Co-evolutionary constraint satisfaction

  • Jan Paredis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 866)


This paper introduces CCS, a Co-evolutionary approach to Constraint Satisfaction. Two types of objects — constraints and solutions — interact in a way modelled after predator and prey relations in nature. It is shown that co-evolution considerably focuses the genetic search. In addition, the new technique of life-time fitness evaluation (LTFE) is introduced. Its partial but continuous nature allows for efficient fitness evaluation. Moreover, co-evolution and LTFE nicely complement each other. Hence, their combined use further improves the performance of the evolutionary search.

CCS also provides a new perspective on the problems associated with high degrees of epistasis and the use of penalty functions.


co-evolution constraint satisfaction epistatic problems genetic algorithms life-time fitness evaluation predator-prey systems 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Davis, L., (1988), Applying Adaptive Algorithms to Epistatic Domains, Proc. IJCAI-88.Google Scholar
  2. Hillis, W.D., (1992), Co-evolving Parasites Improve Simulated Evolution as an Optimization Procedure, in Artificial Life II, Langton, C.G.; Taylor, C.; Farmer, J.D., and Rasmussen, S., (eds), Addison-Wesley, California.Google Scholar
  3. Mühlenbein, H., (1992), Parallel Genetic Algorithms in Combinatorial Optimization, Proc. Computer Science and Operations Research: New Developments in Their Interfaces, ORSA, Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Paredis, J., (1993), Genetic State-Space Search for Constrained Optimization Problems, Proc. Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 93), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Paredis, J., (1994a), Steps towards Co-evolutionary Classification Neural Networks, Proc. Artificial Life IV, R. Brooks, P. Maes (eds), MIT Press / Bradford Books.Google Scholar
  6. Paredis, J., (1994b), The Symbiotic Evolution of Solutions and their Representation, (in preparation).Google Scholar
  7. Richardson, J.T.; Palmer, M.R.; Liepins, G.; Hilliard M., (1989), Some Guidelines for Genetic Algorithms with Penalty Functions. Proc. Third Int. Conf. on Genetic Algorithms, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  8. Whitley, D., (1989a), The Genitor Algorithm and Selection Pressure: Why Rank-Based Allocation of Reproductive Trails is Best. Proc. Third Int. Conf. on Genetic Algorithms, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  9. Whitley, D., (1989b), Optimizing Neural Networks using Faster, more Accurate Genetic Search. Proc. Third Int. Conf. on Genetic Algorithms, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Paredis
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Institute for Knowledge SystemsAL MaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations