-
Creative Foraging: A Quantitative Paradigm for Studying Creative Exploration
Authors:
Yuval Hart,
Avraham E Mayo,
Ruth Mayo,
Liron Rozenkrantz,
Avichai Tendler,
Uri Alon,
Lior Noy
Abstract:
Creative exploration is central to science, art and cognitive development. However, research on creative exploration is limited by a lack of high-resolution automated paradigms. To address this, we present such an automated paradigm, the creative foraging game, in which people search for novel and valuable solutions in a large and well-defined space made of all possible shapes made of ten connecte…
▽ More
Creative exploration is central to science, art and cognitive development. However, research on creative exploration is limited by a lack of high-resolution automated paradigms. To address this, we present such an automated paradigm, the creative foraging game, in which people search for novel and valuable solutions in a large and well-defined space made of all possible shapes made of ten connected squares. Players discovered shape categories such as digits, letters, and airplanes. They exploited each category, then dropped it to explore once again, and so on. Aligned with a prediction of optimal foraging theory (OFT) prediction, during exploration phases, people moved along meandering paths that are about three times longer than the minimal paths between shapes, when exploiting a category of related shapes, they moved along the minimal paths. The moment of discovery of a new category was usually done at a nonprototypical and ambiguous shape, which can serve as an experimental proxy for creative leaps. People showed individual differences in their search patterns, along a continuum between two strategies: a mercurial quick-to-discover/quick-to-drop strategy and a thorough slow-to-discover/slow-to-drop strategy. Contrary to optimal foraging theory, players leave exploitation to explore again far before categories are depleted. This paradigm opens the way for automated high-resolution study of creative exploration.
△ Less
Submitted 5 June, 2017;
originally announced June 2017.
-
Evolution of bow-tie architectures in biology
Authors:
Tamar Friedlander,
Avraham E. Mayo,
Tsvi Tlusty,
Uri Alon
Abstract:
Bow-tie or hourglass structure is a common architectural feature found in biological and technological networks. A bow-tie in a multi-layered structure occurs when intermediate layers have much fewer components than the input and output layers. Examples include metabolism where a handful of building blocks mediate between multiple input nutrients and multiple output biomass components, and signali…
▽ More
Bow-tie or hourglass structure is a common architectural feature found in biological and technological networks. A bow-tie in a multi-layered structure occurs when intermediate layers have much fewer components than the input and output layers. Examples include metabolism where a handful of building blocks mediate between multiple input nutrients and multiple output biomass components, and signaling networks where information from numerous receptor types passes through a small set of signaling pathways to regulate multiple output genes. Little is known, however, about how bow-tie architectures evolve. Here, we address the evolution of bow-tie architectures using simulations of multi-layered systems evolving to fulfill a given input-output goal. We find that bow-ties spontaneously evolve when two conditions are met: (i) the evolutionary goal is rank deficient, where the rank corresponds to the minimal number of input features on which the outputs depend, and (ii) The effects of mutations on interaction intensities between components are described by product rule - namely the mutated element is multiplied by a random number. Product-rule mutations are more biologically realistic than the commonly used sum-rule mutations that add a random number to the mutated element. These conditions robustly lead to bow-tie structures. The minimal width of the intermediate network layers (the waist or knot of the bow-tie) equals the rank of the evolutionary goal. These findings can help explain the presence of bow-ties in diverse biological systems, and can also be relevant for machine learning applications that employ multi-layered networks.
△ Less
Submitted 30 April, 2014;
originally announced April 2014.
-
Mutation Rules and the Evolution of Sparseness and Modularity in Biological Systems
Authors:
Tamar Friedlander,
Avraham E. Mayo,
Tsvi Tlusty,
Uri Alon
Abstract:
Biological systems exhibit two structural features on many levels of organization: sparseness, in which only a small fraction of possible interactions between components actually occur; and modularity - the near decomposability of the system into modules with distinct functionality. Recent work suggests that modularity can evolve in a variety of circumstances, including goals that vary in time suc…
▽ More
Biological systems exhibit two structural features on many levels of organization: sparseness, in which only a small fraction of possible interactions between components actually occur; and modularity - the near decomposability of the system into modules with distinct functionality. Recent work suggests that modularity can evolve in a variety of circumstances, including goals that vary in time such that they share the same subgoals (modularly varying goals), or when connections are costly. Here, we studied the origin of modularity and sparseness focusing on the nature of the mutation process, rather than on connection cost or variations in the goal. We use simulations of evolution with different mutation rules. We found that commonly used sum-rule mutations, in which interactions are mutated by adding random numbers, do not lead to modularity or sparseness except for in special situations. In contrast, product-rule mutations in which interactions are mutated by multiplying by random numbers - a better model for the effects of biological mutations - led to sparseness naturally. When the goals of evolution are modular, in the sense that specific groups of inputs affect specific groups of outputs, product-rule mutations also lead to modular structure; sum-rule mutations do not. Product-rule mutations generate sparseness and modularity because they tend to reduce interactions, and to keep small interaction terms small.
△ Less
Submitted 13 June, 2013; v1 submitted 18 February, 2013;
originally announced February 2013.
