The Case for a Mixed-Initiative Collaborative Neuroevolution Approach
Sebastian Risi, Jinhong Zhang, Rasmus Taarnby, Peter Greve, Jan Piskur, Antonios Liapis, Julian Togelius

arXiv:1408.0998v1 [cs.NE] 5 Aug 2014

IT University Copenhagen, 2300 Copenhagen, Denmark
{sebr, jinh, reta, pgre, japi, anli, juto}@itu.dk

Abstract
It is clear that the current attempts at using algorithms to create artificial neural networks have had mixed success at best
when it comes to creating large networks and/or complex behavior. This should not be unexpected, as creating an artificial
brain is essentially a design problem. Human design ingenuity still surpasses computational design for most tasks in most
domains, including architecture, game design, and authoring
literary fiction. This leads us to ask which the best way is
to combine human and machine design capacities when it
comes to designing artificial brains. Both of them have their
strengths and weaknesses; for example, humans are much too
slow to manually specify thousands of neurons, let alone the
billions of neurons that go into a human brain, but on the other
hand they can rely on a vast repository of common-sense understanding and design heuristics that can help them perform
a much better guided search in design space than an algorithm. Therefore, in this paper we argue for a mixed-initiative
approach for collaborative online brain building and present
first results towards this goal.

With around 200 billion neurons and 125 trillion
synapses, the human brain is the most complex system
known to exist. The brain’s structural complexity, with intricate synaptic motifs that repeat throughout it, gives rise to
our unique mental abilities. Additionally, the brains plasticity allows us to learn new abilities throughout our life (e.g.
learning a new language) and to change our behavior based
on past experience.
Therefore, creating similar artificial structures by recapitulating the process that created intelligence on earth, is an
intriguing possibility. In this context, neuroevolution (i.e.
evolving artificial neural networks (ANNs) via evolutionary
algorithms) has shown promising results in a variety of different domains (Floreano et al., 2008; Stanley and Miikkulainen, 2004; Yao, 1999). However, these results still pale in
comparison to the capabilities of natural brains. The reasons
for this are manifold. Especially the problem of deceptive
fitness landscapes (i.e. mutations increase fitness but actually lead further away from the final objective) has limited
the scope of problems amenable to evolutionary algorithms.
Research in circumventing this problem has mainly focused on two different ideas. First, novelty search (Lehman

and Stanley, 2011), a method that rewards novel behaviors instead of rewarding objective performance, has shown
promise and significantly outperforms objective-based approaches in a variety of different domains. Other approaches
are based on interactive evolutionary computation (IEC)
methods, wherein the human user guides evolution by repeatedly choosing from a set of candidates. Woolley and
Stanley (2011) showed that interactive evolution can help to
discover artifacts which are very hard to evolve with traditional evolutionary approaches. Recently Woolley and Stanley (2014) combined IEC with novelty search, demonstrating that the approaches complement each other and together
address some of the challenges that each method struggles
with by itself (e.g. novelty search can get lost in large search
spaces, interactive evolution is limited by user fatigue). In
a related approach, Bongard and Hornby (2013) recently
demonstrated that human input and objective-based search
can also be combined synergistically to solve challenging
robotic domains.
While these human in the loop approaches have shown
promising results, we argue in this paper that they do not exploit the whole range of human intuition, ability to identify
promising stepping stones, or collaborative problem-solving
skills that could ultimately allow us to create more brain-like
artificial structures. For example, collaborative games like
Foldit hint at the power of crowdsourcing the human brain’s
natural abilities for specific tasks (e.g. pattern matching, spatial reasoning), which are hard to solve by computational approaches. However, in traditional IEC applications the role
of the user is often reduced to solely judging the created artifacts and only “nudging” evolution by deciding between a
discrete choice of candidates. In other words, only the computer creates content (e.g. images, ANNs, etc.) and the role
of the human is to guide evolution to content they prefer.
An approach that does require significantly more input
from the user is a mixed-initiative process (Liapis et al.,
2014), wherein both the computer and the human take turns
in creating content. Yet while mixed-initiative based approaches have shown promise in the context of procedurally
generated content for games (Liapis et al., 2013; Yannakakis

Figure 1: BrainCrafter Web Interface. Beta version online
at: braincrafter.dk
et al., 2014), they have not yet been applied to the evolution of large-scale ANNs for complex tasks. However, the
promise of such an approach is a system that can benefit
from the different skillsets of a human and a computational
creator. For example, while a human user might develop
an intuition about promising domain-dependent network topographies, a computational method is likely more effective
at fine-tuning specific synaptic weights. Therefore, we argue
for a collaborative mixed-initiative approach in which both
the computer and the collaborating human users can take initiative and propose changes to an evolving neural networks.
That is, at any point the human can revert to just doing selection and let the evolutionary algorithm serve up new content
to judge, or decide to jump in and have a more active role in
the design of the ANN.
Our recent work has taken steps towards this goal by focusing on two parallel lines of research. First, before introducing a mixed-initiative approach it is useful to determine
how good we as humans are at building complex ANNs for
certain tasks (without evolution) and if collaborating with
other users proves useful. Insights from this experiment
should in turn provide useful clues about the strengths of
human ANN design and most importantly, non-intuitive aspects of the design process we tend to struggle with (i.e.
aspects which would benefit most from an assisting computational creator). In this context we recently introduced
BrainCrafter (braincrafter.dk), which is an online application that allows the user to build ANNs for specific control programs (e.g. a robot that must traverse a maze) by
adding neurons and connections in a drag&drop like fashion (Figure 1). While building ANNs the users can observe
the resulting simulated robot behaviors in real-time, proving
insights into the effects of different network modifications.
BrainCrafter also allows users to collaborate by building on
high-scoring solutions created by other people.
While the ongoing BrainCrafter experiment should pro-

Figure 2: Picture CPPN-Compiler User Interface. Beta version online at: rasmustaarnby.dk/thesis

vide insights into our abilities to collaboratively construct
complex networks, more challenging domains will likely require the orchestrated effort of both human and computational creators. Therefore extending BrainCrafter to support the users’ collaborative engineering efforts through a
mixed-initiative approach is an important next goal. To allow seamlessly switching between interactive evolution and
manual ANN design will require an ANN representation that
(1) can be edited easily by the user on a local (e.g. individual
neurons) and global level (e.g. overall network topography
and topology), (2) is evolvable and compact, and (3) allows
the system to produce meaningful suggestions based on the
user’s input.
In this context we are building on the a generative encoding called compositional pattern producing networks
(CPPNs; Stanley (2007)) and the recently introduced concept of a CPPN-Compiler (Risi, 2013). CPPNs, which
are based on principles of how natural organisms develop,
allow the compact encoding of complex patterns, from
two-dimensional images (Secretan et al., 2011) and threedimensional forms (Clune and Lipson, 2011) to large-scale
ANNs (Stanley et al., 2009; Clune et al., 2011; Risi and
Stanley, 2012). The idea behind the CPPN-Compiler is to
allow the user to directly compile a high-level description
of the desired starting structure into the CPPN itself. We
are currently exploring the benefits of this approach through
the collaborative interactive evolution of images (Figure 2),
in which the user can draw a vector image and annotate
it with important regularities like symmetry. The CPPNCompiler then compiles this high-level description into the
CPPN itself. Since the compiled CPPN now directly embodies the annotated domain regularities (e.g. bilateral symmetric arms), the produced offspring show meaningful variations that nevertheless share common features. Considering the insight that CPPNs can also produce large-scale
ANNs (Stanley et al., 2009) and can be modified to create

Network
Editing

CPPN-Compiler

Synapse

Phenotype-toGenotype

Symmetry

x1 y1 x2

y2

CPPNRepresentation

ES-HyperNEAT

Neuron

GeneratehVariations

Floreano, D., Dürr, P., and Mattiussi, C. (2008). Neuroevolution:
from architectures to learning. Evol. Intelligence, 1(1):47–62.
Lehman, J. and Stanley, K. O. (2011). Abandoning objectives:
Evolution through the search for novelty alone. Evolutionary Computation, 19(2):189–223.

