Computational Economics

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 355–370 | Cite as

Robust Evolutionary Algorithm Design for Socio-economic Simulation

  • Floortje AlkemadeEmail author
  • Han La Poutré
  • Hans M. Amman


Agent-based computational economics (ACE) combines elements from economics and computer science. In this paper, we focus on the relation between the evolutionary technique that is used and the economic problem that is modeled. In the field of ACE, economic simulations often derive parameter settings for the evolutionary algorithm directly from the values of the economic model parameters. In this paper, we compare two important approaches that are dominating ACE research and show that the above practice may hinder the performance of the evolutionary algorithm and thereby hinder agent learning. More specifically, we show that economic model parameters and evolutionary algorithm parameters should be treated separately by comparing the two widely used approaches to social learning with respect to their convergence properties and robustness. This leads to new considerations for the methodological aspects of evolutionary algorithm design within the field of ACE.


evolutionary algorithms simulation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alemdar N., Sirakaya S. (2003). On-line computation of stackelberg equilibria with synchronous parallel genetic algorithms. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 27(8):1503–1515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alkemade, F., La Poutré, J. (2003). Heterogeneous, boundedly rational agents in the cournot duopoly, 3–17 in R. Cowan and N. Jonard (eds.), Heterogenous Agents, Interactions and Economic Performance, vol. 521 of Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Alkemade, F., van Bragt, D. and La Poutré, J. (2000). Stabilization of Tag-mediated Interaction by Sexual Reproduction in an Evolutionary Agent System (extended abstract). Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Computational Intelligence in Economics and Finance CIEF’2000, Vol. 2, 945–949.Google Scholar
  4. Alkemade F., van Bragt D., La Poutré J. (2005). Stabilization of tag-mediated interaction by sexual reproduction in an evolutionary agent system. Information Sciences, 170, 101–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alkemade, F., La Poutré, J. and Amman, H. (2005). On Social Learning and Robust Evolutionary Algorithm Design in Economic Games, Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC 2005), IEEE Press, pp. 2445-2452.Google Scholar
  6. Arifovic, J. (1994). Genetic algorithm learning and the cobweb model. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 18, 3–28.Google Scholar
  7. Arifovic, J. (1998). Stability of equilibria under genetic algorithm adaptation. Macroeconomic Dynamics, 2(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  8. Arifovic, J. (2001). Evolutionary dynamics of currency substitution. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 25(3–4), 395–417.Google Scholar
  9. Arifovic, J. and Maschek, M. Revisiting individual evolutionary learning in the cobweb model - an illustration of the virtual spite effect. Computational economics, DOI 10.1007/s10614-006-9053-3.Google Scholar
  10. Arthur, W. (1993). On designing economic agents that behave like human agents. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 3, 1–22.Google Scholar
  11. Axelrod, R. (1987). The evolution of strategies in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma. In Genetic Algorithms and Simulated Annealing, pp. 32–41. London: Pitman.Google Scholar
  12. Bäck, T., Fogel, D. and Michalewicz Z. (eds.) (1997). Handbook of evolutionary computation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bäck, T., Hammel, U. and Schwefel, H. (1997). Evolutionary computation: Comments on the history and current state. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 1(1), 3–17.Google Scholar
  14. Biethahn, J. and Nissen, V. (eds.) (1995). Evolutionary Algorithms in Management applications. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. Bullard J. (1999). Using genetic algorithms to model the evolution of heterogeneous beliefs. Computational Economics, 13(1):41–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chattoe E. (1998). ‘Just how (un)realistic are evolutionary algorithms as representations of social processes?’. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 1(3), Scholar
  17. Chen, S. and Yeh C. (1997). Towards a computable approach to the efficient market hypothesis: An application of genetic programming. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 21(6), 1043–1064.Google Scholar
  18. Chen, S. and Yeh, C. (2001). Evolving traders and the business school with genetic programming: A new architecture of the agent-based artificial stock market. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 25(3–4), 363–393.Google Scholar
  19. Cournot A. (1897). Researches into the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth. Macmillan, New York (edited by N. Bacon, 1838).Google Scholar
  20. Dawid, H. (1996). Adaptive learning by genetic algorithms. Number 441 in Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems. Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  21. Dawid, H. (1996). Learning of cycles and sunspot equilibria by genetic algporithms. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 6, 361–373.Google Scholar
  22. Duffy, J. and McNelis P. (2001). Approximating and simulating the stochastic growth model: Parameterized expectations, neural networks, and the genetic algorithm. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 2001.Google Scholar
  23. Edmonds, B. (2001). Towards a descriptive model of agent strategy search. Computational Economics, 18, 111–133.Google Scholar
  24. Fudenberg, D. and Levine D. (1998). Learning in games. European economic review, 42, 631–639.Google Scholar
  25. Grefenstette, J. (1986). Optimization of control parameters for genetic algorithms. IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 16(1), 122–128.Google Scholar
  26. Holland J. (1975). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. University of Michigan Press, Michigan.Google Scholar
  27. Jong, K.D. (1975). An analysis of the behavior of a class of genetic adaptive systems. PhD Thesis, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  28. Klos, T. (1999). Decentralized interaction and co-adaptation in the repeated prisoner’s dilemma. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 5(2), 147–165.Google Scholar
  29. Lawrenz, C. and Westerhoff, F. (2003) Modeling exchange rate behavior with a genetic algorithm. Computational Economics, 21(3), 209–229.Google Scholar
  30. Mailath, G. (1992). Introduction: Symposium on evolutionary game theory. Journal of economic theory, 57, 259–277.Google Scholar
  31. Marimon, R., McGrattan, E. and Sargent, T. (1990). Money as a medium of exchange in an economy with artificially intelligent agents. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 14, 329–373.Google Scholar
  32. Midgley, D., Marks, R. and Cooper, L. (1997). Breeding competitive strategies. Management Science, 43(3), 257–275.Google Scholar
  33. Mitchell, M. (1996). An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
  34. Riechmann, T. (2001). Genetic algorithm learning and evolutionary games. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 25(6–7), 1019–1037.Google Scholar
  35. Riechmann, T. (2001). Learning in Economics. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg (Germany).Google Scholar
  36. Ringhut, E. and Kooths, S. (2003). Modeling expectations with genefer – an artificial intelligence approach. Computational Economics, 21(1), 173–194.Google Scholar
  37. Tesfatsion, L. (2001). Introduction to the special issue on agent-based computational economics. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 25(3–4), 281–293.Google Scholar
  38. Varian, H. (1992). Microeconomic Analysis. Norton W.W. New York.Google Scholar
  39. Vega-Redondo, F. (1997). The evolution of walrasian behavior. Econometrica, 65, 375–384.Google Scholar
  40. Vriend, N. (2000). An illustration of the essential difference between individual learning and social learning and its consequences for computational analyses. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 24, 1–19.Google Scholar
  41. Weibull J. (2002). Evolutionary Game Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
  42. Yildizoglu M. (2002). Competing R&D strategies in an evolutionary industry model. Computational Economics, 19(1):51–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Floortje Alkemade
    • 1
    Email author
  • Han La Poutré
    • 2
    • 3
  • Hans M. Amman
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Innovation StudiesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Centre for Computer Science and Mathematics (CWI)AmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e)EindhovenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations