Divide and Conquer in Coevolution: A Difficult Balancing Act

  • Hemant Kumar Singh
  • Tapabrata Ray
Part of the Adaptation, Learning, and Optimization book series (ALO, volume 5)


In recent years, Cooperative Coevolutionary Evolutionary Algorithms (CCEAs) have been developed as extensions to traditional Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs). CCEAs attempt to solve the optimization problems by decomposing them into subcomponents referred to as collaborators. CCEAs have been deemed attractive for certain complex problems (with high number of decision variables), as they can achieve better fitness values than traditional EAs by employing “divide and conquer” strategy. However, their performance can vary from good to bad depending on the choice of collaborators, separability of problem and the underlying recombination scheme. This chapter highlights that a basic CCEA is inadequate to handle a wide variety of problems. Thereafter, a CCEA with adaptive partitioning (CCEA-AVP) has been introduced, which attempts to chose the collaborators adaptively during the search, depending on the relationships between the design variables. Studies have been done on various test functions and the proposed technique has been compared with conventional EA as well as conventional CCEA to highlight the benefits. A number of areas of further research in CCEA are highlighted to fully exploit the benefits of coevolution.


Correlation Threshold Cooperative Coevolution Convergence Plot Large Scale Optimization Problem Collaboration Strategy 
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.
    Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T.: A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6, 182–197 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goh, C.K., Tan, K.C.: A competitive-cooperative coevolutionary paradigm for dynamic multiobjective optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 13(1) (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liu, B., Ma, H., Zhang, X.: A coevolutionary differential evolution algorithm for constrained optimization. In: Proc. of Third International Conference on Natural Computation, pp. 51–57 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McNamara, J.M., Barta, Z., Fromhage, L., Houston, A.I.: The coevolution of choosiness and cooperation. Nature 451(7175), 189–192 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Michalewicz, Z., Schoenauer, M.: Evolutionary Algorithms for Constrained Parameter Optimization Problems. Evolutionary Computation 4(1), 1–32 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Popovici, E., De Jong, K.: Relationships between internal and external metrics in co-evolution. In: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation CEC 2005, vol. 3, pp. 2800–2807 (2005), doi:10.1109/CEC.2005.1555046Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Popovici, E., De Jong, K.: Understanding cooperative co-evolutionary dynamics via simple fitness landscapes. In: GECCO 2005: Proceedings of the, conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, pp. 507–514. ACM, New York (2005), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Popovici, E., De Jong, K.: The effects of interaction frequency on the optimization performance of cooperative coevolution. In: GECCO 2006: Proceedings of the 8th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, pp. 353–360. ACM, New York (2006), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Popovici, E., De Jong, K.: Sequential versus parallel cooperative coevolutionary algorithms for optimization. In: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation CEC 2006, pp. 1610–1617 (2006), doi:10.1109/CEC.2006.1688501Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Potter, M.A., Jong, K.A.D.: A cooperative coevolutionary approach to function optimization. In: Davidor, Y., Männer, R., Schwefel, H.-P. (eds.) PPSN 1994. LNCS, vol. 866, pp. 249–257. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ray, T., Yao, X.: A cooperative coevolutionary algorithm with correlation based adaptive variable partitioning. In: Proceedings of 2009 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation CEC 2009, pp. 983–989 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Suganthan, P.N., Hansen, N., Liang, J.J., Deb, K., Chen, Y.P., Auger, A., Tiwari, S.: Problem Definitions and Evaluation Criteria for the CEC 2005 Special Session on Real-Parameter Optimization. Tech. rep., Nanyang Technological University, Singapore and Kanpur Genetic Algorithms Laboratory, IIT Kanpur, India (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tan, C., Goh, C., Tan, K., Tay, A.: A cooperative coevolutionary algorithm for multiobjective particle swarm optimization. In: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation CEC 2007, pp. 3180–3186 (2007), doi:10.1109/CEC.2007.4424878Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van den Bergh, F., Engelbretch, A.P.: A cooperative approach to particle swarm optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 8(3) (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wiegand, R.P., Liles, W.C., Jong, K.A.D.: An empirical analysis of collaboration methods in cooperative coevolutionary algorithms. In: Proceedings from the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, pp. 1235–1242. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yang, Z., Tang, K., Yao, X.: Large scale evolutionary optimization using cooperative coevolution. Information Sciences 178(15), 2985–2999 (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ins.2008.02.017CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hemant Kumar Singh
    • 1
  • Tapabrata Ray
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Engineering and Information TechnologyUniversity of New South Wales at Australian Defence Force Academy (UNSW@ADFA)Canberra ACTAustralia

Personalised recommendations