Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 301–318 | Cite as

Evolution, Generality and Robustness of Emerged Surrounding Behavior in Continuous Predators-Prey Pursuit Problem

  • Ivan TanevEmail author
  • Michael Brzozowski
  • Katsunori Shimohara


We present the result of our work on the use of strongly typed genetic programming with exception handling capabilities for the evolution of surrounding behavior of agents situated in an inherently cooperative environment. The predators-prey pursuit problem is used to verify our hypothesis that relatively complex surrounding behavior may emerge from simple, implicit, locally defined, and therefore—scalable interactions between the predator agents. Proposing two different communication mechanisms ((i) simple, basic mechanism of implicit interaction, and (ii) explicit communications among the predator agents) we present a comparative analysis of the implications of these communication mechanisms on evolution, generality and robustness of the emerged surrounding behavior. We demonstrate that relatively complex-surrounding behavior emerges even from implicit, proximity-defined interactions among the agents. Although the basic model offers the benefits of simplicity and scalability, compared to the enhanced model of explicit communications among the agents, it features increased computational effort and inferior generality and robustness of agents' emergent surrounding behavior when the team of predator agents is evolved in noiseless environment and then tested in noisy and uncertain environment. Evolution in noisy environment virtually equalizes the robustness and generality characteristics of both models. For both models however the increase of noise levels during the evolution is associated with evolving solutions, which are more robust to noise but less general to new, unknown initial situations.


emergence multi agent systems surrounding behavior strongly-typed genetic programming 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    P. J. Angeline, “Genetic programming and emergent intelligence,” in Advances in Genetic Programming, K. E. Kinnear Jr. (Ed.), MIT Press, 1994, pp. 75–98.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Baray, Evolution of Coordination in Reactive Multi-Agent Systems. PhD thesis, Computer Science Department, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Benda, B. Jagannathan, and R. Dodhiawala, “On optimal cooperation of knowledge sources,” Technical Report BCS-G2010-28, Boeing AI Center, Boeing Computer Services, Bellevue,WA, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. A. Brooks, “A robust layered control system for a mobile robot,” IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 14–23, 1986.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Ferber, Multi-Agent Systems: An Introduction to Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Addison Wesley Longman: Harlow, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Forrest, “Emergent computation: Self-organising, collective, and cooperative phenomena in natural and artificial computing networks,” in Emergent Computation, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, pp. 1–11, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. Haynes and S. Sen, Evolving Behavioral Strategies in Predators and Prey, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. Haynes, R. Wainwright, S. Sen, and D. Schoenefeld, Strongly Typed Genetic Programming in Evolving Cooperation Strategies, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. H. Holand, Emergence: From Chaos to Order, Perseus Books: Cambridge, 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. R. Koza, Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Luke and L. Spector, Evolving Teamwork and Coordination with Genetic Programming.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. L. Miller and D. E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms, Tournament Selection, and the Efects of Noise, Illigal Report No. 95006, University of Illinois, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Montana, “Strongly typed genetic programming”, Evolutionary Computation, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 199–230, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. Morgan, Emergent Evolution, New York, 1923.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    H. J. Morowitz, The Emergence of Everything: How the World Became Complex, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. Nordin, F. Francone, and W. Banzhaf, “Explicitly defined introns and destructive crossover in genetic programming,” in Proceedings of the Workshop on Genetic Programming: From Theory to Real-World Applications, J. P. Rosca, (Eds.), 9 July 1995, Tahoe City, California, USA, 1995, pp. 6–22.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    H. Parunak, D. Van, S. Brueckner, M. Fleischer, and J. Odell, “Co-X: Defining what agents do together,” in Proceedings of the AAMAS 2002 Workshop on Teamwork and Coalition Formation, O. Shehory, T. R. Ioerger, J. Vassileva and J. Yen (Eds.), Bologna, Italy, 2002.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    F. Rothlauf and D. E. Goldberg, “Redundant representations in evolutionary computation,” Evolutionary Computations, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 381–415, 2003.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    I. Tanev, “DOM/XML-based portable genetic representation of morphology, behavior and communication abilities of evolvable agents,” in Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Artificial Life and Robotics (AROB'03), Beppu, Japan, 2003, pp. 185–188.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivan Tanev
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Michael Brzozowski
    • 3
  • Katsunori Shimohara
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Information Systems Design, Faculty of EngineeringDoshisha UniversityKyotanabeJapan
  2. 2.ATR Network Informatics LaboratoriesKeihanna Science CityJapan
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  4. 4.Graduate School of InformaticsKyoto University, Yoshida-HonmachiSakyo-kuJapan

Personalised recommendations