1

Neuroevolution in Games:
State of the Art and Open Challenges

arXiv:1410.7326v3 [] 3 Nov 2015

Sebastian Risi and Julian Togelius

Abstract—This paper surveys research on applying neuroevolution (NE) to games. In neuroevolution, artificial neural networks are trained through evolutionary algorithms, taking inspiration from the way biological brains evolved. We analyse the
application of NE in games along five different axes, which are the
role NE is chosen to play in a game, the different types of neural
networks used, the way these networks are evolved, how the
fitness is determined and what type of input the network receives.
The article also highlights important open research challenges in
the field.

I. I NTRODUCTION
The field of artificial and computational intelligence in
games is now an established research field, but still growing
and rapidly developing1 . In this field, researchers study how
to automate the playing, design, understanding or adaptation of games using a wide variety of methods drawn from
computational intelligence (CI) and artificial intelligence (AI)
[17, 76, 78]. One of the more common techniques, which is
applicable to a wide range of problems within this research
field, is neuroevolution (NE) [30, 147]. Neuroevolution refers
to the generation of artificial neural networks (their connection
weights and/or topology) using evolutionary algorithms. This
technique has been used successfully for tasks as diverse as
robot control [83], music generation [51], modelling biological
phenomena [21] and chip resource allocation [43] among
many others.
This paper surveys the use of neuroevolution in games (Figure 1). A main motivation for writing it is that neuroevolution
is an important method that has seen continued popularity
since its inception around two decades ago, and that there
are numerous existing applications in games and even more
potential applications. The researcher or practitioner seeking to
apply neuroevolution in a game application could therefore use
a guide to the state of the art. Another main motivation is that
games are excellent testbeds for neuroevolution research (and
other AI research) that have many advantages over existing
testbeds, such as mobile robotics. This paper is therefore meant
to also be useful for the neuroevolution researcher seeking to
use games as a testbed.
SR is with the IT University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. JT
is with the Department of Computer Science and Engineering, New York
University, New York, USA. Emails: sebr@itu.dk, julian@togelius.com
1 There are now two dedicated conferences (IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG) and AAAI Conference on Artificial
Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment (AIIDE)) as well as a
dedicated journal (IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI
in Games). Furthermore, work in this field is published in a number of
conferences and journals in neighbouring fields.

Fig. 1. Neuroevolution in Games Overview. An important distinction
between NE approaches is the role that NE plays in a game, which is
tightly coupled to the input the evolved neural network receives (e.g. angle
sensors) and what type of output it produces (e.g. a request to turn). NE’s role
also directly influences the type of fitness evaluation. Different evolutionary
algorithms support different network types and some methods can be more
or less appropriate for different types of input representations.

A. Scope of this paper
In writing this paper, we have sought a broad and representative coverage of all kinds of neuroevolution to most kinds of
games. While it is not possible to be exhaustive, we attempt to
cover all of the main directions in this field and the most important papers. We only cover work where neuroevolution has
in some way been applied to a game problem. By neuroevolution, we mean techniques where evolutionary computation or
similar bio-inspired stochastic search/optimisation algorithms
are applied to artificial neural networks (ANNs). We take an
inclusive view of neural networks, including both weighted
sums, self-organising maps and multi-layer perceptrons, but
not e.g. expression trees evolved with genetic programming.
By games, we refer to games that people commonly play
as games. This includes non-digital games (e.g. board games
and card games) and digital games (e.g. arcade games, racing
games, strategy games) but not purely abstract games such as
prisoner’s dilemma, robotics tasks or non-game benchmarks
for reinforcement learning, such as pole balancing. We acknowledge that there are bound to be some gray areas, as no
delineation can be absolutely sharp.
There are several other surveys available that cover larger
topics or topics that intersect with the topic of this paper. This

2

includes several surveys on CI/AI in games in general [77,
144], surveys on the use of evolutionary computation [72] or
machine learning [36, 81], or surveys of approaches to particular research areas within the field such as pathfinding [4],
player modelling [146] or procedural content generation [111].
B. Structure of this paper
The next section gives an overview of neuroevolution, the
main idea behind it, and the main motivation for employing
a NE approach in games. Section III details the first axes
along which we analyse the role of neuroevolution in games,
namely the type of role that the NE method is chosen to play.
The different neural network types that are found in the NE
games literature are reviewed in Section IV and Section V
then explains how they can be evolved. The different ways
fitness can be evaluated in games are detailed in Section VI,
followed by a review of different ANN input representations
in Section VII. Finally, Section VIII highlights important open
challenges in the field.
II. N EUROEVOLUTION
The reasons for the wide applicability and lasting popularity
of neuroevolution include that very many AI and control
problems can be cast as optimization problems, where what is
optimized is a general function approximator (such as a neural
network). Another important reason for the attractiveness of
this paradigm is that the method is grounded in biological
metaphor and evolutionary theory. This section introduces
the basic concepts and ideas behind neuroevolution. NE is
motivated by the evolution of biological nervous systems
and applies abstractions of natural evolution (i.e. evolutionary
algorithms) to generate artificial neural networks. ANNs are
generally represented as networks composed of interconnected
nodes (i.e. neurons) that are able to compute values based on
external inputs provided to the network. The “behavior” of
an ANN is typically determined based on the architecture of
the network and the strength (i.e. weights) of the connections
between the neurons.
Training an ANN to solve a computational problem involves
finding suitable network parameters such as its topology and/or
weights of the synaptic connections. The basic idea behind
neuroevolution is to train the network with an evolutionary
algorithm, which is a class of stochastic, population-based
search methods inspired by Darwinian evolution. An important
design choice in NE is the genetic representation (i.e. genotype) of the neural network that the combination and mutation
operators manipulate. For example, one of the earliest and
most straightforward ways to encode an ANN with a fixed
topology (i.e. the topology of the network is determined by the
user) is based on the concatenation of the numerical network
weight values into a vector of real numbers.
A. Basic Algorithm
The basic NE algorithm works as follows. A population
of genotypes that encode ANNs is evolved to find a network (weight and/or topology) that can solve a computational

problem. Typically each genotype is encoded into a neural
network, which is then tested on a specific task for a certain
amount of time. The performance or fitness of this network
is then recorded and once the fitness values for the genotypes
in the current population are determined, a new population is
generated by slightly changing the ANN-encoding genotypes
(mutation) or by combining multiple genotypes (cross-over).
In general, genotypes with a higher fitness have a higher
chance of being selected for reproduction and their offspring
replaces genotypes with lower fitness values, thereby forming
a new generation. This generational loop is typically repeated
hundreds or thousands of times, in the hopes to finding better
and better performing networks. For a more complete review
of NE see Floreano et al. [30].
B. Why Neuroevolution?
For each of the tasks that are described in this paper,
there are other methods that could potentially be used. Game
strategies could be learned by algorithms from the temporal
difference learning family, player models could be learned
with support vector machines, game content could be represented as constraint models and created with answer set
programming, and so on. However, there are a number of
reasons why neuroevolution is a good general method to apply
for many of these tasks and an interesting method to study in
all cases. Figure 2 shows selected examples of NE in existing
games that highlight some of its unique benefits.
1) Record-beating performance: For some problems, neuroevolution simply provides the best performance in competition with other learning methods (“performance” is of
course defined differently for different problems). This goes
for example for various versions of pole balancing, a classic
reinforcement learning problem, where the CoSyNE neuroevolution method convincingly beat all other methods for most
problem parameters [42]. In particular, it found solutions
to the problem using fewer tries than any other algorithm.
The best performance on the Keepaway Soccer problem,
another popular reinforcement learning benchmark, is also
exhibited by a neuroevolution method [137]. Neuroevolution
can also perform very well on supervised learning tasks,
as demonstrated by the performance of Evolino on several
sequence prediction problems [104]. Here, a combination of
neuroevolution and simple linear fitting could predict complex
time-varying functions with lower error than any other method.
In game domains, the winners of several game-based AI
competitions are partly based on neuroevolution – see for
example the winners of the recent 2K BotPrize [107, 108]
and Simulated Car Racing Championship [9].
2) Broad applicability: Another benefit of NE is that it
can be used for supervised, unsupervised and reinforcement
learning tasks. Neuroevolution only requires some sort of
numeric evaluation of the quality of its candidate networks.
In this respect, neuroevolution is similar to other kinds of
reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms, such as those from
the temporal difference (TD) family [121]. However, if a
dataset labelled with target values is provided NE can be
used as a supervised learning algorithm similarly to how
backpropagation is used.

3

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 2. Neuroevolution in Existing Games. (a) NE is able to discover high-performing controllers for racing games such as TORCS [11]. (b) NE has also
been successfully applied to commercial games, such as Creatures [44]. Additionally, NE enables new types of games such as GAR (c), in which players can
interactively evolve particular weapons [46], or NERO (d), in which players are able to evolve a team of robots and battle them against other players [119].

3) Scalability: Compared to many other types of reinforcement learning, especially algorithms from the TD family,
neuroevolution seems to handle large action/state spaces very
well, especially when used for direct action selection [29, 48,
85, 86].
4) Diversity: Neuroevolution can draw on the rich family of diversity-preservation methods (such as niching) and
multiobjective methods that have been developed within the
evolutionary computation community. This enables neuroevolution methods to achieve several forms of diversity among its
results, and so deliver sets of meaningfully different strategies,
controllers, models and/or content [2, 136].
5) Open-ended learning: While NE can be used for RL
in the same way that TD-learning can, one might argue
that it could go beyond this relatively narrow formulation
of reinforcement learning. In particular in cases where the
topology of the network is evolved as well, neuroevolution
could in principle support open-ended evolution, where behavior of arbitrary complexity and sophistication could emerge.
Concretely, neuroevolution algorithms often search in a larger
space than TD-based algorithms do.
6) Enables new kinds of games: New video games such
as Galactic Arms Race (GAR; [46]), in which the player
can interactively evolve particular weapons, NERO [119],
which allows the player to evolve a team of robots and
battle them against other players, or the Petalz video game
[95, 97], in which the player can breed an unlimited variety
of virtual flowers, would be difficult to realize with traditional
learning methods. Evolutionary computation here provides
unique affordances for game design, and some designs rely
specifically on neuroevolution. In the case of games like Petalz
and GAR, the games rely on the continuous complexification
of the produced content, which is (naturally) supported and
an integral part of certain NE methods. Additionally, in games
like Petalz whose core game mechanic is the breeding of new
flower types, employing evolutionary methods is a natural
choice. An important example of a commercial game series
that offers novel gameplay based on NE is Creatures [44]. In
the first Creatures game, which was created in the mid-1990s,
the player can breed and raise virtual pets called Norns, and
teach them to survive in their environment. In contrast to most
other games, the adaptive ANNs controlling the pets actually
allow them to learn new behaviors guided by the player.
The fact that neuroevolution methods facilitate open-ended
learning by incorporating a greater element of exploration, as

highlighted in the previous section, also makes NE directly
applicable to support new kinds of games.
C. Why not Neuroevolution?
While neuroevolution has multiple attractive properties, it
is not a panacea and there are several reasons why other
methods might be more suitable to particular problems. The
most important one is that the evolved neural networks tend
to have “black box” characteristics, meaning that a human
cannot easily work out what they do by looking at them.
This is a problem for game development and in particular
quality assurance, as it becomes very hard to “debug” learned
behavior. A problem with using neuroevolution online is that
it is very hard to predict exactly what kind of behavior will be
learned, something which can clash with the traditional design
principles of commercial games.
III. ROLE OF NEUROEVOLUTION
The role that neuroevolution is chosen to play is the first
of several axes along which NE’s usage is analysed in this
paper. According to our survey of the literature, in the vast
majority of cases neuroevolution is used to learn to play a
game or control an NPC in a game. The neural network can
here have one of two roles: to evaluate the value of states or
actions, so that some other algorithm can choose which action
to take, or to directly select actions to take in a given state.
But there are also other uses for neuroevolution. Procedural
content generation (PCG) is an active area of research in
game AI, and here evolvable neural networks can be used
to represent content. Finally, neuroevolution can also predict
the experience or preferences of players. Table I summarizes
the usage of NE in a variety of different games.
This section will survey the use of neuroevolution in games
in each role; each section will be ordered according to game
genre.
A. State/action evaluation
The historically earliest and possibly most widespread use
of neuroevolution in games is to estimate the value of board
positions for agents playing classical board games. In these
examples, a tree search algorithm of some kind (such as
Minimax with alpha-beta pruning and/or other modifications)
is used to search the space of future moves and counter-moves.

