Caring versus Sharing: How to Maintain Engagement and Diversity in Coevolving Populations

  • John Cartlidge
  • Seth Bullock
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2801)


Coevolutionary optimisation suffers from a series of problems that interfere with the progressive escalating arms races that are hoped might solve difficult classes of optimisation problem. Here we explore the extent to which encouraging moderation in one coevolving population (termed parasites) can alleviate the problem of coevolutionary disengagement. Results suggest that, under these conditions, disengagement is avoided through maintaining variation in relative fitness scores. In order to explore whether standard diversity maintenance techniques such as resource sharing could achieve the same effects, we compare moderating virulence with resource sharing in a simple matching game. We demonstrate that moderating parasite virulence differs significantly from resource sharing, and that its tendency to prevent disengagement can also reduce the likelihood of coevolutionary optimisation halting at mediocre stable states.


Resource Sharing Cellular Automaton Host Population Parasite Population Mutation Bias 
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.
    Hillis, W.D.: Co-evolving parasites improve simulated evolution as an optimization procedure. Physica D 42, 228–234 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pollack, J., Blair, A., Land, M.: Coevolution of a backgammon player. In: Langton, C.G., Shimohara, T. (eds.) Artificial Life V. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Watson, R.A., Pollack, J.B.: Coevolutionary dynamics in a minimal substrate. In: Proc. Of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, pp. 702–709. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Juillé, H., Pollack, J.: Coevolutionary learning: a case study. In: Shavlik, J.W. (ed.) Proc. Of the Fifteenth International Conference on Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cliff, D., Miller, G.F.: Tracking the Red Queen: Measurements of adaptive progress in coevolutionary simulations. In: Morán, F., Moreno, A., Merelo, J.J., Chacón, P. (eds.) Third European Conference on Artificial Life, pp. 200–218. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cartlidge, J., Bullock, S.: Learning lessons from the common cold: How reducing parasite virulence improves coevolutionary optimization. In: Fogel, D. (ed.) Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pp. 1420–1425. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rosin, C.D., Belew, R.K.: New methods for competitive coevolution. Evolutionary Computation 5, 1–29 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Janzen, D.H.: When is it co-evolution? Evolution 34, 611–612 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Futuyma, D.J., Slatkin, M.: Coevolution. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland Mass (1983)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fenner, F., Ratcliffe, F.N.: Myxomatosis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1965)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bullock, S., Cartlidge, J., Thompson, M.: Prospects for computational steering of evolutionary computation. In: Bilotta, E. (ed.) Artificial Life 8, Workshops, pp. 131–137. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Cartlidge
    • 1
  • Seth Bullock
    • 1
  1. 1.School of ComputingUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations