Continuous Program Search

Genetic Programming yields interpretable programs, but small syntactic mutations can induce large, unpredictable behavioral shifts, degrading locality and sample efficiency. We frame this as an operator-design problem: learn a continuous program space where latent distance has behavioral meaning, then design mutation operators that exploit this structure without changing the evolutionary optimizer. We make locality measurable by tracking action-level divergence under controlled latent perturbations, identifying an empirical trust region for behavior-local continuous variation. Using a compact trading-strategy DSL with four semantic components (long/short entry and exit), we learn a matching block-factorized embedding and compare isotropic Gaussian mutation over the full latent space to geometry-compiled mutation that restricts updates to semantically paired entry--exit subspaces and proposes directions using a learned flow-based model trained on logged mutation outcomes. Under identical $(μ+λ)$ evolution strategies and fixed evaluation budgets across five assets, the learned mutation operator discovers strong strategies using an order of magnitude fewer evaluations and achieves the highest median out-of-sample Sharpe ratio. Although isotropic mutation occasionally attains higher peak performance, geometry-compiled mutation yields faster, more reliable progress, demonstrating that semantically aligned mutation can substantially improve search efficiency without modifying the underlying evolutionary algorithm.

On Creativity and Open-Endedness

Artificial Life (ALife) as an interdisciplinary field draws inspiration and influence from a variety of perspectives. Scientific progress crucially depends, then, on concerted efforts to invite cross-disciplinary dialogue. The goal of this paper is to revitalize discussions of potential connections between the fields of Computational Creativity (CC) and ALife, focusing specifically on the concept of Open-Endedness (OE); the primary goal of CC is to endow artificial systems with creativity, and ALife has dedicated much research effort into studying and synthesizing OE and artificial innovation. However, despite the close proximity of these concepts, their use so far remains confined to their respective communities, and their relationship is largely unclear. We provide historical context for research in both domains, and review the limited work connecting research on creativity and OE explicitly. We then highlight specific questions to be considered, with the eventual goals of (i) decreasing conceptual ambiguity by highlighting similarities and differences between the concepts of OE, (ii) identifying synergy effects of a research agenda that encompasses both OE and creativity, and (iii) establishing a dialogue between ALife and CC research.

Evolutionary Machine Learning and Games

Evolutionary machine learning (EML) has been applied to games in multiple ways, and for multiple different purposes. Importantly, AI research in games is not only about playing games; it is also about generating game content, modeling players, and many other applications. Many of these applications pose interesting problems for EML. We will structure this chapter on EML for games based on whether evolution is used to augment machine learning (ML) or ML is used to augment evolution. For completeness, we also briefly discuss the usage of ML and evolution separately in games.