Genotype Reuse More Important than Genotype Size in Evolvability of Embodied Neural Networks

The relative influence of genotype reuse and number of genotype parameters on the evolvability of an embodied neural network is explored. Two genotype to phenotype mappings are used to encode a neural network controlling a hexapod agent. A symmetric encoding reuses the genotype by duplicating parts of the genotype to create the phenotype. A direct encoding maps one genotype parameter to one phenotype parameter. To test whether genotype reuse is more important than genotype size, the architecture of the neural network is manipulated such that the genotype size of the symmetrically-encoded neural networks is larger than the directly-encoded neural networks. The symmetrically-encoded neural networks are found to be more evolvable than the directly-encoded despite having a larger genotype.

[1]  Randall D. Beer,et al.  Evolving Dynamical Neural Networks for Adaptive Behavior , 1992, Adapt. Behav..

[2]  Frédéric Gruau,et al.  Automatic Definition of Modular Neural Networks , 1994, Adapt. Behav..

[3]  S. T. Buckland,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap. , 1994 .

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

[5]  S. Gould The Shape of Life , 1996 .

[6]  R. Raff Understanding Evolution: The Next Step. (Book Reviews: The Shape of Life. Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form.) , 1996 .

[7]  Jean-Arcady Meyer,et al.  Evolution and Development of Modular Control Architectures for 1D Locomotion in Six-legged Animats , 1998, Connect. Sci..

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

[9]  X. Yao Evolving Artificial Neural Networks , 1999 .

[10]  Hein Putter,et al.  The bootstrap: a tutorial , 2000 .

[11]  Maciej Komosinski,et al.  Comparison of Different Genotype Encodings for Simulated Three-Dimensional Agents , 2002, Artificial Life.

[12]  Marc Toussaint,et al.  Demonstrating the Evolution of Complex Genetic Representations: An Evolution of Artificial Plants , 2003, GECCO.

[13]  Julian F. Miller,et al.  Genetic and Evolutionary Computation — GECCO 2003 , 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[14]  T. F. Hansen Is modularity necessary for evolvability? Remarks on the relationship between pleiotropy and evolvability. , 2003, Bio Systems.

[15]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  Genetic and Evolutionary Computation – GECCO 2004 , 2004, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

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

[17]  Gregory Hornby,et al.  Measuring, enabling and comparing modularity, regularity and hierarchy in evolutionary design , 2005, GECCO '05.

[18]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Towards an empirical measure of evolvability , 2005, GECCO '05.

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

[20]  Randall D. Beer,et al.  Effect of Encoding on the Evolvability of an Embodied Neural Network , 2006 .

[21]  M. Kenward,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 2007 .