Embodied Evolution and Learning: The Neglected Timing of Maturation

One advantage of the asynchronous and distributed character of embodied evolution is that it can be executed on real robots without external supervision. Further, evolutionary progress can be measured in real time instead of in generation based evaluation cycles. By combining embodied evolution with lifetime learning, we investigated a largely neglected aspect with respect to the common assumption that learning can guide evolution, the influence of maturation time during which an individual can develop its behavioral skills. Even though we found only minor differences between the evolution with and without learning, our results, derived from competitive evolution in predator-prey systems, demonstrate that the right timing of maturation is crucial for the progress of evolutionary success. Our findings imply that the time of maturation has to be considered more seriously as an important factor to build up empirical evidence for the hypothesis that learning facilitates evolution.

[1]  L. V. Valen,et al.  A new evolutionary law , 1973 .

[2]  John Maynard Smith,et al.  When learning guides evolution , 1987, Nature.

[3]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  How Learning Can Guide Evolution , 1996, Complex Syst..

[4]  G. M. Werner Evolution of Communication in Artificial Organisms, Artifial Life II , 1991 .

[5]  Charles E. Taylor,et al.  Artificial Life II , 1991 .

[6]  Stefano Nolfi,et al.  God Save the Red Queen! Competition in Co-Evolutionary Robotics , 1997 .

[7]  Stefano Nolfi,et al.  Co-evolving predator and prey robots , 1998, Artificial Life.

[8]  Stefano Nolfi,et al.  Learning and Evolution , 1999, Auton. Robots.

[9]  Dario Floreano,et al.  Evolution of Adaptive Synapses: Robots with Fast Adaptive Behavior in New Environments , 2001, Evolutionary Computation.

[10]  Colm Massey,et al.  Recent Developments in the Evolution of Morphologies and Controllers for Physically Simulated Creatures , 2000, Artificial Life.

[11]  Tim Taylor,et al.  Creativity in evolution: individuals, interactions, and environments , 2001 .

[12]  Jeffrey L. Krichmar,et al.  Evolutionary robotics: The biology, intelligence, and technology of self-organizing machines , 2001, Complex..

[13]  Peter J. Bentley,et al.  CREATIVE EVOLUTIONARY SYSTEMS , 2001 .

[14]  Jordan B. Pollack,et al.  Embodied Evolution: Distributing an evolutionary algorithm in a population of robots , 2002, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[15]  E. D. Paolo,et al.  Organismically-inspired robotics: homeostatic adaptation and teleology beyond the closed sensorimotor loop , 2003 .

[16]  Frank Pasemann,et al.  Structure and function of evolved neuro-controllers for autonomous robots , 2004, Connect. Sci..

[17]  Stefano Nolfi,et al.  Toward open-ended evolutionary robotics: evolving elementary robotic units able to self-assemble and self-reproduce , 2004, Connect. Sci..

[18]  Simon Parsons,et al.  Evolutionary Robotics: The Biology, Intelligence, and Technology of Self-Organizing Machines by Stefano Nolfi and Dario Floreano, MIT Press, 320 pp., $28.00, ISBN 0-262-14070-5 , 2004, Knowledge engineering review (Print).

[19]  Tom Ziemke,et al.  Brains, Bodies, and Beyond: Competitive Co-Evolution of Robot Controllers, Morphologies and Environments , 2005, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[20]  Inman Harvey,et al.  Evolutionary Robotics: A New Scientific Tool for Studying Cognition , 2005, Artificial Life.

[21]  Florentin Wörgötter,et al.  Strongly Improved Stability and Faster Convergence of Temporal Sequence Learning by Using Input Correlations Only , 2006, Neural Computation.