape and dimension of these obstacles. The
approach taken here is to independently model the "shape for
rendering" and the "shape for collision avoidance." The types of
shapes currently used for environmental obstacles are much less
complicated than the models used for rendering of computer graphic
models. The current work implements two types of shapes of
environmental collision avoidance. One is based on the force field
concept, which works in undemanding situations but has some
shortcomings. The other model called steer-to-avoid is more robust and
seems closer in spirit to the natural mechanism.

</p><p> The force field model postulates a field of repulsion force
emanating from the obstacle out into space; the boids are increasingly
repulsed as they get closer to the obstacle. This scheme is easy to
model; the geometry of the field is usually fairly simple and so an
avoidance acceleration can be directly calculated from the field
equation. These models can produce good results, such as in "Eurythmy"
[<a href="#ref4">4</a>], but they also have drawbacks that are
apparent on close examination. If a boid approaches an obstacle
surrounded by a force field at an angle such that it is exactly
opposite to the direction of the force field, the boid will not turn
away. In this case the force field serves only to slow the boid by
accelerating it backwards and provides no side thrust at all. The
worst reaction to an impending collision is to fail to turn. Force
fields also cause problems with "peripheral vision." The boid should
notice and turn away from a wall as it flies toward it, but the wall
should be ignored if the boid is flying alongside it. Finally, force
fields tend to be too strong close up and too weak far away; avoiding
an obstacle should involve long-range planning rather than panicky
corrections at the last minute.

</p><p> Steer-to-avoid is a better simulation of a natural bird guided by
vision. The boid considers only obstacles directly in front of it. (It
finds the intersection, if any, of its local Z axis with the
obstacle.) Working in local perspective space, it finds the silhouette
edge of the obstacle closest to the point of eventual impact. A radial
vector is computed which will aim the boid at a point one body length
beyond that silhouette edge (see figure 2). Currently steer-to avoid
has been implemented for several obstacle shapes: spheres, cylinders,
planes, and boxes. Collision avoidance for arbitrary convex polyhedral
obstacles is being developed.

</p><p>
</p><center>
<a href="http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~dt/siggraph97-course/cwr87/cwr87f2.gif"><img src="Craig%20Reynolds%20Flocks,%20Herds,%20and%20Schools%20A%20Distributed%20Behavioral%20Model_files/cwr87f2.gif" width="60%"></a><p>
Figure 2.
</p></center>

<p> Obstacles are not necessarily fixed in space; they can be animated
around by the script during the animation. Or more interestingly, the
obstacles can be behavioral characters. Sparrows might flock around a
group of obstacles that is in fact a herd of elephants. Similarly,
behavioral obstacles might not merely be in the way; they might be
objects of fear such as predators. It has been noted [<a href="#ref25">25</a>] that natural flocking instincts seem to be
sharpened by predators.

</p><h3>Other Applications of the Flock Model</h3>

<p> The model of polarized noncolliding aggregate motion has many
applications, visual simulation of bird flocks in computer animation
being one. Certain modifications yield a fish school model. Further
modifications, such as [imitation to a 2D surface and the ability to
follow the terrain, lead to a herd model. Imagine a herd of PODA-style
legged creatures [<a href="#ref9">9</a>], using Karl Sims' techniques
for locomotion over uneven, complex terrain [<a href="#ref35">35</a>]. Other applications are less obvious. Traffic
patterns, such as the flow of cars on a freeway, is a flock-like
motion. There are specialized behaviors, such as being constrained to
drive within the lanes, but the basic principles that keep boids from
colliding are just as applicable on the freeway. We could imagine
creating crowds of "extras" (human or otherwise) for feature
films. However the most fun are the offbeat combinations possible in
computer graphics by mixing and matching: a herd of pogo sticks, a
flock of Pegasus-like winged horses, or a traffic jam of spaceships on
a 3D interplanetary highway.

</p><p> One serious application would be to aid in the scientific
investigation of flocks, herds, and schools. These scientists must
work almost exclusively in the observational mode; experiments with
natural flocks and schools are difficult to perform and are likely to
disturb the behaviors under study. It might be possible, using a more
carefully crafted model of the realistic behavior of a certain species
of bird, to perform controlled and repeatable experiments with
"simulated natural flocks."  A theory of flock organization can be
unambiguously tested by implementing a distributed behavioral model
and simply comparing the aggregate motion of the simulated flock with
the natural one.

</p><h3>Algorithmic Considerations</h3>

<p> A naive implementation of the basic flocking algorithm would grow
in complexity as the order of the square of the flock's population
("O(N<sup>2</sup>)"). Basically this is because each boid must reason about
each of the other boids, even if only to decide to ignore it. This
does not say the algorithm is slow or fast, merely that as the size of
the problem (total population of the flock) increases, the complexity
increases even faster. Doubling the number of boids quadruples the
amount of time taken.

</p><p> However, as stated before, real birds are probably not as
sensitive to the total flock population. This gives hope that the
simulated boid could be taught to navigate independently of the total
population. Certainly part of the problem is that we are trying to run
the simulation of the whole flock on a single computer. The natural
solution is to use distributed processing, as the real flock does. If
we used a separate processor for each boid, then even the naive
implementation of the flocking algorithm would be O(N), or linear with
respect to the population. But even that is not good enough. It still
means that as more boids are added to the flock, the complexity of the
problem increases.

</p><p> What we desire is a constant time algorithm, one that is
insensitive to the total population. Another way to say this is that
an N<sup>2</sup> algorithm would be OK if there was an efficient way
to keep N very small. Two approaches to this goal are currently under
investigation. One is dynamic spatial partitioning of the flock; the
boids are sorted into a lattice of "bins" based on their position in
space. A boid trying to navigate inside the flock could get quick
access to the flockmates that are physically nearby by examining the
"bins" near its current position. Another approach is to do
incremental collision detection (x`nearness testing"). General
collision detection is another N<sup>2</sup> algorithm, but if one
does collision detection incrementally, based on a partial solution
that described the situation just a moment before, then the algorithm
need worry only about the changes and so can run much faster, assuming
that the incremental changes are small. The incremental collision
detection algorithm used in Girard's PODA system [<a href="#ref9">9</a>] apparently achieves constant time performance in
the typical case.

</p><h3>Computing Environment</h3>

<p> The boids software was written in Symbolics Common Lisp. The code
and animation were produced on a Symbolics 3600 Lisp Machine, a
high-performance personal computer. The flock software is implemented
in Flavors, the object-oriented programming extensions to Symbolics
Common Lisp. The geometric aspects of the system are layered upon
S-Geometry, an interactive geometric modeler [<a href="#ref37">37</a>]. Boids are based on the flavor 3D:OBJECT, which
provides their geometric abilities. The flock simulations are invoked
from scripts created and animated with the S Dynamics [<a href="#ref36">36</a>] animation system, which also provided the
real-time playback facility used to view the motion tests.  The
availability of this graphical toolkit allowed the author to focus
immediately on the issues unique to this project. One example of the
value of this substrate is that the initial version of the flock
model, including implementation, testing, debugging, and the
production of seven short motion tests was accomplished in the ten
days before the SIGGRAPH `86 conference.

</p><p> The boid software has not been optimized for speed. But this
report would be incomplete without a rough estimate of the actual
performance of the system. With a flock of 80 boids, using the naive
O(N<sup>2</sup>) algorithm (and so 6400 individual boid-to-boid
comparisons), on a single Lisp Machine without any special hardware
accelerators, the simulation ran for about 95 seconds per frame. A
ten-second (300 frame) motion test took about eight hours of real time
to produce.

</p><h3>Future Work</h3>

<p> This paper has largely ignored the internal animation of the
geometrical model that provides the visual representation of the
boid. The original motion tests produced with these models all show
flocks of little abstract rigid shapes that might be paper
airplanes. There was no flapping of wings nor turning of heads. and
there was certainly no character animation. These topics are all
important and pertinent to believable animation of simulated
flocks. But the underlying abstract nature of flocking as
polarized. noncolliding aggregate motion is largely independent of
these issues of internal shape change and articulation. This notion is
supported by the fact that most viewers of these simulations identify
the motion of these abstract objects as "flocking" even in the absence
of any internal animation.

</p><p> But doing a believable job of melding these two aspects of the
motion is more than a matter of concatenating the action of an
internal animation cycle for the character with the motion defined by
geometrical flight. There are important issues of synchronization
between the current state of the flight dynamics model, and the
amplitude and frequency of the wing motion cycle. Topics of current
development include internal animation. synchronization, and
interfaces between the simulation-based flock model and other more
traditional. interactive animation scripting systems. We would like to
allow a skilled computer animator to design a bird character and
define its "wing flap cycle" using standard interactive modeling and
scripting techniques. and then be able to take this cyclic motion and
"plug it in" to the flock simulation model causing the boids in the
flock to fly according to the scripted cycle.

</p><p> The behaviors that have been discussed in this paper are all
simplistic, isolated behaviors of low complexity.  The boids have a
geometric and kinematic state. but they have no significant mental
state. Real animals have more elaborate, abstract behaviors than a
simple desire to avoid a painful collision: they have more complex
motivations than a simple desire to fly to a certain point in
space. More interesting behavior models would take into account
hunger, finding food, fear of predators, a periodic need to sleep, and
so on. Behavior models of this type have been created by other
investigators [<a href="#ref6">6</a>, <a href="#ref19">19</a>, <a href="#ref21">21</a>], but they have not yet been implemented for the
boid model described here.

</p><h3>Conclusion</h3>

<p> This paper has presented a model of polarized. noncolliding
aggregate motion. such as that of flocks. herds. and schools. The
model is based on simulating the behavior of each bird
independently. Working independently. the birds try both to stick
together and avoid collisions with one another and with other objects
in their environment. The animations showing simulated flocks built
from this model seem to correspond to the observer's intuitive notion
of what constitutes "flock-like motion." However it is difficult to
objectively measure how valid these simulations are.  By comparing
behavioral aspects of the simulated flock with those of natural
flocks. we are able improve and refine the model. But having
approached a certain level of realism in the model. the parameters of
the simulated flock can be altered at will by the animator to achieve
many variations on flock-like behavior.

</p><h3>Acknowledgements</h3>

<p> I would like to thank flocks. herds. and schools for existing;
nature is the ultimate source of inspiration for computer graphics and
animation. I would also like to acknowledge the contributions to this
research provided by workers in a wonderfully diverse collection of
pursuits:

</p><p> To the natural sciences of behavior, evolution, and zoology: for
doing the hard work, the Real Science, on which this computer graphics
approximation is based. To the Logo group who invented the appropriate
geometry, and so put us in the driver's seat. To the Actor semantics
people who invented the appropriate control structure, and so gave the
boid a brain. To the many developers of modern Lisp who invented the
appropriate programming language. To my past and present colleagues at
MIT, III, and Symbolics who have patiently listened to my speculations
about flocks for years and years before I made my first boid fly. To
the Graphics Division of Symbolics, Inc., who employ me, put up with
my nasty disposition, provide me with fantastic computing and graphics
facilities, and have generously supported the development of the work
described here. And to the field of computer graphics, for giving
professional respectability to advanced forms of play such as reported
in this paper.

</p><p>
</p><center>
<a href="http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~dt/siggraph97-course/cwr87/cwr87p2.gif"><img src="Craig%20Reynolds%20Flocks,%20Herds,%20and%20Schools%20A%20Distributed%20Behavioral%20Model_files/cwr87p2.gif" width="60%"></a><p>
</p></center>

