Analyzing deception, evolvability, and behavioral rarity in evolutionary robotics

A common aim across evolutionary search is to skillfully navigate complex search spaces, which requires search algorithms that exploit search space structure. This paper focuses on evolutionary robotics (ER) in particular, wherein controllers for robots are evolved to produce complex behavior. One productive approach for probing search space structure is to analyze properties of fitness landscapes; however, this paper argues that ER may require a fresh perspective for landscape analysis, because ER often goes beyond the black-box setting, i.e. evaluations provide useful information about how robots behave, beyond scalar performance heuristics. Indeed, some ER algorithms explicitly exploit such behavioral information, e.g. to follow gradients of behavioral novelty rather than to climb gradients of increasing performance. Thus well-motivated behavior-aware metrics may aid probing search-space structure in ER. In particular, this paper argues that behavioral conceptions of deception, evolvability, and rarity may help to understand ER landscapes, and seeks to quantify and explore them within a common ER benchmark task. To help this investigation, an expressive but limited encoding is designed, such that the behavior of all possible individuals in the domain can be precomputed. The result is an efficient platform for experimentation that facilitates (1) probing exact quantifications of deception, evolvability, and rarity in the chosen domain, and (2) the ability to efficiently drive search through idealistic ground-truth measures. The results help develop intuitions and suggest possible new ER algorithms. The hope is that the extensible open-source framework enables quick experimentation and idea generation, aiding brainstorming of new search algorithms and measures.

[1]  J. Brookfield Evolution: The evolvability enigma , 2001, Current Biology.

[2]  M. Félix,et al.  Phenotypic neighborhood and micro-evolvability. , 2004, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[3]  Manfred Hild,et al.  Evolution of Biped Walking Using Neural Oscillators and Physical Simulation , 2008, RoboCup.

[4]  Terry Jones,et al.  Fitness Distance Correlation as a Measure of Problem Difficulty for Genetic Algorithms , 1995, ICGA.

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

[6]  Gregory J. Barlow,et al.  Article in Press Robotics and Autonomous Systems ( ) – Robotics and Autonomous Systems Fitness Functions in Evolutionary Robotics: a Survey and Analysis , 2022 .

[7]  Stewart W. Wilson,et al.  Not) Evolving Collective Behaviours in Synthetic Fish , 1996 .

[8]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Exploring Promising Stepping Stones by Combining Novelty Search with Interactive Evolution , 2012, ArXiv.

[9]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Reconciling explanations for the evolution of evolvability , 2015, Adapt. Behav..

[10]  L. Altenberg,et al.  PERSPECTIVE: COMPLEX ADAPTATIONS AND THE EVOLUTION OF EVOLVABILITY , 1996, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[11]  Stewart W. Wilson,et al.  Not) Evolving Collective Behaviours in Synthetic Fish , 1996 .

[12]  Stéphane Doncieux,et al.  Beyond black-box optimization: a review of selective pressures for evolutionary robotics , 2014, Evol. Intell..

[13]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Beyond Open-endedness: Quantifying Impressiveness , 2012, ALIFE.

[14]  Anders Lyhne Christensen,et al.  Evolution of swarm robotics systems with novelty search , 2013, Swarm Intelligence.

[15]  Günter P. Wagner,et al.  Complex Adaptations and the Evolution of Evolvability , 2005 .

[16]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Evolvability Is Inevitable: Increasing Evolvability without the Pressure to Adapt , 2013, PloS one.

[17]  M. Pigliucci Is evolvability evolvable? , 2008, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[18]  S. Kauffman,et al.  Towards a general theory of adaptive walks on rugged landscapes. , 1987, Journal of theoretical biology.

[19]  D. E. Goldberg,et al.  Simple Genetic Algorithms and the Minimal, Deceptive Problem , 1987 .

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

[21]  Leslie G. Valiant,et al.  Evolvability , 2009, JACM.

[22]  Richard Dawkins,et al.  The Evolution of Evolvability , 1987, ALIFE.

[23]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Quality Diversity: A New Frontier for Evolutionary Computation , 2016, Front. Robot. AI.

[24]  Heather Goldsby,et al.  Automatically discovering properties that specify the latent behavior of UML models , 2010, MODELS'10.

[25]  Simon M. Lucas,et al.  A Survey of Monte Carlo Tree Search Methods , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games.

[26]  Jeff Clune,et al.  Evolvability Search: Directly Selecting for Evolvability in order to Study and Produce It , 2016, GECCO.

[27]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Improving evolvability through novelty search and self-adaptation , 2011, 2011 IEEE Congress of Evolutionary Computation (CEC).

[28]  Joel Lehman,et al.  Enhancing Divergent Search through Extinction Events , 2015, GECCO.

[29]  Melanie Mitchell,et al.  The royal road for genetic algorithms: Fitness landscapes and GA performance , 1991 .

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

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

[32]  Jean-Baptiste Mouret,et al.  Illuminating search spaces by mapping elites , 2015, ArXiv.