Advertisement

Genetic algorithms and directed adaptation

  • John Coyne
  • Ray Paton
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 865)

Abstract

This paper presents a case for the value of “talkback” in genetic algorithms. Talkback is described in terms of an environmentally imprinted adaptation occurring at loci on the genotype, not expressed phenotypically but acting as control parameters for evolution. Motivations are presented drawing on examples of directed adaptation in nature and the field of optimised search. A model is described based on directed adaptation and the results of experiments, acting at the level of both the population and the individual, are presented.

Keywords

genetic algorithms directed adaptation Lamarckianism regulators environmental talkback 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BÄck T. (1992), “The Interaction of Mutation Rate, Selection and Self-Adaptation Within a Genetic Algorithm”. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving for Nature, 2, MÄnner R., Manderick B. (Ed.), Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  2. Coyne J. (1992), “The Genetic Algorithm and the Lamarckian Operator”, Unpublished Technical Report, The Liverpool Biocomputational Group, University of Liverpool.Google Scholar
  3. Davis L (1989), “Adapting Operator Probabilities in Genetic Algorithms”. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Genetic Algorithms and their Applications, Shaffer J. (Ed.), Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo.Google Scholar
  4. Davidor Y. (1991), “A Genetic Algorithm Applied to Robot Trajectory”. In Handbook of Genetic Algorithms, Davis L. (Ed.), Van Nostrand Reinhold, N.Y.Google Scholar
  5. Dawkins R. (1982), The Extended Phenotype, Oxford University Press, pp 169.Google Scholar
  6. Dobzhansky T. (1955), Evolution, Genetics and Man, John Wiley and Sons, N.Y.Google Scholar
  7. Gruau F., Whitley D. (1993), “Adding Learning to the Cellular Development of Neural Networks: Evolution and the Baldwin Effect”. In Evolutionary Computation 1 (3), pp. 213–233.Google Scholar
  8. Fogarty T. (1989), Varying the Probability of Mutation in the Genetic Algorithm. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Genetic Algorithms and their Applications, Schaffer (Ed.), Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, pp. 104–109.Google Scholar
  9. Holland J. (1975), Adaptations in Natural and Artificial Systems, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  10. Manderick B. (1991), “Selectionist Systems as Cognitive Systems”. In Proceedings of the First European Conference on Artificial Life, Paris, Dec. 11–13.Google Scholar
  11. Paton R. (1992), “Adaptation and Environment”, Unpublished Technical Report, The Liverpool Biocomputational Group, University of Liverpool.Google Scholar
  12. Schaffer J., Caruana R., Eshelman L., Rajarshi D. (1989), “A Study of Control Parameters Affecting On-line Performance of Genetic Algorithms for Function Optimisation”. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Genetic Algorithms and their Applications, Shaffer J. (Ed.), Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo.Google Scholar
  13. Sumida B., Hamilton W. (1994), “Both Wrightian Peak Shifts and Parasites Enhance Genetic Algorithm Performance in the Travelling Salesman Problem”. In Paton (Ed.), Computing with Biological Metaphors, Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  14. Thurn S, Moller K. (1992), “Active Exploration in Dynamic Environments”. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 4, Moody J. et al (Ed.), Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Liverpool Biocomputation Group, Department of Computer ScienceThe University of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations