Putting More Genetics into Genetic Algorithms

The majority of current genetic algorithms (GAs), while inspired by natural evolutionary systems, are seldom viewed as biologically plausible models. This is not a criticism of GAs, but rather a reflection of choices made regarding the level of abstraction at which biological mechanisms are modeled, and a reflection of the more engineering-oriented goals of the evolutionary computation community. Understanding better and reducing this gap between GAs and genetics has been a central issue in an interdisciplinary project whose goal is to build GA-based computational models of viral evolution. The result is a system called Virtual Virus (VIV). VIV incorporates a number of more biologically plausible mechanisms, including a more flexible genotype-to-phenotype mapping. In VIV the genes are independent of position, and genomes can vary in length and may contain noncoding regions, as well as duplicative or competing genes. Initial computational studies with VIV have already revealed several emergent phenomena of both biological and computational interest. In the absence of any penalty based on genome length, VIV develops individuals with long genomes and also performs more poorly (from a problem-solving viewpoint) than when a length penalty is used. With a fixed linear length penalty, genome length tends to increase dramatically in the early phases of evolution and then decrease to a level based on the mutation rate. The plateau genome length (i.e., the average length of individuals in the final population) generally increases in response to an increase in the base mutation rate. When VIV converges, there tend to be many copies of good alternative genes within the individuals. We observed many instances of switching between active and inactive genes during the entire evolutionary process. These observations support the conclusion that noncoding regions serve as scratch space in which VIV can explore alternative gene values. These results represent a positive step in understanding how GAs might exploit more of the power and flexibility of biological evolution while simultaneously providing better tools for understanding evolving biological systems.

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

[2]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  Fitness Causes Bloat , 1998 .

[3]  L. Darrell Whitley,et al.  Initial performance comparisons for the delta coding algorithm , 1994, Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence.

[4]  Peter Nordin,et al.  Complexity Compression and Evolution , 1995, ICGA.

[5]  Byoung-Tak Zhang,et al.  Balancing Accuracy and Parsimony in Genetic Programming , 1995, Evolutionary Computation.

[6]  Thomas Haynes,et al.  Duplication of Coding Segments in Genetic Programming , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 1.

[7]  Annie S. Wu,et al.  Empirical Studies of the Genetic Algorithm with Noncoding Segments , 1995, Evolutionary Computation.

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

[9]  R G Worton,et al.  Human ribosomal RNA genes: orientation of the tandem array and conservation of the 5' end. , 1988, Science.

[10]  Gerald R. Fink,et al.  Gene conversion between repeated genes , 1982, Nature.

[11]  M. Nei.  Molecular Evolutionary Genetics , 1987 .

[12]  Vidroha Debroy,et al.  Genetic Programming , 1998, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[13]  James R. Levenick.  Inserting Introns Improves Genetic Algorithm Success Rate: Taking a Cue from Biology , 1991, ICGA.

[14]  Annie S. Wu,et al.  A Survey of Intron Research in Genetics , 1996, PPSN.

[15]  Hitoshi Iba,et al.  Genetic programming using a minimum description length principle , 1994 .

[16]  Peter F. R. Little,et al.  Globin pseudogenes , 1982, Cell.

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

[18]  SAGAInman HarveyCSRP.  Species Adaptation Genetic Algorithms: A Basis for a Continuing SAGA , 1992 .

[19]  Peter J. Angeline,et al.  Explicitly Defined Introns and Destructive Crossover in Genetic Programming , 1996 .

[20]  Helmut A. Mayer.  ptGAs - Genetic Algorithms Using Promoter/Terminator Sequences - Evolution of Number, Size, and Location of Parameters and Parts of the Representation , 1997 .

[21]  John R. Koza,et al.  Genetic programming (videotape): the movie , 1992 .

[22]  Stephen F. Smith,et al.  Flexible Learning of Problem Solving Heuristics Through Adaptive Search , 1983, IJCAI.

[23]  Tom Maniatis,et al.  The structure of a human α-globin pseudogene and its relationship to α-globin gene duplication , 1980, Cell.

[24]  M. Birnstiel,et al.  The organization and expression of histone gene families , 1981, Cell.

[25]  M. Stern,et al.  Emergence of homeostasis and "noise imprinting" in an evolution model. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  Annie S. Wu,et al.  Genome Length as an Evolutionary Self-adaptation , 1998, PPSN.

[27]  Annie S. Wu,et al.  A Comparison of the Fixed and Floating Building Block Representation in the Genetic Algorithm , 1996, Evolutionary Computation.

[28]  V. Nanjundiah,et al.  Trans gene regulation in adaptive evolution: a genetic algorithm model. , 1997, Journal of theoretical biology.

[29]  D. Burke,et al.  Recombination in HIV: an important viral evolutionary strategy. , 1997, Emerging infectious diseases.

[30]  Melanie Mitchell,et al.  Relative Building-Block Fitness and the Building Block Hypothesis , 1992, FOGA.