Evolving Spiking Neural Networks for Robot Sensory-motor Decision Tasks of Varying Difficulty

While there is considerable enthusiasm for the potential of spiking neural network (SNN) computing, there remains the fundamental issue of designing the topologies and parameters for these networks. We say the topology IS the algorithm. Here, we describe experiments using evolutionary computation (genetic algorithms, GAs) on a simple robotic sensory-motor decision task using a gene driven topology growth algorithm and letting the GA set all the SNN's parameters. We highlight lessons learned from early experiments where evolution failed to produce designs beyond what we called "cheap-tricksters". These were simple topologies implementing decision strategies that could not satisfactorily solve tasks beyond the simplest, but were nonetheless able to outcompete more complex designs in the course of evolution. The solution involved alterations to the fitness function so as to reduce the inherent noise in the assessment of performance, adding gene driven control of the symmetry of the topology, and improving the robot sensors to provide more detailed information about its environment. We show how some subtle variations in the topology and parameters can affect behaviors. We discuss an approach to gradually increasing the complexity of the task that can induce evolution to discover more complex designs. We conjecture that this type of approach will be important as a way to discover cognitive design principles.

[1]  Thomas Preat,et al.  Brain asymmetry and long-term memory. Nature , 2004 .

[2]  Henry Markram,et al.  Cliques of Neurons Bound into Cavities Provide a Missing Link between Structure and Function , 2016, Front. Comput. Neurosci..

[3]  H. Markram,et al.  Differential signaling via the same axon of neocortical pyramidal neurons. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  Larry J. Eshelman,et al.  The CHC Adaptive Search Algorithm: How to Have Safe Search When Engaging in Nontraditional Genetic Recombination , 1990, FOGA.

[5]  Andrzej Kasiński,et al.  Comparison of supervised learning methods for spike time coding in spiking neural networks , 2006 .

[6]  Mark C. W. van Rossum,et al.  Soft-bound Synaptic Plasticity Increases Storage Capacity , 2012, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[7]  Brad Fullmer and Risto Miikkulainen Using Marker-Based Genetic Encoding Of Neural Networks To Evolve Finite-State Behaviour , 1991 .

[8]  J. David Schaffer,et al.  Evolving spiking neural networks: A novel growth algorithm corrects the teacher , 2015, 2015 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence for Security and Defense Applications (CISDA).

[9]  T. Préat,et al.  Neuroanatomy: Brain asymmetry and long-term memory , 2004, Nature.

[10]  Michael W. Reimann,et al.  Topological analysis of the connectome of digital reconstructions of neural microcircuits , 2016, 1601.01580.

[11]  Larry J. Eshelman,et al.  Using genetic search to exploit the emergent behavior of neural networks , 1990 .

[12]  Catherine D. Schuman,et al.  An evolutionary optimization framework for neural networks and neuromorphic architectures , 2016, 2016 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN).

[13]  Wulfram Gerstner,et al.  SPIKING NEURON MODELS Single Neurons , Populations , Plasticity , 2002 .

[14]  Chen Qian,et al.  Analyzing Structural and Symmetrical Properties of C . Elegans Neural Network , 2017 .

[15]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Designing neural networks through neuroevolution , 2019, Nat. Mach. Intell..