4

TABLE I
The Role of Neuroevolution in Selected Games. ES = evolutionary strategy, GA = genetic algorithm, MLP = multi-layer perceptron, MO = multiobjective,
TP = third-person (input not tied to a specific frame of reference, e.g. number edible ghosts) , UD = user-defined network topology, PA = performance alone
NE Role
(Section III)
State/action
evaluation

Direct action
selection

Selection between
strategies
Modelling opponent
strategy
Content generation
Modelling player
experience

Game
Checkers [32]
Chess [32]
Othello [79]
Go (7×7) [38]
Ms. Pac-Man [71]
Simulated Car Racing [74]
Quake II [85, 86]
Unreal Tournament [135]
Go (7×7) [118]
Simulated Car Racing [124]
Keepaway Soccer [122]
Battle Domain [105]
NERO [119]
Ms. Pac-Man [106]
Simulated Car Racing [29]
Atari [48]
Creatures [44]
Keepaway Soccer [142, 143]
EvoCommander [56]
Texas Hold’em Poker [66]

ANN Type
(Section IV)
MLP
MLP
MLP
CPPN (MLP)
MLP
MLP
MLP
Recurrent, LSTM
MLP
MLP
MLP
MLP
MLP
Modular MLP
MLP
CPPN (MLP)
Modular MLP
MLP
MLP
MLP

NE Methods
(Section V)
UD, GA
UD, GA
Marker-based [34]
HyperNEAT
UD, ES
UD, ES
UD, GA
UD, GA, NSGA-II
NEAT
UD, ES
NEAT
NEAT, NSGA-II
NEAT
NEAT, NSGA-II
UD, GA
HyperNEAT
GA
NEAT
NEAT
NEAT

Fitness Evaluation
(Section VI)
Coevolution
PA (positional values)
Cooperative coevolution
PA (score+board size)
PA (average score)
PA (waypoints visited)
PA (kill count)
MO (damage&accuracy)
Transfer Learning
Incremental Evolution
Transfer Learning
MO+Incremental
Interactive Evolution
MO (pills&ghosts eaten)
PA (distance)
PA (game score)
Interactive Evolution
PA (hold time)
Interactive Evolution
PA (%hands won)

GAR [46]
Petalz [97]
Super Mario Bros [87]

CPPN (MLP)
CPPN (MLP)
MLP, Perceptron

NEAT
NEAT
UD, GA

Interactive Evolution
Interactive Evolution
PA (player preference)

The role of the evolved neural network here is to evaluate the
quality of a hypothetical future board state (the nodes of the
search tree) and assign a numerical value to it. This quality
value is supposed to be related to how close you are to winning
the game, so that the rational course of action for a gameplaying agent is to choose actions which would lead to board
states with higher values. In most cases, the neural network is
evolved using a fitness function based on the win rate of the
game against some opponent(s), but there are also examples
where the fitness function is based on something else, e.g.
human playing style.
The most well-studied game in the history of AI is probably
Chess. However, relatively few researchers have attempted to
apply neuroevolution to this problem. Fogel et al. devised an
architecture that was able to learn to play above master level
solely by playing against itself [32].
There has also been plenty of work done on evolving board
evaluators for the related, though somewhat simpler, board
game Checkers. This was the focus of a popular science book
by Fogel in 2001 [31], which chronicled several years’ work
on evolving Checkers players [16, 18]. The evolved player,
called Blondie24, managed to learn to play at a human master
level. However, interest in Checkers as a benchmark game
waned after the game was solved in 2007 [101]. It has been
shown that even very simple networks can be evolved to play
Checkers well [54].
Another classic board game that has been used as a testbed
for neuroevolution is Othello (also called Reversi). Moriarty
and Miikkulainen used cooperative coevolution to evolve
board evaluators for Othello [79, 80]. Chong et al. evolved
board evaluators based on convolutional multi-layer neural
networks that captured aspects of board geometry [19]. In

Input Representation
(Section VII)
TP (piece type)
TP (piece type)
TP (piece type)
TP (piece type)
Path-finding
Speed, pos, waypoints
Visual Input (14×2)
Pie-slice, way point, etc.
Roving Eye (3×3)
Rangefinders, waypoints
Distances
Angle, straight line
Rangefinders, pie-slice
Path-finding
Roving Eye (5×5)
Raw input (16×21)
TP (e.g. type of object)
Angle and distance
Pie-slice, rangefinder
TP (e.g. size of pot,
cost of a bet, etc.)
Model
Model
TP (e.g. gap width,
number deaths, etc.)

contrast, Lucas and Runarsson later used evolution strategies to
learn position evaluators that were remarkably effective though
they were simply weighted piece counters [73]. They also
compared evolution to temporal difference learning for the
same problem, a topic we will return to in Section VIII-B.
Later work by the same authors showed that the n-tuple
network, an evolvable neural network based on sampling
combinations of board positions, could learn very good state
evaluators [70]; n-tuple networks were also shown to perform
better than other neural architectures on playing Checkers [3].
Go has in recent years become the focus of much research
in AI game-playing. This is because this ancient Asian board
game, despite having very simple rules, is very hard for
computers to play proficiently. Until a few years ago, the
best players barely reached intermediate human play level.
The combination of Minimax-style tree search and board state
evaluation that has worked so well for games such as Chess,
Checkers and Othello largely breaks down when applied to
Go, partly because Go has much higher branching factor than
those games, and partly because it is very hard to calculate
good estimates of the value of a Go board. Early attempts to
evolve Go board state evaluators used fairly standard neural
network architectures [69, 90]. It seems that such methods
can do well on small-board Go (e.g. 5 × 5) but fail to scale
up to larger board sizes [100]. Gauci et al. have attempted to
address this by using HyperNEAT (see Section V), a neural
network architecture specially designed to exploit geometric
regularities to learn to play Go [38]; Schaul and Schmidhuber
have tried to address the same issue using recurrent convolutional networks [103]. It should be noted that neuroevolution
is not currently competitive with the state of the art in this
domain; the state of the art for Go is Monte Carlo Tree Search

5

(MCTS), a statistical tree search technique which has finally
allowed Go-playing AI to reach advanced human level [6].
But the use of neural networks as state value evaluators goes
beyond board games. In fact any game can be played using
a state value evaluation function, given that it is possible to
predict which future states actions lead to, and that which there
is a reasonably small number of actions. The principle is the
same as for board games: search the tree of possible future actions and evaluate the resulting states, choosing the action that
leads to the highest-valued state. This general method works
even in the case of non-adversarial games, such as typical
single-player arcade games, in which case we are building a
Max-tree rather than a Minimax-tree. Further, sometimes good
results can be achieved with very shallow searches, such as
a one-ply search where only the resulting state after taking a
single action is evaluated. A good example of this is Lucas’
work on evolving state evaluators for Ms. Pac-Man [71] which
has inspired a number of further studies [15, 106]. As PacMan never has more than four possible actions, this makes
it possible to search more than one ply, as can be seen for
example in the work of Borg Cardona et al. [15].
It is possible to evolve evaluators not only for states, but
also for future actions. The neural network would in this case
take the current state and potential future action as input,
and return a value for that action. Control happens through
enumerating over all actions, and choosing the one with the
highest value. Lucas and Togelius compared a number of
ways that neuroevolution could be used to control cars in a
simple car racing game (with discrete action space), including
evolving state evaluators and evolving action evaluators [74].
It was found that evolving state evaluators led to significantly
higher performance than evolving action evaluators.
B. Direct action selection
It is not always possible to play a game (or control a game
NPC) through evaluating potential future states or actions. For
example, there might be too many actions from any given state
to be effectively enumerable – a game like Civilization has
an astronomical number of possible actions, and even a oneply search would be computationally prohibitively expensive.
(Though see Branavan et al.’s work on learning of action
evaluators in Civilization II through a hybrid non-evolutionary
method [5].) Further, there are cases where you do not even
have a reliable method of predicting which state a future action
would lead to, such as when learning a player for a game
which you do not have the source code for, when the forward
model for calculating this state would be too computationally
expensive, or when the forward model is stochastic.
In such cases, neural networks can still play games and
control NPCs through direct action selection. This means that
the neural network receives a description of the current state
(or some observation of the state) as an input and outputs
which action to take. The output could take different forms,
for example the neural network might have one output for each
action, or continuous outputs that define some action space. In
many cases, the output dimensions of the network mirror or
are similar to the buttons and sticks on a game controller that

would be used by a human to play the game. (Note that the
state evaluators and action evaluators discussed in the previous
section also perform action selection, but in an indirect way.)
In a number of experiments with a simple car racing game,
Togelius and Lucas evolved networks that drove the cars using
a number of sensors as inputs, and outputs for steering and
acceleration/braking [123, 124, 126]. It was shown that these
networks could drive as least as well as a human player,
and be incrementally evolved to proficiently drive on a wide
variety of tracks. Using competitive coevolution, a variety
of interestingly different playing styles could be generated.
However, it was also shown that for a version of this problem,
evolving networks to evaluate states gave superior driving
performance compared to evolving networks to directly select
actions [74]. This work on evolving car racing controllers
spawned a series of competitions on simulated car racing;
the first year’s competition built on the same simple racing
game [128], which was exchanged for the more sophisticated
racing game TORCS for the remaining years [67, 68]. Several
of the high-performing submissions were based on neuroevolution, usually in the role of action selector [11], but sometimes
in more auxiliary roles [9].
Another genre where evolved neural networks have been
used in the role of action selectors is first-person shooter (FPS)
games. Here, the work of Parker and Bryant on evolving bots
for the popular 90’s FPS Quake II is a good example [85, 86].
In this case, the neural networks have different outputs for
turning left/right, moving forward/backward and shooting. The
FPS game which has been used most frequently for AI/CI
experimentation is probably Unreal Tournament, as it has
an accessible interface (called Pogamut [39]) and has been
used in a popular competition, the 2K BotPrize [50]. van
Hoorn et al. evolved layered controllers consisting of several
neural networks that implemented different components of
good game-playing behavior: path following exploration and
shooting [135]. The different networks output direct control
signals corresponding to movement directions and shooting,
and were able to override each other according to a fixed
hierarchy. Schrum et al. evolved neural networks to behave in
a human-like manner using the same testbed [107]. Another
game with strong similarities to first-person shooter in terms
of the capabilities of the agents (though a completely different
focus for its gameplay) is the experimental game NERO,
which sees each of its agents controlled by its own neural
network evolved through a version of the popular NE method
NEAT [119]. NEAT is explained in more detail in Section V.
In two-dimensional platform games, the number of actions
possible to take at any given moment is typically very limited.
This partly goes back to the iconic platform games, such as
Nintendo’s Super Mario Bros, being invented in a time when
common game platforms had limited input possibilities. In
Super Mario Bros, the action space is any combination of the
buttons on the original Nintendo controller: up, down, left,
right, A and B. Togelius et al. evolved neural networks to
play the Infinite Mario Bros clone of Super Mario Bros using
networks which simply had one output for each of the buttons
[130]. The objective, which met with only limited success,
was simply to get as far as possible on a number of levels. A

6

study by Ortega et al. subsequently used neuroevolution in the
same role but with a different objective, evolving networks to
mimic the behaviour of human players [84].
Whereas it might seem that when using neural networks
for playing board games the networks should be used as state
or action evaluators, there have been experiments with using
neuroevolution in the direct action selection role for board
games. This might mean having one network with an output
for each board position, so that the action taken is the possible
action which is associated with the highest-valued output;
this is the case in the Checkers-playing network of Gauci et
al. [37]. A more exotic variant is Stanley and Miikkulainen’s
“roving eye”, which plays Go by self-directedly traversing the
board and stopping where it thinks the next stone should be
placed [118]. These attempts are generally not competitive
performance-wise with architectures where the neural network
evaluates states, and are done in order to test new network
types or controller concepts.
Finally, there has been work on developing architectures
for neural networks that can be evolved to play any of a large
number of games. One example is Togelius and Schmidhuber’s
neural networks for learning to play any of a series of
discrete 2D games from a space defined in a simple game
description language [125] (this work later inspired the General Video Game Playing Competition; see Section VIII-D).
More recently, Hausknecht et al. evolved neural networks of
different types to play original Atari 2600 games using the
Atari Learning Environment [47, 48]. The network outputs
here were simply mapped to the Atari controller; performance
varied greatly between different games, with evolved networks
learning to play some games at master levels and many others
barely at all.

