Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 55–80

Emergence of genomic self-similarity in location independent representations

Favoring positive correlation between the form and quality of candidate solutions
Article

Abstract

A key property for predicting the effectiveness of stochastic search techniques, including evolutionary algorithms, is the existence of a positive correlation between the form and the quality of candidate solutions. In this paper we show that when the ordering of genomic symbols in a genetic algorithm is completely independent of the fitness function and therefore free to evolve along with the candidate solutions it encodes, the resulting genomes self-organize into self-similar structures that favor this key stochastic search property.

Keywords

Genetic algorithm Representation Proportional genetic algorithm Self-organization Genomic self-similarity Emergence 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. D. Bagley, “The behavior of adaptive systems which employ genetic and correlation algorithms,” PhD thesis, University of Michigan, 1967.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    W. Banzhaf, P. Dittrich, and B. Eller, “Selforganization in a system of binary strings with topological interactions,” Physica D, vol. 125, pp. 85–104, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. J. Bentley, “Natural Design by Computer,” in Proceedings of the 2003 AAAI Spring Symposioum: Computational Synthesis: From Basic Building Blocks to High Level Functionality, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Press, 2003, pp. 1–2. Technical Report SS-03-02.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. J. Bentley, “Fractal proteins,” Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines Journal, vol. 5, pp. 71–101, 2004Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. S. Burke, K. A. De Jong, J. J. Grefenstette, C. L. Ramsey and A. S. Wu, “Putting more genetics into genetic algorithms.” Evolutionary Computation, vol. 6, pp. 387–410, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Conrad, “Computation: evolutionary, neural, molecular,” in 2000 IEEE Symposium on Combinations of Evolutionary Computation and Neural Networks 2000, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    L. J. Eshelman, R. A. Caruana and J. D. Schaffer, “Biases in the crossover landscape,” in Proc. 3rd Int’l Conference on Genetic Algorithms, J. D. Schaffer (ed.). 1989, pp. 10–19.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. W. Franceschini, A. S. Wu and A. Mukherjee, “Computational strategies for disaggregation,” in Proc. 9th Conf. on Computer Generated Forces and Behavioral Representation, Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO), 2000, pp. 543–554.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. R. Frantz, “Non-linearities in genetic adaptive search,” PhD thesis, University of Michigan, 1972.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    I. Garibay, “The proteomics approach to evolutionary computation: an analysis of proteome-based location independent representations based on the proportional genetic algorithm,” PhD thesis, University of Central Florida, 2004.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Garzon, D. Blain, K. Bobba, A. Neel, and M. West, “Self-assembly of DNA-like structures in Silico,” Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines vol. 4, pp.185–200, 2003.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning, Addison Wesley, 1989.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. E. Goldberg, K. Deb, H. Kargupta, and G. Harik, “Rapid accurate optimization of difficult problems using fast messy genetic algorithms.” in Proc. 5th Int’l Conference on Genetic Algorithms, S. Forrest, (ed.), 1993, pp. 56–64.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. E. Goldberg, B. Korb, and K. Deb, “Messy genetic algorithms: Motivation, analysis, and first results,” Complex Systems, vol. 3, pp. 493–530, 1989.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Grefenstette, C. L. Ramsey and A. C. Schultz, “Learning sequential decision rules using simulation models and competition,” Machine Learning, vol. 5, pp. 355–381, 1990.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G. R. Harik, “Learning gene linkage to efficiently solve problems of bounded difficulty using genetic algorithms,” Ph. D thesis, University of Michigan, 1997.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. H. Holland, “Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems,” University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, 1975.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. H. Holland, Emergence: From Chaos to Order, Addison-Wesley, 1998.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    G. S. Hornby, H. Lipson, and J. B. Pollack, “Generative representations for the automated design of modular physical robots,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 19, pp. 703–719, 2003.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. S. Hornby, and J. B. Pollack, “Creating high-level components with a generative representation for body-brain evolution,” Artificial Life, vol. 8, pp. 223–246, 2002.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    H. Kargupta, “The gene expression messy genetic algorithm,” in Proc. IEEE Int’l Conference on Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Press, pp. 814–819, 1996.