Advertisement

Co-Evolutionary Algorithms: A Useful Computational Abstraction?

  • Kenneth De Jong
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9275)

Abstract

Interest in co-evolutionary algorithms was triggered in part with Hillis 1991 paper describing his success in using one to evolve sorting networks. Since then there have been heightened expectations for using this nature-inspired technique to improve on the range and power of evolutionary algorithms for solving difficult computation problems. However, after more than two decades of exploring this promise, the results have been somewhat mixed.

In this talk I summarize the progress made and the lessons learned with a goal of understanding how they are best used and identify a variety of interesting open issues that need to be explored in order to make further progress in this area.

Keywords

Nash Equilibrium Fitness Landscape Evolutionary Game Theory Reproductive Variation Difficult Optimization Problem 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Angeline, P.J., Pollack, J.B.: Competitive environments evolve better solutions for complex tasks. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pp. 264–270. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bader-Natal, A., Pollack, J.B.: A population-differential method of monitoring success and failure in coevolution. In: Deb, K., Tari, Z. (eds.) GECCO 2004. LNCS, vol. 3102, pp. 585–586. Springer, Heidelberg (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bucci, A., Pollack, J.B.: A mathematical framework for the study of coevolution. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Foundations of Genetic Algorithms, Torremolinos, Spain, pp. 221–236, 2–4 September 2002Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Jong, E.D., Pollack, J.B.: Ideal evaluation from coevolution. Evol. Comput. 12(2), 159–192 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ficici, S.G.: Solution Concepts in Coevolutionary Algorithms. Ph.D. thesis, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, USA (2004). AAI3127125Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hillis, D.: SFI studies in the sciences of complexity co-evolving parasites improve simulated evolution as an optimization procedure. Artificial Life II 10, 313–324 (1991)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Juille, H., Pollack, J.B.: Coevolving the "ideal" trainer: application to the discovery of cellular automata rules. In: University of Wisconsin, pp. 519–527. Morgan Kaufmann (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pagie, L., Mitchell, M.: A comparison of evolutionary and coevolutionary search. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Appl. 2(1), 53–69 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Popovici, E.: An analysis of two-population coevolutionary computation. Ph.D. thesis, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Popovici, E., Bucci, A., Wiegand, R.P., de Jong, E.D.: Coevolutionary principles. In: Rozenberg, G., Bäck, T., Kok, J.N. (eds.) Handbook of Natural Computing, pp. 987–1033. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Popovici, E., De Jong, K.A.: Relationships between internal and external metrics in co-evolution. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC 2005, Edinburgh, UK, pp. 2800–2807, 2–4 September 2005Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Potter, M.A., De Jong, K.A.: Cooperative coevolution: an architecture for evolving coadapted subcomponents. Evol. Comput. 8(1), 1–29 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Potter, M.A., De Jong, K.A.: A cooperative coevolutionary approach to function optimization. In: Davidor, Y., Männer, R., Schwefel, H.-P. (eds.) PPSN 1994. LNCS, vol. 866. Springer, Heidelberg (1994) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rosin, C., Belew, R.: New methods for competitive coevolution. Evol. Comput. 5(1), 1–29 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sarma, J.: An analysis of decentralized and spatially distributed genetic algorithms. Ph.D. thesis, George Mason University, Fairfax VA, USA (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wiegand, R.P.: An analysis of cooperative coevolutionary algorithms. Ph.D. thesis, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wiegand, R.P., Liles, W., De Jong, K.: An empirical analysis of collaboration methods in cooperative coevolutionary algorithms. In: Proceedings of Genetic and Evolutionary Computation - GECCO 2001, pp. 1235–1242. Morgan Kaufmann (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wiegand, R.P., Sarma, J.: Spatial embedding and loss of gradient in cooperative coevolutionary algorithms. In: Yao, X., Burke, E.K., Lozano, J.A., Smith, J., Merelo-Guervós, J.J., Bullinaria, J.A., Rowe, J.E., Tiňo, P., Kabán, A., Schwefel, H.-P. (eds.) PPSN 2004. LNCS, vol. 3242, pp. 912–921. Springer, Heidelberg (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.George Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations