Evolving Communication without Dedicated Communication Channels

  • Matt Quinn
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2159)


Artificial Life models have consistently implemented communication as an exchange of signals over dedicated and functionally isolated channels. I argue that such a feature prevents models from providing a satisfactory account of the origins of communication and present a model in which there are no dedicated channels. Agents controlled by neural networks and equipped with proximity sensors and wheels are presented with a co-ordinated movement task. It is observed that functional, but non-communicative, behaviours which evolve in the early stages of the simulation both make possible, and form the basis of, the communicative behaviour which subsequently evolves.


Collision Avoidance Communicative Behaviour Life Model Proximity Sensor Ballistic Behaviour 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. Ackley and M. Littman. Altruism in the evolution of cooperation. In R. Brooks and P. Maes, editors, Proc. Artificial Life IV. MIT Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Hinde. Animal Behaviour. McGraw-Hill, London, 1966.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Kawamura, M. Yamamoto, K. Suzuki, and A. Ochuchi. Ants war with evolutive pheromone style communication. In D. Floreano, J-D. Nicoud, and F. Mondada, editors, Proc. 5 European Conf. on Artificial Life. Springer Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Krebs and N. Davies. An Introduction to Behavioural Ecology. Blackwell, 1981.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Levin. The evolution of understanding: A genetic algorithm model of the evolution of communication. BioSystems, 36:167–178, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. MacLennan. Synthetic Ecology: An approach to the study of communication. In C. Langton et. al., editor, Proc. Artificial Life II. Addison-Wesley, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Maynard Smith. The Theory of Evolution. C.U.P., 3rd edition, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    H. Proctor. Courtship in the water-mites neumania papillator: males capitalize on female adaptations for predation. Animal Behaviour, 42:589–598, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Quinn. A comparison of approaches to the evolution of homogeneous multi-robot teams. In Proc. Int. Congress on Evolutionary Computing, 2001. (In press).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C Reynolds. Flocks, herds, and schools: A distributed behavioral model. Computer Graphics, 21(4), 1987.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Werner and D. Dyer. The evolution of communication in artificial organisms. In C. Langton et. al., editor, Proc. Artificial Life II. Addison-Wesley, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    E.O. Wilson. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Belknap Press, Harvard, 1975.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matt Quinn
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Computational Neuroscience and RoboticsUniversity of SussexBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations