Genome Length as an Evolutionary Self-adaptation

There is increasing interest in evolutionary algorithms that have variable-length genomes and/or location independent genes. However, our understanding of such algorithms both theoretically and empirically is much less well developed than the more traditional fixed-length, fixed-location ones. Recent studies with VIV (Virtual Virus), a variable length, GA-based computational model of viral evolution, have revealed several emergent phenomena of both biological and computational interest. One interesting and somewhat surprising result is that the length of individuals in the population self-adapts in direct response to the mutation rate applied, so the GA adaptivelv strikes the balance it needs to successfully solve the problem. Over a broad range of mutation rates, genome length tends to increase dramatically in the early phases of evolution, and then decrease to a level based on the mutation rate. The plateau genome length (i.e., the average length of individuals in the final population) generally increases in response to an increase in the base mutation rate. Furthermore, the mutation operator rate and adapted length resulting in the best problem solving performance is about one mutation per individual. This is also the rate at which mutation generally occurs in biological systems, suggesting an optimal, or at least biologically plausible, balance of these operator rates. These results suggest that an important property of these algorithms is a considerable degree of self-adaptation.

[1]  Annie S. Wu,et al.  Putting More Genetics into Genetic Algorithms , 1998, Evolutionary Computation.

[2]  Annie S. Wu,et al.  A Comparison of the Fixed and Floating Building Block Representation in the Genetic Algorithm , 1996, Evolutionary Computation.

[3]  Byoung-Tak Zhang,et al.  Balancing Accuracy and Parsimony in Genetic Programming , 1995, Evolutionary Computation.

[4]  Stephen F. Smith,et al.  Flexible Learning of Problem Solving Heuristics Through Adaptive Search , 1983, IJCAI.

[5]  Thomas Haynes,et al.  Duplication of Coding Segments in Genetic Programming , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 1.

[6]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  Fitness Causes Bloat , 1998 .

[7]  Peter Nordin,et al.  Complexity Compression and Evolution , 1995, ICGA.

[8]  James R. Levenick Inserting Introns Improves Genetic Algorithm Success Rate: Taking a Cue from Biology , 1991, ICGA.

[9]  Terence C. Fogarty,et al.  Varying the Probability of Mutation in the Genetic Algorithm , 1989, ICGA.

[10]  SAGAInman HarveyCSRP Species Adaptation Genetic Algorithms: A Basis for a Continuing SAGA , 1992 .

[11]  Vidroha Debroy,et al.  Genetic Programming , 1998, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[12]  Lawrence Davis,et al.  Adapting Operator Probabilities in Genetic Algorithms , 1989, ICGA.

[13]  Helmut A. Mayer ptGAs - Genetic Algorithms Using Promoter/Terminator Sequences - Evolution of Number, Size, and Location of Parameters and Parts of the Representation , 1997 .

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

[15]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  The Interaction of Mutation Rate, Selection, and Self-Adaptation Within a Genetic Algorithm , 1992, PPSN.

[16]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Messy Genetic Algorithms: Motivation, Analysis, and First Results , 1989, Complex Syst..

[17]  Hitoshi Iba,et al.  Genetic programming using a minimum description length principle , 1994 .

[18]  Thomas Bck,et al.  Self-adaptation in genetic algorithms , 1991 .

[19]  Melanie Mitchell,et al.  Relative Building-Block Fitness and the Building Block Hypothesis , 1992, FOGA.

[20]  Peter J. Angeline,et al.  Explicitly Defined Introns and Destructive Crossover in Genetic Programming , 1996 .

[21]  L. Darrell Whitley,et al.  Initial performance comparisons for the delta coding algorithm , 1994, Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence.