Field studies of European starling flocks (Ballerini et al. 2008; Cavagna et al. 2010) established that the structural (attraction-repulsion) interaction between birds is topological: each bird interacts with a fixed number of nearest neighbors, nc≈6n_c \approx 6-8, irrespective of their physical distance. The source paper left open whether orientational (velocity-alignment) interactions are also topological at the individual level, what biological mechanism sets ncn_c, whether the rule generalizes across species, contexts, and sensory modalities, how to disentangle direct coupling from correlation-mediated effective interactions, and how interaction-rule models could be tested causally under field perturbations. Later work substantially resolved the first issue at the effective-interaction level: maximum-entropy inference shows the alignment coupling is short-ranged in topological distance (Bialek et al. 2012; Cavagna et al. 2015, nc=8.0±0.5n_c = 8.0 \pm 0.5), and comparative work revealed context-dependent plasticity of interaction rules (jackdaws switch between topological and metric rules). The surviving open core is: determine the individual-level interaction rules (structural and orientational) of natural flocks, including the dynamical, time-resolved analysis of individual trajectories and dynamical correlations that the program explicitly left to future work; identify the proximate mechanism fixing the interaction range; map the rules' generality across species, contexts, and sensory modalities; disentangle direct coupling from correlation-mediated effective interactions in the time-resolved regime; and validate interaction-rule models under field perturbations such as predator attacks.

Background

Many animals move in coherent groups -- bird flocks, fish schools, mammal herds -- and theoretical work since the 1990s has shown that such collective motion can emerge from simple local rules that each individual applies to its neighbors: move toward distant neighbors, avoid very close ones, and align your velocity with the others. What those rules actually are in real animals, however, was for a long time almost pure assumption, because quantitative data on wild groups were scarce.

The STARFLAG project (Rome) changed this by reconstructing the three-dimensional positions of individual birds in flocks of up to a few thousand starlings, using multiple synchronized cameras and stereo-photogrammetry (reconstructing 3D positions from paired 2D images). Two notions of 'distance' between group members matter here. The metric distance is the ordinary physical separation. The topological distance (or topological rank) is the order of neighborhood: your first, second, third... nearest neighbor, regardless of how far away they physically are. A metric interaction couples birds within a fixed physical radius; a topological interaction couples each bird to a fixed number ncn_c of nearest neighbors.

Analyzing how the spatial structure of flocks scales with their density, Ballerini et al. (2008) found that the structural (attraction-repulsion) interaction in starling flocks is topological: the number of neighbors each bird effectively interacts with is approximately constant, nc=6.5±0.9n_c = 6.5 \pm 0.9, from flock to flock, while the corresponding metric radius grows with the flock's sparseness. The interaction was read off from the anisotropy of the flock (flocks are statistically elongated along the direction of motion, a signature of anisotropic, vision-mediated interaction). Cavagna et al. (2010) -- the source paper of this problem -- confirmed this result on a much larger dataset and spelled out what remained unknown.

The central methodological difficulty is that experiments measure correlations, not interactions. The velocity correlation function (how strongly the flight directions of two birds co-vary as a function of their separation) is scale-free in these flocks: its range grows with flock size, so it has no intrinsic decay length from which an interaction range could be read off (Cavagna et al. 2010, PNAS). Because correlations propagate beyond direct interaction links, any interaction range estimated from them is at best an upper bound on the true number of directly coupled neighbors. A principled way around this is maximum-entropy inference: among all probabilistic models of the flock's configurations, choose the least structured one that exactly reproduces the measured correlations. Applied to starling data this yields an explicit 'energy' function whose couplings are the effective interactions between birds (mathematically analogous to a Heisenberg magnet of spins that must keep flying).

The source paper framed five linked open issues: (i) whether orientational (velocity-alignment) interactions -- as opposed to the already-measured structural ones -- are also topological at the individual level; (ii) what proximate biological mechanism sets the observed number nc≈7n_c \approx 7 (the suggested, untested hypothesis was a perceptual object-tracking limit, known as subitizing -- rapid exact enumeration of small sets of objects without counting; trained pigeons discriminate numerosities only below about seven items -- while a competing hypothesis is functional optimization of anti-predator response); (iii) whether the topological rule found in European starlings generalizes across species, behavioral contexts, and sensory modalities; (iv) how to disentangle direct coupling from correlation-mediated effective interactions; and (v) methodological needs: longer and more accurate 3D reconstructions, integration of structural and orientational inverse methods into full interaction kernels (the functional form of the coupling as a function of distance or rank), and causal tests of interaction-rule models against perturbations, such as predator attacks, in the field.

Problem Statement

Following the source paper's research program, and updated by the progress recorded above, the open problem is to establish the individual-level interaction rules of natural bird flocks and their biological basis. The program poses the following linked open questions: (1) the individual-level interaction rule -- which neighbors a bird responds to (structural attraction-repulsion and orientational alignment), and how the coupling depends on distance or topological rank -- including the dynamical, time-resolved analysis of individual trajectories and dynamical correlations that the program explicitly left to future work; equal-time maximum-entropy inference has established that the effective alignment couplings are short-ranged in topological distance (nc≈6n_c \approx 6-8), and this established partial progress constrains any answer but does not settle the individual-level rule itself; (2) the proximate mechanism that sets the interaction range -- cognitive (object-tracking/subitizing limits), sensory-geometric, or functional (anti-predator optimization); the subitizing hypothesis is suggested by a numerical agreement with pigeon numerosity limits and the anti-predator optimization alternative by model-based optimum ranges, and both remain untested, so resolving the mechanism requires discriminating evidence between the competing hypotheses; (3) the generality of the rule across species, behavioral contexts (transit vs. escape vs. mobbing), and sensory modalities, i.e. a systematic comparative account relating interaction topology to sensory capabilities and functional demands, taking into account the demonstrated context-plasticity of rules; and (4) whether interaction-rule models hold under perturbation in the field. These are linked open questions of a single research program, and progress on each informs the others; together they support the overarching objective of replacing aprioristic interaction assumptions in models of collective animal motion with empirically validated, mechanistically grounded rules.

