Robust multi-cellular developmental design

This paper introduces a continuous model for Multi-cellular Developmental Design. The cells are fixed on a 2D grid and exchange "chemicals" with their neighbors during the growth process. The quantity of chemicals that a cell produces, as well as the differentiation value of the cell in the phenotype, are controlled by a Neural Network (the genotype) that takes as inputs the chemicals produced by the neighboring cells at the previous time step. In the proposed model, the number of iterations of the growth process is not pre-determined, but emerges during evolution: only organisms for which the growth process stabilizes give a phenotype (the stable state), others are declared nonviable. The optimization of the controller is done using the NEAT algorithm, that optimizes both the topology and the weights of the Neural Networks. Though each cell only receives local information from its neighbors, the experimental results of the proposed approach on the 'flags' problems (the phenotype must match a given 2D pattern) are almost as good as those of a direct regression approach using the same model with global information. Moreover, the resulting multi-cellular organisms exhibit almost perfect self-healing characteristics.

[1]  Peter J. Bentley,et al.  Three Ways to Grow Designs: A Comparison of Embryogenies for an Evolutionary Design Problem , 1999, GECCO.

[2]  Tom Ziemke,et al.  Why Are Evolved Developing Organisms Also Fault-Tolerant? , 2006, SAB.

[3]  A. M. Turing,et al.  The chemical basis of morphogenesis , 1952, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences.

[4]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Evolving Neural Networks through Augmenting Topologies , 2002, Evolutionary Computation.

[5]  Peter J. Bentley,et al.  Bias and scalability in evolutionary development , 2005, GECCO '05.

[6]  Diego Federici,et al.  Evolution and Development of a Multicellular Organism: Scalability, Resilience, and Neutral Complexification , 2006, Artificial Life.

[7]  Leon O. Chua,et al.  Cellular neural networks: applications , 1988 .

[8]  Julian Francis Miller,et al.  Evolving a Self-Repairing, Self-Regulating, French Flag Organism , 2004, GECCO.

[9]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  A Taxonomy for Artificial Embryogeny , 2003, Artificial Life.

[10]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution Programs , 1992, Artificial Intelligence.

[11]  Frédéric Gruau,et al.  Genetic micro programming of neural networks , 1994 .

[12]  Daniel Roggen,et al.  Multi-cellular Development: Is There Scalability and Robustness to Gain? , 2004, PPSN.

[13]  J. Miller,et al.  15 – Evolving the program for a cell: from French flags to Boolean circuits , 2003 .

[14]  Diego Federici,et al.  Increasing evolvability for developmental programs , 2008 .

[15]  Peter J. Bentley,et al.  Investigations Into Graceful Degradation of Evolutionary Developmental Software , 2005, Natural Computing.

[16]  Wolfgang Banzhaf On the Dynamics of an Artificial Regulatory Network , 2003, ECAL.

[17]  Kurt Hornik,et al.  Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators , 1989, Neural Networks.

[18]  Karl Sims,et al.  Evolving virtual creatures , 1994, SIGGRAPH.

[19]  Julian Francis Miller,et al.  Cartesian genetic programming , 2000, GECCO '10.

[20]  Stephen Wolfram,et al.  A New Kind of Science , 2003, Artificial Life.