Co-evolving parasites improve simulated evolution as an optimization procedure
CNLS '89 Proceedings of the ninth annual international conference of the Center for Nonlinear Studies on Self-organizing, Collective, and Cooperative Phenomena in Natural and Artificial Computing Networks on Emergent computation
ALIFE Proceedings of the sixth international conference on Artificial life
Tracking the Red Queen: Measurements of Adaptive Progress in Co-Evolutionary Simulations
Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Advances in Artificial Life
Methods for Competitive Co-Evolution: Finding Opponents Worth Beating
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms
Solution concepts in coevolutionary algorithms
Solution concepts in coevolutionary algorithms
The MaxSolve algorithm for coevolution
GECCO '05 Proceedings of the 7th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation
Monotonic solution concepts in coevolution
GECCO '05 Proceedings of the 7th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation
Analysing co-evolution among artificial 3d creatures
EA'05 Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Artificial Evolution
Evolving small-board Go players using coevolutionary temporal difference learning with archives
International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science
Bootstrapping aggregate fitness selection with evolutionary multi-objective optimization
PPSN'12 Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature - Volume Part II
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Coevolution often gives rise to counter-intuitive dynamics that defy our expectations. Here we suggest that much of the confusion surrounding coevolution results from imprecise notions of superiority and progress. In particular, we note that in the literature, three distinct notions of progress are implicitly lumped together: local progress (superior performance against current opponents), historical progress (superior performance against previous opponents) and global progress (superior performance against the entire opponent space). As a result, valid conditions for one type of progress are unduly assumed to lead to another. In particular, the confusion between historical and global progress is a case of a common error, namely using the training set as a test set . This error is prevalent among standard methods for coevolutionary analysis (CIAO, Master Tournament, Dominance Tournament, etc.) By clearly defining and distinguishing between different types of progress, we identify limitations with existing techniques and algorithms, address them, and generally facilitate discussion and understanding of coevolution. We conclude that the concepts proposed in this paper correspond to important aspects of the coevolutionary process.