Research Graphic

Concordia DEC Lab

about us . courses . students . research. publications . events . people . contact us
 

 

Bluenome: A Novel Developmental Model of Artificial Morphogenesis (cont'd)

6   Conclusions

In Phase One, several fitness functions were used to evolve images demonstrating suggestive principles. In nearly all cases, successful evolution was achieved quickly, generating images recovering some of the complexity of two-dimensional CAs.

In Phase Two, the Bluenome model was applied to a non-trivial artificial problem, one which involved the coordination of many non-linearly interacting components. In cases of low phenotypic complexity, the bijective methodology tended to outperform the Bluenome method, with a wide margin in initial generations, barely so in later generations. In cases of high phenotypic complexity, however, one of the Bluenome runs clearly outperformed all of the bijective runs, with a second matching with potential for further growth in later generations. The Bluenome methodology continued to develop in a high-dimensional space, while the bijective methodology stagnated early on.

In addition to this performance increase in high complexity runs, the Bluenome model showed an inherent ability to generate agents with better developed systems for the distribution of food throughout the body - this is no doubt a result of the inheritance of cell specialization creating a network of transport cells; Perhaps it is an easily identified example of one of many inherent structural properties created by the developmental process. It is unknown what other such mechanisms might exist.

Finally, the resistance of the developmental process to changes in the environment was demonstrated - this is an intriguing notion, that an agent's development should respond to the developing environment and adapt. More intriguing still is the continuation of performance by the re-developed agents, both in terms of valuation by the fitness function in question, and in visual appearance.

7   Future Directions

     The artificial problem used in Phase Two was a difficult problem; That, and other similar problems might be sufficient to convince practitioners of the utility of this system. However, to evaluate claims regarding the utility of developmental models in general requires a more in-depth study. A study of the inherent structure created by developmental processes in general is in order; This is our current interest, initially by attempting to objectively measure the notion of continuity between genotype and phenotype.

A second matter touched upon in the above discussions is the view of evolution as a mechanism for controlling complex processes; Indeed, this is an intriguing hypothesis, perhaps contributing to the success of the above system; If true, however, it begs an obvious question: by what mechanism? It is the hope of the authors that systems like Bluenome may serve as a test bed by which this claim may be evaluated and studied further.

References

1. Bentley, P., Kumar, S., The Ways to Grow Designs: A Comparison of Embryogenies for an Evolutionary Design Problem, in Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO-1999

2. Dellaert, F., Beer, R., A Developmental Model for the Evolution of Complete Autonomous Agents, in From Animals to Animats 4: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior, (1996)

3. Eggenberger, P.,  Evolving Morphologies of Simulated 3D Organisms Based on Differential Gene Expression., in Husbands, P., Harvey, I. (editors) Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Artificial Life (1997)

4. Fagotto, F., Gumbiner, B., Cell contact-dependent signaling, in Developmental Biology 180 (1996)

5. Furusawa, C., Kaneko, K.,  Emergence of Rules in Cell Society: Differentiation, Hierarchy, and Stability, in the Bulletin of  Mathematical Biology (1998)

6. Hamahashi, S., Kitano, H. Simulation of Drosophilae Embryogenesis, in the Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Life (1998)

7. Hotz, P., Gomez, G., Pfiefer, R., Evolving the morphology of a neural network for controlling a foveating retina - and its test on a real robot, in Artificial Life VIII: The 8th International Conference on the Simulation and Synthesis of Living Systems (2003)

8. Karp, G., Cell and Molecular Biology, 3 rd Ed., (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2001)

9. Kauffman, S., The Origins of Order, (Oxford University Press; 1993)

10. XXXXXXX, X., Bluenome: A Novel Developmental Model for the Evolution of Artificial Agents, Master's Thesis, XXXXXXXX University (2003) (I have posted a version with front matter removed on a friend's website: http://www.karafraser.com/bluenome)

11. Kvasnicka, V., Pospicjal, J., Emergence of Modularity in Genotype-Phenotype Mappings, in Artificial Life, v. 8, no. 4 (2002)

12. Mitchell, M., Crutchfield, J., Das, R., Evolving Cellular Automata with Genetic Algorithms: A Review of Recent Work, in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Evolutionary Computation and Its Applications (1996)

13. Olivera, G., Olivera, P. Omar, N. Definition and Application of a Five Parameter Characterization of One-Dimensional Cellular Automata Rule Space, in Artificial Life, Volume 7 Number 3, 2001

14. Stanley, K., Miikkulainen, R., A Taxonomy for Artificial Embryogeny, in Artificial Life, v.9, no. 2 (2003)

15. Wolfram, S.: A New Kind of Science. Wolfram Media New York (2002)

16. Wolfram, S., Universality and Complexity in Cellular Automata. In Wolfram, S. Cellular Automata and Complexity: Collected Papers. Westview Press (1994)

 

Page 1, Page 2, Page 3