Evolution of Developmental Timing for Solving Hierarchically Dependent Deceptive Problems

Conventional evolutionary algorithms EAs cannot solve given optimization problems efficiently when their evolutionary operators do not accommodate to the structures of the problems. We previously proposed a mutation-based EA that does not use a recombination operator and does not have this problem of the conventional EAs. The mutation-based EA evolves timings at which probabilities for generating phenotypic values developmental timings change, and brings different evolution speed to each phenotypic variable, so that it can solve a given problem hierarchically. In this paper we first propose the evolutionary algorithm evolving developmental timing EDT by adding a crossover operator to the mutation-based EA and then devise a new test problem that conventional EAs are likely to fail in solving and for which the features of the proposed EA are well utilized. The test problem consists of multiple deceptive problems among which there is hierarchical dependency, and has the feature that the hierarchical dependency is represented by a graph structure. We apply the EDT and the conventional EAs, the PBIL and cGA, for comparison to the new test problem and show the usefulness of the evolution of developmental timing.

[1]  Hiroaki Kitano,et al.  Designing Neural Networks Using Genetic Algorithms with Graph Generation System , 1990, Complex Syst..

[2]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Analyzing Deception in Trap Functions , 1992, FOGA.

[3]  Donald F. Towsley,et al.  On distinguishing between Internet power law topology generators , 2002, Proceedings.Twenty-First Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies.

[4]  Yuji Oie,et al.  Evolution and Learning Mediated by Differences in Developmental Timing , 2007, J. Adv. Comput. Intell. Intell. Informatics.

[5]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[6]  Michael O'Neill,et al.  Grammatical Evolution: Evolving Programs for an Arbitrary Language , 1998, EuroGP.

[7]  Angelo Cangelosi,et al.  Heterochrony and Adaptation in Developing Neural Networks , 1999, GECCO.

[8]  S. Gould,et al.  Ontogeny and Phylogeny , 1978 .

[9]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Messy Genetic Algorithms: Motivation, Analysis, and First Results , 1989, Complex Syst..

[10]  Dirk Thierens,et al.  Mixing in Genetic Algorithms , 1993, ICGA.

[11]  Shumeet Baluja,et al.  A Method for Integrating Genetic Search Based Function Optimization and Competitive Learning , 1994 .

[12]  J. A. Lozano,et al.  Towards a New Evolutionary Computation: Advances on Estimation of Distribution Algorithms (Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing) , 2006 .

[13]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  The compact genetic algorithm , 1999, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[14]  J. A. Lozano,et al.  Estimation of Distribution Algorithms: A New Tool for Evolutionary Computation , 2001 .

[15]  Pedro Larrañaga,et al.  Estimation of Distribution Algorithms , 2002, Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation.

[16]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  A Survey of Optimization by Building and Using Probabilistic Models , 2002, Comput. Optim. Appl..

[17]  Michael O'Neill,et al.  Genetic Algorithms Using Grammatical Evolution , 2002, EuroGP.

[18]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Inducing Sequentiality Using Grammatical Genetic Codes , 2004, GECCO.