Skip to main content
Log in

Abstract.

To find an answer to the title question, an attractiveness function between agents and locations is introduced yielding a phenomenological but generic model for the search for optimal distributions of agents over space. Agents can be seen as, e.g., members of biological populations like colonies of bacteria, swarms, and so on. The global attractiveness between agents and locations is maximized causing (self-propelled) `motion' of agents and, eventually, distinct distributions of agents over space. At the same token spontaneous changes or `decisions' are realized via competitions between agents as well as between locations. Hence, the model's solutions can be considered a sequence of decisions of agents during their search for a proper location. Depending on initial conditions both optimal as well as suboptimal configurations can be reached. For the latter early decision-making are important for avoiding possible conflicts: if the proper moment is missed, then only a few agents can find an optimal solution. Indeed, there is a delicate interplay between the values of the attractiveness function and the constraints as can be expressed by distinct terms of a potential function containing different Lagrange parameters. The model should be viewed as a top-down approach as it describes the dynamics of order parameters, i.e. macroscopic variables that reflect affiliations between agents and locations. The dynamics, however, is modified via so-called cost functions that are interpreted in terms of affinity levels. This interpretation can be seen as an original step towards an understanding of the dynamics at the underlying microscopic level. When focusing on the agent, one may say that the dynamics of an order parameter shows the evolution of an agent's intrinsic `map' for solving the problem of space occupation. Importantly, the dynamics does not necessarily distinguish between evolving (or moving) agents and evolving (or moving) locations though agents are more likely to be actors than the locations. Put differently, an order parameter describes an internal map which is linked to the expectation of an agent to find a certain location. Owing to the dynamical representation, we can therefore follow up the change of these maps over time leading from uncertainty to certainty.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • J. Portugali, Self-organization and the City (Springer, Berlin, 1999)

  • C.W. Reynolds, Comp. Graph. 21, 25 (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Huth, C. Wissel Biological Motion edited by W. Alt, G. Hoffmann, Vol. 89, Lecture Notes in Biomath, 578–590 (Springer, Berlin, 1990)

  • M.M. Millonas, In From Simple Rules to Global Complexity – Proceedings of the Conference of Self-Organization and Life (Brussels, 1993), pp. 780–789

  • U. Erdmann, W. Ebeling, V.S. Anishchenko, Phys. Rev. E 65, 061106 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • U. Erdmann, W. Ebeling, A.S. Mikhailov, Phys. Rev. E 71, 051904 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • U. Erdmann, W. Ebeling, Fluct. Noise Lett. 3, L145 (2003)

  • W. Ebeling, U. Erdmann, Complexity 8, 23 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • W. Ebeling, F. Schweitzer, Theory Biosci. 120, 207 (2001)

  • L. Moreau, IEEE Trans. Automatic Control 50, 169 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • D.S. Morgan, I. B. Schwartz, Phys. Lett. A 340, 121 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • K. Krischer, A.S. Mikhailov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 3165 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  • M.G. Or-Guil, M. Bode, C.P. Schenk, H.-G. Purwins, Phys. Rev. E 57, 6432 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  • H Hempel, Il. Schebesch, L. Schimansky-Geier, Euro. Phys. J B 2, 399 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  • F. Chirila, T. Sakurai, E. Mihaliuk, K. Showalter, Science 296, 2009 (2002)

  • M. Kostur, L. Schimansky-Geier, Acta Physica Polonica B 32, 351 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  • F Schweitzer, B. Tilch, Phys. Rev. E 66, 026113 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Haken, Synergetics - Introduction and Advanced Topics (Springer, Berlin, 2004)

  • W. Weidlich, G. Haag (eds.), Interregional Migration (Springer, Berlin, 1988)

  • A. Daffertshofer, H. Haken, J. Portugali, Env. Plann. B-Plann. Design 28, 89 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Haken, M. Schanz, J. Starke, Physica D 134, 227 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Starke, M. Schanz, H. Haken, Physica D 134, 242 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  • P.C. Bressloff, P. Roper, Phys. Rev. E 58, 2282 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Mannella, F. Moss, P.V.E. McClintock, Noise in nonlinear dynamical systems, Experiments and Simulations, edited by F. Moss, P.V.E. McClintock (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989), pp. 189–221

  • H. Gang, A. Daffertshofer, H. Haken, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4874 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Ditzinger, H. Haken, Biol. Cyber. 61, 279 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Ditzinger, H. Haken, Biol. Cyber. 63, 453 (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Haken, Synergetic Computers and Cognition, 2nd edn. (Springer, Berlin, 2004)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Daffertshofer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Daffertshofer, A. How do ensembles occupy space?. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 157, 79–91 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2008-00632-0

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2008-00632-0

Navigation