Evolving Asynchronous and Scalable Non-uniform Cellular Automata

  • M. Sipper
  • M. Tomassini
  • M. S. Capcarrere


We have previously shown that non-uniform cellular automata (CA) can be evolved to perform computational tasks, using the cellular programming algorithm. In this paper we focus on two novel issues, namely, the evolution of asynchronous CAs, and the scalability of evolved synchronous systems. We find that asynchrony presents a more difficult case for evolution though good CAs can still be attained. We describe an empirically derived scaling procedure by which successful CAs of any size may be obtained from a particular evolved system. Our motivation for this study stems in part from our desire to attain realistic systems that axe more amenable to implementation as “evolving ware,” evolware.


Cellular Automaton Grid Size Cellular Automaton Computational Task Logical Step 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    H. Bersini and V. Detour. Asynchrony induces stability in cellular automata based models. In R. A. Brooks and P. Maes, editors, Artificial Life IV, pages 382–387, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1994. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    J. P. Crutchfield and M. Mitchell. The evolution of emergent computation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 92(23):10742–10746, 1995.MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    R. Das, J. P. Crutchfield, M. Mitchell, and J. E. Hanson. Evolving globally synchronized cellular automata. In L. J. Eshelman, editor, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 336–343, San Francisco, CA, 1995. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    T. E. Ingerson and R. L. Buvel. Structure in asynchronous cellular automata. Physica D, 10:59–68, 1984.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    M. Mitchell, J. P. Crutchfield, and P. T. Hraber. Evolving cellular automata to perform computations: Mechanisms and impediments. Physica D, 75:361–391, 1994.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    M. A. Nowak, S. Bonhoeffer, and R. M. May. Spatial games and the maintenance of cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 91:4877–4881, May 1994.MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    M. Sipper. Evolution of Parallel Cellular Machines: The Cellular Programming Approach. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. Sipper. The evolution of parallel cellular machines: Toward evolware. BioSystems, 1996. (to appear).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. Sipper. Evolving uniform and non-uniform cellular automata networks. In D. Stauffer, editor, Annual Reviews of Computational Physics, volume V. World Scientific, Singapore, 1997. (to appear).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. Sipper. Co-evolving non-uniform cellular automata to perform computations. Physica D, 92:193–208, 1996.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    M. Sipper and E. Ruppin. Co-evolving architectures for cellular machines. Physica D, 1996. (to appear).Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. Sipper and M. Tomassini. Generating parallel random number generators by cellular programming. International Journal of Modern Physics C, 7(2):181–190, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    S. Wolfram. Approaches to complexity engineering. Physica D, 22:385–399, October 1986.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Sipper
    • 1
  • M. Tomassini
    • 1
  • M. S. Capcarrere
    • 1
  1. 1.Logic Systems LaboratorySwiss Federal Institute of Technology, IN-EcublensLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations