Advertisement

Applying Ecological Principles to Genetic Programming

  • Emily DolsonEmail author
  • Wolfgang Banzhaf
  • Charles Ofria
Conference paper
Part of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation book series (GEVO)

Abstract

In natural ecologies, niches are created, altered, or destroyed, driving populations to continually change and produce novel features. Here, we explore an approach to guiding evolution via the power of niches: ecologically-mediated hints. The original exploration of ecologically-mediated hints occurred in Eco-EA, an algorithm in which an experimenter provides a primary fitness function for a tough problem that they are trying to solve, as well as “hints” that are associated with limited resources. We hypothesize that other evolutionary algorithms that create niches, such as lexicase selection, can be provided hints in a similar way. Here, we use a toy problem to investigate the expected benefits of using this approach to solve more challenging problems. Of course, since humans are notoriously bad at choosing fitness functions, user-provided advice may be misleading. Thus, we also explore the impact of misleading hints. As expected, we find that informative hints facilitate solving the problem. However, the mechanism of niche-creation (Eco-EA vs. lexicase selection) dramatically impacts the algorithm’s robustness to misleading hints.

References

  1. 1.
    Bongard, J. C. and Hornby, G. S. (2010). Guarding Against Premature Convergence While Accelerating Evolutionary Search. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO ‘10, pages 111–118, New York, NY, USA. ACM.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chesson, P. (2000). Mechanisms of Maintenance of Species Diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31:343–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cooper, T. F. and Ofria, C. (2002). Evolution of stable ecosystems in populations of digital organisms. In Artificial Life VIII: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial life, pages 227–232.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Jong, K. A. (1975). Analysis of the behavior of a class of genetic adaptive systems.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goings, S. (2010). Natural niching: Applying ecological principles to evolutionary computation. Dissertation, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goings, S., Goldsby, H. J., Cheng, B. H., and Ofria, C. (2012). An ecology-based evolutionary algorithm to evolve solutions to complex problems. Artificial Life, 13:171–177.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goings, S. and Ofria, C. (2009). Ecological approaches to diversity maintenance in evolutionary algorithms. In IEEE Symposium on Artificial Life, 2009. ALife ‘09, pages 124–130.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goldberg, D. E. and Richardson, J. (1987). Genetic algorithms with sharing for multimodal function optimization. In Genetic algorithms and their applications: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 41–49. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Helmuth, T. and Spector, L. (2015). General Program Synthesis Benchmark Suite. Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO ‘15, pages 1039–1046, New York, NY, USA, ACM.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Helmuth, T., Spector, L., and Matheson, J. (2015). Solving Uncompromising Problems With Lexicase Selection. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 19(5):630–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hendry, A. P. (2016). Eco-evolutionary Dynamics. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holland, J. H. (1985). Properties of the bucket brigade. In Proceedings of an International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 1–7, Hillsdale, NJ, USA. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hornby, G. S. (2006). ALPS: The Age-layered Population Structure for Reducing the Problem of Premature Convergence. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO ‘06, pages 815–822, New York, NY, USA. ACM.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hu, J., Goodman, E., Seo, K., Fan, Z., and Rosenberg, R. (2005). The Hierarchical Fair Competition (HFC) Framework for Sustainable Evolutionary Algorithms. Evolutionary Computation, 13(2):241–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kosmidis, I. (2017). brglm: Bias Reduction in Binary-Response Generalized Linear Models, version 0.6.1 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucakiko/software.html
  16. 16.
    Lenski, R. E., Ofria, C., Pennock, R. T., and Adami, C. (2003). The evolutionary origin of complex features. Nature, 423(6936):139–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mahfoud, S. W. (1992). Crowding and preselection revisited. Urbana, 51:61801.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mouret, J.-B. and Doncieux, S. (2009). Using Behavioral Exploration Objectives to Solve Deceptive Problems in Neuro-evolution. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO ‘09, pages 627–634, New York, NY, USA. ACM.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mouret, J.-B. and Clune, J. (2015). Illuminating search spaces by mapping elites. In arxiv:1504.04909 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R Core Team. (2017). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org
  21. 21.
    Schoener, T. W. (2011). The Newest Synthesis: Understanding the Interplay of Evolutionary and Ecological Dynamics. Science, 331(6016):426–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Spector, L. (2012). Assessment of problem modality by differential performance of lexicase selection in genetic programming: a preliminary report. In Proceedings of the 14th annual conference companion on Genetic and evolutionary computation, pages 401–408. ACM.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stanley, K. and Miikkulainen, R. (2004). Competitive coevolution through evolutionary complexification. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR), 21:63–100.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Taylor, T., Bedau, M., Channon, A., Ackley, D., Banzhaf, W., Beslon, G., Dolson, E., Froese, T., Hickinbotham, S., Ikegami, T., McMullin, B., Packard, N., Rasmussen, S., Virgo, N., Agmon, E., Clark, E., McGregor, S., Ofria, C., Ropella, G., Spector, L., Stanley, K. O., Stanton, A., Timperley, C., Vostinar, A., and Wiser, M. (2016). Open-Ended Evolution: Perspectives from the OEE Workshop in York. Artificial Life, 22(3):408–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wickham, H. (2009). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BEACON Center for the Study of Evolution in Action and Department of Computer Science and Ecology, Evolutionary Biology, and Behavior ProgramMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.BEACON Center for the Study of Evolution in Action and Department of Computer ScienceMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations