Theory in Biosciences

, Volume 129, Issue 2–3, pp 183–191 | Cite as

Computational evolution: taking liberties

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Evolution has, for a long time, inspired computer scientists to produce computer models mimicking its behavior. Evolutionary algorithm (EA) is one of the areas where this approach has flourished. EAs have been used to model and study evolution, but they have been especially developed for their aptitude as optimization tools for engineering. Developed models are quite simple in comparison with their natural sources of inspiration. However, since EAs run on computers, we have the freedom, especially in optimization models, to test approaches both realistic and outright speculative, from the biological point of view. In this article, we discuss different common evolutionary algorithm models, and then present some alternatives of interest. These include biologically inspired models, such as co-evolution and, in particular, symbiogenetics and outright artificial operators and representations. In each case, the advantages of the modifications to the standard model are identified. The other area of computational evolution, which has allowed us to study basic principles of evolution and ecology dynamics, is the development of artificial life platforms for open-ended evolution of artificial organisms. With these platforms, biologists can test theories by directly manipulating individuals and operators, observing the resulting effects in a realistic way. An overview of the most prominent of such environments is also presented. If instead of artificial platforms we use the real world for evolving artificial life, then we are dealing with evolutionary robotics (ERs). A brief description of this area is presented, analyzing its relations to biology. Finally, we present the conclusions and identify future research avenues in the frontier of computation and biology. Hopefully, this will help to draw the attention of more biologists and computer scientists to the benefits of such interdisciplinary research.

Keywords

Evolutionary algorithms Artificial life Evolution Optimization Evolutionary operators Symbiogenetics 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Adami C (1998) Introduction to artificial life. Springer, TelosGoogle Scholar
  2. Adami C, Brown C (1994) Evolutionary learning in the 2D artificial life system “Avida”. In: Brooks R, Maes P (eds) Proceedings of the artificial life IV, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 377–381Google Scholar
  3. Aparício JN, Correia L, Moura-Pires F (1999) Populations are multisets-PLATO. In: Banzhaf W, Daida J, Eiben A, Garzon M, Honavar V, Jakiela M, Smith R (eds) Proceedings of GECCO-genetic and evolutionary computation conference. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 1845–1850Google Scholar
  4. Bäck T, Schwefel HP (1993) An overview of evolutionary algorithms for parameter optimization. Evol Comput 1(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baldwin JM (1896) A new factor in evolution. Am Nat 30(355):536–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bandyopadhyay S, Pal SK (1998) Incorporating chromosome differentiation in genetic algorithms. Inf Sci 104:293–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouvry P, Arbab F, Seredynski F (2000) Distributed evolutionary optimization in Manifold: the Rosenbrock’s function case study. Inf Sci 122(2–4):141–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Breidbach O, Pasemann F (2001) Editorial: evolution and neural control of autonomous systems. Theory Biosci 120:173–177Google Scholar
  9. Cantú-Paz E (1995) A summary of research on parallel genetic algorithms. Technical Report 95007, Illinois Genetic Algorithms Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  10. Correia L, Moura-Pires F, Aparício JN (1999) Expressing population based optimization heuristics using PLATO. In: Barahona P, Alferes JJ (eds) Lecture notes in artificial intelligence. EPIA’99-9th Portuguese conference on artificial intelligence, Springer, New York, pp 369–383Google Scholar
  11. DB (2009) Darwinbots. http://www.darwinbots.com/. Accessed 23 July 2009
  12. Floreano D, Mattiussi C (2008) Bio-inspired artificial intelligence: theories, methods, and technologies. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Floreano D, Mondada F (1996) Evolution of homing navigation in a real mobile robot. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B: Cybern 26(3):396–407PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fogel DB (2006) Nils Barricelli–artificial life, coevolution, self-adaptation. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine, pp 41–45Google Scholar
  15. Fogel LJ, Owens AJ, Walsh MJ (1966) Artificial intelligence through simulated evolution. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search optimization and machine learning. Addison Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldberg DE (2002) The design of innovation—lessons from and for competent genetic algorithms. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldberg DE, Smith RE (1987) Nonstationary function optimization using genetic algorithm with dominance and diploidy. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on genetic algorithms on genetic algorithms and their application, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 59–68Google Scholar
  19. Goldberg D, Deb K, Korb B (1989) Messy genetic algorithms: motivation, analysis, and first results. Complex Syst 3:493–530Google Scholar
  20. Harik GR (1997) Learning gene linkage to efficiently solve problems of bounded difficulty using genetic algorithms. PhD Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  21. Hillis WD (1990) Co-evolving parasites improve simulated evolution as an optimization procedure. Physica D 42(1–3):228–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hinton GE, Nowlan SJ (1987) How learning can guide evolution. Complex Syst 1:495–502Google Scholar
  23. Holland JH (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems, 2nd edn. MIT Press, Ann Arbor (1992)Google Scholar
  24. Husbands P, Mill F (1991) Simulated coevolution as the mechanism for emergent planning and scheduling. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on genetic algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 264–270Google Scholar
  25. Komosinski M, Ulatowski S (2009) Framsticks artificial life. http://www.framsticks.com/. Accessed 23 July 2009
  26. Koza J (1992) Genetic programming. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Lenski RE, Ofria C, Collier TC, Adami C (1999) Genome complexity, robustness, and genetic interactions in digital organisms. Nature 400(6745):661–664CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Manso A, Correia L (2009) Genetic algorithms using populations based in multisets. Technical report, Department of Informatics, University of LisbonGoogle Scholar
  29. Mitchell M (1996) An introduction to genetic algorithms. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Mitchell T (1997) Machine learning. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Nolfi S, Floreano D (2000) Evolutionary robotics: the biology, intelligence, and technology of self-organizing machines. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Paredis J (1995a) Coevolutionary computation. Artif Life 2(4):355–375PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Paredis J (1995b) The symbiotic evolution of solutions and their representations. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on genetic algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 359–365Google Scholar
  34. Ray TS (1991) An approach to the synthesis of life. In: Langton CG, Taylor C, Farmer DJ, Rasmussen S (eds) Artificial life II: SFI studies in the sciences of complexity. Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, pp 371–408Google Scholar
  35. Rechenberg I (1965) Cybernetic solution path of an experimental problem. Technical report. Royal Aircraft Establishment, library translation 1122, Hants, FarnboroughGoogle Scholar
  36. Skinner C, Riddle P (2007) Random search can outperform mutation. In: Evolutionary computation, 2007. IEEE Congress on CEC 2007. IEEE, Singapore, pp 2584–2590Google Scholar
  37. Thompson A (1998) Hardware evolution: automatic design of electronic circuits in reconfigurable hardware by artificial evolution. Springer-Verlag, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Toton III ET (2009) Helix digital life. http://necrobones.com/alife/helix.htm. Accessed 23 July 2009
  39. von Neumann J (1951) The general and logical theory of automata. In: Taub AH (ed) John von Neumann: collected works. Volume V: design of computers, theory of automata and numerical analysis, originally presented in September 1948 at the Hixon Symposium. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 288–326Google Scholar
  40. Wallin D, Ryan C, Azad R (2005) Symbiogenetic coevolution. In: The 2005 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, 2005, vol 2. pp 1613–1620Google Scholar
  41. Watson RA, Pollack JB (1999) How symbiosis can guide evolution. In: Floreano D, Nicoud JD, Mondada F (eds) ECAL. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1674. Springer, New York, pp 29–38Google Scholar
  42. Whitley LD, Gordon VS, Mathias KE (1994) Lamarckian evolution, the baldwin effect and function optimization. In: PPSN III: proceedings of the international conference on evolutionary computation. The third conference on parallel problem solving from nature. Springer-Verlag, London, pp 6–15Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LabMAgUniversity of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations