![]() ![]() ![]() |
Cellular automata may also be characterized by the stability or predictability of their behaviour under small perturbations in initial configurations. Figure 2 shows differences in patterns generated by cellular automata resulting from a change in a single initial site value. Such perturbations have characteristic effects on the four classes of cellular automata:

(five possible values for each site) and
(nearest neighbour rules). Site values 0 to 4 are represented by white, red, green, blue and yellow squares, respectively. (The rules shown have totalistic codes 10175, 566780, 570090, 580020, 583330, 672900, 5694390, 59123000.) The `orange' discoloration is a background, not part of the pattern.

,
, and takes the value of a site to be 1 if the sum of the values of the sites in its three-site neighbourhood is 2 or 6, to be 2 if the sum is 3, and to zero otherwise (totalistic code 792).

In class 1 and 2 cellular automata, information associated with site values in the initial state propagates only a finite distance; in class 3 cellular automata, it propagates an infinite distance at a fixed speed, while in class 4 cellular automata, it propagates irregularly but over an infinite range. The speed of information propagation is related to the Lyapunov exponent for the cellular automaton evolution, and measures the degree of sensitivity to initial conditions (see ref. [16]). It leads to different degrees of predictability for the outcome of cellular automaton evolution:
Information propagation is particularly simple for the special class of additive cellular automata (whose local rule function
is linear modulo
), in which patterns generated from arbitrary initial states may be obtained by superposition of patterns generated by evolution of simple initial states containing a single non-zero site. A rather complete algebraic analysis of such cellular automata may be given [17]. Most cellular automata are not additive; however, with special initial configurations it is often possible for them to behave just like additive rules. Thus, for example, the evolution of an initial configuration consisting of a sequence of 00 and 01 digrams under one rule may be identical to the evolution of the corresponding `blocked' configuration consisting of 0 and 1 under another rule. In this way, one rule may simulate another under a blocking transformation (analogous to a renormalization group transformation). Evolution from an arbitrary initial state may be attracted to (or repelled from) the special set of configurations for which such a simulation occurs. Often several phases exist, corresponding to different blocking transformations: sometimes phase boundaries move at constant speed, and one phase rapidly takes over; in other cases, phase boundaries execute random walks, annihilating in pairs, and leading to a slow increase in the average domain size, as illustrated in Fig. 4. Many rules appear to follow attractive simulation paths to additive rules, which correspond to fixed points of blocking transformations, and thus exhibit self similarity. The behaviour of many rules at large times, and on large spatial scales, is therefore determined by the behaviour of additive rules.