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. R. Koza, F. H Bennett III, D. Andre, and M. A. Keane, Genetic Programming III, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1999.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. R. Koza, M. A. Keane, M. J. Streeter, W. Mydlowec, J. Yu, and G. Lanza, Genetic Programming IV: Routine Human-Competitive Machine Intelligence, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003. ISBN 1-4020-7446-8.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. R. Koza, M. J. Streeter, and M. A. Keane, “Automated synthesis by means of genetic programming of human-competitive designs employing reuse, hierarchies, modularities, development, and parameterized topologies,” in Proceedings of the 2003 AAAI Spring Symposioum: Computational Synthesis: From basic Building Blocks to High Level Functionality, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Press, pp. 138–145, 2003. Technical Report SS-03-02.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    S. Kumar, “Multicellular development, self-organization, and differentiation,” in Proc. GECCO 2004 Workshop on Self-organization in Representations for Evolutionary Algorithms: Building Complexity from Simplicity, 2004.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    S. Kumar and P. J Bentley, (eds.) On Growth, Form and Computers, Academic Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    B. B. Mandelbrot, The Fractal Geometry of Nature, San Francisco : W.H. Freeman, 1982.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    B. B. Mandelbrot, Multifractals and 1/f Noise. Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    H. A. Mayer, “Genetic algorithms evolving noncoding segments by means of promoter/terminator sequences,” Evolutionary Computation, vol. 6, pp. 361–386, 1998.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    J. Miller and P. Thomson, “Beyond the complexity ceiling: evolution, emergence and regeneration,” in Proc. GECCO 2004 Workshop on Regeneration and Learning in Developmental Systems, 2004.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    A. Papoulis, Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes, McGraw-Hill, 1984.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    N. J. Radcliffe, “Schema processing. handbook of evolutionary computation,” in Iop Institute of Physics, T. Back, D. Fogel, and Z. Michalewicz, (eds.), 1997. pp. B2.5:1–B2.5:10.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    F. Reif, Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics, Chapter Irreversible Processes and Fluctuations, McGraw-Hill, 1965.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    H. S. Robertson, Statistical Thermophysics, chapter Fluctuations. Prentice-Hall, 1993.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    L. Mateus Rocha, “Evolving Memory: logical tasks for cellular automata,” in Proc. Ninth International Conference on the Simulation and Synthesis of Living Systems (ALIFE9), J. Pollack, M. Bedau, P. Husbands, T. Ikegami, and R. Watson (eds.), Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 256–261, 2004, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    T. Soule and A. E. Ball, “A genetic algorithm with multiple reading frames,” in Proc. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, L. Spector, E. D. Goodman, A. S. Wu, W. B. Langdon, H. M. Voigt, M. Gen, S. Sen, M. Dorigo, S. Pezeshk, M. H. Garzon, and E. Burke (eds), pp. 615–622, 2001.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    G. Syswerda, “Uniform crossover in genetic algorithms,” in Proc. 3rd Int’l Conference on Genetic Algorithms, H. Schaffer (ed.), San Mateo, Morgan Kaufmannm, pp. 2–9, 1989.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    R. F. Voss, “Evolution of long-range fractal correlations and 1/f noise in DNA base sequences,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 68, pp. 3805–3808, 1992.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    R. F. Voss, “1/f Noise and Fractals in DNA-base Sequences,” in Applications of Fractals and Chaos, Crilly, Earnshaw and Jones (eds.), pp. 7–20, Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    A. S. Wu and I. Garibay, “The proportional genetic algorithm: Gene expression in a genetic algorithm,” Genetic Programming and Evolvable Hardware, vol. 3, pp. 157–192, 2002.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    A. S. Wu and I. Garibay, “Intelligent automated control of life support systems using proportional representations,” in IEEE Transactions on Systems Man, and Cybernetics—Part B vol. 34, pp. 1423–1434, 2004.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    A. S. Wu and R. K. Lindsay, “A comparison of the fixed and floating building block representation in the genetic algorithm,” Evolutionary Computation, vol. 4, pp. 169–193, 1996.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    A. S. Wu, A. C. Schultz, and A. Agah, “Evolving control for distributed micro air vehicles,” in Proc. IEEE Int’l Symp. Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation, Monterey, California, IEEE Robotics and Automation Society, 1999, pp. 174–179Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of Central FloridaOrlando
  2. 2.Office of ResearchUniversity of Central FloridaOrlando

Personalised recommendations