Illuminating search spaces by mapping elites

Many fields use search algorithms, which automatically explore a search space to find high-performing solutions: chemists search through the space of molecules to discover new drugs; engineers search for stronger, cheaper, safer designs, scientists search for models that best explain data, etc. The goal of search algorithms has traditionally been to return the single highest-performing solution in a search space. Here we describe a new, fundamentally different type of algorithm that is more useful because it provides a holistic view of how high-performing solutions are distributed throughout a search space. It creates a map of high-performing solutions at each point in a space defined by dimensions of variation that a user gets to choose. This Multi-dimensional Archive of Phenotypic Elites (MAP-Elites) algorithm illuminates search spaces, allowing researchers to understand how interesting attributes of solutions combine to affect performance, either positively or, equally of interest, negatively. For example, a drug company may wish to understand how performance changes as the size of molecules and their cost-to-produce vary. MAP-Elites produces a large diversity of high-performing, yet qualitatively different solutions, which can be more helpful than a single, high-performing solution. Interestingly, because MAP-Elites explores more of the search space, it also tends to find a better overall solution than state-of-the-art search algorithms. We demonstrate the benefits of this new algorithm in three different problem domains ranging from producing modular neural networks to designing simulated and real soft robots. Because MAP- Elites (1) illuminates the relationship between performance and dimensions of interest in solutions, (2) returns a set of high-performing, yet diverse solutions, and (3) improves finding a single, best solution, it will advance science and engineering.

[1]  D. F. Andrews,et al.  PLOTS OF HIGH-DIMENSIONAL DATA , 1972 .

[2]  Jon Louis Bentley,et al.  An Algorithm for Finding Best Matches in Logarithmic Expected Time , 1977, TOMS.

[3]  S. Hyakin,et al.  Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation , 1994 .

[4]  Peter Norvig,et al.  Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach , 1995 .

[5]  Jordan B. Pollack,et al.  Automatic design and manufacture of robotic lifeforms , 2000, Nature.

[6]  J. Tenenbaum,et al.  A global geometric framework for nonlinear dimensionality reduction. , 2000, Science.

[7]  Jordan B. Pollack,et al.  Creating High-Level Components with a Generative Representation for Body-Brain Evolution , 2002, Artificial Life.

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

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

[10]  John R. Koza,et al.  Genetic Programming IV: Routine Human-Competitive Machine Intelligence , 2003 .

[11]  Jordan B. Pollack,et al.  TITLE : Generative Representations for the Automated Design of Modular Physical Robots , 2003 .

[12]  Gregory S. Hornby,et al.  Functional Scalability through Generative Representations: The Evolution of Table Designs , 2004 .

[13]  Antonio Bicchi,et al.  Fast and "soft-arm" tactics [robot arm design] , 2004, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[14]  Masahiro Fujita,et al.  Autonomous evolution of dynamic gaits with two quadruped robots , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[15]  U. Alon,et al.  Spontaneous evolution of modularity and network motifs. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  Eric Goodman,et al.  Investigations in meta-GAs: panaceas or pipe dreams? , 2005, GECCO '05.

[17]  M. V. Velzen,et al.  Self-organizing maps , 2007 .

[18]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Compositional Pattern Producing Networks : A Novel Abstraction of Development , 2007 .

[19]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  Parameter Control in Evolutionary Algorithms , 2007, Parameter Setting in Evolutionary Algorithms.

[20]  Ian D. Walker,et al.  Soft robotics: Biological inspiration, state of the art, and future research , 2008 .

[21]  E A Leicht,et al.  Community structure in directed networks. , 2007, Physical review letters.

[22]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Exploiting Open-Endedness to Solve Problems Through the Search for Novelty , 2008, ALIFE.

[23]  Hod Lipson,et al.  Distilling Free-Form Natural Laws from Experimental Data , 2009, Science.

[24]  Charles Ofria,et al.  Evolving coordinated quadruped gaits with the HyperNEAT generative encoding , 2009, 2009 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[25]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  A Hypercube-Based Encoding for Evolving Large-Scale Neural Networks , 2009, Artificial Life.

[26]  Anthony Kulis,et al.  Bio-Inspired Artificial Intelligence: Theories, Methods, and Technologies , 2009, Scalable Comput. Pract. Exp..

[27]  R. K. Ursem Multi-objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms , 2009 .