E. Content generation
Recently interest has increased in a field called procedural
content generation (PCG) [111], in which parts of a game
are created algorithmically rather than being hand-designed.
Especially stochastic search methods, such as evolutionary
algorithms, have shown promise in generating various types
of content, from game levels to weapons and even the rules
of the game itself; evolutionary approaches to PCG go by the
name of search-based PCG [132].
In several applications, the content has been represented as a
neural network. In these applications, the output characteristic
(or decision surface) of the network is in some way interpreted
as the shape, hull or other characteristic of the content artifact.
The capacity for neural networks to encode smooth surfaces
of essentially infinite resolution makes them very suitable
for compactly encoding structures with continuous shapes. In
particular, a type of neural network called a Compositional
Pattern Producing Network (CPPN [115]) is of interest. CPPNs
are a variation of ANNs that differ in the type of activation
functions they contain and also the way they are applied.
CPPNs are described in more detail in Section V. Examples
of CPPNs used in content generation include the Galactic
Arms Race video game (GAR [46]), in which the player can
evolve CPPN-generated weapons, and the Petalz video game
[95–97], in which the player can interactively evolve CPPNencoded flowers. In another demonstration, Liapis et al. [64]
evolved CPPNs to generate visually pleasing two-dimensional
spaceships, which can be used in space shooter games. In
more recent work, the authors augmented their system to allow
the autonomous creation of spaceships based on an evolving
interestingness criterion [65].
F. Modelling player experience

C. Selection between strategies
For some games, it makes no sense to control the primitive
actions of a player character, but rather to choose between
one of several strategies to be played for a short time span
(longer than a single time step). An example is the Keepaway
Soccer task, which is a reinforcement learning benchmark with
strongly game-like qualities as it is extracted from Robocup, a
robot football tournament. Every time an agent has the ball, it
selects one out of three static macro-actions, which is played
out until the next ball possession [142, 143]. Whiteson et
al. evolved neural networks for this task using NEAT with
good results, but found that hybridising with other forms of
reinforcement learning worked even better [142].
D. Modelling opponent strategy
In many cases, a player needs to be able to predict how its
opponent will act in order to play well. Neuroevolution can
be used in the specific role of predicting opponent strategy,
as part of a player whose other parts might or might not be
based on neuroevolution. Lockett and Miikkulainen evolved
networks that could predict the other player’s strategy in Texas
Hold’em Poker, increasing the win rate of agents that used the
model [66].

Many types of neural networks (including the standard
multi-layer perceptron) are general function approximators,
i.e. they can approximate any function to a given accuracy
given a sufficiently large number of neurons. This is a reason
that neural networks are very popular in supervised learning
applications of various types. Most often, neural networks
used for supervised learning are trained with some version
of backpropagation; however, in some cases neuroevolution
provides superior performance even for supervised learning
tasks. This is in particular the case with preference learning,
where the task is to learn to predict the ordering between
instances in a data set.
One prominent use of preference learning, in particular preference learning through neuroevolution, is player experience
modeling. Pedersen et al. trained neural networks to predict
which level a player would prefer in a clone of Super Mario
Bros [87]. The dataset was collected through letting hundreds
of players play through pairs of different levels, recording the
playing session of each player as well as the player’s choice of
which level in the pair was most challenging, frustrating and
engaging. A standard multilayer perceptron was then given
information on the player’s playing style and features of both
levels as inputs; the output was which of the two levels was
preferred. Training these networks with neuroevolution, it was

7

found that player preference could be predicted with up to
91% accuracy. Shaker et al. later used these models to evolve
personalised levels for this Super Mario Bros game, through
simply searching the parameter space for levels that maximise
particular aspects of player experience [110].
IV. N EURAL N ETWORK T YPES
A variety of different neural network types can be found
in the literature, and it is important to note that the type
of ANN can significantly influence its learning abilities. The
simplest neural networks are feedforward, which means that
the information travels directly from the input nodes through
the hidden nodes to the output nodes. In feedforward networks
there are no synaptic connections that form loops or cycles.
The simplest feedforward network is the perceptron, which is
an ANN without any hidden nodes (only direct feed-forward
connections between the inputs and the outputs), and where
the activation function is either the simple step function or the
identity function (in the latter case the perceptron is simply
a weighted sum of its inputs) [98]. The classic perceptron
without hidden nodes can only learn to correctly solve linearly
separable problems, limiting its use for both pattern classification and control. The more complex multilayer perceptron
(MLP) architectures with hidden nodes and typically sigmoid
activation functions can also learn problems that are not
linearly separable, and in fact approximate any function to
a given accuracy given a suitable large number of hidden
neurons [53]. While this capability is mostly theoretical,
the greater representational capacity of MLPs over standard
perceptrons can readily be seen when applying neuroevolution
to NPC control in games. For example, Lucas [71] compared
the performance of single and multi-layer perceptrons in a
simplified version of the Ms. Pac-Man game and showed that
the MLP reached a significantly higher performance.
In recurrent networks, the network can form loops and
cycles, which allows information to also be propagated from
later layers back to earlier layers. Because of these directed
cycles the network can create and maintain an internal state
that allows it to exhibit dynamic temporal properties and keep
a memory of past events when applied to control problems.
Simply put, recurrent networks can have memory, whereas
static feedforward networks live in an eternal present. Being
able to base your actions on the past as well as the present has
obvious benefits for game-playing. In particular, the issue of
sensory aliasing arises when the agent has imperfect information (true for any game in which not all of the game world is on
screen at the same time), so that different states which are very
different look the same to the agent [150]. Domains with this
property are also called non-Markovian tasks, meaning that the
state of the environment is not fully observable by the agent
[114]. Recurrent and non-recurrent networks have been shown
to perform very similarly in domains such as platform game
playing [130], while recurrent networks have been shown to
consistently outperform feedforward on a car racing task [136].
While most NE approaches in games focus on evolving
monolithic neural networks, modular networks have recently
shown superior performance in some domains [106]. A modular network is composed of a number of individual neural

networks (modules), in which the modules are normally responsible for a specific sub-function of the overall system.
For example, Schrum has recently shown that in the PacMan domain a modular network extension to NEAT performs
better than the standard version which evolves monolithic
(non-modular) networks. The likely explanation is that it
is easier to evolve multimodal behavior with modular architectures [106]. That experiment featured modules which
were initially undifferentiated but whose role was chosen by
evolution. Explicitly functionally differentiated modules can
also work well when the task lends itself to easy functional decomposition. van Hoorn et al. evolved separate neural modules
for path-following, shooting and exploration; these modules
were arranged in a hierarchical architecture, an arrangement
which was shown to perform much better than a monolithic
network [135]. Outside of games, there has been research
on ways of encouraging neural networks to evolve modular
structures [21], and also on evolving ensembles of neural networks [148] where the different networks have complementary
fitness functions [1].
While most types of neural networks do not change their
connection weights after initial training, plastic neural networks can change their connection weights at any time in
response to the activation pattern of the network. This enables
a form of longer-term learning than what is practically possible
using recurrent networks. Plastic networks have been evolved
to solve robot tasks in unpredictable environments which the
controller does not initially know characteristics of [28], however they have not yet been applied to games to our best knowledge. It seems that plastic networks would be a promising
avenue for learning controllers that can play multiple games
or multiple versions of the same game. Another adaptive
architecture that has shown promising results in learning from
experience, is a Long-Short Term Memory (LSTM) network
[40]. Instead of changing connection weights, LSTM networks
can learn by remembering values for an arbitrary amount of
time. We will return to the topic of life-time learning when
we discuss important open challenges in Section VIII.
V. E VOLVING N EURAL N ETWORKS
A large number of different evolutionary algorithms have
been applied to NE, including genetic algorithms, evolution strategies and evolutionary programming [147]; in addition, other stochastic search/optimisation methods like particle
swarm optimisation have also been used [26]. The method for
evolving a neural network is tightly coupled to its genotypic
representation. The earliest NE methods only evolved the
weights of a network with a fixed user-defined topology
and in the simplest direct representation, each connection is
encoded by a single real value. This encoding, sometimes
called conventional neuroevolution (CNE), allows the whole
network to be described as a concatenation of these values, i.e.
a vector of real numbers. For example, both Cardona et al. [15]
and Lucas [71] directly evolved the weights of a MLP for Ms.
Pac Man. Being able to represent a whole network as a vector
of real numbers allows the use of any evolutionary algorithm
which works on vectors of real numbers, including highly

8

efficient algorithms like the Covariance Matrix Adaptation
Evolution Strategy (CMA-ES) [45, 55].
A significant drawback of the fixed topology approach is
that the user has to choose the appropriate topology and
number of hidden nodes a priori. Because the topology of a
network can significantly affect its performance [55, 126, 129,
130], more sophisticated approaches evolve the network topology together with the weights. An example of such a method
is NeuroEvolution of Augmenting Topologies (NEAT; [116]),
which has shown that also evolving the topology together
with the connection weights often outperforms approaches
that evolve the weights alone. NEAT and similar methods
also allow the evolution of recurrent networks that can solve
difficult non-Markovian control problems (examples outside
of games include pole balancing [42] and tying knots [75]).
NEAT and its variants2 have been applied successfully to a
variety of different game domains, from controlling a simulated car in The Open Car Racing Simulator (TORCS) [10] or
a team of robots in the NERO game [119] to playing Ms. PacMan [106] or Unreal Tournament [107]. Of particular interest
in the context of this paper is an extension to NEAT that
has been developed to increase its performance in strategicdecision making problems [61]. Kohl and Miikkulainen [61]
demonstrate that by adding a new topological mutation that
adds neurons with local fields to the network (RBF-NEAT)
and a node mutation that biases the network architecture to
cascade type of structures (Cascade-NEAT), the approach is
able to more easily solve fractured strategic-decision task such
as keepaway soccer. Fracture is defined by the authors as a
“highly discontinuous mapping between states and optimal
actions” within an ANN. It is likely that the more complex
the game, the more it will have a fractured decision space.
Both the fixed-topology and topology-evolving approaches
above use a direct encoding, meaning that each connection
is encoded separately as a real number. Direct encoding approaches employ a one-to-one mapping between the parameter
values of the network (e.g. the weights and neurons) and its
genetic representation. One disadvantage of this approach is
that parts of the solution that are similar must be discovered
separately by evolution. Therefore, interest has increased in
recent years in indirect encodings, which allow the reuse
of information to encode the final network and thus very
compact genetic representations (i.e. a high number of synaptic
connections can be encoded by considerably fewer parameters
in the corresponding genotype).
A promising indirect encoding that has been employed
successfully in a variety of NE-based games are CPPNs [115]
(see Section III-E). CPPNs are a variation of ANNs that differ
in the type of activation functions they contain and also the
way they are applied. While ANNs are traditionally employed
as controllers, CPPNs often function as pattern-generators, and
have shown promise in the context of procedurally generated
content. Additionally, while ANNs typically only contain
sigmoid activation functions, CPPNs can include these but
also a variety of other activation functions like sine (to create
2 NEAT now also runs under the Unity Game Engine: https://github.com/
lordjesus/UnityNEAT. A complete list of NEAT implementations can be found
here: http://bit.ly/1J1II8O

repeating patterns) or Gaussian (to create symmetric patterns).
Importantly, because CPPNs are variations of ANNs they can
also be evolved by the NEAT algorithm [120].
While CPPNs were initially designed to produce twodimensional patterns (e.g. images), they have also been extended to evolve indirectly encoded ANNs. The main idea in
this approach, called HyperNEAT [120] is to exploit geometric
domain properties to compactly describe the connectivity
pattern of a large-scale ANN. For example, in a board game
like chess or checkers adjacency relationships or symmetries
play an important role and understanding these regularities can
enable an algorithm to learn general tactics instead of specific
actions associated with a single board piece.
Hausknecht et al. [48] recently showed that HyperNEAT’s
ability to encode large scale ANNs enables it to directly learn
Atari 2600 games from raw game screen data, outperforming
human high scores in three games. This advance is exciting
from a game perspective since it takes a step towards general
game playing that is independent from a game specific input
representation. We will return to this topic in Section VII.
Another form of indirect encodings are developmental approaches. In a promising demonstration of this approach, Khan
and Miller [60] evolved a single developing and more complex
neuron that was able to play checkers and beat a Minimaxbased program. In contrast to the aforementioned indirect
encodings like CPPNs, the neuron in Khan and Miller’s work
grows (i.e. develops) new synaptic connections while the game
is being played. This growth process is based on an evolved
genetic program that processes inputs from the board.
VI. F ITNESS E VALUATION
The fitness of a board value estimator or ANN controlled
NPC is traditionally determined based on its performance
in a particular domain. This might translate to the score
it achieves in a single player game or how many levels it
manages to complete, or how many opponents it can beat
or which ranking it can achieve in a competitive multiplayer
game. Because many games are non-deterministic leading to
noisy fitness evaluation (meaning that the same controller
can score differently when evaluated several times on the
same problem), evaluating the performance of a controller in
multiple independent plays and averaging the resulting scores
can be beneficial [100, 123]. In many cases it is possible to
evolve good behaviour using a straightforward fitness function
like the score of the game, which has the advantage that such
fitness functions can typically not be “exploited” in the way
composite fitness functions sometimes can (the only way to
achieve a high score is to play the game well).
However, if the problem becomes too complex, it can be difficult to evolve the necessary behaviors directly. In such cases
it can be helpful to learn them incrementally, by first starting
with a simpler task and gradually making them more complex;
this is usually called staging and/or incremental evolution [41].
For example, Togelius and Lucas [124] evolved controllers
for simulated car racing with such an incremental evolution
approach. In their setup, each car is first evaluated on one
track and each time the population reaches a sufficiently high

