Characterizing Open-Ended Evolution Through Undecidability Mechanisms in Random Boolean Networks
Amahury J. L\'opez-D\'iaz, Pedro Juan Rivera Torres, Gerardo L. Febres, and Carlos Gershenson

TL;DR
This paper introduces a new metric, {}, to quantify open-ended evolution in discrete models like Random Boolean Networks, highlighting mechanisms that enable sustained novelty and proposing extensions for continuous systems.
Contribution
The paper presents a model-independent metric for open-ended evolution and compares classical and non-classical mechanisms in RBNs, identifying state-dependent undecidability-adjacent mechanisms as key to sustained novelty.
Findings
{} increases with persistent cyclic phenotypes.
Undecidability-adjacent mechanisms support sustained novelty.
Proposes extension of {} to continuous/hybrid spaces.
Abstract
Discrete dynamical models underpin systems biology, but we still lack substrate-agnostic diagnostics for when such models can sustain genuinely open-ended evolution (OEE): the continual production of novel phenotypes rather than eventual settling. We introduce a simple, model-independent metric, {\Omega}, that quantifies OEE as the residence-time-weighted average of attractor cycle lengths across the sequence of attractors realized over time. {\Omega} is zero for single-attractor dynamics and grows with the number and persistence of distinct cyclic phenotypes, separating enduring innovation from transient noise. Using Random Boolean Networks (RBNs) as a unifying testbed, we compare classical Boolean dynamics with biologically motivated non-classical mechanisms (probabilistic context switching, annealed rule mutation, paraconsistent logic, modal necessary/possible gating, and…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