<h3>References</h3>

<dl compact="compact">

<dt><a name="ref1">1.</a></dt><dd> Abelson, H., and diSessa, A.,
"Maneuvering a Three Dimensional Turtle" in Turtle Geometry: The
Computer as a Medium for Exploring Mathematics, The MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1981, pp. 140-159.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref2">2.</a></dt><dd> Agha, G., Actors: A Model of Concurrent
Computation in Distributed Systems, The MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts. 1986.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref3">3.</a></dt><dd> Amkraut, S., personal communication,
January 8, 1987.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref4">4.</a></dt><dd> Amkraut. S. Girard. M., Karl. G. "motion
studies for a work in progress entitled `Eurythmy'" in SIGGRAPH Video
Review. Issue 21 (second item, time code 3:58 to 7:35). 1985. produced
at the Computer Graphics Research Group. Ohio State
University. Columbus, Ohio.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref5">5.</a></dt><dd> Austin, H., "The Logo Primer," MIT AI
Lab, Logo Working Paper 19, 1974.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref6">6.</a></dt><dd> Braitenberg. V. Vehicles: Experiments in
Synthetic Psychology. The MIT
Press. Cambridge. Massachusetts. 1984.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref7">7.</a></dt><dd> Burton, R., Bird Behavior, Alfred
A. Knopf, Inc., 1985.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref8">8.</a></dt><dd> Davis. J. R. Kay. A. Marion, A.,
unpublished research on behavioral simulation and animation. Atari
Research. 1983.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref9">9.</a></dt><dd> Girard, M., Maciejewski, A. A.,
"Computational Modeling for the Computer Animation of Legged Figures"
in Computer Graphics V19 43. 1985. (proceedings of acm SIGGRAPH `85),
pp. 263-270.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref10">10.</a></dt><dd> Goldberg. A. Robson. D. SMALLTALK-8O,
The Language and the Implementation, Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company, Reading, Massachusetts, 1983.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref11">11.</a></dt><dd> Goldberg, A., Kay, A., SMALLTALK-72
Instruction Manual, Learning Research Group, Xerox Palo Alto Research
Center, 1976.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref12">12.</a></dt><dd> Hewitt, C. Atkinson. R. "Parallelism
and Synchronization in Actor Systems," acm Symposium on Principles of
Programming Languages 4. January 1977, Los Angeles, California.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref13">13.</a></dt><dd> Kahn, K. M., Creation of Animation
from Story Descriptions. MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory,
Technical Report 540 (doctoral dissertation), August 1979.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref14">14.</a></dt><dd> Kahn, K. M., Hewitt, C., Dynamic
Graphics using Quasi Parallelism, May 1978, proceedings of ACM
SIGGRAPH, 1978.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref15">15.</a></dt><dd> Kleinrock, L., "Distributed Systems,"
in Communications of the AC,4t, V28#11, November 1985, pp.1200-
1213.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref16">16.</a></dt><dd> Lipton, J., An Exaltation of Larks
(or, The Venereal Game), Grossman Publishers, 1977. Reprinted by
Penguin Books 1977.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref17">17.</a></dt><dd> Maciejewski, A. A., Klein, C. A.,
"Obstacle Avoidance for Kinematically Redundant Manipulators in
Dynamically Varying Environments," to appear in International Journal
of Robotic Research.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref18">18.</a></dt><dd> Magnenat-Thalmann. N., Thalmann, D.,
Computer Animation: Theory and Practice, Springer-Verlag, Tokyo,
1985.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref19">19.</a></dt><dd> Marion, A., "Artificially Motivated
Objects," [installation piece], ACM SIGGRAPH art show, 1985.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref20">20.</a></dt><dd> Moon, D. A., "Object-oriented
Programming with Flavors," in Proceedings of the First Annual
Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and
Applications, ACM, 1986.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref21">21.</a></dt><dd> Myers, R., Broadwell, P., Schaufler,
R., "Plasm: Fish Sample," [installation piece], ACM SIGGRAPH art show,
1985.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref22">22.</a></dt><dd> Papert, S., "Teaching Children to be
Mathematicians vs. Teaching Them About Mathematics," International
Journal of Mathematical Education and Sciences, V3, pp. 249-262,
1972.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref23">23.</a></dt><dd> Partridge, B. L., "The Structure and
Function of Fish Schools," Scientific American, June 1982,
pp. 114-123.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref24">24.</a></dt><dd> Pitcher, T. J., Partridge, B. L.,
Wardle, C. S., "Blind Fish Can School," Science 194, #4268 (1976),
p. 964.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref25">25.</a></dt><dd> Potts, W. K., "The Chorus-Line
Hypothesis of Manoeuvre Coordination in Avian Flocks," letter in
Nature, Vol. 309, May 24, 1984, pp. 344-345.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref26">26.</a></dt><dd> Pugh, J., "Actors--The Stage is Set,"
acm SIGPLAN Notices, V19 #3, March 1984, pp. 61-65.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref27">27.</a></dt><dd> Reeves, W., T., "Particle Systems-A
Technique for Modeling a Class of Fuzzy Objects," acm Transactions on
Graphics, V2 #2, April 1983. and reprinted in Computer Graphics. V17
#3, July 1983, (acm SIGGRAPH `83 Proceedings), pp. 359-376.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref28">28.</a></dt><dd> Reynolds, C. W., Computer Animation in
the World of Actors and Scripts, SM thesis, MIT (the Architecture
Machine Group), May 1978.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref29">29.</a></dt><dd> Reynolds. C. W., "Computer Animation
with Scripts and Actors," Computer Graphics, V16 #3, July 1982, (acm
SIGGRAPH `82 Proceedings), pp. 289-296.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref30">30.</a></dt><dd> Reynolds, C. W. "Description and
Control of Time and Dynamics in Computer Animation" in the notes for
the course on Advanced Computer Animation at acm SIGGRAPH `85, and
reprinted, and reprinted for the notes of the same course in 1986.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref31">31.</a></dt><dd> Selous, E. Thought-transference (or
what?) in Birds, Constable, London, 1931.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref32">32.</a></dt><dd> Scheffer, V. B., Spires of Form.'
Glimpses of Evolution, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, San Diego, 1983
(reprinted 1985 by Harvest/HBJ), p. 64.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref33">33.</a></dt><dd> Shaw, E., "Schooling in Fishes:
Critique and Review" in Development and Evolution of
Behavior. W. H.<p> Freeman and Company. San Francisco, 1970,
pp. 452480.</p><p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref34">34.</a></dt><dd> Shaw, E., "Fish in Schools," Natural
History 84, no. 8 (1975), pp. 4046.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref35">35.</a></dt><dd> Sims, K., Locomotion of Jointed
Figures Over Complex Terrain, SM thesis, MIT Media Lab, currently in
preparation, April 1987.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref36">36.</a></dt><dd> Symbolics Graphics Division,
S-Dynamics (user's manual). Symbolics Inc., November 1986.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref37">37.</a></dt><dd> Symbolics Graphics Division,
S-Geometry (user's manual), Symbolics Inc., October 1986.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref38">38.</a></dt><dd> Pinker, S. (editor), Visual Cognition,
The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1985.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref39">39.</a></dt><dd> Thomas, K, Johnson, Ox, Disney
Animation.' The Illusion of Life, Abbeville Press, New York, 1981,
pp. 47- 69.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref40">40.</a></dt><dd> Wilhelms, J., "Toward Automatic Motion
Control," IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications. V7 #4, April 1987,
pp. 11-22.<p>

</p></dd><dt><a name="ref41">41.</a></dt><dd> Zeltser, D., "Toward an Integrated
View of 3-D Computer Animation," The Visual Computer, VI #4, 1985. pp.
249-259.<p>

</p></dd></dl>

<p><br></p><p>
</p><center>
<a href="http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~dt/siggraph97-course/cwr87/cwr87p3.gif"><img src="Craig%20Reynolds%20Flocks,%20Herds,%20and%20Schools%20A%20Distributed%20Behavioral%20Model_files/cwr87p3.gif" width="90%"></a><p>
</p></center>
<p><br></p><p>

</p><h3>Footnotes</h3>

<dl compact="compact">

<dt><a name="foot1"><sup>1</sup></a></dt><dd> Note: this is a reprint of
the original publication in the proceeding of SIGGRAPH `87 (Computer
Graphics 21(4), July 1987, edited by Maureen C. Stone, pages
25-34). It was produced by applying optical character recognition
software to scanned images of the original hardcopy pages.  The author
wishes to thank Ken Cushman of SGI who generously donated his time and
facilities to perform the OCR work, which allowed this old paper to
get back online.  Be forewarned: the OCR process introduces errors
into the text.  Most of these have been corrected through
spell-checking and spotty proof-reading.  Some errors may persist.

<p>
</p></dd><dt><a name="foot2"><sup>2</sup></a></dt><dd> Author's current address:
Silicon Studio, 2011 North Shoreline Boulevard, MS 980, Mountain View,
CA 94043, USA -- craig@studio.sgi.com --
http://reality.sgi.com/employees/craig/

<p> Permission to copy without fee all or part of this material is
granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for
direct commercial advantage, the ACM copyright notice and the title of
the publication and its date appear, and notice is given that copying
is by permission of the Association for Computing Machinery. To copy
otherwise, or to republish requires a fee and/or specific permission.

</p><p> (C)1987 ACM-0-89791-227-6/87/007/0025 $00.75

</p><p>
</p></dd><dt><a name="foot*"><sup>*</sup></a></dt><dd> In this paper flock refers
generically to a group of objects that exhibit this general class of
polarized, non colliding.  aggregate motion. The term polarization is
from zoology. meaning alignment of animal groups. English is rich with
terms for groups of animals; for a charming and literate discussion of
such words see An Exultation of Larks. [<a href="#ref16">16</a>]

<p>
</p></dd><dt><a name="foot**"><sup>**</sup></a></dt><dd> This paper refers to these
simulated bird-like. "bird-oid" objects generically as "boids" even
when they represent other sorts of creatures such as schooling fish.

</dd></dl>

</body></html>