Evolution of swarming behavior is shaped by how predators attack

Animal grouping behaviors have been widely studied due to their implications for understanding social intelligence, collective cognition, and potential applications in engineering, artificial intelligence, and robotics. An important biological aspect of these studies is discerning which selection pressures favor the evolution of grouping behavior. In the past decade, researchers have begun using evolutionary computation to study the evolutionary effects of these selection pressures in predator-prey models. The selfish herd hypothesis states that concentrated groups arise because prey selfishly attempt to place their conspecifics between themselves and the predator, thus causing an endless cycle of movement toward the center of the group. Using an evolutionary model of a predator-prey system, we show that how predators attack is critical to the evolution of the selfish herd. Following this discovery, we show that density-dependent predation provides an abstraction of Hamilton's original formulation of ``domains of danger.'' Finally, we verify that density-dependent predation provides a sufficient selective advantage for prey to evolve the selfish herd in response to predation by coevolving predators. Thus, our work corroborates Hamilton's selfish herd hypothesis in a digital evolutionary model, refines the assumptions of the selfish herd hypothesis, and generalizes the domain of danger concept to density-dependent predation.Comment: 25 pages, 11 figures, 5 tables, including 2 Supplementary Figures. Version to appear in "Artificial Life

A new approach to particle swarm optimization algorithm

Particularly interesting group consists of algorithms that implement co-evolution or co-operation in natural environments, giving much more powerful implementations. The main aim is to obtain the algorithm which operation is not influenced by the environment. An unusual look at optimization algorithms made it possible to develop a new algorithm and its metaphors define for two groups of algorithms. These studies concern the particle swarm optimization algorithm as a model of predator and prey. New properties of the algorithm resulting from the co-operation mechanism that determines the operation of algorithm and significantly reduces environmental influence have been shown. Definitions of functions of behavior scenarios give new feature of the algorithm. This feature allows self controlling the optimization process. This approach can be successfully used in computer games. Properties of the new algorithm make it worth of interest, practical application and further research on its development. This study can be also an inspiration to search other solutions that implementing co-operation or co-evolution.Angeline, P. (1998). Using selection to improve particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of the IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, Anchorage (pp. 84–89).Arquilla, J., & Ronfeldt, D. (2000). Swarming and the future of conflict, RAND National Defense Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA, US.Bessaou, M., & Siarry, P. (2001). A genetic algorithm with real-value coding to optimize multimodal continuous functions. Structural and Multidiscipline Optimization, 23, 63–74.Bird, S., & Li, X. (2006). Adaptively choosing niching parameters in a PSO. In Proceedings of the 2006 genetic and evolutionary computation conference (pp. 3–10).Bird, S., & Li, X. (2007). Using regression to improve local convergence. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (pp. 592–599).Blackwell, T., & Bentley, P. (2002). Dont push me! Collision-avoiding swarms. In Proceedings of the IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, Honolulu (pp. 1691–1696).Brits, R., Engelbrecht, F., & van den Bergh, A. P. (2002). Solving systems of unconstrained equations using particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (pp. 102–107).Brits, R., Engelbrecht, A., & van den Bergh, F. (2002). A niching particle swarm optimizer. In Proceedings of the fourth asia-pacific conference on simulated evolution and learning (pp. 692–696).Chelouah, R., & Siarry, P. (2000). A continuous genetic algorithm designed for the global optimization of multimodal functions. Journal of Heuristics, 6(2), 191–213.Chelouah, R., & Siarry, P. (2000). Tabu search applied to global optimization. European Journal of Operational Research, 123, 256–270.Chelouah, R., & Siarry, P. (2003). Genetic and Nelder–Mead algorithms hybridized for a more accurate global optimization of continuous multiminima function. European Journal of Operational Research, 148(2), 335–348.Chelouah, R., & Siarry, P. (2005). A hybrid method combining continuous taboo search and Nelder–Mead simplex algorithms for the global optimization of multiminima functions. European Journal of Operational Research, 161, 636–654.Chen, T., & Chi, T. (2010). On the improvements of the particle swarm optimization algorithm. Advances in Engineering Software, 41(2), 229–239.Clerc, M., & Kennedy, J. (2002). The particle swarm-explosion, stability, and convergence in a multidimensional complex space. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6(1), 58–73.Fan, H., & Shi, Y. (2001). Study on Vmax of particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of the workshop particle swarm optimization, Indianapolis.Gao, H., & Xu, W. (2011). Particle swarm algorithm with hybrid mutation strategy. Applied Soft Computing, 11(8), 5129–5142.Gosciniak, I. (2008). Immune algorithm in non-stationary optimization task. In Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on computational intelligence for modelling control & automation, CIMCA ’08 (pp. 750–755). Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society.He, Q., & Wang, L. (2007). An effective co-evolutionary particle swarm optimization for constrained engineering design problems. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 20(1), 89–99.Higashitani, M., Ishigame, A., & Yasuda, K., (2006). Particle swarm optimization considering the concept of predator–prey behavior. In 2006 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (pp. 434–437).Higashitani, M., Ishigame, A., & Yasuda, K. (2008). Pursuit-escape particle swarm optimization. IEEJ Transactions on Electrical and Electronic Engineering, 3(1), 136–142.Hu, X., & Eberhart, R. (2002). Multiobjective optimization using dynamic neighborhood particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of the evolutionary computation on 2002. CEC ’02. Proceedings of the 2002 congress (Vol. 02, pp. 1677–1681). Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society.Hu, X., Eberhart, R., & Shi, Y. (2003). Engineering optimization with particle swarm. In IEEE swarm intelligence symposium, SIS 2003 (pp. 53–57). Indianapolis: IEEE Neural Networks Society.Jang, W., Kang, H., Lee, B., Kim, K., Shin, D., & Kim, S. (2007). Optimized fuzzy clustering by predator prey particle swarm optimization. In IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, CEC2007 (pp. 3232–3238).Kennedy, J. (2000). Stereotyping: Improving particle swarm performance with cluster analysis. In Proceedings of the 2000 congress on evolutionary computation (pp. 1507–1512).Kennedy, J., & Mendes, R. (2002). Population structure and particle swarm performance. In IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (pp. 1671–1676).Kuo, H., Chang, J., & Shyu, K. (2004). A hybrid algorithm of evolution and simplex methods applied to global optimization. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 12(4), 280–289.Leontitsis, A., Kontogiorgos, D., & Pange, J. (2006). Repel the swarm to the optimum. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 173(1), 265–272.Li, X. (2004). Adaptively choosing neighborhood bests using species in a particle swarm optimizer for multimodal function optimization. In Proceedings of the 2004 genetic and evolutionary computation conference (pp. 105–116).Li, C., & Yang, S. (2009). A clustering particle swarm optimizer for dynamic optimization. In Proceedings of the 2009 congress on evolutionary computation (pp. 439–446).Liang, J., Suganthan, P., & Deb, K. (2005). Novel composition test functions for numerical global optimization. In Proceedings of the swarm intelligence symposium [Online]. Available: .Liang, J., Qin, A., Suganthan, P., & Baskar, S. (2006). Comprehensive learning particle swarm optimizer for global optimization of multimodal functions. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 10(3), 281–295.Lovbjerg, M., & Krink, T. (2002). Extending particle swarm optimizers with self-organized criticality. In Proceedings of the congress on evolutionary computation, Honolulu (pp. 1588–1593).Lung, R., & Dumitrescu, D. (2007). A collaborative model for tracking optima in dynamic environments. In Proceedings of the 2007 congress on evolutionary computation (pp. 564–567).Mendes, R., Kennedy, J., & Neves, J. (2004). The fully informed particle swarm: simpler, maybe better. IEEE Transaction on Evolutionary Computation, 8(3), 204–210.Miranda, V., & Fonseca, N. (2002). New evolutionary particle swarm algorithm (EPSO) applied to voltage/VAR control. In Proceedings of the 14th power systems computation conference, Seville, Spain [Online] Available: .Parrott, D., & Li, X. (2004). A particle swarm model for tracking multiple peaks in a dynamic environment using speciation. In Proceedings of the 2004 congress on evolutionary computation (pp. 98–103).Parrott, D., & Li, X. (2006). Locating and tracking multiple dynamic optima by a particle swarm model using speciation. In IEEE transaction on evolutionary computation (Vol. 10, pp. 440–458).Parsopoulos, K., & Vrahatis, M. (2004). UPSOA unified particle swarm optimization scheme. Lecture Series on Computational Sciences, 868–873.Passaroand, A., & Starita, A. (2008). Particle swarm optimization for multimodal functions: A clustering approach. Journal of Artificial Evolution and Applications, 2008, 15 (Article ID 482032).Peram, T., Veeramachaneni, K., & Mohan, C. (2003). Fitness-distance-ratio based particle swarm optimization. In Swarm intelligence symp. (pp. 174–181).Sedighizadeh, D., & Masehian, E. (2009). Particle swarm optimization methods, taxonomy and applications. International Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering, 1(5), 1793–8201.Shi, Y., & Eberhart, R. (2001). Particle swarm optimization with fuzzy adaptive inertia weight. In Proceedings of the workshop particle swarm optimization, Indianapolis (pp. 101–106).Shi, Y., & Eberhart, R. (1998). A modified particle swarm optimizer. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation (pp. 69–73). Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society.Thomsen, R. (2004). Multimodal optimization using crowding-based differential evolution. In Proceedings of the 2004 congress on evolutionary computation (pp. 1382–1389).Trojanowski, K., & Wierzchoń, S. (2009). Immune-based algorithms for dynamic optimization. Information Sciences, 179(10), 1495–1515.Tsoulos, I., & Stavrakoudis, A. (2010). Enhancing PSO methods for global optimization. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 216(10), 2988–3001.van den Bergh, F., & Engelbrecht, A. (2004). A cooperative approach to particle swarm optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 8, 225–239.Wolpert, D., & Macready, W. (1997). No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Transaction on Evolutionary Computation, 1(1), 67–82.Xie, X., Zhang, W., & Yang, Z. (2002). Dissipative particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of the congress on evolutionary computation (pp. 1456–1461).Yang, S., & Li, C. (2010). A clustering particle swarm optimizer for locating and tracking multiple optima in dynamic environments. In IEEE Trans. on evolutionary computation (Vol. 14, pp. 959–974).Kuo, H., Chang, J., & Liu, C. (2006). Particle swarm optimization for global optimization problems. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 14(3), 170–181

