An empirical investigation of how and why neutrality affects evolutionary search

The effects of neutrality on evolutionary search have been considered in a number of studies, the results of which, however, have been contradictory. Some have found neutrality to be beneficial to aid evolution whereas others have argued that neutrality in the evolutionary process is useless. We believe that this confusion is due to several reasons: many studies have based their conclusions on performance statistics rather than a more in-depth analysis of population dynamics, studies often consider problems, representations and search algorithms that are relatively complex and so results represent the compositions of multiple effects, there is not a single definition of neutrality and different studies have added neutrality to problems in radically different ways. In this paper, we try to shed some light on neutrality by addressing these problems. That is, we use the simplest possible definition of neutrality (a neutral network of constant fitness, identically distributed in the whole search space), we consider one of the simplest possible algorithms (a mutation based, binary genetic algorithm) applied to two simple problems (a unimodal landscape and a deceptive landscape), and analyse both performance figures and, critically, population flows from and to the neutral network and the basins of attraction of the optima.

[1]  Julian Francis Miller,et al.  The Role of Neutral and Adaptive Mutation in an Evolutionary Search on the OneMax Problem , 2002, GECCO Late Breaking Papers.

[2]  W. Banzhaf,et al.  Genetic programming using genotype-phenotype mapping from linear genomes into linear phenotypes , 1996 .

[3]  Phil Husbands,et al.  Neutral Networks and Evolvability with Complex Genotype-Phenotype Mapping , 2001, ECAL.

[4]  Richard Mark Downing,et al.  Evolving binary decision diagrams using implicit neutrality , 2005, 2005 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[5]  M. Collins Finding needles in haystacks is harder with neutrality , 2006, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[6]  Wolfgang Banzhaf,et al.  Genotype-Phenotype-Mapping and Neutral Variation - A Case Study in Genetic Programming , 1994, PPSN.

[7]  Julian Francis Miller,et al.  Cartesian genetic programming , 2000, GECCO '10.

[8]  M. Kimura Evolutionary Rate at the Molecular Level , 1968, Nature.

[9]  N. Packard,et al.  Neutral search spaces for artificial evolution: a lesson from life , 2000 .

[10]  Inman Harvey,et al.  The Use of Neutral Genotype-Phenotype Mappings for Improved Evolutionary Search , 2000 .

[11]  Julian Francis Miller,et al.  Finding Needles in Haystacks Is Not Hard with Neutrality , 2002, EuroGP.

[12]  Julian Francis Miller,et al.  Neutrality and the Evolvability of Boolean Function Landscape , 2001, EuroGP.

[13]  Rick Chow,et al.  Evolving Genotype to Phenotype Mappings with a Multiple-Chromosome Genetic Algorithm , 2004, GECCO.

[14]  Inman Harvey,et al.  Through the Labyrinth Evolution Finds a Way: A Silicon Ridge , 1996, ICES.

[15]  N. Packard,et al.  Neutral Search Spaces for Artificial Evolution: A Lesson From Life , 2000 .

[16]  P. Husbands,et al.  Neutral networks in an evolutionary robotics search space , 2001, Proceedings of the 2001 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE Cat. No.01TH8546).