Adaptive Factors in the Evolution of Signaling Systems

Noble, Jason; Paolo, Ezequiel A. Di; Bullock, Seth

doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-0663-0_3

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance a stable communication system emerges in experiments in which: (1) the population is spatially distributed and individuals are more likely to communicate and mate with those close to them (Oliphant, 1996), (2) the same set of internal neurons of agents' controller determine both the motor and signalling behaviour of the agent and receive both sensory and communicative information (Cangelosi and Parisi, 1998), (3) agents (provided with the same neural architecture described above) receive communication signals only from their parents and are allowed to communicate only after a first evolutionary phase in which they can develop their individual capabilities (Marocco et al, 2003). In any case, although these and other ecological factors (see Di Paolo, 1997;Noble et al, 2002) might counter-balance the lack of direct benefit for signalling and the advantage for individuals to deceive, these two factors will in any case tend to prevent the emergence or the preservation of communication. Indeed, if we compare the experiments described in Cangelosi and Parisi (1998) and Marocco et al (2003) that differ with respect to the complexity of the problem, we can see that why in the former the constraint on agents' neural architecture was enough, in the latter communication only emerged by also restricting communication acts between parents and by allowing individuals to evolve their individual ability before communicating.…”

Section: Adaptive Factors In the Evolution Of Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emergence of communication in embodied agents: co-adapting communicative and non-communicative behaviours

Nolfi

2005

Connection Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Adaptive Factors In the Evolution Of Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emergence of communication in embodied agents: co-adapting communicative and non-communicative behaviours

Nolfi

2005

Connection Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead, spatial organization by itself, together with other factors such as discreteness and stochasticity, can play a major role in the emergence of cooperative communication. The role of spatial factors in the emergence of simple, altruistic signalling systems is also discussed in Noble et al (Noble et al, 2001), together with other ecological factors such as the presence of noise. Noble et al discuss also previous work by Bullok (1998) which demonstrated, through a simple artificial life model, how the handicap principle could lead to the evolution of honest signalling in a manipulative communication system.…”

Section: The Adaptive Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Producer Biases and Kin Selection in the Evolution of Communication

Mirolli

Parisi

2009

Evolution of Communication and Language in Embodied Agents

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evolution of communication requires the co-evolution of two abilities: the ability of sending useful signals and the ability of reacting appropriately to perceived signals. This fact poses two related but distinct problems, which are often confused the one with the other: (1) the phylogenetic problem regarding how can communication evolve if the two traits that are necessary for its emergence are complementary and seem to require each other for providing reproductive advantages; (2) the adaptive problem regarding how can communication systems that do not advantage both signallers and receivers in the same way emerge, given their altruistic character. Here we clarify the distinction, and provide some insights on how these problems can be solved in both real and artificial systems by reporting experiments on the evolution of artificial agents that have to evolve a simple food-call communication system. Our experiments show that (1) the phylogenetic problem can be solved thanks to the presence of producer biases that make agents spontaneously produce useful signals, an idea that is complementary to the well-known 'receiver bias' hyopthesis found in the biological literature, and (2) the adaptive problem can be solved by having agents communicate preferentially among kin, as predicted by kin selection theory. We discuss these results with respect both to the scientific understanding of the evolution of communication and to the design of embodied and communicating artificial agents. phylogenetic problem, while the adaptive problem related to (apparently) altruistic communication system is related to the functional question.The main goal of this chapter is to clarify the distinction between these two problems, and to provide some insights on how these problems can be solved in both real and artificial organisms. In order to do that, we address both problems within the same simulative set-up, that is constituted by a population of artificial agents which have to evolve a simple food-call communication system. The reminder of this chapter is structured as follows. In section 2 we first discuss the general approach that evolutionary biologists typically take with respect to communication and then we introduce in more details the adaptive and the phylogenetic problems. In section 3 we describe the experimental set-up with which we address these problems. In 4 we present the results of the basic simulation and discuss our hypotheses concerning the factors that can affect the emergence of communication. The next two sections are devoted to the test of the proposed hypotheses: section 5 with respect to the problem of altruism, section 6 with respect to the co-evolution of speakers and hearers. Finally, in section 7 we discuss the relevance of the presented work with respect to both the scientific understanding of communication and to the design of embodied and communicating artificial agents.

show abstract

“…ABM has also been applied before to the question of communication (Noble et al 2002;Dessalles 2000). Because communication is a form of social interaction, examining this behavior is best done by simulating social interactions.…”

Section: Agent Based Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agent Based Modelling of Communication Costs: Why Information Can Be Free

Čače¹,

Bryson

2007

Emergence of Communication and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this chapter we examine the costs and benefits of sharing information, using a simple spatial agent model. The information concerns the agents' food. The costs are for the signaling agent in terms of more competition over food, and the benefits are for the receiver in terms of access to more food. We will show that under some conditions agents that communicate do better -that is, have more offspringthan agents that do not. Why We Have LanguageWhat purposes, other than facilitating the sharing of information, can language have served? First, it may not have evolved to serve any purpose at all. It is possible that language is just a side effect of the large human brain -a spandrel or exaptation -that only became useful later. If language is adaptive, this does not necessarily mean that it is adaptive for the purpose of communication. For example Dennet (1996) and Chomsky (1980) have stressed the utility of language in thinking. Also, there are different ways to view communication. The purpose of language according to Dunbar (1993), is to replace grooming as a social bonding process and in this way to ensure the stability of large social groups.Why would anyone think that communication might be a bad thing? Because communication is a form of altruism, it is a giving up of information to one's competitors. Remember, even friends are competitors in a biological sense, as they share the same food resources and mating opportunities. Consequently, many people find it unlikely that such altruism could evolve (Dessalles 2000;Marshall and Rowe 2003).In the next section we will show how communication can be viewed in terms of costs and benefits. We will discuss some theories that fit in this framework and propose a slightly different approach. In the next section we will discuss communication in relation to parenting (kin-selection) and foraging abilities. We will then describe the experiment we used to show that communication is indeed a good thing.

show abstract

Adaptive Factors in the Evolution of Signaling Systems

Cited by 11 publications

References 40 publications

Emergence of communication in embodied agents: co-adapting communicative and non-communicative behaviours

Emergence of communication in embodied agents: co-adapting communicative and non-communicative behaviours

Producer Biases and Kin Selection in the Evolution of Communication

Agent Based Modelling of Communication Costs: Why Information Can Be Free

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About