TRON: Transferring Naturally Evolved Network Architectures into Neuroevolution
Authors: Konstantinos Zacharopoulos, Alexandra Bekou, Jose M Serradell, Foteini Paraskevopoulou, Apostolos Fournaris, Ioannis Arapakis, Oscar Lao
Organizations: Technical University of Crete, ECE Department, Chania, 732 00, Greece · R.C. ATHENA, Industrial Systems Institute, Patras, 265 04, Greece · IBE, Institute of Evolutionary Biology (CSIC-Universitat Pompeu Fabra), Barcelona, 08003, Spain · Barcelona Supercomputing Center, Barcelona, 08034, Spain
Neural architecture search (NAS) is challenging because of the vast, non-linear space of artificial neural network (ANN) topologies. Evolutionary methods can generate architectures, but their effectiveness is limited by difficulties in preserving functional organization during mutation and recombination. Naturally evolved biological networks may provide organizational principles that support adaptation and evolvability. Here, we introduce TRON (TRansfer Of Natural networks), a neuroevolution framework that uses experimentally characterized protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks as architectural priors. Instead of starting from random topologies, TRON reuses biological interaction patterns as structural building blocks. It combines classical evolutionary operators with neuroevolution-inspired mechanisms, including speciation, and introduces species quarantine to protect newly generated architectures during early maturation. We evaluated TRON against established evolutionary and neuroevolutionary methods on three classification benchmarks (CORA, CITESEER, and PUBMED) and three regression benchmarks (DIABETES, FRIEDMAN, and CALIFORNIA). TRON achieved the highest predictive performance among the evaluated methods on all classification datasets and most regression tasks. It showed substantially lower variability across independent runs, indicating greater robustness and convergence stability, at increased computational cost. These findings support the use of PPI networks as effective architectural priors and suggest that biologically derived interaction networks provide more favorable substrates for neuroevolution than random topologies. More broadly, TRON demonstrates the feasibility of transferring naturally evolved network architectures into artificial intelligence systems, offering a direction for improving evolvability in NAS through the reuse of biological organizational principles.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Protein Processing & Network Initialization
Figure 2: TRON Evolutionary Lifecycle
Mutation Type
Purpose
Weight mutation
Perturbs existing connection weights.
Protein mutation
Modifies protein assignments and connectivity.
Table 1: Mutation operators employed by the proposed framework.
Operator
Target
Probability
Operation
Element-wise
Individual weights
0.60
M(Wij)
Neuron-wise
Incoming neuron weights
0.25
M(wj)
Block
Weight submatrix
0.15
M(WB)
Layer-scale
Entire layer
0.05
sW
Table 2: Weight mutation operators.
Strategy
Selection Rule
Characteristics
Elitism
Highest f^i
Direct preservation of high-fitness individuals
Tournament
m∗=argm∈Tmaxf^(m)
Adjustable selection pressure through tournament size
Rank-based
Rank-dependent probability
Probabilistic selection based on population rank
Table 3: Global survivor-selection strategies.
Method
CORA
MIN
MAX
MEDIAN
MEAN
SD
SNR (dB)
CMA-ES
0.6679
0.8118
0.7634
0.7429
0.0554
22.5484
ES-MLP
0.6015
0.7989
0.7386
0.7336
0.0433
24.5794
DE
0.5119
0.5966
0.5527
0.5509
0.0264
26.3894
PSO
0.4207
0.5572
0.4841
0.4779
0.0415
21.2258
NEAT
0.4649
0.5793
0.5240
0.5189
0.0378
22.7518
Table 4: Algorithm performance on CORA
Method
CITESEER
MIN
MAX
MEDIAN
MEAN
SD
SNR (dB)
CMA-ES
0.6698
0.7372
0.7057
0.7065
0.0205
30.7472
ES-MLP
0.5691
0.7282
0.7009
0.6785
0.0523
22.2610
DE
0.5210
0.6377
0.6055
0.5919
0.0388
23.6683
PSO
0.4565
0.5631
0.5248
0.5177
0.0340
23.6520
NEAT
0.5961
0.6396
0.6239
0.6216
0.0140
32.9477
Table 5: Algorithm performance on CITESEER
Method
PUBMED
MIN
MAX
MEDIAN
MEAN
SD
SNR (dB)
CMA-ES
0.6798
0.8141
0.7868
0.7728
0.0476
24.2092
ES-MLP
0.6841
0.8126
0.7318
0.7396
0.0692
20.5778
DE
0.6526
0.7247
0.6747
0.6830
0.0228
29.5297
PSO
0.6385
0.6992
0.6668
0.6667
0.0221
29.5908
NEAT
0.6455
0.7784
0.7595
0.7508
0.0379
25.9377
Table 6: Algorithm performance on PUBMED
Method
DIABETES
MIN
MAX
MEDIAN
MEAN
SD
SNR (dB)
CMA-ES
-0.2606
0.7915
0.2846
0.3037
0.3266
-0.6314
ES-MLP
-0.0553
0.8840
0.3336
0.3168
0.2904
0.7558
DE
-0.0886
0.8144
0.4316
0.3854
0.3135
1.7935
PSO
0.0989
0.8312
0.4307
0.4116
0.2361
4.8276
NEAT
0.2586
0.7855
0.4538
0.4046
0.2246
5.1123
Table 7: Algorithm performance on DIABETES
Method
FRIEDMAN
MIN
MAX
MEDIAN
MEAN
SD
SNR (dB)
CMA-ES
0.7449
0.8888
0.8189
0.8211
0.0507
24.1878
ES-MLP
0.7816
0.8965
0.8269
0.8242
0.0390
26.4994
DE
0.7305
0.8731
0.7965
0.7959
0.0437
25.2075
PSO
0.6698
0.8210
0.7411
0.7432
0.0528
22.9694
NEAT
0.6328
0.8067
0.7284
0.7341
0.0502
23.3010
Table 8: Algorithm performance on FRIEDMAN
Method
CALIFORNIA
MIN
MAX
MEDIAN
MEAN
SD
SNR (dB)
CMA-ES
0.7121
0.7603
0.7291
0.7288
0.0184
31.9558
ES-MLP
0.6252
0.6936
0.6659
0.6656
0.0217
29.7351
DE
0.5572
0.7437
0.6511
0.6569
0.0495
22.4579
PSO
0.6068
0.7088
0.6643
0.6667
0.0355
25.4740
NEAT
0.4899
0.5962
0.5618
0.5488
0.0400
22.7471
Table 9: Algorithm performance on CALIFORNIA
Figure 3: Time complexity comparison for Evolutionary Frameworks quantified as CPU seconds
Figure 4: Memory Usage comparison for Evolutionary Frameworks
School of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, Wuhan University of Technology, No. 122 Luoshi Road, Hongshan District, Wuhan, 430070, Hubei, China