Experiments don't always turn out as planned, but often we can still learn something useful via principled scientific explorations. This workshop will provide a venue for publishing negative results related to artificial life. By "negative results", we mean that we welcome otherwise well-founded ideas that failed to produce the expected phenomena or changes, in which the reason for this outcome can be understood to be for systematic reasons.

The main requirements for submissions to this workshop are that 1) The paper must explain why the experiment could have worked, and 2) there must be an analysis of why the experimental results weren't as expected.This analysis should investigate the hypothesized reasons for failure in depth instead of simply wondering whether e.g. hyperparameters might not be set correctly or if the experiments haven't been run for long enough. As an example, if the suspected reason for failure had to do with a limited scale of space or time, it would be appropriate to present a scaling analysis to show that increasing the amount of space or time would provably not have a measurable effect on the system's behavior. The overall goal is to show evidence that the original idea in fact would never work due to some inherent properties of the idea itself.