9

fitness more challenging tracks are added to the evaluation and
fitness averaged. The authors showed that by following such
an incremental evolutionary approach, neurocontrollers with
general driving skills evolve. No such general driving skills
were observed when a controller was evaluated on all tracks
simultaneously. Incremental evolution can also be combined
with modularisation of neural networks so that each time a
new fitness function is added, a new neural network module is
added to the mix; this could allow evolution to solve problems
where the acquisition of a new competence conflicts with an
existing competence [135].
A form of training that can be viewed as a more radical
version of incremental evolution is transfer learning. The
goal of transfer learning is to accelerate the learning of a
target task through knowledge gained during learning of a
different but related source task. For example, Taylor et al.
[122] showed that transfer learning can significantly speed
up learning through NEAT from 3 vs. 2 to 4 vs. 3 robot
soccer Keepaway. In a demonstration of applying transfer
learning to two different but related games, Cardamone et al.
[14] transferred a car racing controller evolved in TORCS to
another open-source racing game called VDrift. By exploiting
knowledge gained in TORCS, evolution was able to adapt the
pre-existing model to the new game quicker than when the
authors tried to evolve a controller in VDrift from scratch.
While incremental evolutionary approaches allow NE to
solve more complex problems, designing a “good” fitness
function can be a challenging problem, especially if the tasks
become more and more complex. In particular, this is the case
for competitive games where a good and reliable opponent
AI is not available, and for games where an evolutionary
algorithm easily finds strategies that exploit weaknesses in
the game or in opponent strategies. A method to potentially
circumvent such problems is competitive coevolution [15, 99,
117], in which the fitness of one AI controlled player depends
on its performance when competing against another player
drawn from the same population of from another population.
The idea here is that the evolutionary process will supply itself
with worthy opponents; in the beginning of an evolutionary
run, players are tested against equally bad players, but as better
players develop they will play against other players of similar
skill. Thus, competitive coevolution can be said to perform a
kind of automated incrementalisation of the problem; ideally,
this would lead to open-ended evolution, where the sophistication and performance of evolved agents would continue
increasing indefinitely due to an arms race [82, 99]. While
open-ended evolution has never been achieved due to a number
of phenomena such as cycling and loss of gradient, competitive
coevolution can sometimes be very effective.
One of the earliest examples of coevolution in games was
performed by Lubberts and Miikkulainen [69]. The authors
coevolve networks for playing a simplified version of Go
and show that coevolution can speed up the evolutionary
search. These results have since been corroborated by other
authors [100]. In a powerful demonstration of coevolution
Blondie24 [31] reached expert-level by only playing against
itself. In Khan and Miller [59] work, the authors showed that
high performing ANNs evolve quicker through coevolution

than through the evaluation of agents against a Minimax-based
checkers player.
In another example, Cardona et al. [15] applied coevolutionary methods to coevolve the controllers for Ms. Pac Man
and Ghost team controllers in Ms. Pac-Man. Interestingly,
the authors discovered that it was significantly easier to
coevolve controllers for Pac-man than for the team of ghosts,
indicating that the success of a coevolutionary approach is very
much dependent on the chosen domain and fitness transitivity
(i.e. how much a solution’s performance over one opponent
correlates with its performance over other opponents).
In competitive coevolution, the opponents can be drawn
from the same population, or from one or several other
populations. This was investigated in a series of experiments in
evolving car racing controllers, where it was found that using
multiple populations improved results notably [126].
Coevolution does not have to be all about vanquishing one’s
opponents – there is also cooperative coevolution. Whereas in
competitive coevolution fitness is negatively affected by the
success of other individuals, in cooperative coevolution it is
positively effected. Generally, an individual’s fitness is defined
by its performance in collaboration with other individuals.
This can be implemented on a neuronal level, where every
individual is a single neuron or synapse and its fitness is the
average performance of the several networks it participates in.
The CoSyNE neuroevolution algorithm, which is based on this
idea, was shown to outperform all other methods for variants
of the pole balancing problem, a classic reinforcement learning
benchmark [42]. In another example, Cardamone et al. [12]
demonstrated that CoSyNE is also able to create competitive
racing controllers for the TORCS Endurance World Championship.
The conceptually closely related algorithms ESP and SANE
have been used to evolve to strategies for Othello [80] and
for the strategy game Legion II [7]. In another example,
Whiteson et al. [140] showed that coevolution can successfully
discover complex control tasks for soccer Keepaway players
when provided with an adequate task decomposition. However,
if the problem is made more complex and the correct task
composition is not given, coevolution fails to discover high
performing solutions.
For some problems, more than one fitness dimension need
to be taken into account. This could be the case when there is
no single performance criterion (for example an open-world
game with no scoring or several different scores) or when
there is a good performance indicator, but evolution is helped
by taking other factors into account as well (for example, you
want to encourage exploration of the environment). Further,
“performance” might just be one of the criteria you are
evolving your agent towards. You might be equally interested
in human-likeness, believability or variety in agent behavior.
There are several approaches that can be taken towards the
existence of multiple fitness criteria. The simplest approach
is just summing the different fitness functions into one; this
has the drawback that it in practice leads to very unequal
selection pressure in each of the fitness dimensions. Another
approach is cascading elitism, where each generation contains
separate selection events for each fitness function, ensuring

10

equal selection pressure [127].
A more principled solution to the existence of (or need
for) multiple fitness functions is to use a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm (MOEA) [22, 24, 33]. Such algorithms try
to satisfy all their given objectives (fitness functions), and in
the cases where they partially conflict, map out the conflicts
between the objectives. This map can then be used to find
the solutions that make the most appealing tradeoffs between
agents. These solutions, in which none of the objectives can be
improved without reducing the performance of one of the other
objectives, are said to be on the Pareto Front. Multiobjective
evolution has been used to balance between pure performance
and other objectives in several ways. For example, van Hoorn
et al. [136] used an MOEA to balance between driving well
and driving in a human-like manner (similar to recorded
playtraces of human drivers) in a racing game. Agapitos et al.
[2], working with a different racing game, used multiobjective
evolution and several different characteristics of driving style
to evolve sets of NPC drivers that had visibly different driving
styles while all retaining high driving skill. Schrum and
Miikkulainen [105] used the popular multi-objective evolutionary algorithm NSGA-II (Non-dominated Sorting Genetic
Algorithm; [24]) to simply increase game-playing performance
by rewarding the various components of good game-playing
behavior separately.
Another promising NE approach, which might actually
enable new kinds of games, is to allow a human player to interact with evolution by explicitly setting objectives during the
evolutionary process, or even to act as a fitness function him or
herself. Such approaches are known as interactive evolution.
In the NERO video game [119], the player can train a team
of NPCs for military combat by designing an evolutionary
curriculum. This curriculum consists of a sequence of training
exercises that can become increasingly difficult. For example,
to train the team to perform general maze navigation the player
can design increasingly complex wall configurations. Once the
training of the agents is complete they can be loaded into battle
and tested against teams trained by other players.
More recently, Karpov et al. [58] investigated three different
ways of assisting neuroevolution through human input in
OpenNERO (an open-source platform based on the original
NERO). One approach was the advice method, in which users
write short examples of code that are automatically converted
into a partial ANN; these networks are then spliced into
the evolving population. The other approach was shaping,
in which users can influence the training by modifying the
environment, similar to the setup in NERO [119]. The last
approach was demonstration, in which users can control the
agent manually and the recorded data is used to train the evolving networks in a supervised fashion. The authors showed that
the three ways of human-assisted NE outperform unassisted
NE in different tasks, further demonstrating the promise of
combining NE with human expertise.
Another example of interactive evolution in games is Galactic Arms Race (GAR [46]), in which the players can discover
unique particle system weapons that are evolved by NEAT.
The fitness of a weapon in GAR is determined based on the
numbers of times it was fired, allowing the players to implicitly

drive evolution towards content they prefer. In Petalz [95, 97],
a casual social game on Facebook, the core game mechanic
is breeding different flowers. The player can interact with
evolution by deciding which flowers to pollinate (mutation)
or cross-pollinate (crossover) with other flowers.
Other interactive evolution approaches to game-like environments include the evolution of two-dimensional pictures
on Picbreeder [109], three-dimensional forms [20], musical
compositions [52], or even dance moves [25].
VII. I NPUT R EPRESENTATION
So far, we have discussed the role of neuroevolution in a
game, types of neural networks, NE algorithms and fitness
evaluation. Another interesting dimension by which to differentiate different uses of neuroevolution in games is what sort
of input the network gets and how it is represented. Choosing
the “right” representation can significantly influence the ability
of an algorithm to learn autonomously. This is particularly
important when the role of the neural network is to control
an NPC in some way. For example, in a FPS game the world
could be represented to the ANN as raw sensory data, as x and
y coordinates of various in-game characters, as distances and
angles to other players and objects, or as simulated sensor data.
In Ms. Pac-Man the inputs could for example be the shortest
distances to all ghosts or more high-level features such as the
most likely path of the ghosts [8].
Additionally, which representation is appropriate depends
to some extent on the type and on the role of the neural
network in controlling the agent (see Section III). Some representations might be more appropriate for games with direct
action selection, while other representations are preferable for
a board or strategy game with state evaluation. In general,
the type of input representation can significantly bias the
evolutionary search and dictate which strategies and behaviors
can ultimately be discovered.
In this section we cover a number of ways information about
the game state can be conveyed to a neural network: as straight
line sensors/pie slice sensors, pathfinding sensors, third-person
data, and raw sensory data. Regardless of which representation
is used, there are a number of important considerations. One
of the most important is that all inputs need to be scaled to
be within the same range, preferably within the range [−1, 1].
Another is that adding irrelevant inputs can be actively harmful
to performance; while in principle neuroevolution should be
capable of sorting useful from useless inputs on its own, drastic
performance increases can sometimes be noted when removing
information from the input vector [129].
A. Straight Line Sensors and Pie Slice Sensors
A good domain to exemplify the effect of different input representation is the simple car racing game studied by
Togelius and Lucas [123, 124] and Togelius et al. [126].
Togelius and Lucas [123] investigated various sensor input
representations and showed that the best results were achieved
by using egocentric first-person information from rangefinder
sensors, which return the distance to the nearest object in
a given direction, instead of third-person information such

11

as the car’s position in the track’s frame of reference. The
authors suggest that a mapping from third-person spatial
information to appropriate first-person actions is likely very
non-linear, thus making it harder for evolution to discover
such a controller. (These results might also be explained by the
underlying fractured decision space of such a mapping [61];
see Section V).
In addition to evolving appropriate control policies, NE approaches can also support automatic feature selection. Whiteson et al. [141] evolved ANNs in a car racing domain and
showed that an extension to NEAT allows the algorithm to
automatically determine an appropriate set of straight line
sensors, eliminating redundant inputs.
Rangefinder sensors are also popular in other domains like
FPS games. In NERO [119] each agent has rangefinder sensors
to determine their distance from other objects and walls. In
addition to rangefinder sensors, agents in NERO also have “pie
slice sensors” for enemies. These are radar-like sensors which
divide the 360 degrees around the agent in a predetermined
number of slices. The ANN has inputs for each of the slices
and the activation of the input is proportional to the distance
of an enemy unit is within this slice. If multiple units are
contained in one slice, their activations are summed. Similar
sensors can be found in e.g. van Hoorn et al. [135]. While pie
slice sensors are useful to detect discrete objects like enemies
or other team members, rangefinder sensors are useful to detect
long contiguous objects like walls.

power pill [71]. In his case, the controller was used as a state
evaluator and the actual action selection was done using oneply search.
Different input representations can also highly bias the
evolutionary search and the type of strategies that can be
discovered. For example, most approaches to learning Ms.
Pac Man make a distinction between edible and threat ghosts.
There is typically one sensor indicating the distance to the
next edible ghost, being accompanied by a similar sensor for
the closest threat ghost. The idea behind this separation is
to make it easier for the ANN to evolve separate strategies
to dealing with threatening and edible ghosts. While such a
division makes it easier for traditional approaches to learn
the game, they require domain specific knowledge that might
not be available in all domains (e.g. edible ghosts are good,
threat ghosts are bad) and might prevent certain strategies
from emerging. For example, Schrum and Miikkulainen [106]
who used the same sensors (i.e. unbiased sensors) for edible
and threat ghosts, showed that a modular architecture (see
section IV) allowed evolution to find unexpected behavioral
divisions on its own. For example, a particular interesting behavior was that of luring ghosts near power pills, which would
be harder to evolve with biased sensors. This example shows
that there is a important relation between the evolutionary
method and the type of sensors that it supports.

