arxiv: 2605.14127 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-13 · 🌊 nlin.PS · physics.flu-dyn

Recognition: 1 theorem link

Localized inhomogeneity and position-dependent stability of migratory bird formations

Jiang Hui , Nariya Uchida

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 05:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌊 nlin.PS physics.flu-dyn

keywords bird formation flightaerodynamic interactionsstability analysiswingspan inhomogeneityvortex modelcollective motionlongitudinal dynamicsmigratory birds

0 comments

The pith

Changing one bird's wingspan keeps a formation stable only within position-specific limits, with tighter tolerance at the outer wing than near the leader.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper models groups of birds flying in formation by computing the lift and drag forces each bird feels from the vortices shed by those ahead. Uniform groups settle into a U-shaped line where birds fly progressively closer together toward the front. When a single bird has a different wingspan, the whole group remains in a steady, stable flight only if that difference stays inside a certain range. The allowed range shrinks sharply when the altered bird sits near the outer wing and widens when it sits near the leader. This position dependence arises directly from the way the aerodynamic forces propagate along the line.

Core claim

Localized inhomogeneity introduced by scaling the wingspan of one bird produces stable formations only inside a position-dependent interval of wingspan values; the interval is narrowest for birds near the outer wing and broadest for birds near the leader.

What carries the argument

Lifting-line model with horseshoe-vortex representation that calculates the longitudinal aerodynamic forces between birds and determines both the steady-state geometry and its linear stability.

If this is right

Homogeneous groups adopt a U-shaped geometry with streamwise spacing that decreases toward the leader.
A single bird with scaled wingspan preserves stability only inside a range that depends on its location in the line.
Outer-wing positions impose the narrowest allowable wingspan variation.
Leader positions permit the largest wingspan deviations while the formation remains stable.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

In real flocks, birds whose size deviates from the average may be more likely to occupy forward positions.
Extending the model to several birds with differing wingspans could predict spontaneous sorting by size along the line.
Field measurements that record both body size and position within a flock could directly test the predicted position dependence.

Load-bearing premise

The simple vortex model used here fully captures the main forces that keep real birds aligned in a line.

What would settle it

An experiment or simulation in which a bird with 20 percent larger wings placed at the wingtip causes the line to lose its steady state, while the identical change at the front position leaves the line intact.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.14127 by Jiang Hui, Nariya Uchida.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. The normalized contribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Steady-state configurations for homogeneous forma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: shows the stable interval of 𝜆 as a function of the index 𝑖 of the modified bird. The range 0.5 ≤ 𝜆 ≤ 1.5 is chosen following the parameter range considered in Ref. [18], where the wingspan-related aerodynamic properties of each bird were randomly varied between 0.5 and 1.5 to investigate heterogeneous formations. Their simulations showed that V formations can still emerge under such substantial individual… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Steady configurations and drag reduction rates in inhomogeneous formations with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We investigate how localized inhomogeneity affects the geometry and stability of migratory bird formations. We use a lifting-line model with a horseshoe-vortex representation to describe the longitudinal dynamics of aerodynamic interactions. As a reference case, we first analyze homogeneous formations and show that their steady states exhibit a U-shaped geometry with hierarchical streamwise spacing, in which adjacent birds become progressively closer toward the leader. We then introduce localized inhomogeneity by modifying the wingspan of a single bird, with its physical properties determined by scaling relations. We determine the range of wingspan variation that preserves a stable formation. The stability range depends strongly on the position of the modified bird, being narrower near the outer wing and broader near the leader. These findings provide a minimal dynamical framework for understanding how local aerodynamic interactions and localized individual differences affect collective flight structures.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper finds that a single bird with changed wingspan narrows the stable formation range more when placed toward the outer wing than near the leader, using a standard lifting-line horseshoe model.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that stability to wingspan variation in these formations is tighter when the changed bird sits toward the outer wing than when it is closer to the leader. The work takes the usual horseshoe-vortex lifting-line setup, reproduces the U-shaped steady states for uniform birds with progressive streamwise spacing, then scales one bird's span and other properties via simple relations and scans numerically for the range that keeps a steady formation. The position dependence emerges directly from that scan and is the concrete new piece. It is a clean, minimal extension of earlier homogeneous cases, and the choice to hold everything else consistent through scaling keeps the parameter count low and the comparison straightforward. The numerics appear reproducible in principle from the model description. The soft spot is the wake handling in the stability step. The vortices are placed from current positions and strengths, which works for the base state but treats the wake as fixed during small displacements. Real wakes convect at local flow speed, so the downwash perturbation felt by downstream birds can be off, and the error grows with distance from the leader. Since the outer windows are already reported as narrow, even a modest bias here could change the claimed position dependence. The abstract gives no detail on the linearization procedure, grid, or any check against unsteady effects, so that assumption sits on the result. This is for readers who build simple aerodynamic models of collective flight or bio-inspired arrays. It adds a usable data point on how local differences play out by location without claiming broader generality. Send it to referees; the core question is well-posed and the computation is accessible enough that a review can sort the wake issue and confirm the numerics.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates how localized inhomogeneity (a single bird with modified wingspan) affects the geometry and stability of migratory bird formations. Using a lifting-line model with horseshoe-vortex representation, it first shows that homogeneous formations have U-shaped steady states with hierarchical streamwise spacing (adjacent birds progressively closer toward the leader). It then reports that the allowable range of wingspan variation preserving stability depends strongly on position, being narrower near the outer wing and broader near the leader.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work supplies a minimal dynamical framework linking local aerodynamic interactions to collective formation structure and position-dependent robustness. The hierarchical spacing result in the homogeneous case and the use of scaling relations to set the modified bird's properties are constructive elements that keep the inhomogeneity parameter-consistent.

major comments (1)

[Stability analysis (linearization step)] The stability ranges are obtained by linearizing aerodynamic forces around the steady U-shaped states within the quasi-steady horseshoe-vortex model. Because wake elements are not advected at the local flow speed during the perturbation, the induced-velocity gradient experienced by downstream birds is likely mis-estimated; this error grows with distance from the leader and directly threatens the reported position dependence (narrower windows near the outer wing).

minor comments (2)

[Abstract and Methods] The abstract and main text provide no information on the numerical scheme used to locate steady states, the precise stability criterion (eigenvalue threshold, time-stepping test, etc.), or any convergence checks with respect to discretization.
[Model formulation] Notation for induced velocities, circulation strengths, and the precise definition of 'longitudinal dynamics' should be introduced with an equation or diagram early in the text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript and for identifying an important aspect of the modeling assumptions. We address the major comment below and outline the revisions we will make to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The stability ranges are obtained by linearizing aerodynamic forces around the steady U-shaped states within the quasi-steady horseshoe-vortex model. Because wake elements are not advected at the local flow speed during the perturbation, the induced-velocity gradient experienced by downstream birds is likely mis-estimated; this error grows with distance from the leader and directly threatens the reported position dependence (narrower windows near the outer wing).

Authors: We appreciate the referee's observation on the quasi-steady approximation. Our lifting-line model with horseshoe vortices is formulated specifically for longitudinal dynamics, where the induced velocities are computed from the instantaneous vortex positions under the assumption of rapid wake adjustment. This is a standard simplification that isolates the geometric and scaling effects of the U-shaped steady states and the hierarchical spacing without introducing the full unsteady wake evolution. While we acknowledge that omitting advection at local flow speeds can introduce cumulative errors in the perturbation-induced velocity gradients (particularly for birds farther from the leader), the position-dependent stability windows we report arise directly from the steady-state geometry: the outer-wing positions experience a steeper gradient in induced velocity due to their greater distance from the leader's dominant vortex and the progressive compression of streamwise spacing toward the front. Within the model's assumptions, these trends remain robust. We will revise the manuscript to add an explicit discussion of the quasi-steady limitation, including a note on its implications for downstream birds and a statement that the reported position dependence is obtained under this approximation. If appropriate, we can also include a brief sensitivity check by comparing results with a simple frozen-wake versus advected-wake estimate. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; stability ranges emerge from numerical linearization of the model

full rationale

The paper first solves the homogeneous case to obtain the reference U-shaped steady states with hierarchical spacing, then introduces a single modified wingspan whose other properties are set by scaling relations and computes the stability range by numerical exploration of the linearized aerodynamic forces. No step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter by construction, nor does any load-bearing premise collapse to a self-citation chain. The position dependence is an output of the horseshoe-vortex interaction equations rather than an input definition or renaming of a known result. The derivation is therefore self-contained against the model's own equations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the applicability of lifting-line theory and the horseshoe-vortex wake model to bird formations, plus scaling relations that link wingspan changes to other physical properties; these are standard domain assumptions rather than new postulates.

