Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

David E. Moriarty

dblp:91/4993 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
9ranked-venue papers
7as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 9 · 7 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 2 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
2 papers
Reinforcement learning · 41% Planning, search and constraint satisfaction · 36% Optimization for machine learning · 12%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
delayed rewards
0.011995
Efficient Learning from Delayed Rewards through Symbiotic Evolution · ICML 1995
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Planning, search and constraint satisfaction › game tree search
minimax search
0.011994
Evolving Neural Networks to Focus Minimax Search · AAAI 1994
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
evolutionary computation
0.011995
Efficient Learning from Delayed Rewards through Symbiotic Evolution · ICML 1995
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › automated machine learning
neural architecture search
0.011994
Evolving Neural Networks to Focus Minimax Search · AAAI 1994

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

symbiotic evolution · 0.0neural network · 0.0evolutionary algorithm · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2020 The Surprising Creativity of Digital Evolution: A Collection of Anecdotes from the Evolutionary Computation and Artificial Life Research Communities
abstract
Evolution provides a creative fount of complex and subtle adaptations that often surprise the scientists who discover them. However, the creativity of evolution is not limited to the natural world: Artificial organisms evolving in computational environments have also elicited surprise and wonder from the researchers studying them. The process of evolution is an algorithmic process that transcends the substrate in which it occurs. Indeed, many researchers in the field of digital evolution can provide examples of how their evolving algorithms and organisms have creatively subverted their expectations or intentions, exposed unrecognized bugs in their code, produced unexpectedly adaptations, or engaged in behaviors and outcomes, uncannily convergent with ones found in nature. Such stories routinely reveal surprise and creativity by evolution in these digital worlds, but they rarely fit into the standard scientific narrative. Instead they are often treated as mere obstacles to be overcome, rather than results that warrant study in their own right. Bugs are fixed, experiments are refocused, and one-off surprises are collapsed into a single data point. The stories themselves are traded among researchers through oral tradition, but that mode of information transmission is inefficient and prone to error and outright loss. Moreover, the fact that these stories tend to be shared only among practitioners means that many natural scientists do not realize how interesting and lifelike digital organisms are and how natural their evolution can be. To our knowledge, no collection of such anecdotes has been published before. This article is the crowd-sourced product of researchers in the fields of artificial life and evolutionary computation who have provided first-hand accounts of such cases. It thus serves as a written, fact-checked collection of scientifically important and even entertaining stories. In doing so we also present here substantial evidence that the existence and importance of evolutionary surprises extends beyond the natural world, and may indeed be a universal property of all complex evolving systems.
Joel Lehman, Jeff Clune, Dusan Misevic, Christoph Adami, Lee Altenberg, Julie Beaulieu, Peter J. Bentley, Samuel Bernard, Guillaume Beslon, David M. Bryson, Nicholas Cheney, Patryk Chrabaszcz, Antoine Cully, Stéphane Doncieux, Fred C. Dyer, Kai Olav Ellefsen, Robert Feldt, Stephan Fischer 0002, Stephanie Forrest, Antoine Frénoy, Christian Gagné 0001, Leni K. Le Goff, Laura M. Grabowski, Babak Hodjat, Frank Hutter, Laurent Keller, Carole Knibbe, Peter Krcah, Richard E. Lenski, Hod Lipson, Robert MacCurdy, Carlos Maestre, Risto Miikkulainen, Sara Mitri, David E. Moriarty, Jean-Baptiste Mouret, Anh Totti Nguyen, Charles Ofria, Marc Parizeau, David P. Parsons, Robert T. Pennock, William F. Punch, Thomas S. Ray, Marc Schoenauer, Eric Schulte, Karl Sims, Kenneth O. Stanley, François Taddei, Danesh Tarapore, Simon Thibault, Richard A. Watson, Westley Weimer, Jason Yosinski
Artif. Life35
2000 Determining Effective Military Decisive Points through Knowledge-Rich Case-Based Reasoning
David E. Moriarty
IEA/AIE1
1999 Evolutionary Algorithms for Reinforcement Learning
abstract
There are two distinct approaches to solving reinforcement learning problems, namely, searching in value function space and searching in policy space. Temporal difference methods and evolutionary algorithms are well-known examples of these approaches. Kaelbling, Littman and Moore recently provided an informative survey of temporal difference methods. This article focuses on the application of evolutionary algorithms to the reinforcement learning problem, emphasizing alternative policy representations, credit assignment methods, and problem-specific genetic operators. Strengths and weaknesses of the evolutionary approach to reinforcement learning are presented, along with a survey of representative applications.
David E. Moriarty, Alan C. Schultz, John J. Grefenstette
J. Artif. Intell. Res.1
1998 Evolving Neural Networks to Play Go
Norman Richards, David E. Moriarty, Risto Miikkulainen
Appl. Intell.2
1997 Forming Neural Networks Through Efficient and Adaptive Coevolution
abstract
This article demonstrates the advantages of a cooperative, coevolutionary search in difficult control problems. The symbiotic adaptive neuroevolution (SANE) system coevolves a population of neurons that cooperate to form a functioning neural network. In this process, neurons assume different but overlapping roles, resulting in a robust encoding of control behavior. SANE is shown to be more efficient and more adaptive and to maintain higher levels of diversity than the more common network-based population approaches. Further empirical studies illustrate the emergent neuron specializations and the different roles the neurons assume in the population.
David E. Moriarty, Risto Miikkulainen
Evol. Comput.1
1996 Efficient Reinforcement Learning through Symbiotic Evolution
David E. Moriarty, Risto Miikkulainen
Mach. Learn.1
1995 Efficient Learning from Delayed Rewards through Symbiotic Evolution
David E. Moriarty, Risto Miikkulainen
ICML1
1995 Discovering Complex Othello Strategies through Evolutionary Neural Networks
abstract
An approach to develop new game-playing strategies based on artificial evolution of neural networks is presented. Evolution was directed to discover strategies in Othello against a random-moving opponent and later against an alpha - beta search program. The networks discovered first a standard positional strategy, and subsequently a mobility strategy, an advanced strategy rarely seen outside of tournaments. The latter discovery demonstrates how evolutionary neural networks can develop novel solutions by turning an initial disadvantage into an advantage in a changed environment.
David E. Moriarty, Risto Miikkulainen
Connect. Sci.1
1994 Evolving Neural Networks to Focus Minimax Search
David E. Moriarty, Risto Miikkulainen
AAAI1