Effective diversity maintenance in deceptive domains

Diversity maintenance techniques in evolutionary computation are designed to mitigate the problem of deceptive local optima by encouraging exploration. However, as problems become more difficult, the heuristic of fitness may become increasingly uninformative. Thus, simply encouraging genotypic diversity may fail to much increase the likelihood of evolving a solution. In such cases, diversity needs to be directed towards potentially useful structures. A representative example of such a search process is novelty search, which builds diversity by rewarding behavioral novelty. In this paper the effectiveness of fitness, novelty, and diversity maintenance objectives are compared in two evolutionary robotics domains. In a biped locomotion domain, genotypic diversity maintenance helps evolve biped control policies that travel farther before falling. However, the best method is to optimize a fitness objective and a behavioral novelty objective together. In the more deceptive maze navigation domain, diversity maintenance is ineffective while a novelty objective still increases performance. The conclusion is that while genotypic diversity maintenance works in well-posed domains, a method more directed by phenotypic information, like novelty search, is necessary for highly deceptive ones.

[1]  Gregory Hornby,et al.  ALPS: the age-layered population structure for reducing the problem of premature convergence , 2006, GECCO.

[2]  Phil Husbands,et al.  Evolution of central pattern generators for bipedal walking in a real-time physics environment , 2002, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[3]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Real-time neuroevolution in the NERO video game , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[4]  Faustino J. Gomez,et al.  Sustaining diversity using behavioral information distance , 2009, GECCO.

[5]  DebK.,et al.  A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm , 2002 .

[6]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Abandoning Objectives: Evolution Through the Search for Novelty Alone , 2011, Evolutionary Computation.

[7]  V. Ramakrishnan,et al.  Measurement of the top-quark mass with dilepton events selected using neuroevolution at CDF. , 2008, Physical review letters.

[8]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II , 2002, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[9]  Peter Krcah Solving deceptive tasks in robot body-brain co-evolution by searching for behavioral novelty , 2010, ISDA 2010.

[10]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Competitive Coevolution through Evolutionary Complexification , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[11]  Andrew P. Martin Increasing Genomic Complexity by Gene Duplication and the Origin of Vertebrates , 1999, The American Naturalist.

[12]  Stéphane Doncieux,et al.  Encouraging Behavioral Diversity in Evolutionary Robotics: An Empirical Study , 2012, Evolutionary Computation.

[13]  Charles E. Hughes,et al.  Evolving plastic neural networks with novelty search , 2010, Adapt. Behav..

[14]  Francisco Fernández de Vega,et al.  Speciation in Behavioral Space for Evolutionary Robotics , 2011, J. Intell. Robotic Syst..

[15]  Hod Lipson,et al.  Age-fitness pareto optimization , 2010, GECCO '10.

[16]  D. E. Goldberg,et al.  Simple Genetic Algorithms and the Minimal, Deceptive Problem , 1987 .

[17]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Novelty Search and the Problem with Objectives , 2011 .

[18]  Kenneth O. Stanley,et al.  Exploiting Open-Endedness to Solve Problems Through the Search for Novelty , 2008, ALIFE.

[19]  Carlos A. Coello Coello,et al.  A Comprehensive Survey of Evolutionary-Based Multiobjective Optimization Techniques , 1999, Knowledge and Information Systems.

[20]  J. Lehman EVOLUTION THROUGH THE SEARCH FOR NOVELTY , 2012 .

[21]  Rick L. Riolo,et al.  Genetic Programming Theory and Practice VIII , 2010 .

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

[23]  Peter Krcah,et al.  Solving deceptive tasks in robot body-brain co-evolution by searching for behavioral novelty , 2010, 2010 10th International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications.

[24]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms with Sharing for Multimodalfunction Optimization , 1987, ICGA.

[25]  Hussein A. Abbass,et al.  A Memetic Pareto Evolutionary Approach to Artificial Neural Networks , 2001, Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

[26]  Samir W. Mahfoud Niching methods for genetic algorithms , 1996 .

[27]  Petros Faloutsos,et al.  Complex networks of simple neurons for bipedal locomotion , 2009, 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[28]  Shane Legg,et al.  Fitness uniform optimization , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[29]  Inman Harvey,et al.  The artificial evolution of adaptive behaviour , 1994 .

[30]  Martin Foltin Automated Maze Generation and Human Interaction , 2011 .

[31]  Michiel van de Panne,et al.  Guided Optimization for Balanced Locomotion , 1995 .