From Complex Environments to Complex Behaviors

Adaptation of ecological systems to their environments is commonly viewed through some explicit fitness function defined a priori by the experimenter or measured a posteriori by estimations based on population size or reproductive rates. These methods do not capture the role of environmental complexity in shaping the selective pressures that control the adaptive process. Ecological simulations enabled by computational tools such as the latent energy environment (LEE) model allow us to characterize more closely the effects of environmental complexity on the evolution of adaptive behaviors. LEE is described in this article. Motivation for the development of the LEE model arises from the need to vary complexity in controlled and predictable ways, without assuming the relationship of these changes to the adaptive behaviors they engender. This goal is achieved through a careful characterization of environments in which different forms of "energy" are well defined. A genetic algorithm using endogenous fitness, and local selection is used to model the evolutionary process. Individuals in the population are modeled by neural networks with simple sensorimotor systems, and variations in their behaviors are related to interactions with varying environments. We outline the results of three experiments that analyze different sources of environmental complexity and their effects on the collective behaviors of evolving populations.

[1]  Domenico Parisi,et al.  Recombination and unsupervised learning: effects of crossover in the genetic optimization of neural networks , 1992 .

[2]  K. Laland,et al.  ON THE EVOLUTIONARY CONSEQUENCES OF SEXUAL IMPRINTING , 1994, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[3]  Filippo Menczer,et al.  Maturation and the Evolution of Imitative Learning in Artificial Organisms , 1995, Adapt. Behav..

[4]  Walter Fontana,et al.  Evolution of a metabolism , 1992 .

[5]  Aviv Bergman,et al.  Adaptive computation in ecology and evolution: a guide for future research , 1996 .

[6]  P. Godfrey‐Smith Complexity and the function of mind in nature , 1996 .

[7]  Stefano Nolfi,et al.  How to Evolve Autonomous Robots: Different Approaches in Evolutionary Robotics , 1994 .

[8]  Richard K. Belew,et al.  Interposing an Ontogenetic Model Between Genetic Algorithms and Neural Networks , 1992, NIPS.

[9]  S. Gould,et al.  The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme , 1979, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[10]  Inman Harvey,et al.  Noise and the Reality Gap: The Use of Simulation in Evolutionary Robotics , 1995, ECAL.

[11]  Stewart W. Wilson,et al.  Environment structure and adaptive behavior from the ground up , 1993 .

[12]  R. Belew Interposing an ontogenic model between Genetic Algorithms and Neural Networks , 1992 .

[13]  Melanie Mitchell,et al.  Genetic algorithms and artificial life , 1994 .

[14]  Stewart W. Wilson The animat path to AI , 1991 .

[15]  Kenneth A. De Jong,et al.  Generation Gaps Revisited , 1992, FOGA.

[16]  G. Kane Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, vol 1: Foundations, vol 2: Psychological and Biological Models , 1994 .

[17]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 1: foundations , 1986 .

[18]  J. Roughgarden Density‐Dependent Natural Selection , 1971 .

[19]  G. Parker,et al.  Competition for resources , 1991 .

[20]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[21]  Peter M. Todd,et al.  On the Sympatric Origin of Species: Mercurial Mating in the Quicksilver Model , 1991, International Conference on Genetic Algorithms.

[22]  Maja J. Matarić,et al.  Designing emergent behaviors: from local interactions to collective intelligence , 1993 .

[23]  Peter Kareiva,et al.  Special Feature: Space: The Final Frontier for Ecological Theory , 1994 .

[24]  Leslie Pack Kaelbling,et al.  Learning in embedded systems , 1993 .

[25]  Jeffrey L. Elman,et al.  Learning and Evolution in Neural Networks , 1994, Adapt. Behav..

[26]  Dan Boneh,et al.  On genetic algorithms , 1995, COLT '95.

[27]  Filippo Menczer,et al.  Artificial Life Applied to Adaptive Information Agents , 1995 .

[28]  David H. Ackley,et al.  Interactions between learning and evolution , 1991 .

[29]  C. M. Lessells,et al.  The Evolution of Life Histories , 1994 .

[30]  Robert M. May,et al.  Perspectives in Ecological Theory , 1989 .

[31]  Otto E. Rössler,et al.  Design for Autonomous Chemical Growth under Different Environmental Constraints , 1972 .

[32]  B A Huberman,et al.  Evolutionary games and computer simulations. , 1993, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[33]  Filippo Menczer,et al.  Latent energy environments , 1996 .

[34]  Peter Godfrey-Smith,et al.  Complexity and the function of mind in nature: Foundations , 1996 .

[35]  Peter Godfrey-Smith,et al.  Précis of Complexity and the Function of Mind in Nature , 1996, Adapt. Behav..

[36]  Filippo Menczer,et al.  EVOLVING SENSORS IN ENVIRONMENTS OF CONTROLLED COMPLEXITY , 1994 .

[37]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[38]  Pattie Maes,et al.  Designing autonomous agents: Theory and practice from biology to engineering and back , 1990, Robotics Auton. Syst..