Coevolutionary search among adversaries

Competitive coevolution is a biologically-inspired search technique that uses a genetic algorithm in two competing populations. During search, individuals in each population are evaluated by direct competition against members of the opposing population. A class of adversarial problems is defined, to which competitive coevolution can be applied. In such problems, it is important to actively choose difficult test cases to accurately evaluate candidate solutions. Competitive coevolution evaluates candidate solutions and test cases against one another while searching for both, so that each drives the improvement of the other. Tools from computational learning theory are used to obtain positive theoretical results on the efficiency of simplified coevolutionary algorithms. Lower bounds show the importance of several parameters for describing performance of these algorithms. This work gives insight into necessary and sufficient conditions for successful coevolutionary search. Experimental work uses competitive coevolution as a heuristic method for adversarial problems. Several measurement techniques are used to understand the behavior of coevolution. These allow identification of several flaws in simple forms of coevolution. Coevolution can be stalled by the loss of important niches, by coevolutionary cycles, or by a lack of balance between populations. New methods are described that overcome these Aaws and make coevolution more efficient. Competitive fitness sharing preserves important niches, the hall of fame encourages long-term progress, the phantom parasite maintains balance, and shared sampling allows efficient fitness testing. With these new methods, coevolution is able to solve several game learning test problems that cannot be efficiently solved without them. Several applications are discussed. The first uses a simulation of patient blood pressure during surgery to evaluate drug delivery controllers against patients; the goal is a controller that successfully controls all possible patients. The second application uses a sorting network design problem to explore the relationship between theoretical concepts of testability and experimental coevolutionary behavior. The third application is the design of strategies for the game of Go. Coevolution produces competitive players that push the strategy representation to its limits. Finally, preliminary work is presented on the design of drugs that are robust across possible drug resistance mutations.

[1]  Peter J. Angeline,et al.  Competitive Environments Evolve Better Solutions for Complex Tasks , 1993, ICGA.

[2]  M. Enzenberger The Integration of A Priori Knowledge into a Go Playing Neural Network , 1996 .

[3]  D. Fudenberg,et al.  The Theory of Learning in Games , 1998 .

[4]  Anthony V. Sebald,et al.  Minimax design of neural net controllers for highly uncertain plants , 1994, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[5]  David H. Ackley,et al.  Ccr: A network of worlds for research , 1996 .

[6]  M. V. Wilkes,et al.  The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 3, Sorting and Searching , 1974 .

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

[8]  M. Bedau Measurement of Evolutionary Activity, Teleology, and Life , 1996 .

[9]  J. Condra,et al.  In vivo emergence of HIV-1 variants resistant to multiple protease inhibitors , 1995, Nature.

[10]  Richard K. Belew,et al.  Evolving Compare-Exchange Networks Using Grammars , 1995, Artificial Life.

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

[12]  K. Chou,et al.  Predicting human immunodeficiency virus protease cleavage sites in proteins by a discriminant function method , 1996, Proteins.

[13]  William E. Hart,et al.  The Role of Development in Genetic Algorithms , 1994, FOGA.

[14]  W. J. Langford Statistical Methods , 1959, Nature.

[15]  M. L. Quinn,et al.  A dynamic empirical model of the human response to sodium nitroprusside during cardiac surgery , 1988, Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[16]  H. Jaap van den Herik,et al.  GO‐MOKU SOLVED BY NEW SEARCH TECHNIQUES , 1996, Comput. Intell..

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

[18]  C. J. Tan,et al.  Deep Blue: computer chess and massively parallel systems (extended abstract) , 1995, ICS '95.

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

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

[21]  John Michael Neal McInerney,et al.  Biologically influenced algorithms and parallelism in non-linear optimization , 1992 .

[22]  David A. Cohn,et al.  Active Learning with Statistical Models , 1996, NIPS.

[23]  Arthur L. Samuel,et al.  Some Studies in Machine Learning Using the Game of Checkers , 1967, IBM J. Res. Dev..

[24]  Vasek Chvátal,et al.  A Greedy Heuristic for the Set-Covering Problem , 1979, Math. Oper. Res..

[25]  E. Berlekamp,et al.  Winning Ways for Your Mathematical Plays , 1983 .

[26]  D. Tilman,et al.  Sexuality and the Components of Environmental Uncertainty: Clues from Geographic Parthenogenesis in Terrestrial Animals , 1978, The American Naturalist.

[27]  Walter Alden Tackett,et al.  The unique implications of brood selection for genetic programming , 1994, Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence.

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

[29]  Yoav Freund,et al.  Game theory, on-line prediction and boosting , 1996, COLT '96.

[30]  Chuen-Tsai Sun,et al.  Genetic algorithm learning in game playing with multiple coaches , 1994, Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence.

[31]  E. Rowland Theory of Games and Economic Behavior , 1946, Nature.

[32]  A. Karter,et al.  Parasite-host coevolution. , 1990, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[33]  Mark Plutowski,et al.  Selecting concise training sets from clean data , 1993, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[34]  Patrick D. Surry,et al.  Real Representations , 1996, FOGA.

[35]  Richard J. Lipton,et al.  Simple strategies for large zero-sum games with applications to complexity theory , 1994, STOC '94.

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

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

[38]  Walter Reitman,et al.  The Structure and Performance of the INTERIM.2 Go Program , 1979, IJCAI.

[39]  Sampath Kannan,et al.  Oracles and Queries That Are Sufficient for Exact Learning , 1996, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[40]  Edoardo Amaldi,et al.  The Complexity and Approximability of Finding Maximum Feasible Subsystems of Linear Relations , 1995, Theor. Comput. Sci..

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

[42]  M. Rosenzweig EVOLUTION OF THE PREDATOR ISOCLINE , 1973, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[43]  William E. Hart,et al.  A Comparison of Global and Local Search Methods in Drug Docking , 1997, ICGA.

[44]  Stephanie Forrest,et al.  Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms , 1993 .

[45]  Filippo Neri,et al.  Search-Intensive Concept Induction , 1995, Evolutionary Computation.

[46]  Leslie G. Valiant,et al.  Random Generation of Combinatorial Structures from a Uniform Distribution , 1986, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[47]  Terry Bossomaier,et al.  Evolution of Neural Networks to Play the Game of Dots-and-Boxes , 1998, ArXiv.

[48]  Gerald Tesauro,et al.  Temporal Difference Learning and TD-Gammon , 1995, J. Int. Comput. Games Assoc..

[49]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  Distributed automated docking of flexible ligands to proteins: Parallel applications of AutoDock 2.4 , 1996, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[50]  Terrence J. Sejnowski,et al.  Temporal Difference Learning of Position Evaluation in the Game of Go , 1993, NIPS.

[51]  Janet Wiles,et al.  The challenge of Go as a domain for AI research: a comparison between Go and chess , 1995, Proceedings of Third Australian and New Zealand Conference on Intelligent Information Systems. ANZIIS-95.

[52]  Martin Müller,et al.  Computer go as a sum of local games: an application of combinatorial game theory , 1995 .

[53]  John R. Koza,et al.  Genetic programming - on the programming of computers by means of natural selection , 1993, Complex adaptive systems.

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

[55]  J. Albus Mechanisms of planning and problem solving in the brain , 1979 .

[56]  Richard K. Belew,et al.  Towards a Self-Replicating Language for Computation , 1995, Evolutionary Programming.

[57]  Stefano Nolfi,et al.  How to Evolve Autonomous Robots: Different Approaches in Evolutionary Robotics , 1994 .

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

[59]  Wolfgang Maass,et al.  On-line learning with an oblivious environment and the power of randomization , 1991, COLT '91.

[60]  Michael Kearns,et al.  On the complexity of teaching , 1991, COLT '91.

[61]  Alan S. Perelson,et al.  Searching for Diverse, Cooperative Populations with Genetic Algorithms , 1993, Evolutionary Computation.

[62]  P. Feldman Evolution of sex , 1975, Nature.

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

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

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

[66]  Larry J. Eshelman,et al.  Foundations of Genetic Algorithms-2 , 1993 .

[67]  H. Jaap van den Herik,et al.  Proof-Number Search , 1994, Artif. Intell..

[68]  N. Littlestone Learning Quickly When Irrelevant Attributes Abound: A New Linear-Threshold Algorithm , 1987, 28th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1987).

[69]  Umesh V. Vazirani,et al.  An Introduction to Computational Learning Theory , 1994 .

[70]  Jan Paredis,et al.  Coevolutionary Computation , 1995, Artificial Life.