skip to main content
10.1145/3512290.3528826acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Plasticity and evolvability under environmental variability: the joint role of fitness-based selection and niche-limited competition

Published:08 July 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

The diversity and quality of natural systems have been a puzzle and inspiration for communities studying artificial life. It is now widely admitted that the adaptation mechanisms enabling these properties are largely influenced by the environments they inhabit. Organisms facing environmental variability have two alternative adaptation mechanisms operating at different timescales: plasticity, the ability of a phenotype to survive in diverse environments and evolvability, the ability to adapt through mutations. Although vital under environmental variability both mechanisms are associated with fitness costs hypothesized to render them unnecessary in stable environments. In this work, we study the interplay between environmental dynamics and adaptation in a minimal model of the evolution of plasticity and evolvability. We experiment with different types of environments characterized by the presence of niches and a climate function that determines the fitness landscape. We empirically show that environmental dynamics affect plasticity and evolvability differently and that the presence of diverse ecological niches favors adaptability even in stable environments. We perform ablation studies of the selection mechanisms to separate the role of fitness-based selection and niche-limited competition. Results obtained from our minimal model allow us to propose promising research directions in the study of open-endedness in biological and artificial systems.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Josh R. Auld, Anurag A. Agrawal, and Rick A. Relyea. 2010. Re-evaluating the costs and limits of adaptive phenotypic plasticity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 277, 1681 (Feb. 2010), 503--511. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Bowen Baker, Ingmar Kanitscheider, Todor Markov, Yi Wu, Glenn Powell, Bob McGrew, and Igor Mordatch. 2020. Emergent Tool Use From Multi-Agent Autocurricula. https://openreview.net/forum?id=SkxpxJBKwS tex.ids: Baker2019 arXiv: 1909.07528.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Gillian R. Brown, Thomas E. Dickins, Rebecca Sear, and Kevin N. Laland. 2011. Evolutionary accounts of human behavioural diversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 366, 1563 (Feb. 2011), 313--324. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Luis-Miguel Chevin, Russell Lande, and Georgina M. Mace. 2010. Adaptation, Plasticity, and Extinction in a Changing Environment: Towards a Predictive Theory. PLoS Biology 8, 4 (April 2010), e1000357. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Jeff Clune. 2020. AI-GAs: AI-generating algorithms, an alternate paradigm for producing general artificial intelligence. arXiv:1905.10985 [cs] (Jan. 2020). http://arxiv.org/abs/1905.10985 arXiv: 1905.10985.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Karl Cobbe, Oleg Klimov, Chris Hesse, Taehoon Kim, and John Schulman. 2019. Quantifying Generalization in Reinforcement Learning. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 97), Kamalika Chaudhuri and Ruslan Salakhutdinov (Eds.). PMLR, Long Beach, California, USA, 1282--1289. http://proceedings.mlr.press/v97/cobbe19a.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Thomas D. Cuypers, Jacob P. Rutten, and Paulien Hogeweg. 2017. Evolution of evolvability and phenotypic plasticity in virtual cells. BMC Evolutionary Biology 17, 1 (Dec. 2017), 60. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Charles Darwin. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Natural Selection of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. New York: D. Appleton and Company.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Emily L. Dolson, Anya E. Vostinar, Michael J. Wiser, and Charles A Ofria. 2019. The MODES Toolbox: Measurements of Open-Ended Dynamics in Evolving Systems. Artificial Life 25 (2019), 50--73.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Stephane Doncieux, Giuseppe Paolo, Alban Laflaquière, and Alexandre Coninx. 2020. Novelty Search makes Evolvability Inevitable. arXiv:2005.06224 [cs] (May 2020). http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.06224 arXiv: 2005.06224.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. D. J. Earl and M. W. Deem. 2004. Evolvability is a selectable trait. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101, 32 (Aug. 2004), 11531--11536. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Manfred Eppe and Pierre-Yves Oudeyer. 2021. Intelligent Behavior Depends on the Ecological Niche. KI - Künstliche Intelligenz (Jan. 2021). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Kevin Frans and Olaf Witkowski. 2021. Population-Based Evolution Optimizes a Meta-Learning Objective. arXiv:2103.06435 [cs] (March 2021). http://arxiv.org/abs/2103.06435 arXiv: 2103.06435.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Cameron K Ghalambor, Lisa M Angeloni, and Scott P Carroll, [n. d.]. Behavior as Phenotypic Plasticity. ([n.d.]), 19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Antoine Giraud, Ivan Matic, Olivier Tenaillon, Antonio Clara, Miroslav Radman, Michel Fons, and François Taddei. 2001. Costs and Benefits of High Mutation Rates: Adaptive Evolution of Bacteria in the Mouse Gut. Science 291, 5513 (2001), 2606--2608. arXiv:https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1056421 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Matt Grove. 2011. Speciation, diversity, and Mode 1 technologies: The impact of variability selection. Journal of Human Evolution 61, 3 (Sept. 2011), 306--319. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Matt Grove. 2014. Evolution and dispersal under climatic instability: a simple evolutionary algorithm. Adaptive Behavior 22, 4 (Aug. 2014), 235--254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Kelley Harris. 2015. Evidence for recent, population-specific evolution of the human mutation rate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 11 (March 2015), 3439--3444. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Timothy D. Johnston. 1982. Selective Costs and Benefits in the Evolution of Learning. In Advances in the Study of Behavior. Vol. 12. Elsevier, 65--106. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Grgur Kovac, Rémy Portelas, Katja Hofmann, and Pierre-Yves Oudeyer. 2021. SocialAI: Benchmarking Socio-Cognitive Abilities in Deep Reinforcement Learning Agents. CoRR abs/2107.00956 (2021). arXiv:2107.00956 https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.00956Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Robert Tjarko Lange and Henning Sprekeler. 2021. Learning not to learn: Nature versus nurture in silico. arXiv:2010.04466 [cs, q-bio] (March 2021). http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.04466 arXiv: 2010.04466.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Joel Lehman and Risto Miikkulainen. 2015. Extinction Events Can Accelerate Evolution. PLOS ONE 10, 8 (Aug. 2015), e0132886. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Joel Lehman and Kenneth O. Stanley. 2013. Evolvability Is Inevitable: Increasing Evolvability without the Pressure to Adapt. PLoS ONE 8, 4 (April 2013), e62186. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Joel Z Leibo, Edward Hughes, Marc Lanctot, and Thore Graepel. 2019. Autocurricula and the emergence of innovation from social interaction: A manifesto for multi-agent intelligence research. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.00742 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Michael Lynch. 2011. The Lower Bound to the Evolution of Mutation Rates. Genome Biology and Evolution 3 (Jan. 2011), 1107--1118. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Michael Lynch, Matthew S. Ackerman, Jean-Francois Gout, Hongan Long, Way Sung, W. Kelley Thomas, and Patricia L. Foster. 2016. Genetic drift, selection and the evolution of the mutation rate. Nature Reviews Genetics 17, 11 (Nov. 2016), 704--714. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Michael Lynch and Wilfried Gabriel. 1987. Environmental Tolerance. The American Naturalist 129, 2 (1987), 283--303. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1086/284635 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Mark A. Maslin, Susanne Shultz, and Martin H. Trauth. 2015. A synthesis of the theories and concepts of early human evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 370, 1663 (March 2015), 20140064. Publisher: Royal Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Eleni Nisioti, Katia Jodogne-del Litto, and Clément Moulin-Frier. 2021. Grounding an Ecological Theory of Artificial Intelligence in Human Evolution. In NeurIPS 2021 - Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems / Workshop: Ecological Theory of Reinforcement Learning. virtual event, France. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03446961 Submitted paper.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Pierre-Yves Oudeyer, Frdric Kaplan, and Verena V. Hafner. 2007. Intrinsic Motivation Systems for Autonomous Mental Development. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 11, 2 (April 2007), 265--286. Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Paul N Pearson. 2001. Red Queen Hypothesis. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. arXiv:https://novel-coronavirus.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1038/npg.els.0001667 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Remy Portelas, Cédric Colas, Lilian Weng, Katja Hofmann, and Pierre-Yves Oudeyer. 2020. Automatic Curriculum Learning For Deep RL: A Short Survey. arXiv:2003.04664 [cs, stat] (May 2020). http://arxiv.org/abs/2003.04664 arXiv:2003.04664.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Richard Potts. 2013. Hominin evolution in settings of strong environmental variability. Quaternary Science Reviews 73 (Aug. 2013), 1--13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Justin K. Pugh, Lisa B. Soros, and Kenneth O. Stanley. 2016. Quality Diversity: A New Frontier for Evolutionary Computation. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 3 (July 2016). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Ricard Solé. 2022. Revisiting Leigh Van Valen's "A New Evolutionary Law" (1973). Biological Theory (Jan. 2022), s13752-021-00391-w. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Joseph Suarez, Yilun Du, Phillip Isola, and Igor Mordatch. 2019. Neural MMO: A Massively Multiagent Game Environment for Training and Evaluating Intelligent Agents. arXiv:1903.00784 [cs, stat] (March 2019). http://arxiv.org/abs/1903.00784 arXiv: 1903.00784.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Open Ended Learning Team, Adam Stooke, Anuj Mahajan, Catarina Barros, Charlie Deck, Jakob Bauer, Jakub Sygnowski, Maja Trebacz, Max Jaderberg, Michaël Mathieu, Nat McAleese, Nathalie Bradley-Schmieg, Nathaniel Wong, Nicolas Porcel, Roberta Raileanu, Steph Hughes-Fitt, Valentin Dalibard, and Wojciech Marian Czarnecki. 2021. Open-Ended Learning Leads to Generally Capable Agents. CoRR abs/2107.12808 (2021). arXiv:2107.12808 https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.12808Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Martin H. Trauth, Mark A. Maslin, Alan L. Deino, Annett Junginger, Moses Lesoloyia, Eric O. Odada, Daniel O. Olago, Lydia A. Olaka, Manfred R. Strecker, and Ralph Tiedemann. 2010. Human evolution in a variable environment: the amplifier lakes of Eastern Africa. Quaternary Science Reviews 29, 23-24 (Nov. 2010), 2981--2988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Elisabeth S. Vrba. 1985. Environment and evolution: alternative causes of the temporal distribution of evolutionary events. South African Journal of Science 81 (1985), 229--236.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Rui Wang, Joel Lehman, Jeff Clune, and Kenneth O. Stanley. 2019. Paired Open-Ended Trailblazer (POET): Endlessly Generating Increasingly Complex and Diverse Learning Environments and Their Solutions. arXiv:1901.01753 [cs] (Feb. 2019). http://arxiv.org/abs/1901.01753 arXiv: 1901.01753.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

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 '22: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
    July 2022
    1472 pages
    ISBN:9781450392372
    DOI:10.1145/3512290

    Copyright © 2022 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: 8 July 2022

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate1,669of4,410submissions,38%

    Upcoming Conference

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

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)32
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader