Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 197 references

On the Parallels Between Evolutionary Theory and the State of AI

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the principles of evolutionary developmental biology—above all local variation-selection inside computational units—are the path to AI systems that learn continually and remain comprehensible.

desk verdict A serious conceptual paper, not a breakthrough: the EDB-inspired design paradigm is plausible and well-argued, but the necessity claim in Section 4.2 goes beyond the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23774 v1 pith:DIJPCQHJ submitted 2025-05-13 q-bio.NC cs.LGcs.NEnlin.AO

Zeki Doruk Erden , Boi Faltings This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NCcs.LGcs.NEnlin.AO
keywords artificialintelligencemachinelearningevolutionarydevelopmentalbiologyModernSynthesiscontinualdestructiveadaptationweaklinkagelocalvariationandselection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the current AI paradigm—overparameterized neural networks trained with gradient descent—faces structural limits that are the same kind of limits the Modern Synthesis faced in 20th-century biology, and that the remedy is the same one biology found: evolutionary developmental biology (EDB), the study of how developmental processes shape evolution. Its central claim is that AI can overcome destructive adaptation (the active destruction of old knowledge when learning new tasks) and incomprehensibility only if adaptation is built into the lowest computational units through encapsulated core processes, weak linkage between them, and local variation-selection, rather than imposed from above. The paper is a conceptual argument: it does not present an implementation, but it points to early demonstrations it says already support the direction. If the claim is right, AI research should shift its design focus downward, into the building blocks themselves, and the result would be systems that learn continually, expose multi-level structure for inspection, and integrate naturally with planning and symbolic methods.

What carries the argument

The machinery that carries the argument is a three-part design principle translated from evolutionary developmental biology: (1) encapsulation of core processes, so that fundamental perceptual and behavioral routines become stable, reusable building blocks; (2) regulatory control with weak linkage, so that higher-level processes can activate or recombine those blocks with simple signals rather than dense fine-tuned connections; and (3) growth through local variation-selection, where variants are generated and selected on demand at the level of the computational unit itself. The paper explicitly says the third is the fundamental means to adaptability: without local variation-selection operating at the lowest level, encapsulation and weak linkage cannot be generated adaptively across all levels of organization. This trio is meant to replace the monolithic, globally optimized neural network with a multi-level, hierarchically organized model that is continually extendable and composable.

What would settle it

Run a continual-learning experiment with a system whose low-level units implement local variation-selection and weak linkage as the paper prescribes, on a sequence of tasks where a replay-based baseline is also measured. If the proposed system shows the same rate of destructive adaptation as a monolithic network, or if preserving old knowledge still requires storing and replaying past data, the claim that low-level developmental mechanisms are the fundamental means to adaptability is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the paper's center is an analogy between two explanatory frameworks. The Modern Synthesis treated evolution as population-level statistical optimization of gene frequencies, abstracting away the internal developmental processes that build organisms; the paper argues this left it unable to explain the structural organization of phenotypes or the accelerating, exponential growth of complexity in evolution. Contemporary machine learning, the paper claims, makes the same move: gradient descent on an overparameterized network is a statistical optimization over one undifferentiated pool of weights, which yields the same two failures in different guise—destructive adaptation instead of missing phenotypic variation, and opaque, non-decomposable representations instead of unexplained structure. The paper then draws the prescription from EDB: the genome is not a blueprint but a set of processes, and those processes are organized as conserved cores connected by simple regulatory signals (weak linkage), with new structures generated by local variation-selection. Translating this into AI means encapsulating fundamental perceptual and behavioral processes, adding higher-level regulatory control that reuses them, and—most importantly—making local variation-selection the fundamental mechanism of learning, so that structure grows from the bottom up. The paper's conclusion is that this paradigm, taken as a whole, would overcome the limitations of existing systems: continual learning, comprehensible multi-level models, and organic integration with deliberative and information-seeking methods.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the adaptive benefits of encapsulation, weak linkage, and local variation-selection seen in biological development will transfer to artificial computational systems and can be embedded at the lowest level without creating the same task-interference problems they are meant to solve.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Continual learning would become an intrinsic property of the computational units, eliminating the need for replay buffers, task-boundary detectors, or external task signals.
  • Learned models would be multi-level and modular, making higher-level abstractions inspectable and modifiable in the way engineered software is, rather than opaque weight patterns.
  • Structured, multi-level representations would give planning, active information seeking, and symbolic reasoning a natural interface, allowing them to be integrated with learning systems without a black-box barrier.
  • The speed of capability growth would change: new functions could arise by recombining and regulating encapsulated core processes, the AI analogue of evolution's reuse of conserved developmental programs.
  • Research effort would shift from designing high-level integration mechanisms on top of neural networks to redesigning the low-level computational units themselves.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: The argument implies a testable scaling prediction—systems with genuine local variation-selection should degrade sublinearly as the number of sequentially learned tasks grows, whereas monolithic networks show a sharp drop; existing continual-learning benchmarks could be re-analyzed for this signature.
  • Inference: The analogy also suggests that gradient descent is not abolished in the proposed paradigm but repositioned as one selective force among many, acting on locally generated variants rather than as a universal global signal.
  • Inference: If the thesis is correct, the neuro-symbolic debate is reframed: symbolic integration would emerge from the multi-level structure of the learned representation itself, rather than from fusing a neural module with a symbolic one.
  • Inference: A cheap falsification opportunity would be to test whether the early demonstrations the paper cites improve as the size of the unit-level variation pool increases; the paper does not report such scaling data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is a conceptual argument that the current deep-learning paradigm—overparameterized neural networks trained by gradient descent—suffers from two fundamental limitations: destructive adaptation (Section 2.1) and incomprehensibility/non-engineerability (Section 2.2). It draws an analogy between these limitations and those of the Modern Synthesis in 20th-century evolutionary biology, which omitted developmental mechanisms (Section 3.1). The authors review evolutionary developmental biology (EDB) concepts: gene regulatory networks, process-encoding genomes, exploratory processes, weak linkage, and facilitated variation (Sections 3.2–3.4). They propose that translating these into AI design principles—encapsulation and core processes, higher-level regulatory processes, and growth with local variation and selection—could overcome the identified limitations, provided these are implemented at low-level computational units rather than imposed top-down (Sections 4.1–4.2). The paper also argues that structured multi-level representations would enable integration with symbolic planning and active information seeking (Section 4.3), and an appendix argues that intelligence itself is underpinned by evolutionary mechanisms. The feasibility of the proposed principles is supported mainly by the authors' own preprints [53–56], with no independent implementations or experiments in this paper.

Significance. If the central thesis were established, it would provide a unifying design philosophy for continual learning, model comprehensibility, and neuro-symbolic integration, with broad implications for AI architecture research. The paper's strengths are its careful and well-referenced synthesis of EDB literature, its clear articulation of three concrete design principles, and its explicit distinction between the proposed approach and prior genome-based evolutionary computation (Section 4.2, footnote 8). It is also honest about open issues, such as the size problems in [55,56]. However, the paper does not deliver a formal derivation, a worked implementation, or an empirical evaluation; its central claims are programmatic. The biological analogy is suggestive, but the transferability of EDB principles to engineered computational systems remains an assumption. Consequently, the paper is best read as a position piece that maps a research program rather than as a demonstration of a new paradigm.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2] Section 4.2 states that "without developmental principles ... it becomes impossible to achieve the desired structural properties adaptively and across all levels of organization." This is a load-bearing necessity claim, but no formal argument or empirical evidence is provided to rule out alternative mechanisms that achieve hierarchical, modular, comprehensible structure through other means. The paper should either supply a derivation of this impossibility (e.g., a complexity-theoretic or optimization-theoretic argument) or weaken the claim to a conjecture. As written, the conclusion that the proposed paradigm "effectively overcomes the limitations of existing systems as a whole" exceeds what the manuscript demonstrates.
  2. [Sections 4.1 and 4.2] Sections 4.1 and 4.2 assume that the adaptive benefits of encapsulation, weak linkage, and local variation-selection in biological organisms carry over to artificial computational units. The biological examples in Sections 3.2–3.4 show that these properties facilitate evolvability in organisms shaped by natural selection over long timescales, but artificial systems are designed and optimized under different constraints. In particular, the paper does not analyze whether local variation-selection at the level of interacting computational units can avoid task interference; local search over one unit can still create pleiotropic effects through downstream connections, potentially reintroducing the destructive adaptation the paradigm is meant to solve. The authors should provide a concrete model or at least a detailed failure-mode analysis showing when local variation preserves old knowledge.
  3. [Section 4.2, references [53–56]] The only cited implementations of the proposed principles are the authors' own preprints [53–56], and Section 4.2 concedes that [55,56] "run into some size issues." For a paper whose central claim is that a new paradigm can overcome current limitations, reliance on unreplicated, non-archival self-citations is insufficient. The authors should either include enough detail about these systems in the present paper for a reader to assess them, or present new evidence, independent replication, or clearly label Section 4.2's feasibility statements as expectations rather than established results.
  4. [Sections 2.1 and 3.3] Section 2.1 and Section 3.3 characterize current neural networks as having "no mechanism for regenerating variation atop existing structures" and as incapable of generating new variation locally. This is overstated: methods such as stochastic depth, modular/policy-sketch architectures, progressive networks, active dendrite models, and Bayesian continual-learning approaches already implement forms of local or structural variation, some cited by the authors themselves ([39,89,152,162] in Section 2). Even if these methods are partial or impose structure top-down, the dichotomy between "no local variation" and "full low-level developmental mechanisms" is too stark; the argument would be stronger if it identified the precise missing property (e.g., self-organized, bottom-up generation of structure) rather than denying the existence of local variation altogether.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1, point (2)] The word "procees" should be "proceed".
  2. [Section 3.3] The word "bluprint" should be "blueprint".
  3. [References] The reference list contains formatting inconsistencies, including duplicate [18] entries and many items marked "[n. d.]" without access dates; these should be normalized before publication.
  4. [Section 3.1] Section 3.1 states the exponential increase in phenotypic complexity "see also Table 1 in [64]"; since the table is not reproduced, the reader cannot verify the quantitative claim from the manuscript alone.
  5. [Section 4.2] The phrase "we can be sure of feasibility" is too strong given the immediately following caveat about size issues in [55,56]; the wording should be softened.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's central thesis is a conceptual translation of external evolutionary-developmental biology results; its self-citations are feasibility demonstrations, not derivation premises.

full rationale

The paper makes no quantitative derivation; it argues by analogy that principles from EDB (encapsulation, weak linkage, regulatory control, local variation-selection) should inform AI design. The conceptual content is drawn from external biology sources (e.g., Gerhart and Kirschner [64,117]; West-Eberhard [182]), not from the authors' own results. The authors' self-citations [52–56] appear only where concrete demonstrations are offered, e.g., 'Early works in this direction [53–56] have demonstrated promising results by leveraging developmental principles' (Section 4.2), and the introduction explicitly frames these as optional examples: 'references to and discussions of existing works that apply these principles are provided in Section 4 for readers seeking concrete examples' (Section 1). Citing one's own demonstrations as evidence of feasibility does not make the central claim equivalent to its inputs; removing those citations would weaken the empirical support but would not collapse the argument. The strong necessity claim ('Without developmental principles ... it becomes impossible...', Section 4.2) is an unsupported assertion about transferability, which is a correctness/evidence concern, not a circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation is reused as its own conclusion, so no circular step can be substantiated under the required evidentiary standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on domain assumptions drawn from evolutionary biology and from a particular diagnosis of neural networks. No free parameters are fitted to data. The paper does not introduce new entities beyond the biological concepts it imports.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Modern Synthesis underrepresents variation generation and phenotypic structure, and EDB fills this gap accurately.
    The paper's biological foundation assumes this historical narrative (Section 3.1-3.2), which is broadly accepted but not universally quantified.
  • ad hoc to paper The principles of EDB, such as encapsulation, regulatory control, local variation-selection, and weak linkage, are transferable to artificial learning systems without loss of their adaptive properties.
    This transferability is the core premise of Section 4, stated as an intuition and not demonstrated in this paper.
  • domain assumption Neural networks are purely flat, non-modular, and lack any mechanism for local variation generation or structural growth.
    This is assumed throughout Sections 2 and 3.3, but existing methods such as stochastic depth, modular networks, and some neuroevolution approaches weaken this premise.
  • domain assumption Natural intelligence is itself underpinned by Darwinian variation-selection mechanisms.
    The Appendix argues this from exploratory processes in neural development, but the connection to high-level cognition remains speculative, as the paper itself acknowledges.
  • domain assumption Phenotypic complexity has increased exponentially over evolutionary history, and this requires a special explanation beyond the Modern Synthesis.
    Invoked in Section 3.1 and used to motivate EDB; the empirical claim is contested in its strong exponential form.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Parallels Between Evolutionary Theory and the State of AI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DIJPCQHJ

@misc{pith2026250523774,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Parallels Between Evolutionary Theory and the State of AI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DIJPCQHJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23774}
}
read the original abstract

This article critically examines the foundational principles of contemporary AI methods, exploring the limitations that hinder its potential. We draw parallels between the modern AI landscape and the 20th-century Modern Synthesis in evolutionary biology, and highlight how advancements in evolutionary theory that augmented the Modern Synthesis, particularly those of Evolutionary Developmental Biology, offer insights that can inform a new design paradigm for AI. By synthesizing findings across AI and evolutionary theory, we propose a pathway to overcome existing limitations, enabling AI to achieve its aspirational goals.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

197 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    [n. d.]. Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Manufacturing Market Report By 2034 — precedenceresearch.com. https://www.precedenceresearch.com/artificial- intelligence-in-manufacturing-market. [Accessed 20-02-2025]

    2025

  2. [2]

    [n. d.]. It’s time to admit that genes are not the blueprint for life — nature.com https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00327. [Accessed 21-02-2025]

    2025

  3. [3]

    [n. d.]. Large Language Model Statistics And Numbers (2025) - Springs — springsapps.com. https://springsapps.com/knowledge/large-language-model- statistics-and-numbers-2024. [Accessed 20-02-2025]

    2025

  4. [4]

    [n. d.]. The Developing Brain — ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/books/NBK225562/. [Accessed 21-02-2025]

    2025

  5. [5]

    Thomas Adair and Jean-Pierre Montani. 2010. Angiogenesis. (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    Paul Adams. 1998. Hebb and darwin. Journal of theoretical Biology 195, 4 (1998), 419–438

    1998

  7. [7]

    Sergio Antonio Alcalá-Corona, Santiago Sandoval-Motta, Jesus Espinal En- riquez, and Enrique Hernandez-Lemus. 2021. Modularity in biological networks. Frontiers in Genetics 12 (2021), 701331

    2021

  8. [8]

    Michael L Anderson. 2010. Neural reuse: A fundamental organizational principle of the brain. Behavioral and brain sciences 33, 4 (2010), 245–266

    2010

Show all 197 references
  1. [9]

    Jacob Andreas, Dan Klein, and Sergey Levine. 2017. Modular multitask rein- forcement learning with policy sketches. In International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 166–175

    2017

  2. [10]

    Prepared

    Srdjan D Antic, Michael Hines, and William W Lytton. 2018. Embedded ensemble encoding hypothesis: The role of the “Prepared” cell. Journal of neuroscience research 96, 9 (2018), 1543–1559

    2018

  3. [11]

    Toru Baji. 2017. GPU: the biggest key processor for AI and parallel processing. In Photomask Japan 2017: XXIV Symposium on Photomask and Next-Generation Lithography Mask Technology, Vol. 10454. SPIE, 24–29

    2017

  4. [12]

    Bram Bakker, Jürgen Schmidhuber, et al . 2004. Hierarchical reinforcement learning based on subgoal discovery and subpolicy specialization. In Proc. of the 8-th Conf. on Intelligent Autonomous Systems . Citeseer, 438–445

    2004

  5. [13]

    Malyaban Bal and Abhronil Sengupta. 2024. Rethinking spiking neural networks as state space models. arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv–2406

    2024

  6. [14]

    Daniel Barthélémy. 1991. Levels of organization and repetition phenomena in seed plants. Acta Biotheoretica 39, 3-4 (1991), 309–323

    1991

  7. [15]

    Douglas J Bayley, Roy J Hartfield Jr, John E Burkhalter, and Rhonald M Jenkins

  8. [16]

    Jean-Pierre Bourgeois, Pawel J Jastreboff, and Pasko Rakic. 1989. Synaptoge- nesis in visual cortex of normal and preterm monkeys: evidence for intrinsic regulation of synaptic overproduction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 86, 11 (1989), 4297–4301

    1989

  9. [17]

    Darren J Burgess. 2016. Sonic snakes and regulation of limb formation. Nature Reviews Genetics 17, 12 (2016), 715–715

    2016

  10. [18]

    Frank Macfarlane Burnet. 1957. A modification of Jerne’s theory of antibody production using the concept of clonal selection. (1957)

    1957

  11. [19]

    Pietro Buzzega, Matteo Boschini, Angelo Porrello, Davide Abati, and Simone Calderara. 2020. Dark experience for general continual learning: a strong, simple baseline. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 15920–15930

    2020

  12. [20]

    Pietro Buzzega, Matteo Boschini, Angelo Porrello, and Simone Calderara. 2021. Rethinking experience replay: a bag of tricks for continual learning. In 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR) . IEEE, 2180–2187

    2021

  13. [21]

    William H Calvin. 1987. The brain as a Darwin machine. Nature 330, 6143 (1987), 33–34

    1987

  14. [22]

    William H Calvin. 1998. The cerebral code: Thinking a thought in the mosaics of the mind. Mit Press

    1998

  15. [23]

    S.B. Carroll. 2005. Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom . W.W. Norton & Company. https: //books.google.ch/books?id=CnnGKjzw3xMC

    2005

  16. [24]

    Sean B Carroll. 1995. Homeotic genes and the evolution of arthropods and chordates. Nature 376, 6540 (1995), 479–485

    1995

  17. [25]

    Junyi Chai, Hao Zeng, Anming Li, and Eric WT Ngai. 2021. Deep learning in computer vision: A critical review of emerging techniques and application scenarios. Machine Learning with Applications 6 (2021), 100134

    2021

  18. [26]

    Jean-Pierre Changeux, Philippe Courrège, and Antoine Danchin. 1973. A theory of the epigenesis of neuronal networks by selective stabilization of synapses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 70, 10 (1973), 2974–2978

    1973

  19. [27]

    Gal Chechik, Isaac Meilijson, and Eytan Ruppin. 1998. Synaptic pruning in development: a computational account. Neural computation 10, 7 (1998), 1759– 1777

    1998

  20. [28]

    Haruna Chiroma, Ahmad Shukri Mohd Noor, Sameem Abdulkareem, Adamu I Abubakar, Arief Hermawan, Hongwu Qin, Mukhtar Fatihu Hamza, and Tu- tut Herawan. 2017. Neural networks optimization through genetic algorithm searches: a review. Appl. Math. Inf. Sci 11, 6 (2017), 1543–1564

    2017

  21. [29]

    Bodo Christ and Beate Brand-Saberi. 2002. Limb muscle development. Interna- tional Journal of Developmental Biology 46, 7 (2002), 905–914

    2002

  22. [30]

    Bertrand S Clarke and Jay E Mittenthal. 1992. Modularity and reliability in the organization of organisms. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 54, 1 (1992), 1–20

    1992

  23. [31]

    Jeff Clune. 2019. AI-GAs: AI-generating algorithms, an alternate paradigm for producing general artificial intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10985 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Jeff Clune, Jean-Baptiste Mouret, and Hod Lipson. 2013. The evolutionary origins of modularity. Proceedings of the Royal Society b: Biological sciences 280, 1755 (2013), 20122863

    2013

  25. [33]

    Cédric Colas, Pierre Fournier, Mohamed Chetouani, Olivier Sigaud, and Pierre- Yves Oudeyer. 2019. Curious: intrinsically motivated modular multi-goal re- inforcement learning. In International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 1331–1340

    2019

  26. [34]

    Cédric Colas, Tristan Karch, Olivier Sigaud, and Pierre-Yves Oudeyer. 2022. Autotelic agents with intrinsically motivated goal-conditioned reinforcement learning: a short survey. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 74 (2022), 1159–1199

    2022

  27. [35]

    Brandon C Colelough and William Regli. 2025. Neuro-Symbolic AI in 2024: A Systematic Review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05435 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Shelley D Copley. 2020. Evolution of new enzymes by gene duplication and divergence. The FEBS journal 287, 7 (2020), 1262–1283

    2020

  29. [37]

    George Cybenko. 1989. Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal func- tion. Mathematics of control, signals and systems 2, 4 (1989), 303–314

    1989

  30. [38]

    Dániel Czégel, István Zachar, and Eörs Szathmáry. 2019. Multilevel selection as Bayesian inference, major transitions in individuality as structure learning. Royal Society open science 6, 8 (2019), 190202

    2019

  31. [39]

    Sankarshan Damle, Satya Lokam, and Navin Goyal. [n. d.]. How do Active Dendrite Networks Mitigate Catastrophic Forgetting?. In The First Workshop on NeuroAI@ NeurIPS2024

  32. [40]

    John Damuth and I Lorraine Heisler. 1988. Alternative formulations of multilevel selection. Biology and Philosophy 3 (1988), 407–430

    1988

  33. [41]

    Charles Darwin. 1964. On the origin of species: A facsimile of the first edition . Harvard University Press

    1964

  34. [42]

    Eric H Davidson. 2010. The regulatory genome: gene regulatory networks in development and evolution. Elsevier

    2010

  35. [43]

    Lídio Mauro Lima de Campos, Roberto Célio Limao de Oliveira, and Mauro Roisenberg. 2015. Evolving artificial neural networks through l-system and evolutionary computation. In 2015 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). IEEE, 1–9

    2015

  36. [44]

    Harold P de Vladar and Eörs Szathmáry. 2015. Neuronal boost to evolutionary dynamics. Interface focus 5, 6 (2015), 20150074

    2015

  37. [45]

    Coline Devin, Abhishek Gupta, Trevor Darrell, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine

  38. [46]

    Olga Dolgova and Oscar Lao. 2018. Medicine in the Light of Evolution. , 3 pages

    2018

  39. [47]

    Simon Du and Jason Lee. 2018. On the power of over-parametrization in neural networks with quadratic activation. In International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 1329–1338

    2018

  40. [48]

    Yanqing Duan, John S Edwards, and Yogesh K Dwivedi. 2019. Artificial intel- ligence for decision making in the era of Big Data–evolution, challenges and research agenda. International journal of information management 48 (2019), 63–71

    2019

  41. [49]

    Gerald M. Edelman. 1987. Neural Darwinism : the theory of neuronal group selection. Basic Books. http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/9780465049349

    1987

  42. [50]

    Gerald M Edelman. 1993. Neural Darwinism: selection and reentrant signaling in higher brain function. Neuron 10, 2 (1993), 115–125

    1993

  43. [51]

    Chad M Eliason, James V Proffitt, and Julia A Clarke. 2023. Early diversification of avian limb morphology and the role of modularity in the locomotor evolution of crown birds. Evolution 77, 2 (2023), 342–354

    2023

  44. [52]

    Zeki Doruk Erden and Boi Faltings. 2024. Directed Structural Adaptation to Overcome Statistical Conflicts and Enable Continual Learning. In AAAI 2024 (Deployable AI Workshop)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Zeki Doruk Erden and Boi Faltings. 2024. Modelleyen: Continual Learning and Planning via Structured Modelling of Environment Dynamics. In Brain Informatics: 17th International Conference, BI 2024, Bangkok, Thailand, December 13–15, 2024, Proceedings, Sirawaj Itthipuripat, Gior...

    2024

  46. [54]

    Zeki Doruk Erden and Boi Faltings. 2025. Agential AI for Integrated Continual Learning, Deliberative Behavior, and Comprehensible Models. In AAMAS 2025 Adaptive and Learning Agents Workshop (To appear)

    2025

  47. [55]

    Zeki Doruk Erden and Boi Faltings. 2025. Agential AI for Integrated Continual Learning, Deliberative Behavior, and Comprehensible Models (Extended Ab- stract). In Proceedings of 24th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS) . To appear

    2025

  48. [56]

    Zeki Doruk Erden and Boi Faltings. 2025. Continually Learning Struc- tured Visual Representations via Network Refinement with Rerelation. arXiv:2502.13935 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.13935

    2025

  49. [57]

    Anna Fedor, István Zachar, András Szilágyi, Michael Öllinger, Harold P De Vladar, and Eörs Szathmáry. 2017. Cognitive architecture with evolutionary dynamics solves insight problem. Frontiers in psychology 8 (2017), 427

    2017

  50. [58]

    Chrisantha Fernando, Richard Goldstein, and Eörs Szathmáry. 2010. The neu- ronal replicator hypothesis. Neural computation 22, 11 (2010), 2809–2857

    2010

  51. [59]

    Chrisantha Fernando, Eörs Szathmáry, and Phil Husbands. 2012. Selectionist and evolutionary approaches to brain function: a critical appraisal. Frontiers in computational neuroscience 6 (2012), 24

    2012

  52. [60]

    Napoleone Ferrara, Hans-Peter Gerber, and Jennifer LeCouter. 2003. The biology of VEGF and its receptors. Nature medicine 9, 6 (2003), 669–676

    2003

  53. [61]

    Alexandre Galashov, Jovana Mitrovic, Dhruva Tirumala, Yee Whye Teh, Timothy Nguyen, Arslan Chaudhry, and Razvan Pascanu. 2023. Continually learning representations at scale. In Conference on Lifelong Learning Agents . PMLR, 534– 547

    2023

  54. [62]

    A. Gardner. 2015. The genetical theory of multilevel selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 28, 2 (2015), 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12566 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jeb.12566

    2015 doi

  55. [63]

    Jason Gauci and Kenneth O Stanley. 2010. Indirect encoding of neural networks for scalable go. In International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature. Springer, 354–363

    2010

  56. [64]

    John Gerhart and Marc Kirschner. 2007. The theory of facilitated variation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, suppl_1 (2007), 8582–8589

    2007

  57. [65]

    Malik Ghallab, Dana Nau, and Paolo Traverso. 2016. Automated planning and acting. Cambridge University Press

    2016

  58. [66]

    Scott F. Gilbert. 2000. Developmental Biology (6th ed.). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10128/ A New Evolutionary Synthesis

    2000

  59. [67]

    J Tiago Gonçalves, Cooper W Bloyd, Matthew Shtrahman, Stephen T Johnston, Simon T Schafer, Sarah L Parylak, Thanh Tran, Tina Chang, and Fred H Gage

  60. [68]

    IM Gould. 2009. Antibiotic resistance: the perfect storm. International journal of antimicrobial agents 34 (2009), S2–S5

    2009

  61. [69]

    Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge. 1977. Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology 3, 2 (1977), 115–151

    1977

  62. [70]

    Anirudh Goyal, Alex Lamb, Phanideep Gampa, Philippe Beaudoin, Sergey Levine, Charles Blundell, Yoshua Bengio, and Michael Mozer. 2020. Object files and schemata: Factorizing declarative and procedural knowledge in dy- namical systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.16225 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Anirudh Goyal, Shagun Sodhani, Jonathan Binas, Xue Bin Peng, Sergey Levine, and Yoshua Bengio. 2019. Reinforcement learning with competitive ensembles of information-constrained primitives. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.10667 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Marjorie Grene. 1987. Hierarchies in biology. American Scientist 75, 5 (1987), 504–510

    1987

  65. [73]

    Richard K Grosberg and Richard R Strathmann. 2007. The evolution of multi- cellularity: a minor major transition? Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 38, 1 (2007), 621–654

    2007

  66. [74]

    Frederic Gruau. 1994. Automatic definition of modular neural networks. Adap- tive behavior 3, 2 (1994), 151–183

    1994

  67. [75]

    Frederic Gruau, Darrell Whitley, and Larry Pyeatt. 1996. A comparison between cellular encoding and direct encoding for genetic neural networks. InProceedings of the 1st annual conference on genetic programming . 81–89

    1996

  68. [76]

    Yan Gu, Stephen Janoschka, and Shaoyu Ge. 2013. Neurogenesis and hippocam- pal plasticity in adult brain. Neurogenesis and neural plasticity (2013), 31–48

    2013

  69. [77]

    Raia Hadsell, Dushyant Rao, Andrei A Rusu, and Razvan Pascanu. 2020. Em- bracing change: Continual learning in deep neural networks. Trends in cognitive sciences 24, 12 (2020), 1028–1040

    2020

  70. [78]

    Georg Halder, Patrick Callaerts, and Walter J Gehring. 1995. Induction of ectopic eyes by targeted expression of the eyeless gene in Drosophila. Science 267, 5205 (1995), 1788–1792

    1995

  71. [79]

    Sabine Hansen, Sandeep Krishna, Szabolcs Semsey, and Sine Lo Svenningsen

  72. [80]

    Jeff Hawkins and Subutai Ahmad. 2016. Why neurons have thousands of synapses, a theory of sequence memory in neocortex. Frontiers in neural circuits 10 (2016), 23

    2016

  73. [81]

    Francis Heylighen. 2000. Evolutionary transitions: how do levels of complexity emerge? COMPLEXITY-NEW YORK- 6, 1 (2000), 53–57

    2000

  74. [82]

    Peter Robin Hiesinger. 2021. The self-assembling brain: how neural networks grow smarter. (2021)

    2021

  75. [83]

    Thomas W Holstein. 2012. The evolution of the Wnt pathway. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 4, 7 (2012), a007922

    2012

  76. [84]

    Peter R Huttenlocher. 2013. Synaptogenesis, synapse elimination, and neural plasticity in human cerebral cortex. InThreats to optimal development. Routledge, 35–54

    2013

  77. [85]

    Julian Huxley. 1942. Evolution: The Modern Synthesis

    1942

  78. [86]

    Donald E Ingber. 2003. Tensegrity I. Cell structure and hierarchical systems biology. Journal of cell science 116, 7 (2003), 1157–1173

    2003

  79. [87]

    GM Innocenti and L Tettoni. 1997. Exuberant growth, specificity, and selection in the differentiation of cortical axons. In Normal and abnormal development of the cortex. Springer, 99–120

    1997

  80. [88]

    Iaroslav Ispolatov, Martin Ackermann, and Michael Doebeli. 2012. Division of labour and the evolution of multicellularity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279, 1734 (2012), 1768–1776

    2012

  81. [89]

    Abhiram Iyer, Karan Grewal, Akash Velu, Lucas Oliveira Souza, Jeremy Forest, and Subutai Ahmad. 2022. Avoiding catastrophe: Active dendrites enable multi- task learning in dynamic environments. Frontiers in neurorobotics 16 (2022), 846219

    2022

  82. [90]

    Maxwell J Jacobson, Case Q Wright, Nan Jiang, Gustavo Rodriguez-Rivera, and Yexiang Xue. 2022. Task Detection in Continual Learning via Familiarity Autoen- coders. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC). IEEE, 1–8

    2022

  83. [91]

    Sergio Jiménez, Tomás De La Rosa, Susana Fernández, Fernando Fernández, and Daniel Borrajo. 2012. A review of machine learning for automated planning. The Knowledge Engineering Review 27, 4 (2012), 433–467

    2012

  84. [92]

    Richard Johnston, Bronya J.B

    H. Richard Johnston, Bronya J.B. Keats, and Stephanie L. Sherman. 2019. 12 - Population Genetics. In Emery and Rimoin’s Principles and Practice of Medical Genetics and Genomics (Seventh Edition) (seventh edition ed.), Reed E. Pyeritz, Bruce R. Korf, and Wayne W. Grody (Eds.). ...

    2019 doi

  85. [93]

    William A Johnston and Veronica J Dark. 1986. Selective attention. Annual review of psychology (1986)

    1986

  86. [94]

    Claus Kadelka, Matthew Wheeler, Alan Veliz-Cuba, David Murrugarra, and Reinhard Laubenbacher. 2023. Modularity of biological systems: a link between structure and function. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 20, 207 (2023), 20230505

    2023

  87. [95]

    Marcus Kaiser, Claus C Hilgetag, and Arjen Van Ooyen. 2009. A simple rule for axon outgrowth and synaptic competition generates realistic connection lengths and filling fractions. Cerebral cortex 19, 12 (2009), 3001–3010

    2009

  88. [96]

    Gabrielle Kardon, Brian D Harfe, and Clifford J Tabin. 2003. A Tcf4-positive mesodermal population provides a prepattern for vertebrate limb muscle pat- terning. Developmental cell 5, 6 (2003), 937–944

    2003

  89. [97]

    Abdullah Ayub Khan, Asif Ali Laghari, and Shafique Ahmed Awan. 2021. Ma- chine learning in computer vision: a review. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Scalable Information Systems 8, 32 (2021), e4–e4

    2021

  90. [98]

    Fatima Hameed Khan, Muhammad Adeel Pasha, and Shahid Masud. 2021. Ad- vancements in microprocessor architecture for ubiquitous AI—An overview on history, evolution, and upcoming challenges in AI implementation. Microma- chines 12, 6 (2021), 665

    2021

  91. [99]

    James Kirkpatrick, Razvan Pascanu, Neil Rabinowitz, Joel Veness, Guillaume Desjardins, Andrei A Rusu, Kieran Milan, John Quan, Tiago Ramalho, Agnieszka Grabska-Barwinska, et al. 2017. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks. Proceedings of the national academy of...

    2017

  92. [100]

    Eugene V Koonin. 2007. The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution. Biology Direct 2 (2007), 1–17

    2007

  93. [101]

    Ray Kurzweil. 2006. The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology . Penguin (Non-Classics)

    2006

  94. [102]

    Kevin N Laland, Tobias Uller, Marcus W Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee. 2015. The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions. Proceedings of the royal society B: biological sciences 282, 18...

    2015

  95. [103]

    AS LaMantia and P Rakic. 1990. Axon overproduction and elimination in the corpus callosum of the developing rhesus monkey. Journal of Neuroscience 10, 7 (1990), 2156–2175

    1990

  96. [104]

    Trevor D Lamb, Shaun P Collin, and Edward N Pugh. 2007. Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 8, 12 (2007), 960–976

    2007

  97. [105]

    Trevor D Lamb, Edward N Pugh, and Shaun P Collin. 2008. The origin of the vertebrate eye. Evolution: Education and Outreach 1 (2008), 415–426

    2008

  98. [106]

    Yann LeCun. 2022. A path towards autonomous machine intelligence version 0.9. 2, 2022-06-27. Open Review 62, 1 (2022)

    2022

  99. [107]

    Soochan Lee, Junsoo Ha, Dongsu Zhang, and Gunhee Kim. 2020. A neural dirichlet process mixture model for task-free continual learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.00689 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Derek Lemons and William McGinnis. 2006. Genomic evolution of Hox gene clusters. Science 313, 5795 (2006), 1918–1922

    2006

  101. [109]

    Michael Levine and Eric H Davidson. 2005. Gene regulatory networks for development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102, 14 (2005), 4936–4942

    2005

  102. [110]

    Alexander C Li, Carlos Florensa, Ignasi Clavera, and Pieter Abbeel. 2019. Sub- policy adaptation for hierarchical reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.05862 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Pan P Li and H Benjamin Peng. 2012. Regulation of axonal growth and neuro- muscular junction formation by neuronal phosphatase and tensin homologue signaling. Molecular biology of the cell 23, 20 (2012), 4109–4117

    2012

  104. [112]

    Yuxi Li. 2017. Deep reinforcement learning: An overview. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.07274 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Minghuan Liu, Menghui Zhu, and Weinan Zhang. 2022. Goal-conditioned reinforcement learning: Problems and solutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08299 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Yonatan Loewenstein. 2010. Synaptic theory of replicator-like melioration. Frontiers in computational neuroscience 4 (2010), 1722

    2010

  107. [115]

    Dirk M Lorenz, Alice Jeng, and Michael W Deem. 2011. The emergence of modularity in biological systems. Physics of life reviews 8, 2 (2011), 129–160

    2011

  108. [116]

    SAJID Malik. 2014. Polydactyly: phenotypes, genetics and classification.Clinical Genetics 85, 3 (2014), 203–212

    2014

  109. [117]

    Kirschner Marc. 2005. The plausibility of life . Yale University Press

    2005

  110. [118]

    Gary Marcus. 2018. Deep learning: A critical appraisal. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1801.00631 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Nicolas Y Masse, Gregory D Grant, and David J Freedman. 2018. Alleviating cat- astrophic forgetting using context-dependent gating and synaptic stabilization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 44 (2018), E10467–E10475

    2018

  112. [120]

    Mayer and Catherine L

    Gregory C. Mayer and Catherine L. Craig. 2013. Evolution, Theory of. In Encyclopedia of Biodiversity (Second Edition) (second edition ed.), Simon A Levin (Ed.). Academic Press, Waltham, 392–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12- 384719-5.00048-4

    2013 doi

  113. [121]

    Sahisnu Mazumder, Bing Liu, Shuai Wang, Yingxuan Zhu, Xiaotian Yin, Lifeng Liu, and Jian Li. 2022. Knowledge-guided exploration in deep reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.15670 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  114. [122]

    Kristina McElheran, J Frank Li, Erik Brynjolfsson, Zachary Kroff, Emin Dinlersoz, Lucia Foster, and Nikolas Zolas. 2024. AI adoption in America: Who, what, and where. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 33, 2 (2024), 375–415

    2024

  115. [123]

    Troy McMahon, Aravind Sivaramakrishnan, Edgar Granados, Kostas E Bekris, et al. 2022. A survey on the integration of machine learning with sampling-based motion planning. Foundations and Trends® in Robotics 9, 4 (2022), 266–327

    2022

  116. [124]

    Clyde Meli, Vitezslav Nezval, Zuzana Kominkova Oplatkova, Victor Buttigieg, and Anthony Spiteri Staines. 2021. A study of direct and indirect encoding in phenotype-genotype relationships. In Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing: 20th International Conference, ICAISC 2021...

    2021

  117. [125]

    Henok Mengistu, Joost Huizinga, Jean-Baptiste Mouret, and Jeff Clune. 2016. The evolutionary origins of hierarchy. PLoS computational biology 12, 6 (2016), e1004829

    2016

  118. [126]

    Bonan Min, Hayley Ross, Elior Sulem, Amir Pouran Ben Veyseh, Thien Huu Nguyen, Oscar Sainz, Eneko Agirre, Ilana Heintz, and Dan Roth. 2023. Recent advances in natural language processing via large pre-trained language models: A survey. Comput. Surveys 56, 2 (2023), 1–40

    2023

  119. [127]

    Alessandro Minelli. 2000. Limbs and tail as evolutionarily diverging duplicates of the main body axis. Evolution & development 2, 3 (2000), 157–165

    2000

  120. [128]

    Argaman Mordoch, Brendan Juba, and Roni Stern. 2023. Learning safe numeric action models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 37. 12079–12086

    2023

  121. [129]

    Todd M Mowery and Preston E Garraghty. 2023. Adult neuroplasticity em- ploys developmental mechanisms. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 16 (2023), 1086680

    2023

  122. [130]

    Elias Najarro, Shyam Sudhakaran, and Sebastian Risi. 2023. Towards self- assembling artificial neural networks through neural developmental programs. In Artificial Life Conference Proceedings 35 , Vol. 2023. MIT Press One Rogers Street, Cambridge, MA 02142-1209, USA journals-i...

    2023

  123. [131]

    Muhammad Muzammal Naseer, Kanchana Ranasinghe, Salman H Khan, Mu- nawar Hayat, Fahad Shahbaz Khan, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. 2021. Intriguing properties of vision transformers. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021), 23296–23308

    2021

  124. [132]

    P Russel Norvig and S Artificial Intelligence. 2002. A modern approach. Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Rani, M., Nayak, R., & Vyas, OP (2015). An ontology-based adaptive personalized e-learning system, assisted by software agents on cloud storage. Knowledge-Based S...

    2015

  125. [133]

    Samir Okasha. 2005. Multilevel Selection and the Major Transitions in Evolution. Philosophy of Science 72, 5 (2005), 1013–1025. https://doi.org/10.1086/508102

    2005 doi

  126. [134]

    Isabelle Olivieri, Jeanne Tonnabel, Ophélie Ronce, and Agnès Mignot. 2016. Why evolution matters for species conservation: perspectives from three case studies of plant metapopulations. Evolutionary Applications 9, 1 (2016), 196–211

    2016

  127. [135]

    Michael W Otte. 2015. A survey of machine learning approaches to robotic path-planning. University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder (2015)

    2015

  128. [136]

    Annalise B Paaby and Matthew V Rockman. 2013. The many faces of pleiotropy. Trends in genetics 29, 2 (2013), 66–73

    2013

  129. [137]

    Ning Pan. 2014. Exploring the significance of structural hierarchy in material systems—A review. Applied Physics Reviews 1, 2 (2014)

    2014

  130. [138]

    Thomas Parr, Giovanni Pezzulo, and Karl J Friston. 2022. Active inference: the free energy principle in mind, brain, and behavior . MIT Press

    2022

  131. [139]

    Shubham Pateria, Budhitama Subagdja, Ah-hwee Tan, and Chai Quek. 2021. Hierarchical reinforcement learning: A comprehensive survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 54, 5 (2021), 1–35

    2021

  132. [140]

    Sruti Patoori, Samantha M Barnada, Christopher Large, John I Murray, and Marco Trizzino. 2022. Young transposable elements rewired gene regulatory networks in human and chimpanzee hippocampal intermediate progenitors. Development 149, 19 (2022), dev200413

    2022

  133. [141]

    Zdravko Petanjek, Ivan Banovac, Dora Sedmak, and Ana Hladnik. 2023. Den- dritic spines: synaptogenesis and synaptic pruning for the developmental orga- nization of brain circuits. In Dendritic spines: structure, function, and plasticity . Springer, 143–221

    2023

  134. [142]

    Jill C Preston, Lena C Hileman, and Pilar Cubas. 2011. Reduce, reuse, and recycle: developmental evolution of trait diversification. American Journal of Botany 98, 3 (2011), 397–403

    2011

  135. [143]

    Trevor Price and Tom Langen. 1992. Evolution of correlated characters. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 7, 9 (1992), 307–310

    1992

  136. [144]

    Jan M Provis, Diana Van Driel, Frank A Billson, and Peter Russell. 1985. Hu- man fetal optic nerve: overproduction and elimination of retinal axons during development. Journal of Comparative Neurology 238, 1 (1985), 92–100

    1985

  137. [145]

    Klaus Rajewsky. 1996. Clonal selection and learning in the antibody system. Nature 381, 6585 (1996), 751–758

    1996

  138. [146]

    Pasko Rakic, Jean-Pierre Bourgeois, Maryellen F Eckenhoff, Nada Zecevic, and Patricia S Goldman-Rakic. 1986. Concurrent overproduction of synapses in diverse regions of the primate cerebral cortex.Science 232, 4747 (1986), 232–235

    1986

  139. [147]

    Pasko Rakic and Katharine P Riley. 1983. Overproduction and elimination of retinal axons in the fetal rhesus monkey. Science 219, 4591 (1983), 1441–1444

    1983

  140. [148]

    Mark Rebeiz and Miltos Tsiantis. 2017. Enhancer evolution and the origins of morphological novelty. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 45 (2017), 115–123

    2017

  141. [149]

    David Rolnick, Arun Ahuja, Jonathan Schwarz, Timothy Lillicrap, and Gregory Wayne. 2019. Experience replay for continual learning. Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019)

    2019

  142. [150]

    Jingqing Ruan, Yihong Chen, Bin Zhang, Zhiwei Xu, Tianpeng Bao, Hangyu Mao, Ziyue Li, Xingyu Zeng, Rui Zhao, et al . 2023. Tptu: Task planning and tool usage of large language model-based ai agents. In NeurIPS 2023 Foundation Models for Decision Making Workshop

    2023

  143. [151]

    Dale A Russell. 1983. Exponential evolution: implications for intelligent ex- traterrestrial life. Advances in Space Research 3, 9 (1983), 95–103

    1983

  144. [152]

    Andrei A Rusu, Neil C Rabinowitz, Guillaume Desjardins, Hubert Soyer, James Kirkpatrick, Koray Kavukcuoglu, Razvan Pascanu, and Raia Hadsell. 2016. Pro- gressive neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.04671 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  145. [153]

    Himanshu Sahni, Saurabh Kumar, Farhan Tejani, and Charles Isbell. 2017. Learn- ing to compose skills. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.11289 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  146. [154]

    Jill Sakai. 2020. How synaptic pruning shapes neural wiring during development and, possibly, in disease. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 28 (2020), 16096–16099

    2020

  147. [155]

    Ryohei Seki, Namiko Kamiyama, Ayumi Tadokoro, Naoki Nomura, Takanobu Tsuihiji, Makoto Manabe, and Koji Tamura. 2012. Evolutionary and develop- mental aspects of avian-specific traits in limb skeletal pattern. Zoological science 29, 10 (2012), 631–644

    2012

  148. [156]

    H Sebastian Seung. 2003. Learning in spiking neural networks by reinforcement of stochastic synaptic transmission. Neuron 40, 6 (2003), 1063–1073

    2003

  149. [157]

    Alexei A Sharov. 2006. Genome increase as a clock for the origin and evolution of life. Biology Direct 1 (2006), 1–10

    2006

  150. [158]

    Zhengliang Shi, Shen Gao, Lingyong Yan, Yue Feng, Xiuyi Chen, Zhumin Chen, Dawei Yin, Suzan Verberne, and Zhaochun Ren. 2025. Tool Learning in the Wild: Empowering Language Models as Automatic Tool Agents. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025 . 2222–2237

    2025

  151. [159]

    SN Sivanandam, SN Deepa, SN Sivanandam, and SN Deepa. 2008. Genetic algorithms. Springer

    2008

  152. [160]

    1997.The major transitions in evolution

    John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary. 1997.The major transitions in evolution. OUP Oxford

    1997

  153. [161]

    Roni Stern and Brendan Juba. 2017. Efficient, safe, and probably approximately complete learning of action models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.08961 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  154. [162]

    Qiqi Su, Christos Kloukinas, and Artur d’Avila Garcez. 2024. FocusLearn: Fully- Interpretable, High-Performance Modular Neural Networks for Time Series. In 2024 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) . IEEE, 1–8

    2024

  155. [163]

    Hamsini Suresh, Megan Crow, Nikolas Jorstad, Rebecca Hodge, Ed Lein, Alexan- der Dobin, Trygve Bakken, and Jesse Gillis. 2023. Comparative single-cell transcriptomic analysis of primate brains highlights human-specific regulatory evolution. Nature Ecology & Evolution 7, 11 (20...

    2023

  156. [164]

    András Szilágyi, Péter Szabó, Mauro Santos, and Eörs Szathmáry. 2020. Pheno- types to remember: Evolutionary developmental memory capacity and robust- ness. PLoS computational biology 16, 11 (2020), e1008425

    2020

  157. [165]

    John S Taylor and Jeroen Raes. 2004. Duplication and divergence: the evolution of new genes and old ideas. Annu. Rev. Genet. 38, 1 (2004), 615–643

    2004

  158. [166]

    Olivier Tenaillon and Ivan Matic. 2020. The impact of neutral mutations on genome evolvability. Current Biology 30, 10 (2020), R527–R534

    2020

  159. [167]

    Peter H Thrall, John G Oakeshott, Gary Fitt, Simon Southerton, Jeremy J Burdon, Andy Sheppard, Robyn J Russell, Myron Zalucki, Mikko Heino, and R Ford Deni- son. 2011. Evolution in agriculture: the application of evolutionary approaches to the management of biotic interactions...

    2011

  160. [168]

    Cheryll Tickle and Matthew Towers. 2017. Sonic hedgehog signaling in limb development. Frontiers in cell and developmental biology 5 (2017), 14

    2017

  161. [169]

    VN Uversky and A Giuliani. 2021. Networks of networks: an essay on multi-level biological organization. Front Genet 2021; 12: 706260

    2021

  162. [170]

    van de Ven, Nicholas Soures, and Dhireesha Kudithipudi

    Gido M. van de Ven, Nicholas Soures, and Dhireesha Kudithipudi. 2024. Con- tinual Learning and Catastrophic Forgetting. arXiv:2403.05175 [cs.LG] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2403.05175

    2024 arXiv

  163. [171]

    Berta Verd, Nicholas AM Monk, and Johannes Jaeger. 2019. Modularity, critical- ity, and evolvability of a developmental gene regulatory network. Elife 8 (2019), e42832

    2019

  164. [172]

    Pulkit Verma, Shashank Rao Marpally, and Siddharth Srivastava. 2021. Asking the right questions: Learning interpretable action models through query an- swering. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 35. 12024–12033

    2021

  165. [173]

    Julian Vosseberg, Jolien JE van Hooff, Stephan Köstlbacher, Kassiani Panagiotou, Daniel Tamarit, and Thijs JG Ettema. 2024. The emerging view on the origin and early evolution of eukaryotic cells. Nature 633, 8029 (2024), 295–305

    2024

  166. [174]

    Andreas Wagner. 2011. The origins of evolutionary innovations: a theory of transformative change in living systems . OUP Oxford

    2011

  167. [175]

    Günter P Wagner, Mihaela Pavlicev, and James M Cheverud. 2007. The road to modularity. Nature Reviews Genetics 8, 12 (2007), 921–931

    2007

  168. [176]

    Günter P Wagner and Jianzhi Zhang. 2011. The pleiotropic structure of the genotype–phenotype map: the evolvability of complex organisms. Nature Reviews Genetics 12, 3 (2011), 204–213

    2011

  169. [177]

    Denis M Walsh. 2015. Organisms, agency, and evolution. Cambridge University Press

    2015

  170. [178]

    Zishen Wan, Che-Kai Liu, Hanchen Yang, Chaojian Li, Haoran You, Yonggan Fu, Cheng Wan, Tushar Krishna, Yingyan Lin, and Arijit Raychowdhury. 2024. Towards cognitive ai systems: a survey and prospective on neuro-symbolic ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01040 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  171. [179]

    Ping Wang, Dejian Zhao, Shira Rockowitz, and Deyou Zheng. 2016. Divergence and rewiring of regulatory networks for neural development between human and other species. Neurogenesis 3, 1 (2016), 5730–5743

    2016

  172. [180]

    Zhen Wang, Liu Liu, Yiqun Duan, Yajing Kong, and Dacheng Tao. 2022. Con- tinual learning with lifelong vision transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 171–181

    2022

  173. [181]

    developmental memory

    Richard A Watson, Günter P Wagner, Mihaela Pavlicev, Daniel M Weinreich, and Rob Mills. 2014. The evolution of phenotypic correlations and “developmental memory”. Evolution 68, 4 (2014), 1124–1138

    2014

  174. [182]

    Mary Jane West-Eberhard. 2003. Developmental plasticity and evolution . Oxford University Press

    2003

  175. [183]

    Claus O Wilke. 2001. Adaptive evolution on neutral networks. Bulletin of mathematical biology 63, 4 (2001), 715–730

    2001

  176. [184]

    Dennis G Wilson. 2022. Evolving programs to build artificial neural networks. ACM SIGEVOlution 15, 1 (2022), 1–6

    2022

  177. [185]

    Xinyang Wu, Mohamed El-Shamouty, Christof Nitsche, and Marco F Huber

  178. [186]

    Feiyu Xu, Hans Uszkoreit, Yangzhou Du, Wei Fan, Dongyan Zhao, and Jun Zhu

  179. [187]

    Ruihan Yang, Huazhe Xu, Yi Wu, and Xiaolong Wang. 2020. Multi-task rein- forcement learning with soft modularization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 4767–4777

    2020

  180. [188]

    Anthony M Zador. 2019. A critique of pure learning and what artificial neural networks can learn from animal brains. Nature communications 10, 1 (2019), 3770

    2019

  181. [189]

    Yintong Zhang and Jason A Yoder. 2024. Evolved Developmental Artificial Neural Networks for Multitasking with Advanced Activity Dependence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10359 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  182. [190]

    Dongfang Zhao, Xu Huanshi, and Zhang Xun. 2024. Active exploration deep reinforcement learning for continuous action space with forward prediction. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 17, 1 (2024), 6

    2024

  183. [191]

    Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, et al. 2023. A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223 (2023). . A APPENDIX: IS INTELLIGENCE EVOLUTIONARY? In Section 3.3,...

    2023 arXiv

  184. [2008]

    Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 45, 4 (2008), 733–740

    Design optimization of a space launch vehicle using a genetic algorithm. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 45, 4 (2008), 733–740

    2008

  185. [2015]

    Scientific Reports 5, 1 (2015), 12186

    Effects of four different regulatory mechanisms on the dynamics of gene regulatory cascades. Scientific Reports 5, 1 (2015), 12186

    2015

  186. [2016]

    Nature neuroscience 19, 6 (2016), 788–791

    In vivo imaging of dendritic pruning in dentate granule cells. Nature neuroscience 19, 6 (2016), 788–791

    2016

  187. [2017]

    In 2017 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA)

    Learning modular neural network policies for multi-task and multi-robot transfer. In 2017 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2169–2176

    2017

  188. [2019]

    In Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing: 8th CCF International Conference, NLPCC 2019, Dunhuang, China, October 9–14, 2019, Proceedings, Part II 8

    Explainable AI: A brief survey on history, research areas, approaches and challenges. In Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing: 8th CCF International Conference, NLPCC 2019, Dunhuang, China, October 9–14, 2019, Proceedings, Part II 8 . Springer, 563–574

    2019

  189. [2023]

    In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Uncertainty-Guided Active Reinforcement Learning with Bayesian Neural Networks. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 5751–5757

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.