Sufficient Conditions for Coarse-Graining Evolutionary Dynamics

  • Keki Burjorjee
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4436)

Abstract

It is commonly assumed that the ability to track the frequencies of a set of schemata in the evolving population of an infinite population genetic algorithm (IPGA) under different fitness functions will advance efforts to obtain a theory of adaptation for the simple GA. Unfortunately, for IPGAs with long genomes and non-trivial fitness functions there do not currently exist theoretical results that allow such a study. We develop a simple framework for analyzing the dynamics of an infinite population evolutionary algorithm (IPEA). This framework derives its simplicity from its abstract nature. In particular we make no commitment to the data-structure of the genomes, the kind of variation performed, or the number of parents involved in a variation operation. We use this framework to derive abstract conditions under which the dynamics of an IPEA can be coarse-grained. We then use this result to derive concrete conditions under which it becomes computationally feasible to closely approximate the frequencies of a family of schemata of relatively low order over multiple generations, even when the bitstsrings in the evolving population of the IPGA are long.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Altenberg, L.: The evolution of evolvability in genetic programming. In: Kinnear, J.K.E. (ed.) Advances in Genetic Programming, MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burjorjee, K., Pollack, J.B.: Theme preservation and the evolution of representation. In: Theory of Representation Workshop, GECCO (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burjorjee, K., Pollack, J.B.: Theme preservation and the evolution of representation. In: IICAI, pp. 1444–1463 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burjorjee, K., Pollack, J.B.: A general coarse-graining framework for studying simultaneous inter-population constraints induced by evolutionary operations. In: GECCO 2006. Proceedings of the 8th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, ACM Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Contreras, A.A., Rowe, J.E., Stephens, C.R.: Coarse-graining in genetic algorithms: Some issues and examples. In: Cantú-Paz, E., Foster, J.A., Deb, K., Davis, L., Roy, R., O’Reilly, U.-M., Beyer, H.-G., Kendall, G., Wilson, S.W., Harman, M., Wegener, J., Dasgupta, D., Potter, M.A., Schultz, A., Dowsland, K.A., Jonoska, N., Miller, J., Standish, R.K. (eds.) GECCO 2003. LNCS, vol. 2724, pp. 874–885. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldberg, D.E.: Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization & Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1989)MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holland, J.H.: Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence. University of Michigan (1975)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mitchell, M.: An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Prügel-Bennet, A., Shapiro, J.L.: An analysis of genetic algorithms using statistical mechanics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 72(9), 1305 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Prügel-Bennett, A., Shapiro, J.L.: The dynamics of a genetic algorithm for the ising spin-glass chain. Physica D 104, 75–114 (1997)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rattray, M., Shapiro, J.L.: Cumulant dynamics of a population under multiplicative selection, mutation, and drift. Theoretical Population Biology 60, 17–32 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rowe, J.E., Vose, M.D., Wright, A.H.: Differentiable coarse graining. Theor. Comput. Sci 361(1), 111–129 (2006)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shapiro, J.L.: Statistical mechanics theory of genetic algorithms. In: Kallel, L., Naudts, B., Rogers, A. (eds.) Theoretical Aspects of Evolutionary Computing, pp. 87–108. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Slatkin, M.: Selection and polygenic characters. PNAS 66(1), 87–93 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stephens, C.R., Waelbroeck, H.: Effective degrees of freedom in genetic algorithms and the block hypothesis. In: ICGA, pp. 34–40 (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stephens, C.R., Zamora, A.: EC theory: A unified viewpoint. In: Cantú-Paz, E., Foster, J.A., Deb, K., Davis, L., Roy, R., O’Reilly, U.-M., Beyer, H.-G., Kendall, G., Wilson, S.W., Harman, M., Wegener, J., Dasgupta, D., Potter, M.A., Schultz, A., Dowsland, K.A., Jonoska, N., Miller, J., Standish, R.K. (eds.) GECCO 2003. LNCS, vol. 2724, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Toussaint, M.: The Evolution of Genetic Representations and Modular Neural Adaptation. PhD thesis, Institut fr Neuroinformatik, Ruhr-Universiät-Bochum, Germany (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Toussaint, M.: On the evolution of phenotypic exploration distributions. In: Foundations of Genetic Algorithms 7 (FOGA VII), Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vose, M.D.: The simple genetic algorithm: foundations and theory. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)MATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wright, A.H., Vose, M.D., Rowe, J.E.: Implicit parallelism. In: Cantú-Paz, E., Foster, J.A., Deb, K., Davis, L., Roy, R., O’Reilly, U.-M., Beyer, H.-G., Kendall, G., Wilson, S.W., Harman, M., Wegener, J., Dasgupta, D., Potter, M.A., Schultz, A., Dowsland, K.A., Jonoska, N., Miller, J., Standish, R.K. (eds.) GECCO 2003. LNCS, vol. 2724, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keki Burjorjee
    • 1
  1. 1.DEMO Lab, Computer Science Department, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02454 

Personalised recommendations