Evolutionary computation and the tinkerer’s evolving toolbox

  • Philip G. K. Reiser
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1391)


In nature, variation mechanisms have evolved that permit increasingly rapid and complex adaptations to the environment. Similarly, it may be observed that evolutionary learning systems are adopting increasingly sophisticated variation mechanisms. In this paper, we draw parallels between the adaptation mechanisms in nature and those in evolutionary learning systems. Extrapolating this trend, we indicate an interesting new direction for future work on evolutionary learning systems.


Genetic Algorithm Genetic Program Asexual Reproduction Inductive Logic Programming Variation Mechanism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    R. L. Atkinson, R.G. Atkinson, E.E. Smith, and D.J. Bem. Introduction to Psychology. Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1993. 11th edition.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karthik Balakrishnan and Vasant Honovar. Evolutionary design of neural architectures — a preliminary guide to the literature. Technical Report CS TR#95-01, Artificial Intelligence Group, Iowa State University, January 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. M. Baldwin. A new factor in evolution. American Naturalist, 30:441–451, 1896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Helen G. Cobb. Is the genetic algorithm a cooperative learner? In Proceedings of the Workshop on the Foundations of Genetic Algorithms and Classifier Systems, pages 277–296. Morgan Kaufmann, July 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    W.H.E. Davies and P. Edwards. The communication of inductive inferences. In Lecture Notes in Artifical Intelligence (1221): Distributed Artificial Intelligence Meets Machine Learning: Learning in Multi-Agent Environments, pages 223–241. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kenneth De Jong. On using genetic algorithms to search program spaces. In John J. Grefenstette, editor, Genetic Algorithms and their Applications: Proceedings of the second international conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 210–216, George Mason University, July 1987. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kenneth A. DeJong, William M. Spears, and Diana F. Gordon. Using genetic algorithms for concept learning. Machine Learning, 13:161–188, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tim Finin, Rich Fritzon, Don McKay, and Robin McEntire. KQML — A language and protocol for knowledge and information exchange. In Proceedings of the 13 th International Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence, pages 126–136, Seatie, WA, July 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    David B. Fogel. Evolutionary Computation: Towards a New Philosophy of Machine Intelligence. IEEE Press, New York, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D.B. Fogel. Applying evolutionary programming to selected travelling salesman problems. Cybernetics and Systems, 63:111–114, 1993.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    D.B Fogel. Evolutionary programming: an introduction and some current directions. Statistics and Computing, 4:113–129, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lawrence J. Fogel, Alvin J. Owens, and Michael J. Walsh. Artificial Intelligence Through Simulated Evolution. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1966.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    R.M. Friedberg. A learning machine: Part I. IBM Journal of Research, 2:2–13, 1958.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Giordana and F. Neri. Search-intensive concept induction. Evolutionary Computation, 3(4):375–416, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. E. Goldberg. Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1989.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    David E. Goldberg. Genetic and evolutionary algorithms come of age. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 37:113–119, March 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    David Perry Greene and Stephen F. Smith. Competition-based induction of decision models from examples. Machine Learning, 13:229–257, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Hoffman. Arguments on Evolution: A Paleontologist’s Perspective. Allen and Unwin, London, 1989.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tad Hogg and Bernardo A. Huberman. Better than the rest: The power of cooperation. In L. Nadel and D. Stein, editors, SFI 1992 Lectures in Complex Systems, pages 163–184. Addison-Wesley, 1993.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. H. Holland. Escaping brittleness: The possibilities of general-purpose learning algorithms applied to parallel rule-based systems. In T. Mitchell, R. Michalski, and J. Carbonell, editors, Machine Learning, Volume 2, chapter 20, pages 593–623. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1986.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    John H. Holland. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1975.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bernardo A. Huberman. The performance of cooperative processes. Physica D, 42:38–47, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. S. Huxley. The evolutionary process. In J. Huxley, A.C. Hardy, and E.B. Ford, editors, Evolution as a Process, pages 9–33. Collier Books, New York, 1963.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cezary Z. Janikow. A knowledge-intensive genetic algorithm for supervised learning. Machine Learning, 13:189–228, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    John R. Koza. Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Natural Selection. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1992.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    T.M. Mitchell. Generalization as search. Artificial Intelligence, 18(2), March 1982.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    E. Richard Moxon and David S. Thaler. The tinkerer’s evolving toolbox. Nature, 387:659–662, 12 June 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Philip Reiser. EVIL1: a learning system to evolve logical theories. In Proc. Workshop on Logic Programming and Multi-Agent Systems (International Conference on Logic Programming), pages 28–34, July 1997.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stephen F. Smith. A Learning System Based on Genetic Adaptive Algorithms. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh, 1980.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Paul D. Sniegowski, Philip J. Gerrish, and Richard E. Lenski. Evolution of high mutation rates in experimental populations of E. coli. Nature, 387:703–705, 12 June 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    F. Taddei, M. Radman, J. Maynard-Smith, B. Toupance, P.H. Gouyon, and B. Godelle. Role of mutator alleles in adaptive mutation. Nature, 387:700–702, 12 June 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gilles Venturini. SIA: a supervised inductive algorithm with genetic search for learning attributes based concepts. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning, pages 280–296. Springer Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    David A. Watt. Programming Language Concepts. Prentice Hall International, Hertfordshire, UK, 1990.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Man Leung Wong and Kwong Sak Leung. Inductive logic programming using genetic algorithms. In J.W. Brahan and G.E. Lasker, editors, Advances in Artificial Intelligence — Theory and Application II, pages 119–124, 1994.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Man Leung Wong and Kwong Sak Leung. The genetic logic programming system. IEEE Expert Magazine: Intelligent Systems and their Applications, 10(2):68–76, October 1995.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    D.E. Wooldridge. The Mechanical Man: The Physical Basis of Intelligent Life. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    K. Yamamoto, S. Naito, and M. Itoh. Inductive logic programming based on genetic algorithm. Algorithms, Concurrency and Knowledge, pages 254–268, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip G. K. Reiser
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Intelligent SystemsUniversity of WalesAberystwythUK

Personalised recommendations