References

  1. Cavagna, A., Cimarelli, A., Giardina, I., Parisi, G., Santagati, R., Stefanini, F., & Tavarone, R. (2010). From empirical data to inter-individual interactions: unveiling the rules of collective animal behavior. Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences 20(supp01):1491-1510. DOI: 10.1142/S0218202510004660. URL: https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218202510004660 (source paper of the open question)
  2. Ballerini, M., Cabibbo, N., Candelier, R., Cavagna, A., Cisbani, E., Giardina, I., Lecomte, V., Orlandi, A., Parisi, G., Procaccini, A., Viale, M., & Zdravkovic, V. (2008). Interaction ruling animal collective behavior depends on topological rather than metric distance: Evidence from a field study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(4):1232-1237. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0711437105. URL: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0711437105
  3. Cavagna, A., Cimarelli, A., Giardina, I., Parisi, G., Santagati, R., Stefanini, F., & Viale, M. (2010). Scale-free correlations in starling flocks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(26):11865-11870. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1005766107. URL: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1005766107
  4. Bialek, W., Cavagna, A., Giardina, I., Mora, T., Silvestri, E., Viale, M., & Walczak, A. M. (2012). Statistical mechanics for natural flocks of birds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(13):4786-4791. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1118633109. URL: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1118633109
  5. Cavagna, A., Del Castello, L., Dey, S., Giardina, I., Melillo, S., Parisi, L., & Viale, M. (2015). Short-range interactions versus long-range correlations in bird flocks. Physical Review E 92:012705. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.92.012705. URL: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.92.012705
  6. Cavagna, A., Giardina, I., Ginelli, F., Mora, T., Piovani, D., Tavarone, R., & Walczak, A. M. (2014). Dynamical maximum entropy approach to flocking. Physical Review E 89:042707. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.89.042707. URL: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.89.042707
  7. Bialek, W., Cavagna, A., Giardina, I., Mora, T., Pohl, O., Silvestri, E., Viale, M., & Walczak, A. M. (2014). Social interactions dominate speed control in poising natural flocks near criticality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(20):7212-7217. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1324045111. URL: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1324045111
  8. Castellana, M., Bialek, W., Cavagna, A., & Giardina, I. (2016). Entropic effects in a nonequilibrium system: Flocks of birds. Physical Review E 93:052416. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.93.052416. URL: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.93.052416
  9. Attanasi, A., Cavagna, A., Del Castello, L., Giardina, I., Grigera, T., Jelić, A., Melillo, S., Parisi, L., Pohl, O., Shen, E., & Viale, M. (2014). Information transfer and behavioural inertia in starling flocks. Nature Physics 10:691-696. DOI: 10.1038/nphys3035. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3035
  10. Attanasi, A., Cavagna, A., Del Castello, L., Giardina, I., Jelić, A., Melillo, S., Parisi, L., Pohl, O., Shen, E., & Viale, M. (2015). Emergence of collective changes in travel direction of starling flocks from individual birds' fluctuations. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 12:20150319. DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2015.0319. URL: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2015.0319
  11. Cavagna, A., & Giardina, I. (2014). Bird flocks as condensed matter. Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 5:183-207. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031113-133834. URL: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031113-133834
  12. Cavagna, A., Culla, A., Feng, X., Giardina, I., Grigera, T., Kion-Crosby, W., Melillo, S., Pisegna, G., Postiglione, L., & Villegas, P. (2022). Marginal speed confinement resolves the conflict between correlation and control in collective behaviour. Nature Communications 13:2315. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-29883-4. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29883-4
  13. Cavagna, A., Queirós, S. M. D., Giardina, I., Stefanini, F., & Viale, M. (2013). Diffusion of individual birds in starling flocks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 280:20122484. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2012.2484. URL: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2484
  14. Hemelrijk, C. K., & Hildenbrandt, H. (2015). Diffusion and topological neighbours in flocks of starlings: Relating a model to empirical data. PLOS ONE 10(5):e0126913. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126913. URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126913
  15. Eriksson, A., Nilsson Jacobi, M., Nyström, J., & Tunstrøm, K. (2010). Determining interaction rules in animal swarms. Behavioral Ecology 21(5):1106-1111. DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arq118. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arq118
  16. Ling, H., McIvor, G. E., Westley, J., van der Vaart, K., Vaughan, R. L., Thornton, A., & Ouellette, N. T. (2019). Behavioural plasticity and the transition to order in jackdaw flocks. Nature Communications 10:5174. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-13281-4. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13281-4
  17. Strandburg-Peshkin, A., Farine, D. R., Couzin, I. D., & Crofoot, M. C. (2015). Shared decision-making drives collective movement in wild baboons. Science 348(6241):1358-1361. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5099. URL: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa5099
  18. Wirth, T. D., Dachner, G. C., Rio, K. W., & Warren, W. H. (2023). Is the neighborhood of interaction in human crowds metric, topological, or visual? PNAS Nexus 2(5):pgad118. DOI: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad118. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad118
  19. Lei, L., Escobedo, R., Sire, C., & Theraulaz, G. (2020). Computational and robotic modeling reveal parsimonious combinations of interactions between individuals in schooling fish. PLOS Computational Biology 16(3):e1007194. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007194. URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007194
  20. Escobedo, R., Lecheval, V., Papaspyros, V., Bonnet, F., Mondada, F., Sire, C., & Theraulaz, G. (2020). A data-driven method for reconstructing and modelling social interactions in moving animal groups. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 375:20190380. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2019.0380. URL: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0380
  21. Zampetaki, A., Yang, Y., Löwen, H., & Royall, C. P. (2024). Dynamical order and many-body correlations in zebrafish show that three is a crowd. Nature Communications 15:2591. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-46426-1. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-46426-1
  22. Pita, D., Collignon, B., Halloy, J., & Fernández-Juricic, E. (2016). Collective behaviour in vertebrates: a sensory perspective. Royal Society Open Science 3:160377. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.160377. URL: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160377
  23. Papadopoulou, M., Furtbauer, I., O'Bryan, L., Garnier, S., Georgopoulou, D., Bracken, A., Christensen, C., & King, A. J. (2023). Dynamics of collective motion across time and species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 378:20220068. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2022.0068. URL: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2022.0068
  24. Procaccini, A., Orlandi, A., Cavagna, A., Giardina, I., Zoratto, F., Santucci, D., Chiarotti, F., Hemelrijk, C. K., Alleva, E., Parisi, G., & Carere, C. (2011). Propagating waves in starling, Sturnus vulgaris, flocks under predation. Animal Behaviour 82(4):759-765. DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.07.006. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.07.006
  25. Hemelrijk, C. K., van Zuidam, L., & Hildenbrandt, H. (2015). What underlies waves of agitation in starling flocks. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 69:755-764. DOI: 10.1007/s00265-015-1891-3. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-015-1891-3
  26. Storms, R., Carere, C., Zoratto, F., & Hemelrijk, C. K. (2019). Complex patterns of collective escape in starling flocks under predation. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 73:10. DOI: 10.1007/s00265-018-2609-0. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-018-2609-0
  27. Voelkl, B., Firth, J. A., & Sheldon, B. C. (2016). Nonlethal predator effects on the turn-over of wild bird flocks. Scientific Reports 6:33476. DOI: 10.1038/srep33476. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep33476
  28. Goodenough, A. E., Little, N., Carpenter, W. S., & Hart, A. G. (2017). Birds of a feather flock together: Insights into starling murmuration behaviour revealed using citizen science. PLOS ONE 12(6):e0179277. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179277. URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179277
  29. Papadopoulou, M., Hildenbrandt, H., Storms, R. F., Carere, C., Verhulst, S., & Hemelrijk, C. K. (2024-2026, preprint, v4 April 2026). Towards a mechanistic understanding of collective escape in starlings. bioRxiv. DOI: 10.1101/2024.10.27.620514. URL: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.10.27.620514
  30. Loffredo, E., Venturelli, D., & Giardina, I. (2023). Collective response to local perturbations: how to evade threats without losing coherence. Physical Biology 20(3):035003. DOI: 10.1088/1478-3975/acc5cc. URL: https://doi.org/10.1088/1478-3975/acc5cc
  31. Walter, T., & Couzin, I. D. (2021). TRex, a fast multi-animal tracking system with markerless identification, and 2D estimation of posture and visual fields. eLife 10:e64000. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.64000. URL: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64000
  32. Cavagna, A., Cimino, G., Cristin, J., Fiorini, M., Giardina, I., Giustiniani, A., Grigera, T. S., Melillo, S., Palombella, R. A., Parisi, L., Ponno, A., Scandolo, M., & Stamler, Z. S. (2025, preprint). Spin-waves without spin-waves: a case for soliton propagation in starling flocks. arXiv:2505.19665. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.19665