B. Angle sensors and relative position sensors

In many games the evolved controller receives additional
input beyond its first person sensors that is not tied to a specific
frame of reference. For example, in games like Ms. Pac
Man the controller typically receives the number of remaining
normal and power pills or the number of edible/threat ghost
[106]. Another example is including the current level of
damage of the car in car racing game controllers [11, 67, 68].
In board games, in which the ANN does not directly control
an agent (Section III-B), the neural network typically only
receives third-person input. This could include such quantities
as the piece difference and the type of piece occupying each
square on the board in games like Chess [31], Checkers [18]
or Go [69]. An important aspect in this context is the geometry
of the particular domain. For example, by understanding
the concept of adjacency in a game like Checkers (e.g. an
opponent’s piece can be captured by jumping over it into an
unoccupied field), a controller can learn a general strategy
rather than an action tied to a specific position on the board.
While earlier attempts at evolving state evaluators did not
directly take geometry into account, by representing each
board position with two separate neurons in the game Go [69],
Fogel et al. [31] showed that learning geometry is critical to
generalization. This is true for Checkers as well. In Blondie24
each node in the first hidden layer of the ANN receives
input from a different subsquare of the Checkers board (e.g.
the first hidden node receives input from the top/right 3×3
subsquare of the board). The evolutionary algorithm evolves
the connection weights from the board inputs to the actual
subsquares and also between the inputs and the final output
node. The idea behind representing the board state as a series

Another kind of egocentric sensor is the angle sensor. This
simply reports the angle to a particular object, or the nearest
of some class of object. In the previously discussed car racing
experiments, such sensors were used for sensing waypoints
which were regularly spaced out on the track [123, 124, 126].
In their experiment with evolving combat bots for Quake
III, Zanetti and Rhalibi [149] used angle sensors for positions
of enemies and weapon pick-ups.
Related to this are relative position sensors, that report
distances to some object along some pre-specified axes. For
example, Yannakakis and Hallam [145] evolved ANNs to
control the behaviour of cooperating ghosts for a clone of PacMan. In their setup each ANN receives the relative position to
Pac-Man as input and the relative position of the closest ghost
(specified by the distance along the x and y-axis).
C. Pathfinding Sensors
A type of sensor that is still considered egocentric but
which does not take the orientation of the controlled agent
into consideration, and instead takes the topology of the
environment into consideration, is the pathfinding sensor. A
pathfinding sensor reports the distance to the closest of some
type of entity along the shortest path, as found with e.g. A∗.
(This distance is typically, but not always, longer than the
distance along a straight line.) This is commonly used in
2D games. To take another Pac-Man example, Lucas evolved
neural networks to play Ms. Pac-Man using distances along
the shortest path to each ghost and to the nearest pill and

D. Third-person Input

12

of overlapping subsquares is to make it easier for the ANN to
discover independent local relationships within each subsquare
that can then be combined in the higher levels of the network.
The geometry can also be represented by a convolutional
recurrent network that “scans” the board [103].
E. Learning from raw sensory data
An exciting promise for NE approaches is to learn directly
from raw sensory data instead of low-dimensional and preprocessed information. This is interesting for several reasons.
One is that it might help us understand what aspects of the
game’s visual space is actually important, and how it should
be processed, through a form of ludic computational cognitive
science. Another is that forcing games to only rely on the very
same information the human player gets makes for a more fair
comparison with the human player, and might lead to humanlike agent behaviour. More speculatively, forcing controllers to
use representations that are independent from the game itself
might enable more general game playing skills to develop.
Early steps towards learning from less processed data were
performed by Gallagher and Ledwich [35] in a simplified version of Pac-Man. In their approach the world was represented
as a square centered around Pac-Man and the direct encoded
weights of the network were optimized by evolutionary strategy. While their result demonstrated that it is possible to learn
from raw data, their evolved controllers performed worse than
in the experiment by Lucas [71] in which the shortest path
distances from Pac-Man’s current location to each ghost, the
nearest maze junction and nearest power pill were given to the
controller.
A similar setup in the game Super Mario was chosen
by Togelius et al. [130]. In their setup the authors used
two grid-like sensors to detect environmental obstacles and
another one for enemies. If an obstacle or an enemy occupies
one of the sensors, the corresponding input to the ANN
would be set to 1.0. Togelius et al. [130] compared setups
with 9 (3×3), 25 (5×5), 49 (7×7) sensors. The authors
compared a HyperNEAT-like approach with a MLP-based
controller and showed that the MLP-based controller performs
best with the smallest sensory setup (21 inputs total). While
larger setups should potentially provide more information
about the environment, a direct encoding can apparently not
deal with the increased dimensionality of the search space.
The HyperNEAT-like approach, on the other hand, performs
equally well regardless of the size of the input window and
can scale to 101 inputs because it can take the regularities in
the environment description into account. The results of Lucas
[71] and Togelius et al. [130] suggest that there is an intricate
relationship between the method and the number of sensors
and the type of game they can be applied to.
HyperNEAT has also shown promise in learning from less
processed data in a simplified version of the RoboCup soccer
game called Keepaway [137]. Using a two-dimensional bird’s
eye view representation of the game, the authors showed
that their approach was able to hold the ball longer than
any previously reported results from TD-based methods like
SARSA or NE methods like NEAT. Additionally the authors

showed that the introduced bird’s eye view representation
allows changing the number of players without changing the
underlying representation, enabling task transfer from 3 vs. 2
to 4 vs. 3 Keepaway without further training.
More recently Hausknecht et al. [48] compared how different NE methods (e.g. CMA-ES, NEAT, HyperNEAT) can deal
with different input representation for general Atari 2600 game
playing. The highest level and least general representation
was called object representation, in which an algorithm would
automatically identify game objects at runtime (based on
object images manually identified a priori). The location of
these entities was then directly provided to the evolving neural
network. Similar to the work by Togelius et al. [130], the
results by Hausknecht et al. [48] also indicate that while direct
network encodings work best on compact and pre-processed
object state representations, indirect-encodings like HyperNEAT are capable of learning directly from high-dimensional
raw input data.
While learning from raw sensory data is challenging in
two-dimensional games, it becomes even more challenging in
three-dimensions. One of the reasons is the need for some kind
of depth perception or other distance estimation, the other is
the non-locality of perception: the whole changes when you
look around. In one of the early experiments to learn from
raw sensory data in a three-dimensional setting, Floreano et al.
[29] used a direct encoding to evolve neural networks for a
simulated car racing task. In their setup, the neural network
receives first-person visual input from a driving simulator
called Carworld. The network is able to perform active vision
through two output neurons that allow it to determine its visual
focus and resolution in the next time step. While the actual
input to the ANN was limited to 5×5 pixels of the visual
field, the evolved network was able to drive better or equal to
well-trained human drivers. Active vision approaches have also
been successfully applied to board games like Go, in which
a “roving eye” can self-directedly traverse the board and stop
where it thinks the next stone should be placed [118]. More
recently, Koutnı́k et al. [62] evolved an indirectly encoded and
recurrent controller for car driving in TORCS, which learned
to drive based on a raw 64×64 pixel image. That experiment
featured an indirect encoding of weights analogous to the
JPEG compression in images.
Parker and Bryant [85, 86] evolved an ANN to shoot
a moving enemy in Quake II, by only using raw sensory
information. In their setup the bot was restricted to a flat world
in which only a band of 14×2 gray-scale pixels from the center
of the screen was used as input to the network. However,
although the network learned to attack the enemy, the evolved
bots were shooting constantly and spinning around in circles,
just slowing down minimally when an enemy appeared in their
view field. While promising, the results are still far from the
level of a human player or indeed one that has received more
processed information such as angles and distances.
VIII. O PEN C HALLENGES
This paper has presented and categorized a large body of
work where NE has been applied, mostly but not exclusively in

13

the role of controlling a game agent or representing a strategy.
There are many successes, and NE is already a technique that
can be applied more or less out of the box for some problems.
But there are also some domains and problems where we have
not yet reached satisfactory performance, and other tasks that
have not been attempted. There are also various NE approaches
that have been only superficially explored. In the following,
we list what we consider the currently most promising future
research directions in NE. While there are plenty of basic
research questions in evolutionary computation and NE, which
are important for the application of these techniques in games,
this section will mostly focus on applied research in the sense
of research motivated by use in games.

previously [57], and the General Video Game Playing Competition characterizes its games according to game design
characteristics (problem features), allowing another way of
comparing performance on problem classes [88].
But mapping the relative strengths of these algorithms is
really just the first step. Once we know when NE works better
or worse than other algorithms, we can start inventing hybrid
algorithms that combine the strengths of both neuroevolution
and its alternatives, in particular TD-learning and GP. Previous
research by Whiteson and Stone in combining NEAT and
Q-learning has shown promising results [138, 139]. These
methods have been applied with some success to shooters [89]
and racing games [13].

A. Reaching Record-beating Performance

C. Learning from high-dimensional/raw data

We have seen throughout the paper that NE performs very
well in many domains, especially those involving some kind
of continuous control. For some problems (see Section II-B1)
NE is the currently best known method. Extending the range
of problems and domains on which NE performs well is an
important research direction in its own right. In recent years,
Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) has provided record-beating
performance in many game domains [6]. It is likely that many
clues can be taken from this new family of algorithms in order
to improve NE, and there are probably also hybridisations
possible. Of course, performance can be measured in many
different ways; in game tasks, it is often (though not always)
about playing well (for measure of good playing) within some
given computation time limit.

As discussed in Section VII-E, learning from raw images or
similar high-dimensional unprocessed data is a hard challenge
of considerable scientific interest and with several applications.
The paucity of experiments in evolving neural networks that
control game agents based on raw data is puzzling given
the fertility of this topic. However, as we can see from the
published results, it is also very hard to make this work.
It stands to reason why the best results have been achieved
using drastically scaled down first-person image feeds. Direct
shallow approaches seem to be unable to deal with the dimensionality and signal transformation necessary for extracting
high-level information from high-dimensional feeds. However,
recent advances in convolutional networks and other deep
learning architectures on one hand, and in indirect encodings
like HyperNEAT on the other, promise significantly improved
performance. It seems like very interesting work would result
from the sustained application of these techniques to e.g. the
visual inputs from Quake II. This kind of task might also be the
catalyst for the development of new evolvable indirect neural
network encodings.

