Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Non-Spatial Hash Chemistry as a Minimalistic Open-Ended Evolutionary System

Published 27 Apr 2024 in cs.NE, cs.DM, and q-bio.PE | (2404.18027v1)

Abstract: There is an increasing level of interest in open-endedness in the recent literature of Artificial Life and Artificial Intelligence. We previously proposed the cardinality leap of possibility spaces as a promising mechanism to facilitate open-endedness in artificial evolutionary systems, and demonstrated its effectiveness using Hash Chemistry, an artificial chemistry model that used a hash function as a universal fitness evaluator. However, the spatial nature of Hash Chemistry came with extensive computational costs involved in its simulation, and the particle density limit imposed to prevent explosion of computational costs prevented unbounded growth in complexity of higher-order entities. To address these limitations, here we propose a simpler non-spatial variant of Hash Chemistry in which spatial proximity of particles are represented explicitly in the form of multisets. This model modification achieved a significant reduction of computational costs in simulating the model. Results of numerical simulations showed much more significant unbounded growth in both maximal and average sizes of replicating higher-order entities than the original model, demonstrating the effectiveness of this non-spatial model as a minimalistic example of open-ended evolutionary systems.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (19)
  1. J. Lehman and K. O. Stanley, “Exploiting open-endedness to solve problems through the search for novelty,” in Artificial Life XI: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on the Simulation and Synthesis of Living Systems (ALIFE 2008).   MIT Press, 2008, pp. 329–336.
  2. H. Sayama, “Seeking open-ended evolution in Swarm Chemistry,” in Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Symposium on Artificial Life (IEEE ALIFE 2011), C. Nehaniv, T. Bossomaier, and H. Sayama, Eds.   IEEE, 2011, pp. 186–193.
  3. T. Taylor, M. Bedau, A. Channon, D. Ackley, W. Banzhaf, G. Beslon, E. Dolson, T. Froese, S. Hickinbotham, T. Ikegami et al., “Open-ended evolution: Perspectives from the OEE workshop in York,” Artificial Life, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 408–423, 2016.
  4. W. Banzhaf, B. Baumgaertner, G. Beslon, R. Doursat, J. A. Foster, B. McMullin, V. V. De Melo, T. Miconi, L. Spector, S. Stepney, and R. White, “Defining and simulating open-ended novelty: Requirements, guidelines, and challenges,” Theory in Biosciences, vol. 135, no. 3, pp. 131–161, 2016.
  5. T. Taylor, “Routes to open-endedness in evolutionary systems,” Presented at the Third Workshop on Open-Ended Evolution (OEE3) at the 2018 Conference on Artificial Life (ALIFE 2018) / arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.01883v3, 2018.
  6. H. Sayama, “Seeking open-ended evolution in Swarm Chemistry II: Analyzing long-term dynamics via automated object harvesting,” in Proceedings of the 2018 Artificial Life Conference, T. Ikegami, N. Virgo, O. Witkowski, M. Oka, R. Suzuki, and H. Iizuka, Eds.   MIT Press, 2018, pp. 59–66.
  7. K. O. Stanley, “Why open-endedness matters,” Artificial Life, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 232–235, 2019.
  8. N. Packard, M. A. Bedau, A. Channon, T. Ikegami, S. Rasmussen, K. O. Stanley, and T. Taylor, “An overview of open-ended evolution: Editorial introduction to the open-ended evolution II special issue,” Artificial Life, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 93–103, 2019.
  9. S. Stepney, “Modelling and measuring open-endedness,” Artificial Life, vol. 25, no. 1, p. 9, 2021.
  10. J. M. Borg, A. Buskell, R. Kapitany, S. T. Powers, E. Reindl, and C. Tennie, “Evolved open-endedness in cultural evolution: A new dimension in open-ended evolution research,” Artificial Life, pp. 1–22, 2023.
  11. S. Stepney and S. Hickinbotham, “On the open-endedness of detecting open-endedness,” Artificial Life, pp. 1–26, 2023.
  12. M. Samvelyan, ““The surge in #OpenEndedness research on arXiv marks a burgeoning interest in the field” (a post on Twitter/X with a visual graph),” https://twitter.com/_samvelyan/status/1745079444912349547, 2024, accessed: 2024-01-26.
  13. K. Ruiz-Mirazo, J. Peretó, and A. Moreno, “A universal definition of life: Autonomy and open-ended evolution,” Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, vol. 34, pp. 323–346, 2004.
  14. H. Sayama, “Suppleness and open-endedness for social sustainability,” in Artificial Life Conference Proceedings.   MIT Press, 2019, pp. 28–29.
  15. L. Fisher, T. Gross, H. Hillebrand, A. Sandberg, and H. Sayama, “Sustainability: We need to focus on overall system outcomes rather than simplistic targets,” People and Nature, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pan3.10589
  16. E. Szathmáry, “Toward major evolutionary transitions theory 2.0,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 112, no. 33, pp. 10 104–10 111, 2015.
  17. H. H. Pattee and H. Sayama, “Evolved open-endedness, not open-ended evolution,” Artificial Life, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 4–8, 2019.
  18. H. Sayama, “Cardinality leap for open-ended evolution: Theoretical consideration and demonstration by Hash Chemistry,” Artificial Life, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 104–116, 2019.
  19. P. Dittrich, J. Ziegler, and W. Banzhaf, “Artificial chemistries—a review,” Artificial Life, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 225–275, 2001.

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Authors (1)

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 3 tweets with 6 likes about this paper.