Model representation and cooperative coevolution for finite-state machine evolution

The use and search of finite-state machine (FSM) representations has a long history in evolutionary computation. The flexibility of Mealy-style and Moore-style FSMs is traded against the large number of parameters required to encode machines with many states and/or large output alphabets. Recent work using Mealy FSMs on the Tartarus problem has shown good performance of the resulting machines, but the evolutionary search is slower than for other representations. The aim of this paper is two-fold: first, a comparison between Mealy and Moore representations is considered on two problems, and then the impact of cooperative coevolution on FSM evolutionary search is examined. The results suggest that the search space of Moore-style FSMs may be easier to explore through evolutionary search than the search space of an equivalent-sized Mealy FSM representation. The results presented also suggest that the tested cooperative coevolutionary algorithms struggle to appropriately manage the non-separability present in FSMs, indicating that new approaches to cooperative coevolution may be needed to explore FSMs and similar graphical structures.

[1]  Astro Teller,et al.  The evolution of mental models , 1994 .

[2]  V. V. Solov’ev,et al.  Transformation of a mealy finite-state machine into a moore finite-state machine by splitting internal states , 2010 .

[3]  Lawrence Davis,et al.  Training Feedforward Neural Networks Using Genetic Algorithms , 1989, IJCAI.

[4]  Mengjie Zhang,et al.  Cooperative coevolution of Elman recurrent neural networks for chaotic time series prediction , 2012, Neurocomputing.

[5]  William M. Spears,et al.  Simple Subpopulation Schemes , 1998 .

[6]  Wilfried Elmenreich,et al.  Towards the light — Comparing evolved neural network controllers and Finite State Machine controllers , 2012, Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Intelligent Solutions in Embedded Systems.

[7]  Daniel Ashlock,et al.  A pure finite state baseline for Tartarus , 2000, Proceedings of the 2000 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC00 (Cat. No.00TH8512).

[8]  Prabhas Chongstitvatana,et al.  An improved genetic algorithm for the inference of finite state machine , 2002, IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.

[9]  Xin Yao,et al.  Large scale evolutionary optimization using cooperative coevolution , 2008, Inf. Sci..

[10]  Kenneth A. De Jong,et al.  Cooperative Coevolution: An Architecture for Evolving Coadapted Subcomponents , 2000, Evolutionary Computation.

[11]  Zhenyu Yang,et al.  Large-Scale Global Optimization Using Cooperative Coevolution with Variable Interaction Learning , 2010, PPSN.

[12]  Edward F. Moore,et al.  Gedanken-Experiments on Sequential Machines , 1956 .

[13]  Peter J. Bentley,et al.  A more bio-plausible approach to the evolutionary inference of finite state machines , 2007, GECCO '07.

[14]  Yung-Hsiang Lu,et al.  Improving FSM evolution with progressive fitness functions , 2004, GLSVLSI '04.

[15]  W. Daniel Hillis,et al.  Co-evolving parasites improve simulated evolution as an optimization procedure , 1990 .

[16]  Grant Dick,et al.  A true finite-state baseline for tartarus , 2013, GECCO '13.

[17]  Daniel A. Ashlock,et al.  Coevolution and Tartarus , 2004, Proceedings of the 2004 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE Cat. No.04TH8753).

[18]  Mengjie Zhang,et al.  On the issue of separability for problem decomposition in cooperative neuro-evolution , 2012, Neurocomputing.

[19]  Kumar Chellapilla,et al.  A preliminary investigation into evolving modular finite state machines , 1999, Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation-CEC99 (Cat. No. 99TH8406).

[20]  David B. Fogel,et al.  Evolving Behaviors in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma , 1993, Evolutionary Computation.

[21]  George H. Mealy,et al.  A method for synthesizing sequential circuits , 1955 .

[22]  William M. Spears,et al.  Evolving Finite-State Machine Strategies for Protecting Resources , 2000, ISMIS.