B. Comparing and combining evolution with other learning
methods
While NE is easily applicable and often high-performing,
and sometimes the best approach available for some problem,
it is almost never the only type of algorithm that can be applied
to a problem. There are always other evolvable representations,
such as expression trees used in genetic programming. For
player modeling, supervised learning algorithms based on
gradient descent can often be applied, and for reinforcement
learning problems, one could choose to apply algorithms from
the temporal difference learning family (e.g. TD(0) or Qlearning). The relative performance of alternative methods
compared to Q-learning differs drastically; sometimes NE
really is the best thing to use, sometimes not. The outstanding
research question here is: when should one use NE?
From the few published comparative studies of NE with
other kinds of reinforcement learning algorithms, we can
learn that in many cases, TD-based algorithms learn faster
but are more brittle and NE eventually reaches higher performance [74, 100, 142]. But sometimes, TD-learning performs
very well when well tuned [73], and sometimes NE completely
dominates all other algorithms [42]. What is needed is some
sort of general theory of what problem characteristics advantage and disadvantage NE; for this, we need parameterizable
benchmarks that will help us chart the problem space from
the vantage point of algorithm performance [131]. There
have been some attempts at constructing such benchmarks

D. General video game playing
One of the strengths of NE is how generic it is; the same
algorithm can, with relatively few tweaks, be applied to a
large number of different game-related tasks. Yet, almost all
of the papers cited in this paper use only a single game each
for a testbed. The problem of how to construct NE solutions
that can learn to play any of a number of games is seriously
understudied. One of the very few exceptions is the recent
work on learning to play arbitrary Atari games [47, 48].
While NE performed admirably in that work, there is clearly
scope for improvement. Apart from the Atari GGP benchmark,
another relevant benchmark here is the General Video Game
Playing Competition, which uses games encoded in the Video
Game Description Language (VGDL) [27, 102]. This means
that unlike the Atari GGP benchmark, this competition (and its
associated benchmark software) can feature generated games,
and thus a theoretically unbounded set of video games. A
controller architecture that could be evolved to play any game
from a large set would be a step towards more generic AI
capabilities. The first edition of the competition was won by
controllers based on variations of Monte Carlo Tree Search,

14

but future editions will feature a “learning track” which allows
controllers considerable time to train on each game [88] – NE
methods are likely to be competitive here.

predator-prey scenarios that were used in previous research,
as there is just no room for more sophisticated strategies.
Modern games might provide the kind of environments that
would allow more open-ended evolution to take place.

E. Combining NE with life-long learning
An even larger step would to be evolve a single neural
network that could learn and adapt during its lifetime (ontogenetically, i.e. without further evolution) to play one of a set of
games. This has as far as we know never been attempted, but
would be highly impressive. Evolution and learning are two
forms of biological adaptation that operate on very different
timescales. Learning can allow an organism to adapt much
faster to environmental changes by modifying its behaviors
during its lifetime. One way that NE can create such adaptive
ANNs is to not only evolve the weights of an ANN but also
local synaptic plasticity parameters that determine how the
weights of the network change during the lifetime of the
agent based on incoming activation [30, 113, 133, 134]. This
resembles the way the brains of organisms in nature can cope
with changing and unpredictable situations [49].
While there has been progress in this field, adaptive ANNs
have so far mostly been applied to relatively simple toy
problems. However, novel combinations of recent advances
such as more advanced forms of local plasticity (e.g. neuromodulation [113]), hypothesis testing in distal reward learning
[112], larger indirectly-encoded adaptive networks [91–93],
methods that avoid deception inherent in evolving learning
architectures [63, 94], and learning of large behavioral repertoires [23], could allow the creating of learning networks for
more complex domains such as games.
Such adaptive networks could overcome many of the challenges in applying NE to games, such as adjusting on the fly
to the difficulty of the opponent, incrementally learning new
skills without forgetting current ones, and ultimately allow
general video game playing ANNs. However, preventing these
networks from potentially learning undesired behaviors in
addition to being reliable and controllable, are important future
research direction, especially in the context of commercial
games (Section VIII-G).

G. Fast and reliable methods for commercial games
This paper has been an overview of the academic literature
on NE in games rather than of the uses of NE in the game
industry, for the simple reason that we do not know of many
examples of NE being part of published commercial games
(with the exception of the commercial game Creatures [44]
and indie titles such as GAR [46] and Petalz [95, 96]).
Therefore, one key research problem is to identify which
aspects of neural networks, evolutionary algorithms and their
combination have hindered its uptake in commercial game
AI and try to remedy this. For example, ANNs have mostly
found their way into commercial games for data mining
purposes, with a few exceptions of usage for NPC control
in games such as Black&White or the car racing game Colin
McRae Rally 2. Game developers often cite the lack of control
and clarity as an issue when working with neural networks.
Especially if the ANN can learn on-line while the game is
being played (Section VIII-E), how can we make sure it
does not suddenly kill an NPC character that is vital to the
game’s story? Additionally, if the NPCs can change their
behavior, game balancing is more challenging and new types
of debugging tools might become necessary. In the future, it
will be important to address these challenges to encourage
the wider adoption of promising NE techniques in the game
industry.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank the numerous colleagues who have graciously
read and commented on versions of this paper, including Kenneth O. Stanley, Julian Miller, Matt Taylor, Mark J. Nelson,
Siang Yew Chong, Shimon Whiteson, Peter J. Bentley, Jeff
Clune, Simon M. Lucas, Peter Stone and Olivier Delalleau.
R EFERENCES

F. Competitive and cooperative coevolution
In our discussion of fitness functions in Section VI, we discuss competitive and cooperative coevolution at some length.
This is because these approaches bear exceptional promise.
Competitive coevolution could in theory enable open-ended
evolution through arms races; cooperative coevolution could
help find solutions to complex problems through automatically
decomposing the problems and evaluating partial solutions by
how well they fit together. Unfortunately, various problems
beset these approaches and prevent them from achieving their
full potential. For cooperative coevolution there is the problem
of how to select the appropriate level of modularisation, i.e.
which are the units that are cooperatively coevolved. Competitive coevolution has several pathologies, such as cycling and
loss of gradient. However, we suspect that these problems have
as much to do with the benchmark as with the algorithm. For
example, open-ended evolution might not be achievable in the

[1] H. A. Abbass. Pareto neuro-evolution: Constructing
ensemble of neural networks using multi-objective optimization. In Evolutionary Computation, 2003. CEC’03.
The 2003 Congress on, volume 3, pages 2074–2080.
IEEE, 2003.
[2] A. Agapitos, J. Togelius, S. M. Lucas, J. Schmidhuber,
and A. Konstantinidis. Generating diverse opponents
with multiobjective evolution. In Computational Intelligence and Games, 2008. CIG’08. IEEE Symposium
On, pages 135–142. IEEE, 2008.
[3] B. Al-Khateeb. Investigating evolutionary checkers by
incorporating individual and social learning, N-tuple
systems and a round robin tournament. PhD thesis,
University of Nottingham, 2011.
[4] A. Botea, B. Bouzy, M. Buro, C. Bauckhage, and
D. Nau. Pathfinding in games. Dagstuhl Follow-Ups,
6, 2013.

15

[5] S. Branavan, D. Silver, and R. Barzilay. Non-linear
monte-carlo search in Civilization II. In Proceedings
of the Twenty-Second international joint conference on
Artificial Intelligence, pages 2404–2410. AAAI Press,
2011.
[6] C. B. Browne, E. Powley, D. Whitehouse, S. M. Lucas,
P. I. Cowling, P. Rohlfshagen, S. Tavener, D. Perez,
S. Samothrakis, and S. Colton. A survey of monte carlo
tree search methods. Computational Intelligence and AI
in Games, IEEE Transactions on, 4(1):1–43, 2012.
[7] B. D. Bryant and R. Miikkulainen. Neuroevolution for
adaptive teams. In Proceedings of the 2003 congress
on evolutionary computation (CEC), volume 3, pages
2194–2201, 2003.
[8] P. Burrow and S. M. Lucas. Evolution versus temporal
difference learning for learning to play Ms. Pac-Man.
In Computational Intelligence and Games, 2009. CIG
2009. IEEE Symposium on, pages 53–60. IEEE, 2009.
[9] M. V. Butz and T. Lonneker. Optimized sensory-motor
couplings plus strategy extensions for the TORCS car
racing challenge. In Computational Intelligence and
Games, 2009. CIG 2009. IEEE Symposium on, pages
317–324. IEEE, 2009.
[10] L. Cardamone, D. Loiacono, and P. L. Lanzi. Evolving competitive car controllers for racing games with
neuroevolution. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual
conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation,
pages 1179–1186. ACM, 2009.
[11] L. Cardamone, D. Loiacono, and P. L. Lanzi. On-line
neuroevolution applied to the open racing car simulator.
In Evolutionary Computation, 2009. CEC’09. IEEE
Congress on, pages 2622–2629. IEEE, 2009.
[12] L. Cardamone, D. Loiacono, and P. L. Lanzi. Applying
cooperative coevolution to compete in the 2009 TORCS
endurance world championship. In Evolutionary Computation (CEC), 2010 IEEE Congress on, pages 1–8.
IEEE, 2010.
[13] L. Cardamone, D. Loiacono, and P. L. Lanzi. Learning
to drive in the open racing car simulator using online
neuroevolution. Computational Intelligence and AI in
Games, IEEE Transactions on, 2(3):176–190, 2010.
[14] L. Cardamone, A. Caiazzo, D. Loiacono, and P. L.
Lanzi. Transfer of driving behaviors across different racing games. In Computational Intelligence and
Games (CIG), 2011 IEEE Conference on, pages 227–
234. IEEE, 2011.
[15] A. B. Cardona, J. Togelius, and M. J. Nelson. Competitive coevolution in Ms. Pac-Man. In Evolutionary
Computation (CEC), 2013 IEEE Congress on, pages
1403–1410. IEEE, 2013.
[16] K. Chellapilla and D. B. Fogel. Evolving neural
networks to play checkers without relying on expert
knowledge. Neural Networks, IEEE Transactions on,
10(6):1382–1391, 1999.
[17] K. Chellapilla and D. B. Fogel. Evolution, neural
networks, games, and intelligence. Proceedings of the
IEEE, 87(9):1471–1496, 1999.
[18] K. Chellapilla and D. B. Fogel. Evolving an expert

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]
[32]

[33]

[34]

checkers playing program without using human expertise. Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on,
5(4):422–428, 2001.
S. Y. Chong, M. K. Tan, and J. D. White. Observing
the evolution of neural networks learning to play the
game of Othello. Evolutionary Computation, IEEE
Transactions on, 9(3):240–251, 2005.
J. Clune and H. Lipson. Evolving 3D objects with a
generative encoding inspired by developmental biology.
In Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial
Life (Alife-2011), volume 5, pages 2–12, New York, NY,
USA, Nov. 2011. ACM.
J. Clune, J.-B. Mouret, and H. Lipson. The evolutionary
origins of modularity. Proceedings of the Royal Society
of London B: Biological Sciences, 280(1755):20122863,
2013.
C. A. C. Coello, D. A. Van Veldhuizen, and G. B.
Lamont. Evolutionary algorithms for solving multiobjective problems, volume 242. Springer, 2002.
A. Cully, J. Clune, D. Tarapore, and J.-B. Mouret.
Robots that can adapt like animals. Nature, 521(7553):
503–507, 2015.
K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan. A
fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGAII. Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on, 6
(2):182–197, 2002.
G. A. Dubbin and K. O. Stanley. Learning to dance
through interactive evolution. In Applications of Evolutionary Computation, pages 331–340. Springer, 2010.
R. C. Eberhart and Y. Shi. Particle swarm optimization:
developments, applications and resources. In Evolutionary Computation, 2001. Proceedings of the 2001
Congress on, volume 1, pages 81–86. IEEE, 2001.
M. Ebner, J. Levine, S. M. Lucas, T. Schaul, T. Thompson, and J. Togelius. Towards a video game description
language. Dagstuhl Follow-Ups, 6, 2013.
D. Floreano and F. Mondada. Evolution of plastic
neurocontrollers for situated agents. In From Animals
to Animats 4, Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior (SAB”
1996), pages 402–410. MA: MIT Press, 1996.
D. Floreano, T. Kato, D. Marocco, and E. Sauser.
Coevolution of active vision and feature selection. Biological cybernetics, 90(3):218–228, 2004.
D. Floreano, P. Dürr, and C. Mattiussi. Neuroevolution:
from architectures to learning. Evolutionary Intelligence, 1(1):47–62, 2008.
D. B. Fogel. Blondie24: Playing at the Edge of AI.
Morgan Kaufmann, 2001.
D. B. Fogel, T. J. Hays, S. Hahn, and J. Quon. A selflearning evolutionary chess program. Proceedings of
the IEEE, 92(12):1947–1954, 2004.
C. M. Fonseca, P. J. Fleming, et al. Genetic algorithms
for multiobjective optimization: Formulation, discussion
and generalization. In ICGA, volume 93, pages 416–
423, 1993.
B. Fullmer and R. Miikkulainen. Evolving finite state
behavior using marker-based genetic encoding of neural

