利用人工智能微调生命搜索

Michael Phillips
{"title":"利用人工智能微调生命搜索","authors":"Michael Phillips","doi":"10.3897/aca.6.e108253","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Astrobiologists seek to find life beyond Earth. The “Holy Grail” of Astrobiology research is to discover evidence of a second genesis of life – an origin of life that was independent from life’s origin on Earth. No formal consensus on the possibility for a second genesis of life exists, and opinions about the probability range from near zero to near unity. An extra-terrestrial example of life would help answer this question and settle the quandary of whether life is common in the Universe or exceedingly rare. Quantifying the “ordinariness” of life has far reaching philosophical implications that could even inform us about the future of intelligent, technology-wielding life on Earth (Bostrom 2007). Life on Mars, one of our closest planetary neighbors, was considered a forgone conclusion as recently as the mid 20 th century. What else besides an advanced civilization cultivating crops could have been responsible for the telescopically observed network of “canals” scarring its red surface? The “Advanced Martian Civilization” hypothesis had support from preeminent scientists, such as Giovanni Schiaparelli and Percival Lowell, but was relegated to the realm of pseudoscience when data from the Mariner spacecrafts in the 1970s failed to reveal any evidence for such civilizations. There is still no convincing evidence for life on Mars; however, several studies have at least raised one or two eyebrows (Mazur et al. 1978, McKay et al. 1996, Ruff and Farmer 2016). The Mariner missions ushered in the era of modern space exploration at Mars, and with it an earnest search for life. In 1976, shortly after the Mariner missions, the Viking I & II landers delivered “positive” results from their Labeled Release (LR) experiments. Oxidants in the martian regolith are the generally accepted explanation for these results, but some argue that life is the most parsimonious explanation for the Viking data (Levin and Straat 2016). We still do not know if life existed, or exists, on Mars, but Mars was once habitable for the forms of life that took root on early Earth and certain places on Mars likely remain habitable (Davila et al. 2010, Ehlmann et al. 2016). Its potential habitability and proximity to Earth have kept Mars centered in the crosshairs of Astrobiological research for decades. However, icy ocean worlds – Titan, Europa and Enceladus – have garnered increasing attention from the Astrobiology community (National Academies of Sciences and Medicine 2022), partially because any evidence for life on these worlds has a much higher chance of representing a second genesis whereas life on Mars could have potentially originated on Earth (or vice versa). The problems we face in the search for life on Mars today mirror those that confronted Schiaparelli and Lowell: we do not have data of sufficient quality to answer the question definitively. One major difference is that Schiaparelli and Lowell had their prior probability for the expectation of life on Mars set at what must have been a fairly high value. By contrast, decades of null results for evidence of life on Mars have tuned our expectations such that all abiogenic explanations for any piece of would-be-evidence-for-life must be rigorously rejected before biotic explanations can be considered (e.g., Ruff and Farmer (2016), Oehler and Etiope (2017)). Perhaps one day, incontrovertible evidence for life on Mars will be found that will open the floodgates for a reinterpretation of evidence that, at present, is too dubious to consider. Until then, a high bar is rightly set for the standard of evidence (Neveu et al. 2018). If evidence of life exists on Mars, it is apparent that it will not be easy to find. NASA developed a strategic exploration arc to hone in on the most likely places to find evidence of life on Mars. The strategy goes: Follow the water; Explore habitability; Seek signs of life. Follow the water; Explore habitability; Seek signs of life. The “Follow the water” theme characterized missions from Mars Global Surveyor in 1996 to the Mars Atmospheric and Volatile EvolutioN orbiter in 2013. “Explore habitability” and “Seek signs of life” have overlapped, beginning in 2007 with the Phoenix lander and persisting to the present with the Perseverance rover at the Jezero Crater delta. Despite technological and philosophical advances in Astrobiology and the overarching principles guiding NASA missions, a coherent and standard strategy for quantifying the probability of finding life in an arbitrarily chosen environment does not exist. For example, when we land in a deltaic system on Mars we do not know, and in fact do not have a strategy for knowing, which specific outcrop, or rocks within in an outcrop, will have the highest probability of containing signs of past life. What would such a “signs of life search strategy” look like? In our recent paper (Warren-Rhodes et al. 2023), we propose that building a library of probability-of-life maps at nested spatial scales across many terrestrial-analog sites could be one way to address this question. Building probability maps relies on extensive microbial ecologic surveying, and can help us understand whether recognizable and predictable patterns characterize the distribution of terrestrial biosignatures. At our field site in Salar de Pajonales, Chile, we found that photosynthetic endolithic communities, the subject of our study, followed such a pattern. Their locations could be predicted using artificial intelligence (AI) models with an order of magnitude greater accuracy than a random search. Our study lays out a methodological framework for assessing a terrestrial analog site that combines geology, statistical ecology, and AI. The long-term vision is for the Astrobiology community to adopt and improve upon this strategy, and to build up a library of probability maps across many planetary-analog field sites. With a library of many biosignature probability maps across a diverse suite of analog sites, we can hope to extract trends and patterns in biosignature distributions that generalize across sites and that could inform the search for life in novel planetary environments.","PeriodicalId":101714,"journal":{"name":"ARPHA Conference Abstracts","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using AI to Fine Tune the Search for Life\",\"authors\":\"Michael Phillips\",\"doi\":\"10.3897/aca.6.e108253\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Astrobiologists seek to find life beyond Earth. The “Holy Grail” of Astrobiology research is to discover evidence of a second genesis of life – an origin of life that was independent from life’s origin on Earth. No formal consensus on the possibility for a second genesis of life exists, and opinions about the probability range from near zero to near unity. An extra-terrestrial example of life would help answer this question and settle the quandary of whether life is common in the Universe or exceedingly rare. Quantifying the “ordinariness” of life has far reaching philosophical implications that could even inform us about the future of intelligent, technology-wielding life on Earth (Bostrom 2007). Life on Mars, one of our closest planetary neighbors, was considered a forgone conclusion as recently as the mid 20 th century. What else besides an advanced civilization cultivating crops could have been responsible for the telescopically observed network of “canals” scarring its red surface? The “Advanced Martian Civilization” hypothesis had support from preeminent scientists, such as Giovanni Schiaparelli and Percival Lowell, but was relegated to the realm of pseudoscience when data from the Mariner spacecrafts in the 1970s failed to reveal any evidence for such civilizations. There is still no convincing evidence for life on Mars; however, several studies have at least raised one or two eyebrows (Mazur et al. 1978, McKay et al. 1996, Ruff and Farmer 2016). The Mariner missions ushered in the era of modern space exploration at Mars, and with it an earnest search for life. In 1976, shortly after the Mariner missions, the Viking I & II landers delivered “positive” results from their Labeled Release (LR) experiments. Oxidants in the martian regolith are the generally accepted explanation for these results, but some argue that life is the most parsimonious explanation for the Viking data (Levin and Straat 2016). We still do not know if life existed, or exists, on Mars, but Mars was once habitable for the forms of life that took root on early Earth and certain places on Mars likely remain habitable (Davila et al. 2010, Ehlmann et al. 2016). Its potential habitability and proximity to Earth have kept Mars centered in the crosshairs of Astrobiological research for decades. However, icy ocean worlds – Titan, Europa and Enceladus – have garnered increasing attention from the Astrobiology community (National Academies of Sciences and Medicine 2022), partially because any evidence for life on these worlds has a much higher chance of representing a second genesis whereas life on Mars could have potentially originated on Earth (or vice versa). The problems we face in the search for life on Mars today mirror those that confronted Schiaparelli and Lowell: we do not have data of sufficient quality to answer the question definitively. One major difference is that Schiaparelli and Lowell had their prior probability for the expectation of life on Mars set at what must have been a fairly high value. By contrast, decades of null results for evidence of life on Mars have tuned our expectations such that all abiogenic explanations for any piece of would-be-evidence-for-life must be rigorously rejected before biotic explanations can be considered (e.g., Ruff and Farmer (2016), Oehler and Etiope (2017)). Perhaps one