Compact Genetic Codes as a Search Strategy of Evolutionary Processes

The choice of genetic representation crucially determines the capability of evolutionary processes to find complex solutions in which many variables interact. The question is how good genetic representations can be found and how they can be adapted online to account for what can be learned about the structure of the problem from previous samples. We address these questions in a scenario that we term indirect Estimation-of-Distribution: We consider a decorrelated search distribution (mutational variability) on a variable length genotype space. A one-to-one encoding onto the phenotype space then needs to induce an adapted phenotypic variability incorporating the dependencies between phenotypic variables that have been observed successful previously. Formalizing this in the framework of Estimation-of-Distribution Algorithms, an adapted phenotypic variability can be characterized as minimizing the Kullback-Leibler divergence to a population of previously selected individuals (parents). Our core result is a relation between the Kullback-Leibler divergence and the description length of the encoding in the specific scenario, stating that compact codes provide a way to minimize this divergence. A proposed class of Compression Evolutionary Algorithms and preliminary experiments with an L-system compression scheme illustrate the approach. We also discuss the implications for the self-adaptive evolution of genetic representations on the basis of neutrality (σ-evolution) towards compact codes.

[1]  P. Callaerts,et al.  Induction of ectopic eyes by targeted expression of the eyeless gene in Drosophila. , 1995, Science.

[2]  Marc Toussaint Notes on information geometry and evolutionary processes , 2004, ArXiv.

[3]  Franz Rothlauf,et al.  Redundant Representations in Evolutionary Computation , 2003, Evolutionary Computation.

[4]  Soraya B. Rana,et al.  Representation Issues in Neighborhood Search and Evolutionary Algorithms , 1998 .

[5]  Nikolaus Hansen,et al.  Completely Derandomized Self-Adaptation in Evolution Strategies , 2001, Evolutionary Computation.

[6]  Alden H. Wright,et al.  An Estimation of Distribution Algorithm Based on Maximum Entropy , 2004, GECCO.

[7]  GUNAR E. LIEPINS,et al.  Representational issues in genetic optimization , 1990, J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell..

[8]  S. Baluja,et al.  Using Optimal Dependency-Trees for Combinatorial Optimization: Learning the Structure of the Search Space , 1997 .

[9]  Christopher R. Stephens,et al.  Effective Fitness as an Alternative Paradigm for Evolutionary Computation I: General Formalism , 2000, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[10]  Marc Toussaint,et al.  Demonstrating the Evolution of Complex Genetic Representations: An Evolution of Artificial Plants , 2003, GECCO.

[11]  J. Pollack,et al.  Hierarchically Consistent Test Problems for Genetic Algorithms: Summary and Additional Results , 1999 .

[12]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  A Survey of Optimization by Building and Using Probabilistic Models , 2002, Comput. Optim. Appl..

[13]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Linkage Problem, Distribution Estimation, and Bayesian Networks , 2000, Evolutionary Computation.

[14]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  Genetic and Evolutionary Computation – GECCO 2004 , 2004, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[15]  Julian F. Miller,et al.  Genetic and Evolutionary Computation — GECCO 2003 , 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[16]  Paul A. Viola,et al.  MIMIC: Finding Optima by Estimating Probability Densities , 1996, NIPS.

[17]  Shumeet Baluja,et al.  A Method for Integrating Genetic Search Based Function Optimization and Competitive Learning , 1994 .

[18]  L. Darrell Whitley,et al.  Dynamic Representations and Escaping Local Optima: Improving Genetic Algorithms and Local Search , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[19]  Günter P. Wagner,et al.  Complex Adaptations and the Evolution of Evolvability , 2005 .

[20]  Marc Toussaint The evolution of genetic representations and modular neural adaptation , 2004 .

[21]  Jorma Rissanen,et al.  The Minimum Description Length Principle in Coding and Modeling , 1998, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[22]  Shun-ichi Amari,et al.  Information geometry on hierarchy of probability distributions , 2001, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[23]  Shumeet Baluja,et al.  Using Optimal Dependency-Trees for Combinational Optimization , 1997, ICML.

[24]  Edwin D. de Jong,et al.  Representation Development from Pareto-Coevolution , 2003, GECCO.

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

[26]  Ian H. Witten,et al.  Identifying Hierarchical Structure in Sequences: A linear-time algorithm , 1997, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[27]  L. Altenberg,et al.  PERSPECTIVE: COMPLEX ADAPTATIONS AND THE EVOLUTION OF EVOLVABILITY , 1996, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[28]  Alden H. Wright,et al.  Efficient Linkage Discovery by Limited Probing , 2003, Evolutionary Computation.

[29]  Gregory S. Hornby,et al.  The advantages of generative grammatical encodings for physical design , 2001, Proceedings of the 2001 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE Cat. No.01TH8546).

[30]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Hierarchical BOA Solves Ising Spin Glasses and MAXSAT , 2003, GECCO.

[31]  Marc Toussaint,et al.  On the Evolution of Phenotypic Exploration Distributions , 2002, FOGA.

[32]  Ming Li,et al.  Minimum description length induction, Bayesianism, and Kolmogorov complexity , 1999, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.