Comparing the evolvability of generative encoding schemes

Artificial Life 14 - Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems, ALIFE 2014

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 55-62

  Tarapore, Danesh ^a   Mouret, Jean Baptiste ^a  

^a SORBONNE UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS; ENCODING (SYMBOLS); NEURAL NETWORKS;

DIRECT ENCODING; ENCODING SCHEMES; GENETIC CHANGES; GENETIC MUTATIONS; PATTERN GENERATOR; PHENOTYPIC DIVERSITY; PHENOTYPIC VARIATIONS; PREDICTIVE RELATIONSHIPS;

SIGNAL ENCODING;

EID: 84977876445     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (31)

1. Cheney, N., MacCurdy, R., Clune, J., and Lipson, H. (2013). Unshackling evolution: evolving soft robots with multiple materials and a powerful generative encoding. In Proc. of GECCO, pages 167-174. ACM, New York, NY.
2. Clune, J., Mouret, J.-B., and Lipson, H. (2013). The evolutionary origins of modularity. Proceedings of the Royal Society b: Biological sciences, 280(1755):20122863.
3. Clune, J., Stanley, K. O., Pennock, R. T., and Ofria, C. (2011). On the performance of indirect encoding across the continuum of regularity. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 15(3):346-367.
4. Cover, T. M. and Thomas, J. A. (1991). Elements of information theory. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
5. Gauci, J. and Stanley, K. O. (2010). Autonomous evolution of topographic regularities in artificial neural networks. Neural Comput., 22(7):1860-1898.
6. Gerhart, J. and Kirschner, M. (2007). The theory of facilitated variation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 104(Suppl 1):8582-8589.
7. Hornby, G. S. (2005). Measuring, enabling and comparing modularity, regularity and hierarchy in evolutionary design. In Proc. of GECCO, pages 1729-1736. ACM, New York, NY.
8. Hornby, G. S., Lipson, H., and Pollack, J. B. (2003). Generative representations for the automated design of modular physical robots. IEEE Trans. Robot. Automat., 19(4):703-719.
9. Hornby, G. S. and Pollack, J. B. (2002). Creating high-level components with a generative representation for body-brain evolution. Artif. Life, 8(3):223-246.
10. Hu, T. and Banzhaf, W. (2010). Evolvability and speed of evolutionary algorithms in light of recent developments in biology. J. Artif. Evol. App., 2010:1:1-1:28.
11. Kajita, S. and Espiau, B. (2008). Springer handbook of robotics. In Siciliano, B. and Khatib, O., editors, Springer handbook of robotics, chapter 16. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
12. Kirschner, M. and Gerhart, J. (1998). Evolvability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 95(15):8420-8427.
13. Komosinskí, M. and Rotaru-Varga, A. (2001). Comparison of different genotype encodings for simulated three-dimensional agents. Artif. Life, 7(4):395-418.
14. Koos, S., Cully, A., and Mouret, J.-B. (2013). Fast damage recovery in robotics with the T-resilience algorithm. Int. J. Robot. Res., 32(14):1700-1723.
15. Lehman, J. and Stanley, K. O. (2011). Improving evolvability through novelty search and self-adaptation. In Proc. of CEC, pages 2693-2700. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ.
16. Lehman, J. and Stanley, K. O. (2013). Evolvability is inevitable: Increasing evolvability without the pressure to adapt. PloS one, 8(4):e62186.
17. Liu, H. and Iba, H. (2004). A hierarchical approach for adaptive humanoid robot control. In Proc. of CEC, volume 2, pages 1546-1553 Vol.2. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ.
18. Morse, G., Risi, S., Snyder, C. R., and Stanley, K. O. (2013). Single-unit pattern generators for quadruped locomotion. In Proc. of GECCO, pages 719-726. ACM, New York, NY.
19. Mouret, J.-B. and Doncieux, S. (2012). Encouraging behavioral diversity in evolutionary robotics: An empirical study. Evol. Comput., 20(1):91-133.
20. Pavlicev, M. and Wagner, G. P. (2012). Coming to grips with evolvability. Evol. Educ. Outreach, 5(2):231-244.
21. Reisinger, J. and Miikkulainen, R. (2007). Acquiring evolvability through adaptive representations. In Proc. of GECCO, pages 1045-1052. ACM, New York, NY.
22. Reisinger, J., Stanley, K. O., and Miikkulainen, R. (2005). Towards an empirical measure of evolvability. In Proc. of GECCO, pages 257-264. ACM, New York, NY.
23. Scott, D.W. (2009). Multivariate density estimation: theory, practice, and visualization, volume 383. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
24. Seys, C. W. and Beer, R. D. (2007). Genotype reuse more important than genotype size in evolvability of embodied neural networks. In Proc. of ECAL, pages 915-924. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
25. Stanley, K. O. (2007). Compositional pattern producing networks: A novel abstraction of development. Genetic programming and evolvable machines, 8(2):131-162.
26. Stanley, K. O., D'Ambrosio, D. B., and Gauci, J. (2009). A hypercube-based encoding for evolving large-scale neural networks. Artif. Life, 15(2):185-212.
27. Stanley, K. O. and Miikkulainen, R. (2003). A taxonomy for artificial embryogeny. Artif. Life, 9(2):93-130.
28. Tonelli, P. and Mouret, J.-B. (2013). On the relationships between generative encodings, regularity, and learning abilities when evolving plastic artificial neural networks. PloS one, 8(11):e79138.
29. Valsalam, V. K. and Miikkulainen, R. (2008). Modular neuroevolution for multilegged locomotion. In Proc. of GECCO, pages 265-272. ACM, New York, NY.
30. Wagner, G. P. and Altenberg, L. (1996). Perspective: Complex adaptations and the evolution of evolvability. Evolution, 50(3):967-976.
31. Yosinski, J., Clune, J., Hidalgo, D., Nguyen, S., Zagal, J., and Lipson, H. (2011). Evolving robot gaits in hardware: the hyperneat generative encoding vs. parameter optimization. In Proc. of ECAL, pages 890-897. MIT Press, Cambridge.