Stigmergic planning

Tim Ireland
Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College London, UK.
[email protected]
Published in Proceedings of 2010 Association for Computer Aided Design in
Architecture (ACADIA) conference
To cite this article:
Ireland, T. (2010). Stigmergic Planning, in LIFE in:formation: On Responsive
Information and Variations in Architecture. Aaron Sprecher, Shai Yeshayahu and
Pablo Lorenzo-Eiroa (eds.). Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the
Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA 2010), New York,
USA. Pp 183-189.

Abstract
This paper presents an application of swarm intelligence towards the problem of spatial
configuration. The methodology classifies activities as discrete entities, which selforganise topologically through associational parameters: an investigation of emergent
route formation and spatial connectivity based on simple agent and pheromone
interaction, coupled with the problem of loose rectangular geometric assembly. A
concept model sniffingSpace (Ireland 2009) developed in Netlogo (Willensky 1999),
which established the self-organising topological capacity of the system, is extended in
Processing (Fry and Rea 2009) to incorporate rectangular geometry towards the problem
of planning architectural space.
1

Introduction

The model presented takes precedence from Kurt Lewins theory of Hodological space
(1959), which defines the variable conditions a person faces moving between two points.
Lewins notion was a concept of psychological space; an analytical concept in which a
subjects behaviour is perceived a result of a dynamic subject-environment relation. This
behavioural notion of space is extended computationally in a generative process, in light
of work in ecological psychology (Barker 1968), cybernetics (Pask 1969) and Uexklls
theory of Umwelt (2001), to a pragmatic notion of the practical configuration of space:
coined here as concrete space, in reference to O.F. Bollnows spatial theory (Shuttleworth
& Kohlmaier forthcoming). Architectural space is the manifestation of the built form, and
as such, concrete space is a particular aspect of architectural space--being the space of
activity created in dialogue between the subject and its environment.
The work looks to swarm intelligence (SI) and established computational methods based
on the behaviour of social insects and animals, to approach the configuration of
Stigmergic planning

architectural space from a position of distributed representation. The intent is to broach

spatial thinking and the imitation of standard spatial templates in the process of
configuring architectural space. Thus spatial configuration is perceived in terms of the
functional space of an organism (Uexkll 2001; Sharov 2001); the perspective of the
independent organism-environment relation is translated computationally, not only as an
approach to problem solving but in a manner in which the model is the theory.
The paper will first elucidate the authors spatial thinking and approach to spatial
configuration to position the application of SI: a position stemming from work at CECA
(Miranda and Coates 2000; Coates 2004). The model sniffingSpace (Ireland 2009) will
then be outlined to explain the method. The model presented extends sniffingSpace to
incorporate rectangular geometry towards generating architectural diagrams of spatial
configuration.
The model draws on the problem of architectural space planning, in terms of purpose, and
as such alludes to the field of automatic plan generation. The model sits within such a
body of work in terms of an alternative method and approach but is not a tool for spatial
planning per se. It is a conceptual approach to sketching spatial configuration--a playful
tool to amplify the creative intuition of the designer. In these terms, optimisation, an issue
briefly addressed in reflection with comparative models and performance oriented design,
is a significant issue.
2

Questioning: Space in architecture

Proposing a user oriented ecological approach in architectural design, in which a

buildings umwelt is conceived, Lawson (2001) commented that architects tend to
consider space as an abstract concept and not a behavioural phenomenon, and yet
paradoxically assume that behaviour will follow their predictions. Such an observation
critiques a deterministic attitude and objectified approach to design, as opposed to a
cybernetic, systems approach in which dynamical relations between the space and
occupant are allowed to unfold patterns. This is a notion of architecture as the
manifestation of a complex of places: the organisation of a framework for activities and
the interrelation of settings for performing activities (Norberg-Schultz 1971). This is a
complex problem perceived here as the defining or manipulating of relations between
parts, and parts of parts in servitude to combinatorial, topological, associative, and
communicative properties. The work is concentrated at the diagrammatic-cogitatingunravelling stage in the design process, namely the point at which an architect deliberates
a briefs spatial parameters and determines the organisation of the building--tying
architectural space to the user, relative to behaviour, function and context.
Le Corbusiers (1929) well known adage, Man walks in a straight line because he knows
where he is going, explicates the determined nature of a methodology forming the
modern man-made environment: an optimisation perceiving the path of a persons
movement as a mathematical rule that the shortest distance is the straight line. This is not
a representation of a subject within an environment. The approach here is prompted by
systems occurring in nature, a dirty sketch view perceived as good enough: See 4.1.
Stigmergic planning

Opposed to the geometrical line which connects two points as an abstract representation
of a persons journey, the German social psychologist Kurt Lewin studied the problem of
movement and how in reality paths do not follow the mathematical rule, that the shortest
distance is the straight line: as demonstrated by the Peploid model (Helbing 2001).
3

Spatial thinking.

The authors focus is of a subject embedded in its environment going about its business,
and this activity perceived as spatial patterning: a dynamic unfolding process, which is
self-organising, defined through performance. This notion, stemming from the thinking
of Simmel (1997), Lefebvre (1992), Hillier (1998), Perec (1999), and de Certeau (1988),
considers every-day, social activity as spatial patterning, a dynamic relationship between
people and the environment: a concept of concrete space as social geometry.
3.1

Spatial configuration as a complex adaptive system

Hilliers elucidation of the relationship between user and context (1998), Lefebvres
critique (1992), and the concept of a building as a spatial system (Hillier and Hanson
1984) signify the problem of spatial configuration as complex.
A distinctive property of concrete space is low-dimensionality. Spatial relations constrain
one another and consequentially spatial organisation exhibits patterning: making space
productive. Reaction-diffusion, self-organisation, swarming and flocking, stigmergy,
habits, etc., are all enabled by spatiality (Bullock 2009). AL and AI research has
successfully transposed the above into mathematical models and the computers capacity
to emulate such dynamic systems provides the potential to generate and unfold
architectural patterns of spatial configuration (Coates 2010).
4

Applying swarm intelligence to the problem of spatial configuration

Research into the behavioural and cognitive mechanisms underlying numerous collective
phenomena observed in animal groups and societies offer interesting principles and
methods which may be applied architecturally (Theraulaz 2009). Swarm intelligence
offers an alternative way of designing intelligent systems, in which autonomy,
emergence, and distributed functioning replace control, pre-programming, and
centralisation (Bonabeau et al. 1999). The emphasis is on these principles being applied
architecturally from a perspective of the user rather than towards the manifestation of
form and not used on the premise of simulating human behaviour. It has been
demonstrated that spatial organisation is an important aspect in the life of social insect
colonies. Their stigmergic nature defines an intimate relation between insect, colony, and
the environment: for example building of the nest, brood-sorting, corpse-aggregation and
food foraging (Theraulaz et al. 2003). Lefebvre (1995) noted that space affects people
and people affect space. Similarly, Hillier (1998) proposed that space affects behaviour
and behaviour affects space. These are basically notions of a feedback relationship
between space (the environment) and people, a relationship which is stigmergic,
providing an alternative process of spatial configuration.
Stigmergic planning

4.1

In search of the good enough: a dirty sketch.

Models of social insect behaviour have been well documented and been applied to the
design and modelling of complex systems (Bonabeau et al. 1999). These are generally
towards optimisation problems, such as routing in communication networks and tend to
rely on or have some form of a-priori knowledge planned into the behaviour of the
system to promote optimisation: i.e., a global governing routine helps guide an agent on
its return journey, and control the evaporation and depositing of pheromones in the well
known ACO heuristic (Dorigo and Stutzle 2004). In Reznick's (1994) Ant model the
nest emits an alternative pheromone defining a compass by which to guide the agents
back to the nest. Such methodologies provide a generally predictable outcome and
thereby serve to illustrate what may be achieved manually; deemed tautological within
the terms of this work (Ireland 2008a). See figure 1.

Image1. Top: nests emitting pheromone direct agents back home: defining an
orthogonal representation of connectivity. Above: Two trail method; the later
sequence illustrates the connectivity between colonies changing through different
connotations of full connectivity.
Optimisation is not the purpose of the model presented here, indeed the behaviour of the
emergent trail system impedes the formation of a unified solution. The system displays a
state of self-organised criticality (Jensen 1998) whereby formed trails endure a lifespan:
the formation of trails is constantly refreshed, thereby forcing agents to reinstate new
Stigmergic planning

routes. This behaviour is due to a threshold of the reinforcement of trails through the
behaviour of agents and their interaction with the environment. This results in a break in
reinforcement, coupled with agent behaviour, the diffusion and evaporation of
pheromone prevents trails forming and converging to an optimised route between
destination points; instead, trails emerge, converge, fluctuate, and expire. (See figure 2.)
Thus, if optimisation is defined as the search for the best element from some set of
available alternatives or as performance improvement, then this model does not facilitate
optimisation. Secondly the method is based on Lewins notion of Hodological space,
defining a locus of action whose scope is defined by the field of force generated as the
subject reacts with its environment--a variable state conditioned by the affect of a
dynamic environment. The author is not adverse to optimisation; it is a necessary
engineering. The point being made is the distinction between comparative models and
the epistemological approach.