16

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

networks. In Proceedings of the First European Conference on Artificial Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
1992.
M. Gallagher and M. Ledwich. Evolving Pac-Man
players: Can we learn from raw input? In Computational Intelligence and Games, 2007. CIG 2007. IEEE
Symposium on, pages 282–287. IEEE, 2007.
L. Galway, D. Charles, and M. Black. Machine learning
in digital games: a survey. Artificial Intelligence Review,
29(2):123–161, 2008.
J. Gauci and K. O. Stanley. Autonomous evolution
of topographic regularities in artificial neural networks.
Neural computation, 22(7):1860–1898, 2010.
J. Gauci and K. O. Stanley. Indirect encoding of neural
networks for scalable Go. In Parallel Problem Solving
from Nature, PPSN XI, pages 354–363. Springer, 2010.
J. Gemrot, R. Kadlec, M. Bı́da, O. Burkert, R. Pı́bil,
J. Havlı́ček, L. Zemčák, J. Šimlovič, R. Vansa,
M. Štolba, et al. Pogamut 3 can assist developers
in building AI (not only) for their videogame agents.
In Agents for Games and Simulations, pages 1–15.
Springer, 2009.
F. A. Gers and J. Schmidhuber. LSTM recurrent
networks learn simple context-free and context-sensitive
languages. Neural Networks, IEEE Transactions on, 12
(6):1333–1340, 2001.
F. Gomez and R. Miikkulainen. Incremental evolution
of complex general behavior. Adaptive Behavior, 5(34):317–342, 1997.
F. Gomez, J. Schmidhuber, and R. Miikkulainen. Accelerated neural evolution through cooperatively coevolved
synapses. The Journal of Machine Learning Research,
9:937–965, 2008.
F. J. Gomez, D. Burger, and R. Miikkulainen. A
neuro-evolution method for dynamic resource allocation
on a chip multiprocessor. In Neural Networks, 2001.
Proceedings. IJCNN’01. International Joint Conference
on, volume 4, pages 2355–2360. IEEE, 2001.
S. Grand, D. Cliff, and A. Malhotra. Creatures: Artificial Life Autonomous Software Agents for Home
Entertainment. In Proceedings of the 1st International
Conference on Autonomous Agents, AGENTS’97, pages
22–29, New York, NY, USA, 1997. ACM. ISBN 089791-877-0. doi: 10.1145/267658.267663.
N. Hansen and A. Ostermeier. Completely derandomized self-adaptation in evolution strategies. Evolutionary computation, 9(2):159–195, 2001.
E. J. Hastings, R. K. Guha, and K. O. Stanley. Automatic content generation in the galactic arms race video
game. Computational Intelligence and AI in Games,
IEEE Transactions on, 1(4):245–263, 2009.
M. Hausknecht, P. Khandelwal, R. Miikkulainen, and
P. Stone. HyperNEAT-GGP: A HyperNEAT-based Atari
General Game Player. In Genetic and Evolutionary
Computation Conference (GECCO) 2012, 2012.
M. Hausknecht, J. Lehman, R. Miikkulainen, and
P. Stone. A neuroevolution approach to general Atari
game playing. In IEEE Transactions on Computational

Intelligence and AI in Games, 2013.
[49] D. O. Hebb. The Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological Theory. Wiley, New York, 1949.
[50] P. Hingston. A new design for a Turing test for bots.
In Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG), 2010
IEEE Symposium on, pages 345–350. IEEE, 2010.
[51] A. K. Hoover, P. A. Szerlip, M. E. Norton, T. A.
Brindle, Z. Merritt, and K. O. Stanley. Generating a
complete multipart musical composition from a single
monophonic melody with functional scaffolding. In
International Conference on Computational Creativity,
page 111, 2012.
[52] A. K. Hoover, P. A. Szerlip, and K. O. Stanley. Generating a complete multipart musical composition from a
single monophonic melody with functional scaffolding.
In M. L. Maher, K. Hammond, A. Pease, R. P. Y.
Perez, D. Ventura, and G. Wiggins, editors, Proceedings
of the 3rd International Conference on Computational
Creativity (ICCC-2012), 2012.
[53] K. Hornik, M. Stinchcombe, and H. White. Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators. Neural networks, 2(5):359–366, 1989.
[54] E. J. Hughes. Piece difference: Simple to evolve? In
Evolutionary Computation, 2003. CEC’03. The 2003
Congress on, volume 4, pages 2470–2473. IEEE, 2003.
[55] C. Igel. Neuroevolution for reinforcement learning using evolution strategies. In Evolutionary Computation,
2003. CEC’03. The 2003 Congress on, volume 4, pages
2588–2595. IEEE, 2003.
[56] D. Jallov, S. Risi, and J. Togelius. EvoCommander,
2015. URL http://http://jallov.com/thesis/.
[57] S. Kalyanakrishnan and P. Stone. Characterizing reinforcement learning methods through parameterized
learning problems. Machine Learning, 84(1-2):205–
247, 2011.
[58] I. V. Karpov, V. K. Valsalam, and R. Miikkulainen.
Human-assisted neuroevolution through shaping, advice and examples. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO 2011), Dublin, Ireland, July 2011.
[59] G. M. Khan and J. F. Miller. Evolution of cartesian
genetic programs capable of learning. In Proceedings of
the 11th Annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary
computation, pages 707–714. ACM, 2009.
[60] G. M. Khan and J. F. Miller. In search of intelligence:
evolving a developmental neuron capable of learning.
Connection Science, 26(4):1–37, 2014.
[61] N. Kohl and R. Miikkulainen. Evolving neural networks for strategic decision-making problems. Neural
Networks, 22(3):326–337, 2009.
[62] J. Koutnı́k, G. Cuccu, J. Schmidhuber, and F. Gomez.
Evolving large-scale neural networks for vision-based
reinforcement learning. In Proceeding of the fifteenth
annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation conference, pages 1061–1068. ACM, 2013.
[63] J. Lehman and R. Miikkulainen. Overcoming deception
in evolution of cognitive behaviors. In Proceedings of
the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference

17

(GECCO 2014), Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 2014.
[64] A. Liapis, G. N. Yannakakis, and J. Togelius. Adapting
models of visual aesthetics for personalized content
creation. Computational Intelligence and AI in Games,
IEEE Transactions on, 4(3):213–228, 2012.
[65] A. Liapis, H. P. Martı́nez, J. Togelius, and G. N.
Yannakakis. Transforming exploratory creativity with
DeLeNoX. In Proceedings of the Fourth International
Conference on Computational Creativity, pages 56–63,
2013.
[66] A. Lockett and R. Miikkulainen. Evolving opponent
models for Texas Hold ’Em. In 2008 IEEE Conference
on Computational Intelligence in Games, December
2008.
[67] D. Loiacono, J. Togelius, P. L. Lanzi, L. KinnairdHeether, S. M. Lucas, M. Simmerson, D. Perez, R. G.
Reynolds, and Y. Saez. The WCCI 2008 simulated
car racing competition. In Computational Intelligence
and Games, 2008. CIG’08. IEEE Symposium On, pages
119–126. IEEE, 2008.
[68] D. Loiacono, P. L. Lanzi, J. Togelius, E. Onieva, D. A.
Pelta, M. V. Butz, T. D. Lonneker, L. Cardamone,
D. Perez, Y. Sáez, et al. The 2009 simulated car racing
championship. Computational Intelligence and AI in
Games, IEEE Transactions on, 2(2):131–147, 2010.
[69] A. Lubberts and R. Miikkulainen. Co-evolving a Goplaying neural network. In Coevolution: Turning Adaptive Algorithms Upon Themselves, Birds-of-a-Feather
Workshop, Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO-2001), page 6, 2001.
[70] S. Lucas and T. Runarsson. Preference learning for
move prediction and evaluation function approximation
in Othello. Transaction on Computational Intelligence
and AI in Games, 6, 2014.
[71] S. M. Lucas. Evolving a neural network location evaluator to play Ms. Pac-Man. In G. Kendall and S. Lucas,
editors, Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Symposium on
Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG 2005),
pages 203–210. IEEE, 2005.
[72] S. M. Lucas and G. Kendall. Evolutionary computation and games. Computational Intelligence Magazine,
IEEE, 1(1):10–18, 2006.
[73] S. M. Lucas and T. P. Runarsson. Temporal difference
learning versus co-evolution for acquiring othello position evaluation. In Computational Intelligence and
Games, 2006 IEEE Symposium on, pages 52–59. IEEE,
2006.
[74] S. M. Lucas and J. Togelius. Point-to-point car : an
initial study of evolution versus temporal difference
learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on
Computational Intelligence and Games, 2007.
[75] H. Mayer, F. Gomez, D. Wierstra, I. Nagy, A. Knoll,
and J. Schmidhuber. A system for robotic heart surgery
that learns to tie knots using recurrent neural networks.
Advanced Robotics, 22(13-14):1521–1537, 2008.
[76] R. Miikkulainen. Creating intelligent agents in games.
The Bridge, pages 5–13, 2006.
[77] R. Miikkulainen, B. D. Bryant, R. Cornelius, I. V.

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

[88]

[89]

[90]

[91]

[92]

Karpov, K. O. Stanley, and C. H. Yong. Computational
intelligence in games. Computational Intelligence:
Principles and Practice, pages 155–191, 2006.
R. Miikkulainen, B. D. Bryant, R. Cornelius, I. V.
Karpov, K. O. Stanley, and C. H. Yong. Computational intelligence in games. In G. Y. Yen and D. B.
Fogel, editors, Computational Intelligence: Principles
and Practice. IEEE Computational Intelligence Society,
Piscataway, NJ, 2006.
D. E. Moriarty and R. Miikkulainen. Evolving neural
networks to focus minimax search. In AAAI, pages
1371–1377, 1994.
D. E. Moriarty and R. Miikkulainen. Discovering
complex othello strategies through evolutionary neural
networks. Connection Science, 7(3-4):3–4, 1995.
H. Muñoz-Avila, C. Bauckhage, M. Bida, C. B. Congdon, and G. Kendall. Learning and game AI. Dagstuhl
Follow-Ups, 6, 2013.
S. Nolfi and D. Floreano. Coevolving predator and prey
robots: Do “arms races” arise in artificial evolution?
Artificial life, 4(4):311–335, 1998.
S. Nolfi and D. Floreano. Evolutionary robotics: The
biology, intelligence, and technology of self-organizing
machines. MIT press, 2000.
J. Ortega, N. Shaker, J. Togelius, and G. N. Yannakakis.
Imitating human playing styles in Super Mario Bros.
Entertainment Computing, 4(2):93–104, 2013.
M. Parker and B. D. Bryant. Neuro-visual control in
the Quake II game engine. In Neural Networks, 2008.
IJCNN 2008.(IEEE World Congress on Computational
Intelligence). IEEE International Joint Conference on,
pages 3828–3833. IEEE, 2008.
M. Parker and B. D. Bryant. Neurovisual control in the
Quake II environment. Computational Intelligence and
AI in Games, IEEE Transactions on, 4(1):44–54, 2012.
C. Pedersen, J. Togelius, and G. N. Yannakakis. Modeling player experience for content creation. Computational Intelligence and AI in Games, IEEE Transactions
on, 2(1):54–67, 2010.
D. Perez, S. Samothrakis, J. Togelius, T. Schaul, S. Lucas, A. Couëtoux, J. Lee, C.-U. Lim, and T. Thompson.
The 2014 general video game playing competition.
IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and
AI in Games (TCIAIG), 2015.
J. Reeder, R. Miguez, J. Sparks, M. Georgiopoulos,
and G. Anagnostopoulos. Interactively evolved modular
neural networks for game agent control. In Computational Intelligence and Games, 2008. CIG’08. IEEE
Symposium On, pages 167–174. IEEE, 2008.
N. Richards, D. Moriarty, and R. Miikkulainen. Evolving neural networks to play Go. In T. B”ack, editor,
Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on
Genetic Algorithms (ICGA-97, East Lansing, MI), pages
768–775. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1998.
S. Risi and K. O. Stanley. Indirectly encoding neural
plasticity as a pattern of local rules. In From Animals
to Animats 11, pages 533–543. Springer, 2010.
S. Risi and K. O. Stanley. A unified approach to evolv-

