Indirectly encoded neural networks can assign different activation functions to individual nodes, but the right functions are rarely known in advance. When the available set contains only standard monotonic functions, problems like parity become unsolvable, yet an all-inclusive palette underperforms a curated one. How should evolution discover which functions to use? We address this as a meta-learning problem, designing 13 strategies (11 inspired by biological adaptation mechanisms, plus baseline and oracle controls) that modify the set of available activation functions during evolution. Each strategy translates a biological principle into an evolutionary operator: for example, circadian-inspired oscillatory gating cycles functions in and out of the palette on a fixed schedule, while immune-inspired Clonal Selection permanently protects functions that consistently correlate with fitness. We evaluate all strategies across more than 3,000 runs on parity and non-parity problems, first evolving the activation palette alone, then co-evolving a per-node aggregation palette on harder problems; an independent replication with new seeds confirms a stable high-reliability tier, with Circadian holding its top rank. Bio-inspired strategies match the solve rate of a tuned baseline but converge up to twice as fast, with Circadian halving total compute. Strategy rankings reverse across problem types, with no strategy dominating all domains. Strategy success is largely shaped by timescale compatibility: strategies whose characteristic timescale matches the evolutionary evaluation window consistently outperform those that operate too slowly. The practical guideline: match the mechanism's timescale to the evaluation budget. Rescaling the slowest strategy bypasses the oscillatory barrier entirely: all nine solutions solve parity with non-oscillatory activations paired with min or max aggregation.
Evolvable-Substrate HyperNEAT (ES-HyperNEAT), a bio-inspired indirect encoding that determines neuron placement and connection weights from spatial coordinates, exhibits a failure mode on MNIST as a diagnostic benchmark. Because input pixels map to a coordinate space centered at the origin, evolved networks converge on a small central cluster of input pixels, a spatial-concentration bias; prior work observed only 21% mean accuracy in this regime. Is this bias an optimization artifact or an architectural ceiling? Inspired by Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) principles, we partition the input into non-overlapping spatial segments, each assigned to a separately evolved specialist network. With 13 such experts, this design reaches 43% mean accuracy, a 106% relative improvement over the baseline. The architectural gain does not depend on data-driven aggregation: equal-weighted averaging, which uses no validation data, already yields a 70% improvement; the gain comes from partitioning, not the weighting. Receptive-field analysis shows the mechanism: partitioning forces evolution to discover features across the entire image, expanding active pixel coverage from 4% to 79%. Absolute accuracy stays below gradient-trained baselines, but the relative gain points to central bias, not the evolutionary search. Two tools are designed to generalize beyond MNIST: a receptive-field diagnostic for silent input-coverage collapse, and a spatial-partitioning remedy that restores coverage.
LLM-guided evolutionary search (Evolve systems) has reached state-of-the-art results on mathematical and combinatorial tasks, yet most existing systems report only the best of many runs and leave the run-to-run distribution undocumented. We ask how a fixed budget of LLM calls should be allocated, and how reliably a single run reaches the reported numbers. Sweeping the depth-breadth grid over five models and three tasks, we identify two empirical regularities: a fitness-compute envelope along which capability ordering largely collapses on effective FLOPs, and a bilinear depth-breadth fit with task-specific interaction; both are gated by model-task capability. Motivated by these regularities, we propose BaSE (Bandit-based Self-Evolving), a multi-armed bandit that allocates LLM calls across parallel trajectories. Without changing the model, prompt, or evaluator, BaSE improves mean fitness by 12.3% over the strongest island-protocol baseline across 8 (model, task) cells, with the largest gains on high-variance settings: a reliability gain from allocation alone.
Previous work has found a gap between the scale of neural networks that reliably learn Conway's Game of Life, and minimal networks capable of representing the classic cellular automaton with hard-coded parameter values. Viewing neural network learning as a search process suggests a dependence on networks large enough to contain sub-networks with lucky initializations (sometimes known as 'winning tickets') that actually learn the task. In this work, we reorient our perspective from discovering Life rules as a search problem back to a learning problem, and reason that with fitting inductive biases, the problem should be much more amenable to minimal networks. We find that network variants with several alternative activation functions meaningfully outperform the default choice of Rectified Linear Units, and in particular, that a 2nd degree polynomial activation function consistently learns Life dynamics with or without the benefit of learning neural weights. Our results provide an informative demonstration of the benefits of matching learning to the task at hand and challenge the easy default choice of scale for all problems. In particular, we advocate for the use of cellular automata as simple test domains for developing strategies that can benefit machine learning for science, physics-based deep learning, and interpretable machine learning.