Image 2. Series showing the formation and cessation of trails, between fixed nests.
4.2

The ant foraging analogy

A second clarification concerns the application of SI and relation to precedent models.

The method employs ant colonies in terms of an abstract representation of food foraging
behaviour and should not be confused with Dorigos ACO algorithm, which is focused
primarily on the search for an optimal path. The method is based on the work of Panait
Stigmergic planning

and Luke (2004); a response to the complicated nest discovery devices employed by
algorithms such as ACO. The method relies on two pheromones: one applied when
searching, the other when returning to the nest. The principle being a simple mechanism
with no hard-coding, used as a method of distributed representation.
5

Using artificial ant colonies to generate diagrams of architectural

space.

In essence, the model is very simple, taking Mitchel Resnicks model Ant (1994) and
revising the return-to-nest mechanism of the ant following the trail emitted by the nest to
a second trail laid by the ants: See 4.2 above.
The nest-ant-food relationship is revised here to nest/food-ant. One colonys nest is
another colonys food, and vice versa; therefore, the eventual pheromone trail which
emerges amongst the colonies becomes a communication network through which the antagents traverse between associated colonies. A colonys nest represents an activity,
thereby a specific space or area requirement in terms of an architectural brief. This
method is the basic mechanism of the model, described briefly below in 5.1. The nests
are represented geometrically as a rectangle. The rectangular form was employed due to
the flexibility of packing that rectangular geometry allows: See Steadman (2006) for a
thorough explanation.
5.1

Interpreting the spatial template

The notion of concrete space as outlined effects the reconsideration of standard spatial
templates typically assumed in architectural practice, on the premise that users are
generally obligated to conform to an imposed spatial pattern or to remodel accordingly.
Here activities are defined according to associational parameters: these may be defined
relative to a specific behavioural pattern in order to investigate the emergent spatial
configurations and explore the resulting unconstrained spatial patterning. To date the
model has not been tested to this degree; it is presented here in terms of the system, its
reasoning, mechanics and behaviour.
Deconstructing typical spatial templates identifies an array of activities, which will
inherently own some measure of association with each other, may be asymmetric, have
associations to activities typically located in other areas or have varied and ambiguous
associations, relative to the particular behaviour pattern explored. The premise is that the
dynamic association of these associational parameters may develop spatial topographies
previously obstructed by the traditional hierarchical definition of rooms in typical plan
arrangement: a spatial template.
Spatial configuration is not an exacting or finite production. As such, the task here is to
determine the loose arrangement of spaces, bringing them together in an agglomerated
whole. The approach takes precedent from the LOOS program (Flemming 1986) which
focused on loosely packed arrangements, in which rectangles describing crucial spatial
relations between the primary elements were allocated, and remaining gaps or holes used
Stigmergic planning

to allocate auxiliary spaces or added to previously allocated spaces once the shape of the
circulation area was determined.
5.2

Sniffing Space

The model presented is a development of a model coined sniffingSpace, described in

detail elsewhere (Ireland 2008b, 2009). In short the model consists of an array of ant
colonies. A colony is composed of two types of agents: an ant-agent and a nest-agent. An
ant-agent forms an army; a single ant-agent is termed a soldier. Soldiers leave the nest in
search of associated nest sites (food) and return home upon discovering an associate,
eliminating the find from their associate list. This process is repeated until a soldier has
discovered all its associates; then it dies. Trails emerge between associated nest sites
generating a communication network between colonies. Diffusion and evaporation affect
the trails.
The nest represents an activity--a space. Nests check visiting soldiers to determine their
association. If associated, the nest will follow a returning soldier; the nests movement is
gradual, ensuring that its advance is not affected by a single soldier. The network
therefore generates a gravitational force between associated colonies. The nests
representing different activities therefore use these trails as a routing, along which they
traverse to come together with their associates. (See figure 3.) Nests reproduce soldiers
until they are in the company of all their associates.

Image 3: sequence illustrating nests traversing trails towards agglomeration.

5.3

The G&T algorithm1

The nests rectangular geometry is created with a random x and y dimension, satisfying
their specific area condition. As nests are drawn together, their boundary conditions
conflict. A nest therefore has three behavioural traits to accommodate geometrical
assembly relative to its relation with its neighbours: adapt boundary conditions, move
away or overlap.
1) Adapt boundary conditions: A nests x and y dimensions are variable, so it will
alter its configuration in order to nestle.
1

A playful term by the author to distinguish the rules extending the sniffingSpace model, to incorporate
rectangular geometry.

Stigmergic planning

2) Move away: Various activities have common or specific adversaries: i.e.,

social/private or noisy/quiet activities. A nest whose boundary is overlapping with
an adversary will move away. Note, it can settle next to, but not overlie.
3) Overlap: associated nests must overlie to settle. Nests with no association are not
restricted from coinciding.

Image 4: Nest relations between 5 colonies. Blue line signifies connection between
associates, red line between adversaries.
Two versions of the model were produced taking into consideration the soldier-nest
encounter condition: a nucleus version, where a soldier must locate the central area of the
nest and a boundary version where the soldier must just cross the boundary before
detecting a find and returning home. These were tested with five colonies, with varied
associations. (See figure 4). The behaviour of the two systems differs.
The nucleus version has a tendency to result in an agglomerated whole. In operation, it
generally takes longer to form conspicuous paths and for the system to get going. Once
a connectivity network has formed and the nests start to gravitate, they appear to move
around more, changing position a number of times in the process rather than getting
straight into position. The nests appear to fight and tussle jostling for position and every
so often one appears to give up, trying an alternative course.

Stigmergic planning

Image 5: Results of nucleus version.

The results of the boundary version appear less resolute; one time forming separate
groups of associated activities, another time a single cluster. The agglomerations are
generally more simplistic, rather than a lot of multi-overlaps as in the nucleus version, the
nests tends to get into position much quicker, their course changing less in the process.

Image 5: Results of boundary version.

6

Conclusions

The model incorporates two systems of agents working in parallel. These agents form a
colony of which there is an array. A colony has associational parameters reflecting the
spatial parameters contained in an architectural brief. Information is transmitted
throughout the system via a communication network which emerges as a result of local
interaction between soldiers and pheromone and the associational parameters between
colonies. A gravitational pull between associated colonies causes the nest sites to selfassemble their spatial configuration. The use of agents in a process of distributed
representation generates a diagram in which the geometry of the system is an emergent
property of the model, resulting in a spatial structure that emerges as a consequence of
the behaviour of the system.
The approach to the formation of concrete space outlined is the design or description of
Stigmergic planning

relations: between parts, and parts of parts in servitude to combinatorial, topological,

associative, and communicative properties, congruent to utilitarian practices, their spatial
parameters (association, adjacency, permeability, integration, and categories),
environment and context. To date, the model does not incorporate all of these aspects.
The model presented is a reflection of an ontological theory of space: an interpretation of
a particular aspect of space based upon an interdisciplinary review of spatial thinking.
Interaction with the model resonates the process of sketching spatial diagrams. Manually,
this is a process in which many options will be outlined in a process of roughly working
through varied arrangements of spatial configuration. A process that evolves relative to
the designers intuition, developing a solution, worked up in a process of trial and error.
The model outlined does not suffice as an alternative, but it does offer an approach which
potentially could result in diagrams that suggest alternative options to the typical spatial
template. In deconstructing the spatial template, focusing on what people actually do, and
drawing on a designers intuition, creativity may be amplified: in that, with further
development, the affordances between the resulting configurations may be scrutinized.
Acknowledgements
This research is carried out under the supervision and guidance of Professor Philip
Steadman at the Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College London and
Paul Coates head of the Centre for Evolutionary Computation in Architecture (CECA) at
University of East London.
Thanks also to Mr Emmanouil Zaroukas for his stimulating dialogue and feedback and to
Dr. Seth Bullock, Head of Group in Science and Engineering of Natural Systems Group
at the University of Southampton for his comments on another paper which have been
incorporated here.
This research is funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
(EPSRC), UK.
References
Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological Psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the
environment of behaviour. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Bonabeau, E., M. Dorigo, and G. Theraulaz. (1999). Swarm Intelligence. From natural to
artificial systems. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bollnow, O. F. (1963). Mensch und Raum (Man and space). In Human space. Trans. C.
Shuttleworth. ed. J. Kohlmaier. London: Hyphen Press. Forthcoming.
Bullock, S., and C. Buckley. (2009). Embracing the tyranny of distance: Space as an
enabling constraint. In Technoetic Arts, 7 (2). pp. 141-152.
Coates, P. (2004). Review paper: some experiments using agent modelling at CECA. In
Proceedings of the 7th Generative art conference. Milan: GA2004.
Stigmergic planning