18

[93]

[94]

[95]

[96]

[97]

[98]

[99]

[100]

[101]

[102]

[103]

[104]

[105]

[106]

ing plasticity and neural geometry. In Neural Networks
(IJCNN), The 2012 International Joint Conference on,
pages 1–8. IEEE, 2012.
S. Risi and K. O. Stanley. Guided self-organization in
indirectly encoded and evolving topographic maps. In
Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO-2014). New York, NY: ACM
(8 pages), 2014.
S. Risi, C. E. Hughes, and K. O. Stanley. Evolving
plastic neural networks with novelty search. Adaptive
Behavior, 18(6):470–491, 2010.
S. Risi, J. Lehman, D. B. D’Ambrosio, R. Hall, and
K. O. Stanley. Combining search-based procedural
content generation and social gaming in the Petalz video
game. In Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital
Entertainment Conference (AIIDE), 2012.
S. Risi, J. Lehman, D. B. D’Ambrosio, and K. O.
Stanley. Automatically categorizing procedurally generated content for collecting games. In Proceedings
of the Workshop on Procedural Content Generation in
Games (PCG) at the 9th International Conference on
the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG-2014). ACM,
New York, NY, USA, 2014.
S. Risi, J. Lehman, D. B. D’Ambrosio, R. Hall, and
K. O. Stanley. Petalz: Search-based procedural content
generation for the casual gamer. Computational Intelligence and AI in Games, IEEE Transactions on, PP(99):
1–1, 2015. ISSN 1943-068X. doi: 10.1109/TCIAIG.
2015.2416206.
F. Rosenblatt. The perceptron: a probabilistic model
for information storage and organization in the brain.
Psychological review, 65(6):386, 1958.
C. D. Rosin and R. K. Belew. New methods for
competitive coevolution. Evolutionary Computation, 5
(1):1–29, 1997.
T. P. Runarsson and S. M. Lucas. Coevolution versus
self-play temporal difference learning for acquiring position evaluation in small-board go. Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on, 9(6):628–640, 2005.
J. Schaeffer, N. Burch, Y. Björnsson, A. Kishimoto,
M. Müller, R. Lake, P. Lu, and S. Sutphen. Checkers
is solved. science, 317(5844):1518–1522, 2007.
T. Schaul. A video game description language for
model-based or interactive learning. In Computational
Intelligence in Games (CIG), 2013 IEEE Conference
on, pages 1–8. IEEE, 2013.
T. Schaul and J. Schmidhuber. Scalable neural networks
for board games. In Artificial Neural Networks–ICANN
2009, pages 1005–1014. Springer, 2009.
J. Schmidhuber, D. Wierstra, M. Gagliolo, and
F. Gomez. Training recurrent networks by Evolino.
Neural computation, 19(3):757–779, 2007.
J. Schrum and R. Miikkulainen. Constructing complex
NPC behavior via multi-objective neuroevolution. AIIDE, 8:108–113, 2008.
J. Schrum and R. Miikkulainen. Evolving multimodal
behavior with modular neural networks in ms. pacman. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary

[107]

[108]

[109]

[110]

[111]

[112]

[113]

[114]

[115]

[116]

[117]

[118]

[119]

[120]

[121]
[122]

Computation Conference (GECCO 2014), Vancouver,
BC, Canada, July 2014.
J. Schrum, I. V. Karpov, and R. Miikkulainen. UT2:
Human-like Behavior via Neuroevolution of Combat
Behavior and Replay of Human Traces. In Proceedings
of the IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence
and Games (CIG 2011), pages 329–336, Seoul, South
Korea, September 2011. IEEE.
J. Schrum, I. V. Karpov, and R. Miikkulainen. Humanlike combat behaviour via multiobjective neuroevolution. In Believable Bots, pages 119–150. Springer, 2012.
J. Secretan, N. Beato, D. B. D’Ambrosio, A. Rodriguez,
A. Campbell, J. T. Folsom-Kovarik, and K. O. Stanley.
Picbreeder: A case study in collaborative evolutionary
exploration of design space. Evolutionary Computation,
19(3):373–403, 2011.
N. Shaker, G. N. Yannakakis, and J. Togelius. Towards
automatic personalized content generation for platform
games. In Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital
Entertainment Conference (AIIDE), 2010.
N. Shaker, J. Togelius, and M. Nelson. Procedural content generation in games: A textbook and an overview
of current research, 2015. To appear.
A. Soltoggio. Short-term plasticity as causeeffect hypothesis testing in distal reward learning. Biological
Cybernetics, 109(1):75–94, 2015. ISSN 0340-1200.
A. Soltoggio, P. Dürr, C. Mattiussi, and D. Floreano.
Evolving Neuromodulatory Topologies for Reinforcement Learning-like Problems. In Proceedings of the
IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC
2007, 2007.
E. J. Sondik. The optimal control of partially observable
markov processes over the infinite horizon: Discounted
costs. Operations Research, 26(2):282–304, 1978.
K. O. Stanley. Compositional pattern producing networks: A novel abstraction of development. Genetic
programming and evolvable machines, 8(2):131–162,
2007.
K. O. Stanley and R. Miikkulainen. Evolving neural
networks through augmenting topologies. Evolutionary
Computation, 10(2):99–127, 2002.
K. O. Stanley and R. Miikkulainen. Competitive coevolution through evolutionary complexification. J. Artif.
Intell. Res.(JAIR), 21:63–100, 2004.
K. O. Stanley and R. Miikkulainen. Evolving a roving eye for Go. In Proceedings of the Genetic and
Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO-2004),
Berlin, 2004. Springer Verlag.
K. O. Stanley, B. D. Bryant, and R. Miikkulainen.
Real-time neuroevolution in the NERO video game.
Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on, 9(6):
653–668, 2005.
K. O. Stanley, D. B. D’Ambrosio, and J. Gauci. A
hypercube-based encoding for evolving large-scale neural networks. Artificial life, 15(2):185–212, 2009.
R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto. Introduction to reinforcement learning. MIT Press, 1998.
M. E. Taylor, S. Whiteson, and P. Stone. Transfer

19

[123]

[124]

[125]

[126]

[127]

[128]

[129]

[130]

[131]

[132]

[133]

[134]

[135]

via inter-task mappings in policy search reinforcement
learning. In Proceedings of the Sixth International
Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent
Systems (AAMAS), pages 156–163, May 2007.
J. Togelius and S. M. Lucas. Evolving controllers for
simulated car racing. In Evolutionary Computation,
2005. The 2005 IEEE Congress on, volume 2, pages
1906–1913. IEEE, 2005.
J. Togelius and S. M. Lucas. Evolving robust and specialized car racing skills. In Evolutionary Computation,
2006. CEC 2006. IEEE Congress on, pages 1187–1194.
IEEE, 2006.
J. Togelius and J. Schmidhuber. An experiment in
automatic game design. In Computational Intelligence
and Games, 2008. CIG’08. IEEE Symposium On, pages
111–118. IEEE, 2008.
J. Togelius, P. Burrow, S. M. Lucas, et al. Multipopulation competitive co-evolution of car racing controllers. In IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pages 4043–4050, 2007.
J. Togelius, R. De Nardi, and S. M. Lucas. Towards automatic personalised content creation for racing games.
In Computational Intelligence and Games, 2007. CIG
2007. IEEE Symposium on, pages 252–259. IEEE, 2007.
J. Togelius, S. Lucas, H. D. Thang, J. M. Garibaldi,
T. Nakashima, C. H. Tan, I. Elhanany, S. Berant,
P. Hingston, R. M. MacCallum, et al. The 2007
IEEE CEC simulated car racing competition. Genetic
Programming and Evolvable Machines, 9(4):295–329,
2008.
J. Togelius, T. Schaul, J. Schmidhuber, and F. Gomez.
Countering poisonous inputs with memetic neuroevolution. In Parallel Problem Solving from Nature–PPSN
X, pages 610–619. Springer, 2008.
J. Togelius, S. Karakovskiy, J. Koutnı́k, and J. Schmidhuber. Super Mario evolution. In Computational Intelligence and Games, 2009. CIG 2009. IEEE Symposium
on, pages 156–161. IEEE, 2009.
J. Togelius, T. Schaul, D. Wierstra, C. Igel, F. Gomez,
and J. Schmidhuber. Ontogenetic and phylogenetic
reinforcement learning. Künstliche Intelligenz, 23(3):
30–33, 2009.
J. Togelius, G. N. Yannakakis, K. O. Stanley, and
C. Browne. Search-based procedural content generation: a taxonomy and survey. IEEE Transactions on
Computational Intelligence and AI in Games, 3:172–
186, 2011.
P. Tonelli and J.-B. Mouret. On the relationships
between generative encodings, regularity, and learning
abilities when evolving plastic artificial neural networks.
PloS one, 8(11):e79138, 2013.
J. Urzelai and D. Floreano. Evolution of Adaptive
Synapses: Robots with Fast Adaptive Behavior in New
Environments. Evolutionary Computation, 9(4):495–
524, 2001.
N. van Hoorn, J. Togelius, and J. Schmidhuber. Hierarchical controller learning in a first-person shooter.
In Computational Intelligence and Games, 2009. CIG

2009. IEEE Symposium on, pages 294–301. IEEE, 2009.
[136] N. van Hoorn, J. Togelius, D. Wierstra, and J. Schmidhuber. Robust player imitation using multiobjective
evolution. In Evolutionary Computation, 2009. CEC’09.
IEEE Congress on, pages 652–659. IEEE, 2009.
[137] P. Verbancsics and K. O. Stanley. Evolving static representations for task transfer. The Journal of Machine
Learning Research, 11:1737–1769, 2010.
[138] S. Whiteson and P. Stone. On-line evolutionary computation for reinforcement learning in stochastic domains.
In Proceedings of the 8th annual conference on Genetic
and evolutionary computation, pages 1577–1584. ACM,
2006.
[139] S. Whiteson and P. Stone. Evolutionary function approximation for reinforcement learning. Journal of
Machine Learning Research, 7:877–917, May 2006.
[140] S. Whiteson, N. Kohl, R. Miikkulainen, and P. Stone.
Evolving Keepaway soccer players through task decomposition. Machine Learning, 59(1):5–30, May 2005.
[141] S. Whiteson, P. Stone, K. O. Stanley, R. Miikkulainen,
and N. Kohl. Automatic feature selection in neuroevolution. In Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Genetic
and evolutionary computation, pages 1225–1232. ACM,
2005.
[142] S. Whiteson, M. E. Taylor, and P. Stone. Empirical
studies in action selection with reinforcement learning.
Adaptive Behavior, 15(1):33–50, 2007.
[143] S. Whiteson, M. E. Taylor, and P. Stone. Critical factors
in the empirical performance of temporal difference
and evolutionary methods for reinforcement learning.
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 21(1):1–
35, 2010.
[144] G. Yannakakis and J. Togelius. A panorama of artificial
and computational intelligence in games. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and Games,
2014.
[145] G. N. Yannakakis and J. Hallam. Evolving opponents
for interesting interactive computer games. From animals to animats, 8:499–508, 2004.
[146] G. N. Yannakakis, P. Spronck, D. Loiacono, and
E. André. Player modeling. Dagstuhl Follow-Ups, 6,
2013.
[147] X. Yao. Evolving artificial neural networks. Proceedings of the IEEE, 87(9):1423–1447, 1999.
[148] X. Yao and M. M. Islam. Evolving artificial neural network ensembles. Computational Intelligence Magazine,
IEEE, 3(1):31–42, 2008.
[149] S. Zanetti and A. E. Rhalibi. Machine learning techniques for FPS in Q3. In Proceedings of the 2004
ACM SIGCHI International Conference on Advances in
Computer Entertainment Technology, ACE ’04, pages
239–244, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM. ISBN 158113-882-2.
[150] T. Ziemke. Remembering how to behave: Recurrent
neural networks for adaptive robot behavior. Recurrent
Neural Networks: Design and Applications, pages 355–
389, 1999.

