Similarity between stress map and thumbs-up target increased from 0.53 to 0.61 over 100 developmental steps; for smiling face decreased from 0.47 to 0.25

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• In stress-sharing embryo, average stress reduced to zero at step 40 during sequential target morphogenesis; without-sharing stress settled at non-zero with <55 cells movingfinding0.790
  Shows stress sharing allows perfect formation of part-by-part target patterns.
• Stress-sharing increases radius of cellular influence: ~30 units avg (step 1) vs ~5 units (non-sharing); lasts 85 steps vs 10 steps.finding0.779
• Stress-sharing embryos achieve perfect sequential target patterns; non-sharing limited to <1% improvement.finding0.770
  Stress-sharing embryos formed each sequential target with stress reducing to zero; non-sharing achieved only tiny improvements.
• External observers cannot infer target morphology from stress maps alone during development.finding0.754
• Radius of influence in embryo with stress sharing: 30 units at step 1 decreasing to 0 at step 85; without sharing: 5 at step 1 ceasing at step 10finding0.752
  Direct measurement of cognitive light cone enlargement by stress sharing.
• Stress sharing benefit scales with grid complexity (20x20, 30x30, 50x50) and becomes more pronounced in later evolutionary stages when mutations alone failfinding0.749
• Stress sharing populations reached target morphology by generation 400, significantly faster than hardwired (1000) or without-sharing populationsfinding0.747
• Stress sharing increases cognitive light cone radius from ~5 to ~30 units, persisting through development.finding0.740
  Cell radius of influence in stress-sharing embryos was ~30 units vs ~5 units without sharing; lasted through step 85 vs step 10.