Finite Population Models of Co-evolution and Their Application to Haploidy versus Diploidy

  • Anthony M. L. Liekens
  • Huub M. M. ten Eikelder
  • Peter A. J. Hilbers
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2723)


In order to study genetic algorithms in co-evolutionary environments, we construct a Markov model of co-evolution of populations with fixed, finite population sizes. In this combined Markov model, the behavior toward the limit can be utilized to study the relative performance of the algorithms. As an application of the model, we perform an analysis of the relative performance of haploid versus diploid genetic algorithms in the co-evolutionary setup, under several parameter settings. Because of the use of Markov chains, this paper provides exact stochastic results on the expected performance of haploid and diploid algorithms in the proposed co-evolutionary model.


Genetic Algorithm Markov Chain Limit Behavior Heterozygous Individual Evolutionary Game Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    S. G. Ficici, O. Melnik, and J. B. Pollack. A game-theoretic investigation of selection methods used in evolutionary algorithms. In Proceedings of the 2000 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. G. Ficici and J. B. Pollack. A game-theoretic approach to the simple coevolutionary algorithm. In Parallel Problem Solving from Nature VI, 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. D. Rosin. Coevolutionary search among adversaries. PhD thesis, San Diego, CA, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Lubberts and R. Miikkulainen. Co-evolving a go-playing neural network. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO), pages 14–19, 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Hillis. Co-evolving parasites improve simulated evolution as an optimization procedure. In Artificial Life II. Addison Wesley, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Floreano, F. Mondada, and S. Nolfi. Co-evolution and ontogenetic change in competing robots. In Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. E Goldberg and R. E. Smith. Nonstationary function optimization using genetic algorithms with dominance and diploidy. In Second International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 59–68, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Lewis, E. Hart, and G. Ritchie. A comparison of dominance mechanisms and simple mutation on non-stationary problems. In Parallel Problem Solving from Nature V, pages 139–148, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. P. Ng and K. C. Wong. A new diploid scheme and dominance change mechanism for non-stationary function optimization. In 6th Int. Conf. on Genetic Algorithms, pages 159–166, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. E. Smith and D. E. Goldberg. Diploidy and dominance in artificial genetic search. Complex Systems, 6:251–285, 1992.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. M. L. Liekens, H. M. M. ten Eikelder, and P. A. J. Hilbers. Finite population models of dynamic optimization with alternating fitness functions. In GECCO Workshop on Evolutionary Algorithms for Dynamic Optimization Problems, 2003.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. E. Nix and M. D. Vose. Modelling genetic algorithms with markov chains. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, pages 79–88, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. M. L. Liekens, H. M. M. ten Eikelder, and P. A. J. Hilbers. Modeling and simulating diploid simple genetic algorithms. In Foundations of Genetic Algorithms VII, 2003.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. P. Bertsekas and J. N. Tsitsiklis. Parallel and Distributed Computation. Prentice-Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. W. Weibull. Evolutionary Game Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Hofbauer and K. Sigmund. Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics. Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony M. L. Liekens
    • 1
  • Huub M. M. ten Eikelder
    • 1
  • Peter A. J. Hilbers
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biomedical EngineeringTechnische Universiteit EindhovenEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations