Coevolutionary dynamics in a minimal substrate

One of the central difficulties of coevolutionary methods arises from 'intransitive superiority' – in a two-player game, for example, the fact that A beats B, and B beats C, does not exclude the possibility that C beats A. Such cyclic superiority in a coevolutionary substrate is hypothesized to cause cycles in the dynamics of the population such that it 'chases its own tail' - traveling through some part of strategy space more than once despite apparent improvement with each step. It is often difficult to know whether an application domain contains such difficulties and to verify this hypothesis in the failure of a given coevolutionary set-up. In this paper we wish to elucidate some of the issues and concepts in an abstract domain where the dynamics of coevolution can be studied simply and directly. We define three simple 'number games' that illustrate intransitive superiority and resultant oscillatory dynamics, as well as some other relevant concepts. These include the distinction between a player's perceived performance and performance with respect to an external metric, and the significance of strategies with a multidimensional nature. These features alone can also cause oscillatory behavior and coevolutionary failure.

[1]  R. A. Fisher,et al.  The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection , 1931 .

[2]  R. A. Fisher,et al.  The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection , 1931 .

[3]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[4]  D. E. Matthews Evolution and the Theory of Games , 1977 .

[5]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[6]  D. E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search , 1989 .

[7]  W. Daniel Hillis,et al.  Co-evolving parasites improve simulated evolution as an optimization procedure , 1990 .

[8]  Dave Cliff,et al.  Protean behavior in dynamic games: arguments for the co-evolution of pursuit-evasion tactics , 1994 .

[9]  Karl Sims,et al.  Evolving 3d morphology and behavior by competition , 1994 .

[10]  Craig W. Reynolds Competition, Coevolution and the Game of Tag , 1994 .

[11]  Dave Cliff,et al.  Tracking the Red Queen: Measurements of Adaptive Progress in Co-Evolutionary Simulations , 1995, ECAL.

[12]  Jordan B. Pollack,et al.  Co-Evolving Intertwined Spirals , 1996, Evolutionary Programming.

[13]  Jordan B. Pollack,et al.  Coevolution of a Backgammon Player , 1996 .

[14]  J. Pollack,et al.  Coevolving the "Ideal" Trainer: Application to the Discovery of Cellular Automata Rules , 1998 .

[15]  J. Pollack,et al.  Challenges in coevolutionary learning: arms-race dynamics, open-endedness, and medicocre stable states , 1998 .

[16]  Lee Spector,et al.  GECCO-2001 : proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference : a joint meeting of the Sixth Annual Genetic Programming Conference (GP-2001) and the Tenth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms (ICGA-2001), July 7-11, 2001, San Francisco, California , 2001 .

[17]  R. Watson,et al.  Pareto coevolution: using performance against coevolved opponents in a game as dimensions for Pareto selection , 2001 .

[18]  Stuart A. Kauffman,et al.  ORIGINS OF ORDER , 2019, Origins of Order.