Quarterly (spring, summer, fall, winter)
176 pp. per issue
7 x 10
ISSN
1063-6560
E-ISSN
1530-9304
2014 Impact factor:
2.37

Evolutionary Computation

Winter 1997, Vol. 5, No. 4, Pages 401-418
(doi: 10.1162/evco.1997.5.4.401)
© 1997 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Evolutionary Consequences of Coevolving Targets
Article PDF (1.41 MB)
Abstract

Most evolutionary optimization models incorporate a fitness evaluation that is based on a predefined static set of test cases or problems. In the natural evolutionary process, selection is of course not based on a static fitness evaluation. Organisms do not have to combat every existing disease during their lifespan; organisms of one species may live in different or changing environments; different species coevolve. This leads to the question of how information is integrated over many generations.

This study focuses on the effects of different fitness evaluation schemes on the types of genotypes and phenotypes that evolve. The evolutionary target is a simple numerical function. The genetic representation is in the form of a program (i.e., a functional representation, as in genetic programming). Many different programs can code for the same numerical function. In other words, there is a many-to-one mapping between “genotypes” (the programs) and “phenotypes”. We compare fitness evaluation based on a large static set of problems and fitness evaluation based on small coevolving sets of problems. In the latter model very little information is presented to the evolving programs regarding the evolutionary target per evolutionary time step. In other words, the fitness evaluation is very sparse. Nevertheless the model produces correct solutions to the complete evolutionary target in about half of the simulations. The complete evaluation model, on the other hand, does not find correct solutions to the target in any of the simulations. More important, we find that sparse evaluated programs are better generalizable compared to the complete evaluated programs when they are evaluated on a much denser set of problems. In addition, the two evaluation schemes lead to programs that differ with respect to mutational stability; sparse evaluated programs are less stable than complete evaluated programs.