[28]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Autonomous Evolution of Topographic Regularities in Artificial Neural Networks , 2010, Neural Computation.

[29]  Stéphane Doncieux,et al.  Sferesv2: Evolvin' in the multi-core world , 2010, IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[30]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Revising the evolutionary computation abstraction: minimal criteria novelty search , 2010, GECCO '10.

[31]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Abandoning Objectives: Evolution Through the Search for Novelty Alone , 2011, Evolutionary Computation.

[32]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Novelty Search and the Problem with Objectives , 2011 .

[33]  Hod Lipson,et al.  Evolving robot gaits in hardware: the HyperNEAT generative encoding vs. parameter optimization , 2011, ECAL.

[34]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Evolving a diversity of virtual creatures through novelty search and local competition , 2011, GECCO '11.

[35]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Constraining connectivity to encourage modularity in HyperNEAT , 2011, GECCO '11.

[36]  Jean-Baptiste Mouret Novelty-Based Multiobjectivization , 2011 .

[37]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  On the Performance of Indirect Encoding Across the Continuum of Regularity , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[38]  Jason D. Lohn,et al.  Computer-Automated Evolution of an X-Band Antenna for NASA's Space Technology 5 Mission , 2011, Evolutionary Computation.

[39]  J. Bull,et al.  The Phenotype-Fitness Map in Experimental Evolution of Phages , 2011, PloS one.

[40]  Faustino J. Gomez,et al.  When Novelty Is Not Enough , 2011, EvoApplications.

[41]  Filip Ilievski,et al.  Soft robotics for chemists. , 2011, Angewandte Chemie.

[42]  Hod Lipson,et al.  Automatic Design and Manufacture of Soft Robots , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[43]  Stéphane Doncieux,et al.  Encouraging Behavioral Diversity in Evolutionary Robotics: An Empirical Study , 2012, Evolutionary Computation.

[44]  Paolo Dario,et al.  Soft Robot Arm Inspired by the Octopus , 2012, Adv. Robotics.

[45]  Charles Ofria,et al.  Natural Selection Fails to Optimize Mutation Rates for Long-Term Adaptation on Rugged Fitness Landscapes , 2008, ECAL.

[46]  Kyrre Glette,et al.  Evolving Gaits for Physical Robots with the HyperNEAT Generative Encoding: The Benefits of Simulation , 2013, EvoApplications.

[47]  Bernhard Sendhoff,et al.  An examination of different fitness and novelty based selection methods for the evolution of neural networks , 2012, Soft Computing.

[48]  Hod Lipson,et al.  Unshackling evolution: evolving soft robots with multiple materials and a powerful generative encoding , 2013, GECCO '13.

[49]  Hod Lipson,et al.  The evolutionary origins of modularity , 2012, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[50]  LipsonHod,et al.  Dynamic Simulation of Soft Multimaterial 3D-Printed Objects , 2014 .

[51]  Hod Lipson,et al.  Evolved Electrophysiological Soft Robots , 2014, ALIFE.

[52]  Antoine Cully,et al.  Robots that can adapt like natural animals , 2014, ArXiv.

[53]  Jean-Baptiste Mouret,et al.  Evolving neural networks that are both modular and regular: HyperNEAT plus the connection cost technique , 2014, GECCO.

[54]  LipsonHod,et al.  Challenges and Opportunities for Design, Simulation, and Fabrication of Soft Robots , 2014 .

[55]  Darrell Whitley,et al.  The Island Model Genetic Algorithm: On Separability, Population Size and Convergence , 2015, CIT 2015.

[56]  Jason Yosinski,et al.  Innovation Engines: Automated Creativity and Improved Stochastic Optimization via Deep Learning , 2015, GECCO.

[57]  Anders Lyhne Christensen,et al.  Devising Effective Novelty Search Algorithms: A Comprehensive Empirical Study , 2015, GECCO.

[58]  Jean-Baptiste Mouret,et al.  Evolvability signatures of generative encodings: Beyond standard performance benchmarks , 2014, Inf. Sci..

[59]  A. E. Eiben,et al.  Evolutionary Robotics: What, Why, and Where to , 2015, Front. Robot. AI.

[60]  Antoine Cully,et al.  Evolving a Behavioral Repertoire for a Walking Robot , 2013, Evolutionary Computation.