Towards an empirical measure of evolvability

Genetic representations that do not employ a one-to-one mapping of genotype to phenotype are known as indirect encodings, and can be much more efficient than direct encodings for complex problems. Increasing a representation's capacity to facilitate effective search, i.e. its evolvability, has long been a goal of Evolutionary Computation. However, currently no benchmarks exist to measure evolvability. One reason is that it is difficult to decouple a representation's capacity to evolve under any fitness function, i.e. the latent evolvability, and its performance on a specific benchmark. Towards this goal, a method is proposed in this paper that measures the representation's ability to extract invariant properties from a changing fitness function. The test is applied to three distinct representations and it is able to distinguish all three. Ultimately, this test can serve as the foundation for performing controlled experiments determining what factors contribute to evolvability.

[1]  C. Waddington Canalization of Development and the Inheritance of Acquired Characters , 1942, Nature.

[2]  Joe C. Campbell,et al.  Developmental Constraints and Evolution: A Perspective from the Mountain Lake Conference on Development and Evolution , 1985, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[3]  Ingo Rechenberg,et al.  Evolutionsstrategie '94 , 1994, Werkstatt Bionik und Evolutionstechnik.

[4]  E. Davidson,et al.  Modular cis-regulatory organization of Endo16, a gut-specific gene of the sea urchin embryo. , 1996, Development.

[5]  R. Raff Understanding Evolution: The Next Step. (Book Reviews: The Shape of Life. Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form.) , 1996 .

[6]  Jim Smith,et al.  Operator and parameter adaptation in genetic algorithms , 1997, Soft Comput..

[7]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Incremental Evolution of Complex General Behavior , 1997, Adapt. Behav..

[8]  Peter Eggenberger,et al.  Evolving Morphologies of Simulated 3d Organisms Based on Differential Gene Expression , 1997 .

[9]  R. Raff,et al.  Modularity and dissociation in the evolution of gene expression territories in development , 2000, Evolution & development.

[10]  P. Hogeweg,et al.  Evolving mechanisms of morphogenesis: on the interplay between differential adhesion and cell differentiation. , 2000, Journal of theoretical biology.

[11]  G. Wagner,et al.  The topology of the possible: formal spaces underlying patterns of evolutionary change. , 2001, Journal of theoretical biology.

[12]  Marc Ebner,et al.  How neutral networks influence evolvability , 2001, Complex..

[13]  W. Fontana Modelling 'evo-devo' with RNA. , 2002, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[14]  Josh Bongard,et al.  Evolving modular genetic regulatory networks , 2002, Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC'02 (Cat. No.02TH8600).

[15]  Hod Lipson,et al.  ON THE ORIGIN OF MODULAR VARIATION , 2002, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[16]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Evolving Neural Networks through Augmenting Topologies , 2002, Evolutionary Computation.

[17]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  A Taxonomy for Artificial Embryogeny , 2003, Artificial Life.

[18]  A. Bergman,et al.  Evolutionary capacitance as a general feature of complex gene networks , 2003, Nature.

[19]  T. F. Hansen Is modularity necessary for evolvability? Remarks on the relationship between pleiotropy and evolvability. , 2003, Bio Systems.

[20]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Network biology: understanding the cell's functional organization , 2004, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[21]  G. Wagner,et al.  The Population Genetic Theory of Hidden Variation and Genetic Robustness , 2004, Genetics.

[22]  Günter P. Wagner,et al.  Complex Adaptations and the Evolution of Evolvability , 2005 .