Community-driven dispersal in an individual-based predator-prey model

We present a spatial, individual-based predator-prey model in which dispersal is dependent on the local community. We determine species suitability to the biotic conditions of their local environment through a time and space varying fitness measure. Dispersal of individuals to nearby communities occurs whenever their fitness falls below a predefined tolerance threshold. The spatiotemporal dynamics of the model is described in terms of this threshold. We compare this dynamics with the one obtained through density-independent dispersal and find marked differences. In the community-driven scenario, the spatial correlations in the population density do not vary in a linear fashion as we increase the tolerance threshold. Instead we find the system to cross different dynamical regimes as the threshold is raised. Spatial patterns evolve from disordered, to scale-free complex patterns, to finally becoming well-organized domains. This model therefore predicts that natural populations, the dispersal strategies of which are likely to be influenced by their local environment, might be subject to complex spatiotemporal dynamics.Comment: 43 pages, 7 figures, vocabulary modifications, discussion expanded, references added, Ecological Complexity accepte

Evolving collective behavior in an artificial ecology

Collective behavior refers to coordinated group motion, common to many animals. The dynamics of a group can be seen as a distributed model, each “animal” applying the same rule set. This study investigates the use of evolved sensory controllers to produce schooling behavior. A set of artificial creatures “live” in an artificial world with hazards and food. Each creature has a simple artificial neural network brain that controls movement in different situations. A chromosome encodes the network structure and weights, which may be combined using artificial evolution with another chromosome, if a creature should choose to mate. Prey and predators coevolve without an explicit fitness function for schooling to produce sophisticated, nondeterministic, behavior. The work highlights the role of species’ physiology in understanding behavior and the role of the environment in encouraging the development of sensory systems