The Dominance Tournament Method of Monitoring Progress in Coevolution

In competitive coevolution, the goal is to establish an “arms race” that will lead to increasingly sophisticated strategies. The existing methods for monitoring progress in coevolution are designed to demonstrate that the arms race indeed occurred. However, two issues remain: (1) How can progress be monitored efficiently so that every generation champion does not need to be compared to every other generation champion? (2) How can a monitoring method determine whether strictly more sophisticated strategies are discovered as the evolution progresses? We introduce a new method for tracking progress, the dominance tournament, which provides an answer to both questions. The dominance tournament shows how different coevolution runs continue to innovate for different periods of time, reveals the precise generation in each run where stagnation occurs, and identifies the best individuals found during the runs. Such differences are difficult to detect using standard techniques but are clearly distinguished in a dominance tournament, which makes this method a highly useful tool in understanding progress in coevolution.

[1]  L. V. Valen,et al.  A new evolutionary law , 1973 .

[2]  J. Krebs,et al.  Arms races between and within species , 1979, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[3]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms with Sharing for Multimodalfunction Optimization , 1987, ICGA.

[4]  J. Walden Parasitic diseases. Other roundworms. Trichuris, hookworm, and Strongyloides. , 1991, Primary care.

[5]  Francesco Mondada,et al.  Mobile Robot Miniaturisation: A Tool for Investigation in Control Algorithms , 1993, ISER.

[6]  S. Brooker,et al.  Hookworm infection. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

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

[8]  Stefano Nolfi,et al.  God Save the Red Queen! Competition in Co-Evolutionary Robotics , 1997 .

[9]  Richard K. Belew,et al.  Coevolutionary search among adversaries , 1997 .

[10]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Incremental Evolution of Complex General Behavior , 1997, Adapt. Behav..

[11]  Richard K. Belew,et al.  New Methods for Competitive Coevolution , 1997, Evolutionary Computation.

[12]  C. Lee Giles,et al.  Talking Helps: Evolving Communicating Agents for the Predator-Prey Pursuit Problem , 2000, Artificial Life.

[13]  Jordan B. Pollack,et al.  Pareto Optimality in Coevolutionary Learning , 2001, ECAL.

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

[15]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Efficient evolution of neural network topologies , 2002, Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC'02 (Cat. No.02TH8600).

[16]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Continual Coevolution Through Complexification , 2002, GECCO.

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