Neural network for female mate preference, trained by a genetic algorithm

In some animals, males evolve exaggerated traits (e.g. the peacock's conspicuous tail and display) because of female preference. Recently Enquist and Arak presented a simple neural network model for a visual system in female birds that acquires the ability to discriminate males of the correct species from those of the wrong species by training. They reported that the trained networks were attracted by 'supernormal stimuli' where there was a greater response to an exaggerated form than to the images used as the correct species for training. They suggested that signal recognition mechanisms have an inevitable bias in response, which in turn causes selection on signal form. We here examine the Enquist and Arak model in detail. A three-layered neural network is used to represent the female's mate preference, which consists of 6 by 6 receptor cells arranged on a regular square lattice, ten hidden cells, and one output cell. Connection weights of the network were modified by a genetic algorithm, in which the female's fitness increases if she accepts a conspecific male but decreases if she accepts a male of a different species or a random image. We found that: (i) after the training period the evolved network was able to discriminate male images. Female preference evolves to favour unfamiliar patterns if they are similar to the images of the correct species (generalization); (ii) the speed and the final degree of learning depended critically on the choice of the random images that are rejected. The learning was much less successful if the random images were changed every generation than if 20 random images were fixed throughout the training period; (iii) the male of the same species used for training achieved the highest probability of being accepted by the trained network. Hence, contrary to Enquist and Arak, the evolved network was not attracted by supernormal stimuli.

[1]  C. Darwin The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex: INDEX , 1871 .

[2]  R. A. Fisher,et al.  The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection , 1931 .

[3]  K. Spence The differential response in animals to stimuli varying within a single dimension. , 1937 .

[4]  N. Guttman,et al.  Discriminability and stimulus generalization. , 1956, Journal of experimental psychology.

[5]  H. M. Hanson Effects of discrimination training on stimulus generalization. , 1959, Journal of experimental psychology.

[6]  J. Staddon A Note on the Evolutionary Significance of "Supernormal" Stimuli , 1975, The American Naturalist.

[7]  A. Zahavi The cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle). , 1977, Journal of theoretical biology.

[8]  R. Lande Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. , 1981, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  W. Hamilton,et al.  Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? , 1982, Science.

[10]  A. Grafen Biological signals as handicaps. , 1990, Journal of theoretical biology.

[11]  Lawrence. Davis,et al.  Handbook Of Genetic Algorithms , 1990 .

[12]  Y. Iwasa,et al.  THE EVOLUTION OF COSTLY MATE PREFERENCES II. THE “HANDICAP” PRINCIPLE , 1991, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[13]  M. Kirkpatrick,et al.  The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek , 1991, Nature.

[14]  Yoh Iwasa,et al.  THE EVOLUTION OF COSTLY MATE PREFERENCES I. FISHER AND BIASED MUTATION , 1991, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[15]  M. Ryan,et al.  Directional Patterns of Female Mate Choice and the Role of Sensory Biases , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[16]  Y. Iwasa,et al.  Evolution of multiple sexual preferences by Fisher’s runaway process of sexual selection , 1993, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[17]  M. Enquist,et al.  Selection of exaggerated male traits by female aesthetic senses , 1993, Nature.

[18]  M. Enquist,et al.  Hidden preferences and the evolution of signals , 1993 .

[19]  Y. Iwasa,et al.  THE EVOLUTION OF MATE PREFERENCES FOR MULTIPLE SEXUAL ORNAMENTS , 1994, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[20]  R. Johnstone Female preference for symmetrical males as a by-product of selection for mate recognition , 1994, Nature.

[21]  Magnus Enquist,et al.  Symmetry, beauty and evolution , 1994, Nature.

[22]  Isamu Kajitani,et al.  Egrets of a Feather Flock Together , 1994, Artificial Life.

[23]  Y. Iwasa,et al.  Continual change in mate preferences , 1995, Nature.

[24]  Angelo Monfroglio,et al.  Book review: Neural Network and Fuzzy Logic Applications in C/C++ by Stephen T. Welstead (John Wiley & Sons 1994) , 1995, SGAR.

[25]  T. Guilford,et al.  An exaggerated preference for simple neural network models of signal evolution? , 1995, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[26]  Magnus Enquist,et al.  Artefact or network evolution? , 1995, Nature.

[27]  A Arak,et al.  Conflict, receiver bias and the evolution of signal form. , 1995, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[28]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution Programs , 1996, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.