…

Liapis, A., Shaker, N., and Smith, G. (2014). Mixed-initiative approaches. In Shaker, N., Togelius, J., and Nelson, M. J., editors, Procedural Content Generation in Games: A Textbook
and an Overview of Current Research. Springer.

Task

Liapis, A., Yannakakis, G. N., and Togelius, J. (2013). Sentient sketchbook: Computer-aided game level authoring. In
Proceedings of ACM Conference on Foundations of Digital
Games (FDG).
InteractivehEvolution

Risi, S. (2013). A compiler for cppns: Transforming phenotypic
descriptions into genotypic representations. In 2013 AAAI
Fall Symposium Series.

Figure 3: Mixed-initiative Neuroevolution Framework

Risi, S. and Stanley, K. O. (2012). An enhanced hypercube-based
encoding for evolving the placement, density, and connectivity of neurons. Artificial Life, 18(4):331–363.

certain neural topologies (ES-HyperNEAT; Risi and Stanley (2012)), opens up the intriguing possibility of a neural
CPPN-Compiler. Our current efforts focus on such a compiler that will form the backbone for our mixed-initiative
BrainCrafter application.
The envisioned collaborative mixed-initiative system is
depicted in Figure 3. The users can collaboratively construct neural networks and annotate them with regularities
(e.g. symmetry, repetition, etc.), which are used by the computational creator to construct the internal CPPN model and
in turn propose meaningful variations to the user. At any
point in the process the human can revert to just doing selection or decide to directly edit the ANN, wherein phenotypic edits are directly compiled back into the genotype. The
promise of the proposed system is that it could allow a variety of tasks to be solved by many people online within a
mixed-initiative environment, which have heretofore proven
too difficult. We expect this project will profoundly impact
the fields of ANN research and potentially also deepen our
understanding of the way biological neural networks solve
certain problems.

Secretan, J., Beato, N., D’Ambrosio, D., Rodriguez, A., Campbell,
A., Folsom-Kovarik, J., and Stanley, K. (2011). Picbreeder: A
case study in collaborative evolutionary exploration of design
space. Evolutionary Computation, 19(3):373–403.

References
Bongard, J. C. and Hornby, G. S. (2013). Combining fitness-based
search and user modeling in evolutionary robotics. In Proceeding of the fifteenth annual conference on Genetic and
evolutionary computation conference, pages 159–166. ACM.
Clune, J. and Lipson, H. (2011). Evolving three-dimensional objects with a generative encoding inspired by developmental
biology. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Life, See http://EndlessForms. com.
Clune, J., Stanley, K. O., Pennock, R. T., and Ofria, C. (2011). On
the performance of indirect encoding across the continuum
of regularity. Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions
on, 15(3):346–367.

Stanley, K. O. (2007). Compositional pattern producing networks:
A novel abstraction of development. Genetic Programming
and Evolvable Machines Special Issue on Developmental
Systems, 8(2):131–162.
Stanley, K. O., D’Ambrosio, D. B., and Gauci, J. (2009). A
hypercube-based indirect encoding for evolving large-scale
neural networks. Artificial Life, 15(2):185–212.
Stanley, K. O. and Miikkulainen, R. (2004). Competitive coevolution through evolutionary complexification. JAIR, 21:63–100.
Woolley, B. G. and Stanley, K. O. (2011). On the deleterious effects of a priori objectives on evolution and representation.
In Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on Genetic and
evolutionary computation, pages 957–964. ACM.
Woolley, B. G. and Stanley, K. O. (2014). A novel humancomputer collaboration: Combining novelty search with interactive evolution. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO-2014), New York,
NY, USA. ACM.
Yannakakis, G. N., Liapis, A., and Alexopoulos, C. (2014). Mixedinitiative co-creativity. In Proceedings of the 9th Conference
on the Foundations of Digital Games.
Yao, X. (1999). Evolving artificial neural networks. Proceedings
of the IEEE, 87(9).

