Information integration and red queen dynamics in coevolutionary optimization

Coevolution has been used as optimization technique both successfully and unsuccessfully. Successful optimization shows integration of information at the individual level over many fitness evaluation events and over many generations. Alternative outcomes of the evolutionary process, e.g. red queen dynamics or speciation, prevent such integration. Why coevolution leads to integration of information or to alternative evolutionary outcomes is generally unclear. We study coevolutionary optimization of the density classification task in cellular automata in a spatially explicit, two-species model. We find optimization at the individual level, i.e. evolution of cellular automata that are good density classifiers. However, when we globally mix the populations, which prevents the formation of spatial patterns, we find typical red queen dynamics in which cellular automata classify all cases to a single density class regardless their actual density. Thus, we get different outcomes of the evolutionary process dependent on a small change in the model. We compare the two processes leading to the different outcomes in terms of the diversity of the two populations at the level of the genotype and at the level of the phenotype.

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

[2]  Paulien Hogeweg,et al.  Evolutionary Consequences of Coevolving Targets , 1997, Evolutionary Computation.

[3]  Ludo Pagie,et al.  Information integration in evolutionary processes , 1999 .

[4]  Samir W. Mahfoud A Comparison of Parallel and Sequential Niching Methods , 1995, ICGA.

[5]  James P. Crutchfield,et al.  Mechanisms of Emergent Computation in Cellular Automata , 1998, PPSN.

[6]  M Mitchell,et al.  The evolution of emergent computation. , 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[8]  James P. Crutchfield,et al.  Resource sharing and coevolution in evolving cellular automata , 1999, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[9]  Stephen Wolfram,et al.  Cellular automata as models of complexity , 1984, Nature.

[10]  Melanie Mitchell,et al.  Evolving cellular automata to perform computations: mechanisms and impediments , 1994 .

[11]  David R. Jefferson,et al.  Selection in Massively Parallel Genetic Algorithms , 1991, ICGA.

[12]  Jan Paredis,et al.  Coevolving Cellular Automata: Be Aware of the Red Queen! , 1997, ICGA.

[13]  Paulien Hogeweg,et al.  Evolutionary Stagnation Due to Pattern-Pattern Interactions in a Coevolutionary Predator-Prey Model , 1997, Artificial Life.

[14]  Phil Husbands,et al.  Distributed Coevolutionary Genetic Algorithms for Multi-Criteria and Multi-Constraint Optimisation , 1994, Evolutionary Computing, AISB Workshop.

[15]  J. Pollack,et al.  Challenges in coevolutionary learning: arms-race dynamics, open-endedness, and medicocre stable states , 1998 .

[16]  J. Pollack,et al.  Coevolving the "Ideal" Trainer: Application to the Discovery of Cellular Automata Rules , 1998 .

[17]  Hitoshi Iba,et al.  Genetic Programming 1998: Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference , 1999, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[18]  Tommaso Toffoli,et al.  Cellular automata machines - a new environment for modeling , 1987, MIT Press series in scientific computation.

[19]  Seth Bullock,et al.  Co-evolutionary design: Implications for evolutionary robotics , 1995 .

[20]  Melanie Mitchell,et al.  Evolving Cellular Automata with Genetic Algorithms: A Review of Recent Work , 2000 .

[21]  Jan Paredis,et al.  Coevolutionary computation , 1995 .

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