journal article·2021-02-24Open access

Wankelmut: A Simple Benchmark for the Evolvability of Behavioral Complexity

Thomas Schmickl, Payam Zahadat, Heiko Hamann

Applied Sciences· Volume 11· Issue 5

Abstract

In evolutionary robotics, an encoding of the control software that maps sensor data (input) to motor control values (output) is shaped by stochastic optimization methods to complete a predefined task. This approach is assumed to be beneficial compared to standard methods of controller design in those cases where no a priori model is available that could help to optimize performance. For robots that have to operate in unpredictable environments as well, an evolutionary robotics approach is favorable. We present here a simple-to-implement, but hard-to-pass benchmark to allow for quantifying the “evolvability” of such evolving robot control software towards increasing behavioral complexity. We demonstrate that such a model-free approach is not a free lunch, as already simple tasks can be unsolvable barriers for fully open-ended uninformed evolutionary computation techniques. We propose the “Wankelmut” task as an objective for an evolutionary approach that starts from scratch without pre-shaped controller software or any other informed approach that would force the behavior to be evolved in a desired way. Our main claim is that “Wankelmut” represents the simplest set of problems that makes plain-vanilla evolutionary computation fail. We demonstrate this by a series of simple standard evolutionary approaches using different fitness functions and standard artificial neural networks, as well as continuous-time recurrent neural networks. All our tested approaches failed. From our observations, we conclude that other evolutionary approaches will also fail if they do not per se favor or enforce the modularity of the evolved structures and if they do not freeze or protect already evolved functionalities from being destroyed again in the later evolutionary process. However, such a protection would require a priori knowledge of the solution of the task and contradict the “no a priori model” approach that is often claimed in evolutionary computation. Thus, we propose a hard-to-pass benchmark in order to make a strong statement for self-complexifying and generative approaches in evolutionary computation in general and in evolutionary robotics specifically. We anticipate that defining such a benchmark by seeking the simplest task that causes the evolutionary process to fail can be a valuable benchmark for promoting future development in the fields of artificial intelligence, evolutionary robotics, and artificial life.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Evolutionary Algorithms and Applications · Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research · Reinforcement Learning in Robotics

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Artificial Life Lab of the Department of Zoology, Karl-Franzens University Graz, 8010 Graz, Austria

Computer Science Department, IT University of Copenhagen, 2300 Copenhagen, Denmark

Institute of Computer Engineering, University of Lübeck, 23562 Lübeck, Germany

Funding

Seventh Framework Programme · Horizon 2020 Framework Programme

References (43)