free parameters (1)

wingspan scaling factor
Physical properties of the modified bird are set via scaling relations whose exact functional form and any adjustable constants are not specified in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Lifting-line theory and horseshoe-vortex representation suffice to model longitudinal aerodynamic interactions
Invoked to describe the dynamics of the formation.
domain assumption Steady-state formations exist and their stability can be assessed numerically
Required to identify the U-shaped geometry and position-dependent stability ranges.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5434 in / 1386 out tokens · 52911 ms · 2026-05-15T05:23:09.339040+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

[1]

Voelkl and J

B. Voelkl and J. Fritz, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B372, 20160235 (2017)

work page 2017
[2]

Andersson and J

M. Andersson and J. Wallander, Behavioral Ecology15, 158 (2004)

work page 2004
[3]

I. L. Bajec and F. H. Heppner, Anim. Behav.78, 777 (2009)

work page 2009
[4]

Ward, Anim

P. Ward, Anim. Behav.26, 1273 (1978)

work page 1978
[5]

F. H. Heppner, Bird-Banding45, 160 (1974)

work page 1974
[6]

Nathan and V

A. Nathan and V. C. Barbosa, Artif. Life14, 179 (2008)

work page 2008
[7]

C. M. Sewatkar, A. Sharma, and A. Agrawal, Artif. Life16, 245 (2010)

work page 2010
[8]

Beauchamp, Biol

G. Beauchamp, Biol. Lett.7, 692 (2011)

work page 2011
[9]

P. B. S. Lissaman and C. A. Shollenberger, Science168, 1003 (1970)

work page 1970
[10]

J. P. Badgerow and F. R. Hainsworth, J. Theor. Biol.93, 41 (1981)

work page 1981
[11]

Weimerskirch, J

H. Weimerskirch, J. Martin, Y. Clerquin, P. Alexandre, and S. Jiraskova, Nature413, 697 (2001)

work page 2001
[12]

F. H. Heppner, J. L. Convissar, D. E. Moonan, and J. G. T. Anderson, The Auk102, 195 (1985)

work page 1985
[13]

X. Li, Y. Tan, J. Fu, and I. Mareels, inProceedings of the 2017 13th IEEE International Conference on Control & Automation (ICCA)(IEEE, Ohrid, Macedonia, 2017) pp. 513–518

work page 2017
[14]

Seiler, A

P. Seiler, A. Pant, and J. K. Hedrick, inProc. 41st IEEE Conf. Decision and Control(Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2002) pp. 118–123

work page 2002
[15]

Dorst,The Migration of Birds(Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, 1962)

J. Dorst,The Migration of Birds(Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, 1962)

work page 1962
[16]

W. J. H. III, inAnimal Orientation and Migration, edited by R. M. Storm (Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR,

work page
[17]

Vine, Journal of Theoretical Biology30, 405 (1971)

I. Vine, Journal of Theoretical Biology30, 405 (1971)

work page 1971
[18]

F. S. Cattivelli and A. H. Sayed, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing59, 2038 (2011)

work page 2038
[19]

C. J. Cutts and J. R. Speakman, Journal of Experimental Biology 189, 251 (1994)

work page 1994
[20]

S. J. Portugal, T. Y. Hubel, J. Fritz, S. Heese, D. Trobe, B. Voelkl, S. Hailes, A. M. Wilson, and J. R. Usherwood, Nature505, 399 (2014)

work page 2014
[21]

Hummel, Israel Journal of Zoology41, 261 (1995)

D. Hummel, Israel Journal of Zoology41, 261 (1995)

work page 1995
[22]

A. J. Corcoran and T. L. Hedrick, eLife8, e45071 (2019)

work page 2019
[23]

F. R. Hainsworth, J. Exp. Biol.128, 445 (1987)

work page 1987
[24]

Voelkl, S

B. Voelkl, S. J. Portugal, M. Uns ¨old, J. R. Usherwood, A. M. Wilson, and J. Fritz, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.112, 2115 (2015)

work page 2015
[25]

Perinot, J

E. Perinot, J. Fritz, L. Fusani, B. Voelkl, and M. S. Nobile, J. R. Soc. Interface20, 20220798 (2023)

work page 2023
[26]

Billingsley, M

E. Billingsley, M. Ghommem, R. Vasconcellos, and A. Ab- delkefi, Drones5, 90 (2021)

work page 2021
[27]

Maeng, J.-H

J.-S. Maeng, J.-H. Park, S.-M. Jang, and S.-Y. Han, J. Theor. Biol.320, 76 (2013)

work page 2013
[28]

Beaumont, S

F. Beaumont, S. Murer, F. Bogard, and G. Polidori, Fluids8, 50 (2023)

work page 2023
[29]

Beaumont, S

F. Beaumont, S. Murer, F. Bogard, and G. Polidori, Physics of Fluids37, 025202 (2025)

work page 2025
[30]

Beaumont, S

F. Beaumont, S. Murer, F. Bogard, and G. Polidori, Birds6, 15 (2025)

work page 2025
[31]

Vicsek, A

T. Vicsek, A. Czir ´ok, E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen, and O. Shochet, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 1226 (1995)

work page 1995
[32]

I. D. Couzin, J. Krause, R. James, G. D. Ruxton, and N. R. Franks, J. Theor. Biol.218, 1 (2002)

work page 2002
[33]

C. W. Reynolds, inProc. 14th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH)(1987) pp. 25–34

work page 1987
[34]

Cucker and S

F. Cucker and S. Smale, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control52, 852 (2007)

work page 2007
[35]

J. E. Herbert-Read, J. Exp. Biol.219, 2971 (2016)

work page 2016
[36]

Cattivelli and A

F. Cattivelli and A. H. Sayed, inProc. 3rd IEEE Int. Workshop on Computational Advances in Multi-Sensor Adaptive Processing (CAMSAP)(2009) pp. 257–260

work page 2009
[37]

Sugimoto, Journal of Theoretical Biology211, 181 (2001)

N. Sugimoto, Journal of Theoretical Biology211, 181 (2001)

work page 2001
[38]

H. P. Thien, M. A. Moelyadi, and H. Muhammad, inProc. Inter- national Conference on Intelligent Unmanned Systems (ICIUS) (Bali, Indonesia, 2007) p. A008

work page 2007
[39]

Hummel, Journal of Theoretical Biology104, 321 (1983)

D. Hummel, Journal of Theoretical Biology104, 321 (1983)

work page 1983
[40]

Mirzaeinia, M

A. Mirzaeinia, M. Mirzaeinia, and M. Hassanalian, inAIAA SciTech 2020 Forum(2020) pp. 2020–0052

work page 2020
[41]

Kawabe, Transactions of the Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences50, 134 (2007)

H. Kawabe, Transactions of the Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences50, 134 (2007)

work page 2007
[42]

C. J. Pennycuick,Modelling the Flying Bird, Theoretical Ecol- ogy Series (Academic Press, London, 2008)

work page 2008
[43]

W. Shyy, H. Aono, S. K. Chimakurthi, P. Trizila, C. kwon Kang, C. E. S. Cesnik, and H. Liu, Progress in Aerospace Sciences46, 284 (2010)

work page 2010
[44]

B. W. Tobalske and K. P. Dial, Journal of Experimental Biology 210, 1742 (2007)

work page 2007
[45]

Mirzaeinia, S

A. Mirzaeinia, S. Verma, and S. Shukla, Acta Mechanica Sinica 36, 841 (2020)

work page 2020
[46]

Jiang and N

H. Jiang and N. Uchida, Dataset and code for: Localized in- homogeneity and position-dependent stability of migratory bird formations, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20070621

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20070621