Novelty Search in Competitive Coevolution

One of the main motivations for the use of competitive coevolution systems is their ability to capitalise on arms races between competing species to evolve increasingly sophisticated solutions. Such arms races can, however, be hard to sustain, and it has been shown that the competing species often converge prematurely to certain classes of behaviours. In this paper, we investigate if and how novelty search, an evolutionary technique driven by behavioural novelty, can overcome convergence in coevolution. We propose three methods for applying novelty search to coevolutionary systems with two species: (i) score both populations according to behavioural novelty; (ii) score one population according to novelty, and the other according to fitness; and (iii) score both populations with a combination of novelty and fitness. We evaluate the methods in a predator-prey pursuit task. Our results show that novelty-based approaches can evolve a significantly more diverse set of solutions, when compared to traditional fitness-based coevolution.Comment: To appear in 13th International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (PPSN 2014

Uniform coevolution for solving the density classification problem in cellular automata

Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO 2000). Las Vegas, Nevada (USA), July 8-12 2000.Uniform Coevolution is based on competitive evolution ideas where the solution and example sets are evolving by means of a competition to generate difficult test beds for the solutions in a gradual way. The method has been tested with the density parity problem in cellular automata, where the selected examples can biased the solutions founded. The results show a high value of generality using Uniform coevolution, compared with no Co-evolutive approaches.Publicad

Coevolutive adaptation of fitness landscape for solving the testing problem

IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Nashville, TN, 8-11 October 2000A general framework, called Uniform Coevolution, is introduced to overcome the testing problem in evolutionary computation methods. This framework is based on competitive evolution ideas where the solution and example sets are evolving by means of a competition to generate difficult test beds for the solutions in a gradual way. The method has been tested with two different problems: the robot navigation problem and the density parity problem in cellular automata. In both test cases using evolutive methods, the examples used in the learning process biased the solutions found. The main characteristics of the Uniform Coevolution method are that it smoothes the fitness landscape and, that it obtains “ideal learner examples”. Results using uniform coevolution show a high value of generality, compared with non co-evolutive approaches

Coevolution of Firm Capabilities and Industry Competition

This paper proposes that rival firms not only search for new capabilities within their organization, but also for those that rest in their competitive environment. An integrated analysis of these search processes at both firm and industry levels of analysis shows how their interaction makes industries and firms coevolve over time. To contribute to an enhanced understanding of the concept of coevolution, a dynamic and integrative framework crossing meso and micro levels of analysis is constructed. This framework is applied to a longitudinal study of the music industry with a time-span of 120 years. The first part, a historical study, covers the period 1877 - 1990. The second part, a multiple-case study, covers the period 1990 - 1997. We conclude that search behavior drives coevolution through competitive dynamics among new entrants and incumbent firms and manifests itself in the simultaneous emergence of new business models and new organizational forms.coevolution;competitive regime;longitudinal research;multilevel research;music industry

Novelty search in competitive coevolution

One of the main motivations for the use of competitive coevolution systems is their ability to capitalise on arms races between competing species to evolve increasingly sophisticated solutions. Such arms races can, however, be hard to sustain, and it has been shown that the competing species often converge prematurely to certain classes of behaviours. In this paper, we investigate if and how novelty search, an evolutionary technique driven by behavioural novelty, can overcome convergence in coevolution. We propose three methods for applying novelty search to coevolutionary systems with two species: (i) score both populations according to behavioural novelty; (ii) score one population according to novelty, and the other according to fitness; and (iii) score both populations with a combination of novelty and fitness. We evaluate the methods in a predator-prey pursuit task. Our results show that novelty-based approaches can evolve a significantly more diverse set of solutions, when compared to traditional fitness-based coevolution.info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersio

Competitive Coevolution through Evolutionary Complexification

Two major goals in machine learning are the discovery and improvement of solutions to complex problems. In this paper, we argue that complexification, i.e. the incremental elaboration of solutions through adding new structure, achieves both these goals. We demonstrate the power of complexification through the NeuroEvolution of Augmenting Topologies (NEAT) method, which evolves increasingly complex neural network architectures. NEAT is applied to an open-ended coevolutionary robot duel domain where robot controllers compete head to head. Because the robot duel domain supports a wide range of strategies, and because coevolution benefits from an escalating arms race, it serves as a suitable testbed for studying complexification. When compared to the evolution of networks with fixed structure, complexifying evolution discovers significantly more sophisticated strategies. The results suggest that in order to discover and improve complex solutions, evolution, and search in general, should be allowed to complexify as well as optimize

Multi - island competitive cooperative coevolution for real parameter global optimization

Problem decomposition is an important attribute of cooperative coevolution that depends on the nature of the problems in terms of separability which is defined by the level of interaction amongst decision variables. Recent work in cooperative coevolution featured competition and collaboration of problem decomposition methods that was implemented as islands in a method known as competitive island cooperative coevolution (CICC). In this paper, a multi-island competitive cooperative coevolution algorithm (MICCC) is proposed in which several different problem decomposition strategies are given a chance to compete, collaborate and motivate other islands while converging to a common solution. The performance of MICCC is evaluated on eight different benchmark functions and are compared with CICC where only two islands were utilized. The results from the experimental analysis show that competition and collaboration of several different island can yield solutions with a quality better than the two-island competition algorithm (CICC) on most complex multi-modal problems

Distance modulation competitive co-evolution method to find initial configuration independent cellular automata rules

IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Tokyo, 12-15 October 1999.One of the main problems in machine learning methods based on examples is the over-adaptation. This problem supposes the exact adaptation to the training examples losing the capability of generalization. A solution of these problems arises in using large sets of examples. In most of the problems, to achieve generalized solutions, almost infinity examples sets are needed. This make the method useless in practice. In this paper, one way to overcome this problem is proposed, based on biological competitive evolution ideas. The evolution is produced as a result of a competition between sets of solutions and sets of examples, trying to beat each other. This mechanism allows the generation of generalized solutions using short example sets