10

Coates, P. (2010). Programming.Architecture. Routledge.

De Certeau, M. (1988). The practice of everyday life. Trans S. Rendall. University of
California Press.
Dorigo, M., and T. Stutzle. (2004). Ant colony optimization. A Bradford book, The MIT
Press.
Flemming, U. (1986). On the representation and generation of loosely packed
arrangements of rectangles. In Environment and Planning B: Planning and design.
Volume 13, Pages 189-205.
Fry, B., and R. Casey. (2009). Processing: v1.04, http://processing.org/. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Media Lab.
Helbing D., P. Molnar, I. J. Farkas, and K. Bolay. (2001). Self-organising pedestrian
movement. In Environment and Planning B: Planning and design, Vol 28, pages
361 383.
Hillier, B., and J. Hanson. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hillier, B. (1998). Space is the machine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jensen H. J. (1998). Self-Organized Criticality: Emergent Complex Behaviour. In
Physical and Biological Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ireland, T. (2008a). Space Diagrams: The problem of spatial arrangement and the
automatic generation of architectural plans. In Proceedings of the 26th eCAADe
Conference on Education and Research in Computer Aiderd Architecturel Design
in Europe. September 17-19, 2008. Antwerpen, Belgium.
Ireland, T. (2008b). Sniffing Space. In Proceedings of the 11th Generative art conference.
Milan: GA2008.
Ireland, T. (2009). Emergent space diagrams. In Proceedings of the 13th International
CAAD Futures Conference. Montral: 2009.
Lawson, B. (2001). The language of space. Oxford: Architectural Press.
Le Corbusier. (1929). The city of tomorrow. London: The architectural press.
Lefebvre, H. (1995). The production of space. Trans. D. Nicholson-Smith. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Lewin, K. (1959). Field theory in social science. London: Tavistock Publications Ltd.
Miranda, P., and P. Coates. (2000). Swarm modelling: The use of swarm intelligence to
generate architectural form. In Proceedings of the 3rd Generative art conference,
Milan: GA2000.
Norberg-Schulz, C. (1971). Existence, space and architecture. London: Studio Vista.
Stigmergic planning

11

Panait, L., and S. Luke. (2004). Ant foraging revisted. In Proceedings of the Ninth
International Conference on the simulation and synthesis of living systems.
(ALIFE9). Pp569.
Pask, G. (1969). The architectural relevance of cybernetics. In Architectural Design.
September. Pages 494 to 496.
Perec, G. (1999). Species of spaces in Species of spaces and other pieces. Ed. J. Sturrock.
London: Penguin books,.
Resnick, M. (1994). Turtles, Termites and Traffic Jams: Explorations in Massively
Parallel Microworlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sharov, A. (2001). Umwelt-theory and pragmatism. In Semiotica. Issue 134, July. Pages
211-228.
Simmel, G. (1997). The sociology of space. In Simmel on culture, eds. D. Frisby, and M.
Featherstone. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Steadman, P. (2006). Why are most buildings rectangular? In Arq magazine, Volume 10,
No.2. Pages 119 to 130.
Theraulaz, G., J. Gautrais, S. Camazine, and J. Deneubourg. (2003). The formation of
spatial patterns in social insects: from simple behaviours to complex structures.
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 15 June 2003 vol. 361 no. 1807 1263-1282
Theraulaz, G., R. Sol, and P. Kuntz. (2009). From insect nest to human architecture:
Workshop on engineering principles of innovation in swarm-made architectures.
September 23rd-25th. Venice, Italy.
von Uexkll, J. (2001). The new concept of Umwelt: a link between science and the
humanities. In Semiotica. Issue 134, July. Pages 111-123.
Willensky, U. (1999). Netlogo, http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo. Evanston, IL: Center
for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University.

Stigmergic planning

12