Coevolutionary Learning and the Design of Complex Systems

Complex systems composed of a large number of loosely coupled entities, with no central coordination offer a number of attractive properties like scalability, robustness or massively distributed computation. However, designing such complex systems presents some challenging issues that are difficult to tackle with traditional top-down engineering methodologies. Coevolutionary learning, which involves the embedding of adaptive learning agents in a fitness environment that dynamically responds to their progress, is proposed as a paradigm to explore a space of complex system designs. It is argued that coevolution offers a flexible framework for the implementation of search heuristics that can efficiently exploit some of the structural properties exhibited by such state spaces. However, several drawbacks have to be overcome in order for coevolutionary learning to achieve continuous progress in the long term. This paper presents some of those problems and introduces a new strategy based on the concept of an "ideal" trainer to address them. This presentation is illustrated with a case study: the discovery of cellular automata rules to implement a classification task. The application of the "ideal" trainer paradigm to that problem resulted in a significant improvement over previously known best rules for this task.

[1]  James P. Crutchfield,et al.  A Genetic Algorithm Discovers Particle-Based Computation in Cellular Automata , 1994, PPSN.

[2]  Richard K. Belew,et al.  A competitive approach to game learning , 1996, COLT '96.

[3]  Samir W. Mahfoud Niching methods for genetic algorithms , 1996 .

[4]  Melanie Mitchell,et al.  Evolving cellular automata to perform computations: mechanisms and impediments , 1994 .

[5]  Atam P. Dhawan,et al.  Genetic Algorithms as Global Random Search Methods: An Alternative Perspective , 1995, Evolutionary Computation.

[6]  John J. Grefenstette,et al.  A Coevolutionary Approach to Learning Sequential Decision Rules , 1995, ICGA.

[7]  Richard K. Belew,et al.  Methods for Competitive Co-Evolution: Finding Opponents Worth Beating , 1995, ICGA.

[8]  James P. Crutchfield,et al.  Evolving cellular automata to perform computations , 1997 .

[9]  Jan Paredis,et al.  Coevolving Cellular Automata: Be Aware of the Red Queen! , 1997, ICGA.

[10]  Land,et al.  No perfect two-state cellular automata for density classification exists. , 1995, Physical review letters.

[11]  Jan Paredis,et al.  Co-evolutionary Constraint Satisfaction , 1994, PPSN.

[12]  Hugues Juillé Evolution of Non-Deterministic Incremental Algorithms as a New Approach for Search in State Spaces , 1995, ICGA.

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

[14]  Marco Dorigo,et al.  Swarm intelligence: from natural to artificial systems , 1999 .

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

[16]  James P. Crutchfield,et al.  Revisiting the Edge of Chaos: Evolving Cellular Automata to Perform Computations , 1993, Complex Syst..

[17]  Pattie Maes,et al.  Co-evolution of Pursuit and Evasion II: Simulation Methods and Results , 1996 .

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

[19]  Susan L. Epstein Toward an Ideal Trainer , 1994 .

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

[21]  Capcarrere,et al.  Two-state, r=1 Cellular Automaton that Classifies Density. , 1996, Physical review letters.

[22]  Mitchell A. Potter,et al.  The design and analysis of a computational model of cooperative coevolution , 1997 .