skip to main content
10.1145/2576768.2598222acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Encouraging creative thinking in robots improves their ability to solve challenging problems

Published:12 July 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

Evolutionary algorithms frequently get stuck on local optima--and fail to find the global optimum--when local gradients do not point the search process toward the direction of the global optimum. A recent breakthrough called Novelty Search ameliorates this problem by enabling the search process to explore in every direction by encouraging the production of novel, or not-yet-seen, phenotypes (e.g. new robot behaviors). However, a problem with Novelty Search is that it can get lost on "novelty plateaus" wherein novel behaviors in offspring are not immediately produced by mutation and crossover (e.g. when a sequence of specific mutations is required to produce new behaviors, but the intermediate mutations are not rewarded because they do not produce novel behaviors). In such cases, Novelty Search and related approaches that reward behavioral diversity can get stuck. Here we introduce a new approach, borrowed from human psychology, that mitigates this problem: encouraging creative thinking. In addition to rewarding novel behavior, we encourage evolving neural networks to "think differently" by rewarding not-yet-seen firing patterns in hidden neurons, which we call the "Creative Thinking Approach." We hypothesize that encouraging novel thinking can reward stepping stones toward new behaviors. On a variety of challenging robotic control problems from previous publications we demonstrate that, as problem difficulty increases, adding the Creative Thinking Approach increasingly improves performance over simply encouraging novel behaviors. Our results suggest that the Creative Thinking Approach could help improve the scale and complexity of problems that can be solved by evolutionary algorithms.

References

  1. C.M. Bishop. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning (Information Science and Statistics). Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, USA, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. J. Clune, K.O. Stanley, R.T. Pennock, and C. Ofria. On the performance of indirect encoding across the continuum of regularity. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 15(4):346--367, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. C.A. Coello Coello. Evolutionary multi-objective optimization: a historical view of the field. Computational Intelligence Magazine, IEEE, 1(1):28--36, Feb 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: Nsga-ii. Trans. Evol. Comp, 6(2):182--197, April 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. K. Deb. Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. S. Doncieux and J.-B. Mouret. Behavioral diversity measures for evolutionary robotics. In WCCI 2010 IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence, Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), pages 1303--1310, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. J.L. Elman. Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition, 48(1):71--99, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. D. Floreano and C. Mattiussi. Bio-inspired artificial intelligence: theories, methods, and technologies. The MIT Press, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. J. Gauci and K.O. Stanley. Autonomous evolution of topographic regularities in artificial neural networks. Neural Computation, 22(7):1860--1898, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. A. Hyvarinen and E. Oja. Independent component analysis: Algorithms and applications. Neural Netw., 13(4--5):411--430, May 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. T. Jansen and I. Wegener. Evolutionary algorithms - how to cope with plateaus of constant fitness and when to reject strings of the same fitness. Trans. Evol. Comp, 5(6):589--599, December 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. I.T. Jolliffe. Principal Component Analysis. Springer Verlag.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. J. Lehman and K.O. Stanley. Exploiting open-endedness to solve problems through the search for novelty. In Proceedings of Artificial Life XI, volume 11, pages 329--336, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. J. Lehman and K.O. Stanley. Abandoning objectives: Evolution through the search for novelty alone. Evolutionary Computation, 19(2):189--223, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. J. Lehman, S. Risi, D.B. D'Ambrosio, and K.O. Stanley. Rewarding reactivity to evolve robust controllers without multiple trials or noise. In Proceedings of the Artificial Life Conference, volume 13, pages 379--386, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. J.-B. Mouret and S. Doncieux. SFERESv2: Evolvin' in the multi-core world. In WCCI 2010 IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence, Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), pages 4079--4086, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. J.-B. Mouret and S. Doncieux. Encouraging behavioral diversity in evolutionary robotics: an empirical study. Evolutionary Computation, 1(20), 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. J.-B. Mouret and S. Doncieux. Overcoming the bootstrap problem in evolutionary robotics using behavioral diversity. In Evolutionary Computation, 2009. CEC'09. IEEE Congress on, pages 1161--1168. IEEE, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. K.P. Murphy. Machine Learning: A Probabilistic Perspective (Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning series). The MIT Press, August 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. E.S. Nicoara. Mechanisms to avoid the premature convergence of genetic algorithms. Petroleum - Gas University of Ploiesti Bulletin, Mathematics - Informatics - Physics Series, 61:87--96, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. C. Ollion, T. Pinville, and S. Doncieux. With a little help from selection pressures : evolution of memory in robot controllers. Artificial Life, 13:407--414, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. T. Rickards. Creativity and Problem Solving at Work. Gower Publishing, Ltd., 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. A. Rogers and A. Prügel-Bennett. Genetic drift in genetic algorithm selection schemes. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 3(4):298--303, October 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. C. Ryan. Reducing premature convergence in evolutionary algorithms, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. K.O. Stanley, D.B. D'Ambrosio, and J. Gauci. A hypercube-based encoding for evolving large-scale neural networks. Artificial Life, 15(2):185--212, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. K.O. Stanley and R. Miikkulainen. Evolving neural networks through augmenting topologies. Evolutionary Computation, 10(2):99--127, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. K.O. Stanley and R. Miikkulainen. A taxonomy for artificial embryogeny. Artificial Life, 9(2):93--130, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Encouraging creative thinking in robots improves their ability to solve challenging problems

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      GECCO '14: Proceedings of the 2014 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation
      July 2014
      1478 pages
      ISBN:9781450326629
      DOI:10.1145/2576768

      Copyright © 2014 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 12 July 2014

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      GECCO '14 Paper Acceptance Rate180of544submissions,33%Overall Acceptance Rate1,669of4,410submissions,38%

      Upcoming Conference

      GECCO '24
      Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
      July 14 - 18, 2024
      Melbourne , VIC , Australia

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader