A Comparison of Evolutionary and Coevolutionary Search
AbstractPrevious work on coevolutionary search has demonstrated both successful and unsuccessful applications. As a step in explaining what factors lead to success or failure, we present a comparative study of an evolutionary and a coevolutionary search model. In the latter model, strategies for solving a problem coevolve with training cases. We find that the coevolutionary model has a relatively large efficacy: 86 out of 100 (86%) of the simulations produce high quality strategies. In contrast, the evolutionary model has a very low efficacy: a high quality strategy is found in only two out of 100 runs (2%). We show that the increased efficacy in the coevolutionary model results from the direct exploitation of low quality strategies by the population of training cases. We also present evidence that the generality of the high-quality strategies can suffer as a result of this same exploitation.
Download InfoTo our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Santa Fe Institute in its series Working Papers with number 02-01-002.
Date of creation: Jan 2002
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: 1399 Hyde Park Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
Web page: http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/publications/working-papers.html
More information through EDIRC
Genetic algorithms; evolutionary computation; coevolution; and cellular automata;
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2002-03-14 (All new papers)
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Thomas Krichel).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.