Acquiring evolvability through adaptive representations

Adaptive representations allow evolution to explore the space of phenotypes by choosing the most suitable set of genotypic parameters. Although such an approach is believed to be efficient on complex problems, few empirical studieshave been conducted in such domains. In this paper, three neural network representations, a direct encoding, a complexifying encoding, and an implicit encoding capable of adapting the genotype-phenotype mapping are compared on Nothello, a complex game playing domain from the AAAI General Game Playing Competition. Implicit encoding makes the search more efficient and uses several times fewer parameters. Random mutation leads to highly structured phenotypic variation that is acquired during the course of evolution rather than built into the representation itself. Thus, adaptive representations learn to become evolvable, and furthermore do so in a way that makes search efficient on difficult coevolutionary problems.

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

[2]  Donald E. Knuth,et al.  The Solution for the Branching Factor of the Alpha-Beta Pruning Algorithm , 1981, ICALP.

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

[4]  Peter Eggenberger,et al.  Evolving Morphologies of Simulated 3d Organisms Based on Differential Gene Expression , 1997 .

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

[6]  R. Raff,et al.  Modularity and dissociation in the evolution of gene expression territories in development , 2000, Evolution & development.

[7]  R. Jackson Genomic regulatory systems , 2001 .

[8]  Josh Bongard,et al.  Evolving modular genetic regulatory networks , 2002, Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC'02 (Cat. No.02TH8600).

[9]  Phil Husbands,et al.  Fitness Landscapes and Evolvability , 2002, Evolutionary Computation.

[10]  S. Shen-Orr,et al.  Network motifs: simple building blocks of complex networks. , 2002, Science.

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

[12]  A. Bergman,et al.  Evolutionary capacitance as a general feature of complex gene networks , 2003, Nature.

[13]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Competitive Coevolution through Evolutionary Complexification , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

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

[15]  S. Shen-Orr,et al.  Superfamilies of Evolved and Designed Networks , 2004, Science.

[16]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Network biology: understanding the cell's functional organization , 2004, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[17]  Sevan G. Ficici,et al.  Monotonic solution concepts in coevolution , 2005, GECCO '05.

[18]  Edwin D. de Jong,et al.  The MaxSolve algorithm for coevolution , 2005, GECCO '05.

[19]  Michael R. Genesereth,et al.  General Game Playing: Overview of the AAAI Competition , 2005, AI Mag..

[20]  Nicholas J. Radcliffe,et al.  Genetic set recombination and its application to neural network topology optimisation , 1993, Neural Computing & Applications.

[21]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Selecting for evolvable representations , 2006, GECCO.

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

[23]  Peter Eggenberger-Hotz Evolving Morphologies of Simulated 3d Organisms Based on Differential Gene Expression , 2007 .

[24]  Leslie G. Valiant,et al.  Evolvability , 2009, JACM.