Show source-provided references
1. Sutton, R.S., and Barto, A.G. (1998). Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction, MIT Press.10.1109/TNN.1998.712192 ↗
2. Evolutionary robotics10.1145/2493883 ↗
3. Prokopenko, M. (2014). Grand challenges for Computational Intelligence. Front. Robot. AI, 1.10.3389/frobt.2014.00002 ↗
4. From evolutionary computation to the evolution of things10.1038/nature14544 ↗
5. Noise and the Reality Gap: The Use of Simulation in Evolutionary Robotics10.1007/3-540-59496-5_337 ↗
6. Nolfi, S., and Floreano, D. (2000). Evolutionary Robotics: The Biology, Intelligence, and Technology of Self-Organizing Machines, MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/2889.001.0001 ↗
7. Fitness functions in evolutionary robotics: A survey and analysis10.1016/j.robot.2008.09.009 ↗
8. Open Issues in Evolutionary Robotics10.1162/EVCO_a_00172 ↗
9. No free lunch theorems for optimization10.1109/4235.585893 ↗
10. Origins of Communication in Evolving Robots
11. Brooks, R., and Maes, P. (1994). Evolving 3D Morphology and Behavior by Competition. Artificial Life IV, MIT Press.
12. Clune, J., Beckmann, B.E., Ofria, C., and Pennock, R.T. (2009, January 18–21). Evolving Coordinated Quadruped Gaits with the HyperNEAT Generative Encoding. Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), Trondheim, Norway.10.1109/CEC.2009.4983289 ↗
13. Zahadat, P., Christensen, D., Katebi, S., and Stoy, K. (2010). Sensor-coupled Fractal Gene Regulatory Networks for Locomotion Control of a Modular Snake Robot. Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-15193-4_51 ↗
14. Hamann, H., Stradner, J., Schmickl, T., and Crailsheim, K. (2010, January 18–23). A Hormone-Based Controller for Evolutionary Multi-Modular Robotics: From Single Modules to Gait Learning. Proceedings of the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC’10), Barcelona, Spain.10.1109/CEC.2010.5585994 ↗
15. Evolving Reactive Controller for a Modular Robot: Benefits of the Property of State-Switching in Fractal Gene Regulatory Networks10.1007/978-3-642-33093-3_21 ↗
16. Floreano, D., and Keller, L. (2010). Evolution of Adaptive Behaviour in Robots by Means of Darwinian Selection. PLoS Biol., 8.10.1371/journal.pbio.1000292 ↗
17. Lipson, H. (2004, January 26–30). Principles of modularity, regularity, and hierarchy for scalable systems. Proceedings of the GECCO Workshop on Modularity, Regularity, and Hierarchy in Evolutionary Computation, Seattle, WA, USA.
18. Using Emergent Modularity to Develop Control Systems for Mobile Robots10.1177/105971239700500306 ↗
19. Incremental Robot Shaping10.1080/095400998116486 ↗
20. Behavior reuse and virtual sensors in the evolution of complex behavior architectures10.1007/s12064-001-0018-8 ↗
21. Spontaneous evolution of modularity and network motifs10.1073/pnas.0503610102 ↗
22. The evolutionary origins of modularity10.1098/rspb.2012.2863 ↗
23. Shallice, T. (1988). From Neuropsychology to Mental Structure, Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511526817 ↗
24. Braitenberg, V. (1984). Vehicles: Experiments in Synthetic Psychology, MIT Press.
25. Holland, J.H. (1975). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, Univ. Michigan Press.
26. Rechenberg, I. (1973). Evolutionsstrategie. Optimierung Technischer Systeme nach Prinzipien der Biologischen Evolution, Frommann Holzboog.
27. Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, John Murray.10.5962/bhl.title.82303 ↗
28. Seeley, T.D. (1995). The Wisdom of the Hive: The Social Physiology of Honey Bee Colonies, Havard University Press.10.4159/9780674043404 ↗
29. Camazine, S., Deneubourg, J.L., Franks, N.R., Sneyd, J., Theraulaz, G., and Bonabeau, E. (2001). Self-Organizing Biological Systems, Princeton Univ. Press.
30. Approximation of dynamical systems by continuous time recurrent neural networks10.1016/S0893-6080(05)80125-X ↗
31. Parameter space structure of continuous-time recurrent neural networks10.1162/neco.2006.18.12.3009 ↗
32. Lehman, J., Clune, J., Misevic, D., Adami, C., Altenberg, L., Beaulieu, J., Bentley, P.J., Bernard, S., Beslon, G., and Bryson, D.M. (2019). The Surprising Creativity of Digital Evolution: A Collection of Anecdotes from the Evolutionary Computation and Artificial Life Research Communities. arXiv.10.1162/isal_a_00016 ↗
33. Koos, S., Mouret, J.B., and Doncieux, S. (2010, January 7–11). Crossing the Reality Gap in Evolutionary Robotics by Promoting Transferable Controllers. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO ’10, Portland, OR, USA.10.1145/1830483.1830505 ↗
34. Catastrophic forgetting in connectionist networks10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01294-2 ↗
35. Koza, J.R. (1992). Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection, MIT Press.
36. Turner, A.P., Caves, L.S.D., Stepney, S., Tyrrell, A.M., and Lones, M.A. (2016). Artificial Epigenetic Networks: Automatic Decomposition of Dynamical Control Tasks Using Topological Self-Modification. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst.10.1109/TNNLS.2015.2497142 ↗
37. Krasnogor, N., and Lanzi, P.L. (2011, January 12–16). Coupled inverted pendulums: A benchmark for evolving decentral controllers in modular robotics. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO 2011, Dublin, Ireland.
38. Clune, J., Beckmann, B.E., McKinley, P.K., and Ofria, C. (2010, January 7–11). Investigating whether hyperNEAT produces modular neural networks. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, Portland, OR, USA.10.1145/1830483.1830598 ↗
39. Bongard, J.C. (2011, January 12–16). Spontaneous evolution of structural modularity in robot neural network controllers: Artificial life/robotics/evolvable hardware. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO ’11, Dublin, Ireland.10.1145/2001576.2001611 ↗
40. Carroll, S.B. (2005). Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom, WW Norton & Company. Number 54.
41. Convolutional networks for fast, energy-efficient neuromorphic computing10.1073/pnas.1604850113 ↗
42. Neuroscience-Inspired Artificial Intelligence10.1016/j.neuron.2017.06.011 ↗
43. A review of morphogenetic engineering10.1007/s11047-013-9398-1 ↗