day, incontrovertible evidence for life on Mars will be found that will open the floodgates for a reinterpretation of evidence that, at present, is too dubious to consider. Until then, a high bar is rightly set for the standard of evidence (Neveu et al. 2018). If evidence of life exists on Mars, it is apparent that it will not be easy to find. NASA developed a strategic exploration arc to hone in on the most likely places to find evidence of life on Mars. The strategy goes: Follow the water; Explore habitability; Seek signs of life. Follow the water; Explore habitability; Seek signs of life. The “Follow the water” theme characterized missions from Mars Global Surveyor in 1996 to the Mars Atmospheric and Volatile EvolutioN orbiter in 2013. “Explore habitability” and “Seek signs of life” have overlapped, beginning in 2007 with the Phoenix lander and persisting to the present with the Perseverance rover at the Jezero Crater delta. Despite technological and philosophical advances in Astrobiology and the overarching principles guiding NASA missions, a coherent and standard strategy for quantifying the probability of finding life in an arbitrarily chosen environment does not exist. For example, when we land in a deltaic system on Mars we do not know, and in fact do not have a strategy for knowing, which specific outcrop, or rocks within in an outcrop, will have the highest probability of containing signs of past life. What would such a “signs of life search strategy” look like? In our recent paper (Warren-Rhodes et al. 2023), we propose that building a library of probability-of-life maps at nested spatial scales across many terrestrial-analog sites could be one way to address this question. Building probability maps relies on extensive microbial ecologic surveying, and can help us understand whether recognizable and predictable patterns characterize the distribution of terrestrial biosignatures. At our field site in Salar de Pajonales, Chile, we found that photosynthetic endolithic communities, the subject of our study, followed such a pattern. Their locations could be predicted using artificial intelligence (AI) models with an order of magnitude greater accuracy than a random search. Our study lays out a methodological framework for assessing a terrestrial analog site that combines geology, statistical ecology, and AI. The long-term vision is for the Astrobiology community to adopt and improve upon this strategy, and to build up a library of probability maps across many planetary-analog field sites. With a library of many biosignature probability maps across a diverse suite of analog sites, we can hope to extract trends and patterns in biosignature distributions that generalize across sites and that could inform the search for life in novel planetary environments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":101714,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ARPHA Conference Abstracts\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ARPHA Conference Abstracts\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3897/aca.6.e108253\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ARPHA Conference Abstracts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3897/aca.6.e108253","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2023),我们建议在许多陆地模拟地点建立一个嵌套空间尺度的生命概率地图库,这可能是解决这个问题的一种方法。建立概率图依赖于广泛的微生物生态调查,可以帮助我们了解是否可识别和可预测的模式表征了陆地生物特征的分布。在我们位于智利帕约纳莱斯盐湖的野外,我们发现我们研究的对象,光合作用的内生生物群落,遵循这样的模式。使用人工智能(AI)模型可以预测它们的位置,其精度比随机搜索高一个数量级。我们的研究提出了一个方法框架来评估一个结合了地质学、统计生态学和人工智能的陆地模拟站点。天体生物学社区的长期愿景是采用并改进这一策略,并在许多行星模拟场站点建立一个概率图库。有了一个跨越不同模拟地点的许多生物特征概率图库,我们可以希望提取出生物特征分布的趋势和模式,这些趋势和模式可以在不同的地点推广,并可以为在新的行星环境中寻找生命提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Using AI to Fine Tune the Search for Life
Astrobiologists seek to find life beyond Earth. The “Holy Grail” of Astrobiology research is to discover evidence of a second genesis of life – an origin of life that was independent from life’s origin on Earth. No formal consensus on the possibility for a second genesis of life exists, and opinions about the probability range from near zero to near unity. An extra-terrestrial example of life would help answer this question and settle the quandary of whether life is common in the Universe or exceedingly rare. Quantifying the “ordinariness” of life has far reaching philosophical implications that could even inform us about the future of intelligent, technology-wielding life on Earth (Bostrom 2007). Life on Mars, one of our closest planetary neighbors, was considered a forgone conclusion as recently as the mid 20 th century. What else besides an advanced civilization cultivating crops could have been responsible for the telescopically observed network of “canals” scarring its red surface? The “Advanced Martian Civilization” hypothesis had support from preeminent scientists, such as Giovanni Schiaparelli and Percival Lowell, but was relegated to the realm of pseudoscience when data from the Mariner spacecrafts in the 1970s failed to reveal any evidence for such civilizations. There is still no convincing evidence for life on Mars; however, several studies have at least raised one or two eyebrows (Mazur et al. 1978, McKay et al. 1996, Ruff and Farmer 2016). The Mariner missions ushered in the era of modern space exploration at Mars, and with it an earnest search for life. In 1976, shortly after the Mariner missions, the Viking I & II landers delivered “positive” results from their Labeled Release (LR) experiments. Oxidants in the martian regolith are the generally accepted explanation for these results, but some argue that life is the most parsimonious explanation for the Viking data (Levin and Straat 2016). We still do not know if life existed, or exists, on Mars, but Mars was once habitable for the forms of life that took root on early Earth and certain places on Mars likely remain habitable (Davila et al. 2010, Ehlmann et al. 2016). Its potential habitability and proximity to Earth have kept Mars centered in the crosshairs of Astrobiological research for decades. However, icy ocean worlds – Titan, Europa and Enceladus – have garnered increasing attention from the Astrobiology community (National Academies of Sciences and Medicine 2022), partially because any evidence for life on these worlds has a much higher chance of representing a second genesis whereas life on Mars could have potentially originated on Earth (or vice versa). The problems we face in the search for life on Mars today mirror those that confronted Schiaparelli and Lowell: we do not have data of sufficient quality to answer the question definitively. One major difference is that Schiaparelli and Lowell had their prior probability for the expectation of life on Mars set at what must have been a fairly high value. By contrast, decades of null results for evidence of life on Mars have tuned our expectations such that all abiogenic explanations for any piece of would-be-evidence-for-life must be rigorously rejected before biotic explanations can be considered (e.g., Ruff and Farmer (2016), Oehler and Etiope (2017)). Perhaps one day, incontrovertible evidence for life on Mars will be found that will open the floodgates for a reinterpretation of evidence that, at present, is too dubious to consider. Until then, a high bar is rightly set for the standard of evidence (Neveu et al. 2018). If evidence of life exists on Mars, it is apparent that it will not be easy to find. NASA developed a strategic exploration arc to hone in on the most likely places to find evidence of life on Mars. The strategy goes: Follow the water; Explore habitability; Seek signs of life. Follow the water; Explore habitability; Seek signs of life. The “Follow the water” theme characterized missions from Mars Global Surveyor in 1996 to the Mars Atmospheric and Volatile EvolutioN orbiter in 2013. “Explore habitability” and “Seek signs of life” have overlapped, beginning in 2007 with the Phoenix lander and persisting to the present with the Perseverance rover at the Jezero Crater delta. Despite technological and philosophical advances in Astrobiology and the overarching principles guiding NASA missions, a coherent and standard strategy for quantifying the probability of finding life in an arbitrarily chosen environment does not exist. For example, when we land in a deltaic system on Mars we do not know, and in fact do not have a strategy for knowing, which specific outcrop, or rocks within in an outcrop, will have the highest probability of containing signs of past life. What would such a “signs of life search strategy” look like? In our recent paper (Warren-Rhodes et al. 2023), we propose that building a library of probability-of-life maps at nested spatial scales across many terrestrial-analog sites could be one way to address this question. Building probability maps relies on extensive microbial ecologic surveying, and can help us understand whether recognizable and predictable patterns characterize the distribution of terrestrial biosignatures. At our field site in Salar de Pajonales, Chile, we found that photosynthetic endolithic communities, the subject of our study, followed such a pattern. Their locations could be predicted using artificial intelligence (AI) models with an order of magnitude greater accuracy than a random search. Our study lays out a methodological framework for assessing a terrestrial analog site that combines geology, statistical ecology, and AI. The long-term vision is for the Astrobiology community to adopt and improve upon this strategy, and to build up a library of probability maps across many planetary-analog field sites. With a library of many biosignature probability maps across a diverse suite of analog sites, we can hope to extract trends and patterns in biosignature distributions that generalize across sites and that could inform the search for life in novel planetary environments.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信