Selecting for evolvable representations

Evolutionary algorithms tend to produce solutions that are not evolvable: Although current fitness may be high, further search is impeded as the effects of mutation and crossover become increasingly detrimental. In nature, in addition to having high fitness, organisms have evolvable genomes: phenotypic variation resulting from random mutation is structured and robust. Evolvability is important because it allows the population to produce meaningful variation, leading to efficient search. However, because evolvability does not improve immediate fitness, it must be selected for indirectly. One way to establish such a selection pressure is to change the fitness function systematically. Under such conditions, evolvability emerges only if the representation allows manipulating how genotypic variation maps onto phenotypic variation and if such manipulations lead to detectable changes in fitness. This research forms a framework for understanding how fitness function and representation interact to produce evolvability. Ultimately evolvable encodings may lead to evolutionary algorithms that exhibit the structured complexity and robustness found in nature.

[1]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Evolving Neural Networks through Augmenting Topologies , 2002, Evolutionary Computation.

[2]  Marc Toussaint Compact representations as a search strategy: Compression EDAs , 2006, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[3]  Soraya B. Rana,et al.  Representation Issues in Neighborhood Search and Evolutionary Algorithms , 1998 .

[4]  Hod Lipson,et al.  ON THE ORIGIN OF MODULAR VARIATION , 2002, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[5]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  A Taxonomy for Artificial Embryogeny , 2003, Artificial Life.

[6]  U. Alon,et al.  Spontaneous evolution of modularity and network motifs. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  E. Todeva Networks , 2007 .

[8]  C. Adami,et al.  Introduction To Artificial Life , 1997, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[9]  M. Huynen Exploring phenotype space through neutral evolution , 1996, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[10]  GUNAR E. LIEPINS,et al.  Representational issues in genetic optimization , 1990, J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell..

[11]  R. Raff Understanding Evolution: The Next Step. (Book Reviews: The Shape of Life. Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form.) , 1996 .

[12]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Towards an empirical measure of evolvability , 2005, GECCO '05.

[13]  Marc Ebner,et al.  How neutral networks influence evolvability , 2001, Complex..

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

[15]  Hod Lipson,et al.  Networks, dynamics, and modularity. , 2004, Physical review letters.

[16]  T. F. Hansen Is modularity necessary for evolvability? Remarks on the relationship between pleiotropy and evolvability. , 2003, Bio Systems.

[17]  Gregory S. Hornby,et al.  The advantages of generative grammatical encodings for physical design , 2001, Proceedings of the 2001 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE Cat. No.01TH8546).

[18]  Peter J. Bentley,et al.  Three Ways to Grow Designs: A Comparison of Embryogenies for an Evolutionary Design Problem , 1999, GECCO.

[19]  Jordan B. Pollack,et al.  Symbiotic Composition and Evolvability , 2001, ECAL.

[20]  Stefano Nolfi,et al.  Duplication of Modules Facilitates the Evolution of Functional Specialization , 1999, Artificial Life.

[21]  Paul J. Layzell,et al.  Evolution of Robustness in an Electronics Design , 2000, ICES.

[22]  Jiri Pospichal,et al.  Emergence of Modularity in Genotype-Phenotype Mappings , 2002, Artificial Life.

[23]  Gregory S. Hornby,et al.  Functional Scalability through Generative Representations: The Evolution of Table Designs , 2004 .

[24]  Günter P. Wagner,et al.  Complex Adaptations and the Evolution of Evolvability , 2005 .