skip to main content
10.1145/1276958.1277054acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Thoughts on solution concepts

Published: 07 July 2007 Publication History

Abstract

This paper explores connections between Ficici's notion of solution concept and order theory. Ficici postulates that algorithms should ascend an order called weak preference; thus, understanding this order is important to questions of designing algorithms. We observe that the weak preference order is closely related to the pullback of the so-called lower ordering on subsets of an ordered set. The latter can, in turn, be represented as the pullback of the subset ordering of a certain powerset. Taken together, these two observations represent the weak preference ordering in a more simple and concrete form as a subset ordering. We utilize this representation to show that algorithms which ascend the weak preference ordering are vulnerable to a kind of bloating problem. Since this kind of bloat has been observed several times in practice, we hypothesize that ascending weak preference may be the cause. Finally, we show that monotonic solution concepts are convex in the order-theoretic sense. We conclude by speculating that monotonic solution concepts might be derivable from non-monotonic ones by taking convex hull. Since several intuitive solution concepts like average fitness are not monotonic, there is practical value in creating monotonic solution concepts from non-monotonic ones.

References

[1]
M. Barr and C. Wells. Category Theory for Computing Science. Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science. Prentice Hall, New York, 1st edition, 1990.
[2]
A. Bucci and J. B. Pollack. A Mathematical Framework for the Study of Coevolution. In K. De Jong, R. Poli, and J. Rowe, editors, FOGA 7: Proceedings of the Foundations of Genetic Algorithms Workshop, pages 221--235, San Francisco, CA, 2003. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
[3]
E. D. De Jong. Towards a Bounded Pareto-Coevolution Archive. In Proceedings of the Congress on Evolutionary Computation CEC'2004, volume 2, pages 2341--2348. IEEE Service Center, 2004.
[4]
E. D. De Jong and J. B. Pollack. Ideal Evaluation from Coevolution. Evolutionary Computation, 12(2), 2004.
[5]
S. G. Ficici. Solution Concepts in Coevolutionary Algorithms. PhD thesis, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts, 2004.
[6]
S. G. Ficici and J. B. Pollack. Pareto Optimality in Coevolutionary Learning. In European Conference on Artificial Life, pages 316--325, 2001.
[7]
C. M. Fonseca and P. J. Fleming. An Overview of Evolutionary Algorithms in Multiobjective Optimization. Evolutionary Computation, 3(1):1--16, 1995.
[8]
D. W. Hillis. Co-evolving Parasites Improve Simulated Evolution in an Optimization Procedure. Physica D, 42:228--234, 1990.
[9]
G. A. Monroy, K. O. Stanley, and R. Miikkulainen. Coevolution of Neural Networks Using a Layered Pareto Archive. In GECCO '06: Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pages 329--336. ACM Press, 2006.
[10]
J. Noble and R. A. Watson. Pareto Coevolution: Using Performance Against Coevolved Opponents in a Game as Dimensions for Pareto Selection. In L. Spector et al., editor, Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO-2001, pages 493--500, San Francisco, CA, 2001. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
[11]
M. A. Potter and K. A. De Jong. A Cooperative Coevolutionary Approach to Function Optimization. In Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, pages 249--257, 1994.
[12]
M. A. Potter and K. A. De Jong. Cooperative Coevolution: An Architecture for Evolving Coadapted Subcomponents. Evolutionary Computation, 8(1):1--29, 2000.
[13]
E. R. Scheinerman. Mathematics: A Discrete Introduction. Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA, 1st edition, 2000.
[14]
K. Sims. Evolving 3D Morphology and Behavior by Competition. In R. Brooks and P. Maes, editors, Artificial Life IV, pages 28--39, Cambridge, MA, 1994. The MIT Press.
[15]
P. Taylor. Practical Foundations of Mathematics. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1st edition, 1999.
[16]
M. D. Vose. The Simple Genetic Algorithm: Foundations and Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999.
[17]
R. P. Wiegand. An Analysis of Cooperative Coevolutionary Algorithms. PhD thesis, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, 2003.

Cited By

View all
  • (2017)Fitness function shaping in multiagent cooperative coevolutionary algorithmsAutonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/s10458-015-9318-031:2(179-206)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2017
  • (2015)An Evolutionary Game Theoretic Analysis of Difference Evaluation FunctionsProceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation10.1145/2739480.2754770(1391-1398)Online publication date: 11-Jul-2015
  • (2012)Shaping fitness functions for coevolving cooperative multiagent systemsProceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 110.5555/2343576.2343637(425-432)Online publication date: 4-Jun-2012
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
GECCO '07: Proceedings of the 9th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation
July 2007
2313 pages
ISBN:9781595936974
DOI:10.1145/1276958
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 07 July 2007

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. bloat
  2. coevolution
  3. coevolutionary algorithm
  4. later is better
  5. pareto coevolution
  6. solution concepts

Qualifiers

  • Article

Conference

GECCO07
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

GECCO '07 Paper Acceptance Rate 266 of 577 submissions, 46%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 1,669 of 4,410 submissions, 38%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)1
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 05 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2017)Fitness function shaping in multiagent cooperative coevolutionary algorithmsAutonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/s10458-015-9318-031:2(179-206)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2017
  • (2015)An Evolutionary Game Theoretic Analysis of Difference Evaluation FunctionsProceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation10.1145/2739480.2754770(1391-1398)Online publication date: 11-Jul-2015
  • (2012)Shaping fitness functions for coevolving cooperative multiagent systemsProceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 110.5555/2343576.2343637(425-432)Online publication date: 4-Jun-2012
  • (2009)Unbiased coevolutionary solution conceptsProceedings of the tenth ACM SIGEVO workshop on Foundations of genetic algorithms10.1145/1527125.1527142(121-130)Online publication date: 9-Jan-2009
  • (2008)A no-free-lunch framework for coevolutionProceedings of the 10th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation10.1145/1389095.1389163(371-378)Online publication date: 13-Jul-2008

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media