ArticlePDF Available

Coevolutionary principles

  • Electric Infrastructure Council


Coevolutionary algorithms explore domains in which no single evaluation function is present or known. Instead, algorithms rely on the aggregation of outcomes from interactions among coevolving entities to make selection decisions. Given the lack of an explicit yardstick, understanding the dynamics of coevolutionary algorithms, judging whether a given algorithm is progressing, and designing effective new algorithms present unique challenges unlike those faced by optimization or evolutionary algorithms. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a foundational understanding of coevolutionary algorithms and to highlight critical theoretical and empirical work done over the last two decades. The chapter outlines the ends and means of coevolutionary algorithms: what they are meant to find, and how they should find it.
Coevolutionary Principles
Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
Abstract Coevolutionary algorithms explore domains in which no single evalua-
tion function is present or known. Instead, algorithms rely on the aggregation of
outcomes from interactions among coevolving entities to make selection decisions.
Given the lack of an explicit yardstick, understanding the dynamics of coevolution-
ary algorithms, judging whether a given algorithm is progressing, and designing ef-
fective new algorithms present unique challenges unlike those faced by optimization
or evolutionary algorithms. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a foundational
understanding of coevolutionary algorithms and to highlight critical theoretical and
empirical work done over the last two decades. The chapter outlines the ends and
means of coevolutionary algorithms: what they are meant to find, and how they
should find it.
Elena Popovici
Icosystem Corporation, 10 Fawcett St., Cambridge, MA USA
Anthony Bucci
Icosystem Corporation, 10 Fawcett St., Cambridge, MA USA
R. Paul Wiegand
Institute for Simulation & Training, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL USA
Edwin D. de Jong
Institute of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
2 Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
1 Introduction
The inspiration for coevolutionary algorithms (CoEAs) is the same as for traditional
evolutionary algorithms (EAs): attempt to harness the Darwinian notions of hered-
ity and survival of the fittest for simulation or problem-solving purposes. To put it
simply, a representation is chosen to encode some aspects of potential solutions to a
problem into individuals, those individuals are altered during search using genetic-
like, variation operators such as mutation and crossover, and search is directed by
selecting better individuals as determined by a fitness evaluation. With any luck the
iteration of these steps will eventually lead to high-quality solutions to a problem, if
problem-solving is the aim; or to interesting or realistic system behavior.
Usually, EAs begin with a fitness function: a function of the form f:GRthat
assigns a real value to each possible genotype in G. Given such a function, the fit-
ness relationship between any two genotypes g1,g2Gis clear: we compare f(g1)
with f(g2)to see which is more fit. By contrast, CoEAs do not use such a direct
metric of the fitness of individuals. Instead, two individuals are compared on the ba-
sis of their outcomes from interactions with other individuals.1As should become
apparent as the chapter unfolds, this seemingly small change to how evaluation is
done creates a variety of fundamental differences from traditional evolutionary com-
putation. Most importantly, the fitness ranking of two individuals can change over
time, a phenomenon that cannot happen in an ordinary EA. Indeed, virtually all of
the techniques and ideas presented in this chapter are affected one way or another
by this fundamental question: how could we possibly build an effective algorithm
when any time we believe Ais better than Bit is possible that later we will believe
Bis better than A?
This chapter is constructed to provide a foundational understanding of coevolu-
tionary algorithms from a problem-solving point of view. Along the way we will
survey some of the many CoEAs that have been developed and the wide variety of
domains to which they have been applied. Before going into detail, however, we
present two coevolutionary algorithm schemes and problem classes to give context
for what follows.
1.1 Two Simple Coevolutionary Algorithms
In a single population CoEA (Algorithm 1), individuals are evaluated by interacting
with other individuals from that population. In a multi-population CoEA (Algo-
rithm 2), individuals in one population interact with individuals in one or several
other populations.
1For this reason the fitness in a CoEA has been called subjective fitness, subject as it is to the
changing population(s). The objectively-given and unchanging fitness function used in typical EA
applications is objective.
Coevolutionary Principles 3
Initialize population
Select evaluators from population
Evaluate individuals from population by interacting with evaluators
while not done do
Select parents from population
Produce children from parents via variation
Select evaluators from children +
Evaluate individuals from children by interacting with evaluators
Select survivors for next generation
end while
return solution
for each pop po pulations do
Initialize pop
Select evaluators from (popul ations pop)
Evaluate individuals from pop by interacting with evaluators
end for
while not done do
for each pop po pulations do
Select parents from pop
Produce children from parents via variation
Select evaluators from (popul ations pop)
Evaluate individuals from children by interacting with evaluators
Select survivors for next generation
end for
end while
return solution
While many CoEAs are variations of these two main frameworks, we have omit-
ted several details, some of which will be discussed later in the chapter. For ex-
ample, a common mechanism not addressed by those frameworks is for a CoEA
(either single or multi-population) to have an archive that serves to evaluate indi-
viduals or to store potential solutions and is updated from the main population(s).
Also, multi-population CoEAs can perform simultaneous or concurrent evolutionary
steps, while our example algorithm is sequential. Finally, we have not yet discussed
which interactions occur or how the results of interaction outcomes are aggregated
into an evaluation that can be used by a selection method. These points will be
addressed in Sect. 2.
1.2 Problem Classes
As a consequence of subjective evaluation, the dynamics of coevolutionary algo-
rithms can be frustratingly complex. One can view the interactions themselves as
4 Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
the basic unit of evaluation; in that view, the fitness landscape for an individual
changes as a function of the content of the population(s). Intuitions about fitness
landscapes from evolutionary computation do not easily map to this population-
dependent, dynamic landscape situation. Nevertheless, coevolutionary algorithms
ideally will leverage this mutability of the fitness landscape, adaptively focusing
on relevant areas of a search space. This can be particularly helpful when problem
spaces are very large or infinite. Additionally, some coevolutionary algorithms ap-
pear natural for domains that contain certain, known structure [85, 99] since search
on smaller components in the larger structure can be emphasized. Most usefully,
though, coevolution is appropriate when domains have no intrinsic objective mea-
sure, what we will call interactive domains.
Historically, the terms cooperative and competitive have been used to classify
the domains to which coevolution is often applied. Indeed, game theory provides
some guidance for making such distinctions. We argue that while such distinctions
are relevant and at times useful for classifying the interactive domain over which
an algorithm operates, they have not been appropriate for classifying problems or
algorithms. The interactive domain, like the fitness function, simply gives values to
interactions. The problem specifies what to find and the algorithm finds it. Chess
is an interactive domain, finding a chess playing strategy capable of Grand Master
rating is a problem. Experience shows that details of the problem definition and
algorithm design have much more impact on the overall behavior of a CoEA than
details of the interactive domain.
Thus, we primarily divide problems into classes based on what constitutes a solu-
tion: test-based problems and compositional problems. In a test-based problem, we
view the interactions as challenges: when Aand Binteract, we think of Bas provid-
ing a challenge, or test, of A’s capabilities. By contrast, in compositional problems
we think of interactions as assemblies: when Aand Binteract, we think of them as
forming a team, and the question is whether they perform well together.
1.3 Successful Applications of Coevolutionary Algorithms
To ground these ideas, let us consider three historically-important applications of
coevolutionary algorithms.
1.3.1 Single Population CoEA Applied to a Test-Based Problem
In single population applications to test-based problems, individuals serve two roles:
at times they are used as (components of) potential solutions, while at other times
they are used as tests to provide evaluation information about other individuals. The
problem of finding good game-playing strategies can be viewed as a test-based prob-
lem since strategies are tested by playing against other strategies. Chellapilla and
Fogel’s Blondie24 is a successful application of a CoEA to such a problem [23]. A
Coevolutionary Principles 5
strategy in Blondie24 employs a traditional mimimax algorithm but uses a neural
network for board evaluation. Individuals in the CoEA are vectors of weights for a
fixed-structure neural network, and are evaluated by playing against other individ-
uals. Points are awarded based on the win / loss / draw record, and fairly standard
evolutionary programming methods are used to select players, hence weight vec-
tors, with better records. The CoEA employed for this problem was able to produce
a checkers player that is competitive with the best existing human and AI players.
Interactive Domain: Game of checkers; Test: Set of playing strategies; Potential Solution:
Playing strategy; Problem: Find a strategy that beats the most opponents.
1.3.2 Two-Population CoEA Applied to a Test-Based Problem
Hillis’ coevolution of sorting networks and challenging data sets uses two popula-
tions [44]. One population represents sorting networks,2while another represents
unsorted data sets to test a network’s sorting capability. The goal of the algorithm
is to produce the smallest network possible that correctly sorts any given data sets,
but it does this while simultaneously honing ever more challenging and representa-
tive data sets. The technique produces a 61-comparator network, which is just one
comparison larger than the at the time smallest-known network for a 16-input prob-
lem. A similar, non-coevolutionary technique described in that work was unable to
produce networks smaller than 63 comparators.
Interactive Domain: Apply data set to sorting network; Test: Collection of data sets; Poten-
tial Solution: Sorting network; Problem: Find smallest, correct network.
1.3.3 Multi-Population CoEA Applied to a Compositional Problem
There are a number of successful applications of CoEAs to compositional problems
wherein problems are decomposed in some way and separate EAs are applied in
parallel to the components, even though evaluation must involve some kind of ag-
gregation or composition of components from the whole system. Perhaps the oldest,
and still among the most successful, of these is Husbands and Mills’ work on job-
shop scheduling [47]. In this work, individuals encode potential floor plans for man-
aging jobs involving the processing of a particular widget constructed by the shop,
and separate populations are used to optimize these process plans for each widget.
Fitness, however, includes accounting for shared resources in the shop (time, space,
etc.). There is also a population of Arbitrators, agents that resolve conflicts between
process plans for different widgets. Resulting schedulers can deal with a great deal
of uncertainty on the job shop floor.
While perhaps not as well known as the Blondie24 or sorting network examples,
this work provides a simple example of the difference between a cooperative domain
and compositional problem. In this case, the solution to the problem is a collection of
2That is, arrangements of compare-and-swap circuits.
6 Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
floor plans (one for each component) and an Arbitrator, which means the problem is
compositional. However, the floor plans compete with one another in the evaluation
function because they compete for shared resources, so it is not strictly cooperative.
Interactive Domain: Determination of complete job-shop schedule; Components: floor
plans for widgets, arbitrators for conflict resolution; Potential Solution: set of floor plans
for each widget & arbitrators; Problem: Find an efficient & robust job-shop schedule.
1.4 Chapter Organization
History has shown that the na¨
ıve application of CoEAs to ill-understood domains is
as likely to produce confusing and unsatisfactory results as to succeed. Therefore,
at least from the perspective of problem-solving, a careful algorithm design process
is critical. This chapter is organized to emphasize this process: define the problem,
define the relationship between the algorithm and the problem, implement the algo-
rithm in a principled way, and analyze its behavior based on these principles.
The next section establishes clear definitions of domains, problems, and the types
of solutions one expects to find. Section 3 describes how problems relate to evalu-
ation and representation choices within a coevolutionary algorithm. We follow by
presenting analytical approaches currently available for understanding coevolution-
ary algorithm design, performance, and behavior. The concluding section provides
some broader views of coevolutionary systems and outlines possible future direc-
tions of research and application.
2 Problems and Solutions
Coevolutionary algorithms are typically applied to interactive domains. Such do-
mains generally lack an objective function giving a value to each entity. Rather, in-
teractive domains encode the outcomes of interactions between two or more entities;
depending on the domain, individual entities or the interaction itself may receive
value as a result of an interaction. An algorithm must then decide how to use these
outcomes to make decisions about which entities to promote in the next generation
and which entities to demote or discard.
In a problem-solving context, an algorithm will need more than just an interactive
domain. It will also require some way of deciding which entities in the domain
are better than others. Coupled with information like that, an interactive domain
becomes a co-search or co-optimization problem.
This section is concerned with detailing interactive domains, co-search, and co-
optimization problems in the abstract, surveying some examples from both test-
based and compositional problems, and beginning the discussion of what it means
to extract a solution from such problems. Here we leave aside all dynamic or algo-
rithmic considerations and focus instead on formalizing static definitions of problem
Coevolutionary Principles 7
classes to which CoEAs have been applied. Coevolutionary algorithms and their be-
havior on these problem classes are discussed in subsequent sections.
2.1 Interactive Domains
The formal notion of interactive domain can be defined as follows:
Definition 1 (Interactive Domain). An interactive domain consists of one or more
functions, called metrics, of the form p:X1×X2× · · · × XnR, where
each iwith 1 inis a domain role;
an element xXiis an entity (playing the domain role i);
each Xiis an entity set (for the domain role i);
a tuple (x1,x2,...,xn)X1× · ·· × Xnis an interaction;
the value p(x1,x2,...,xn)Ris an outcome (of the interaction);
the ordered set Ris the outcome set.ut
Some remarks about this definition are in order.
The discussion of problem classes in Sect. 1.2 touched on the distinction between
cooperative and competitive domains. Here we would like to relate those terms di-
rectly to the interactive domain. Cooperative domains have nmetrics pi, one for
each domain role. The metric piis interpreted as giving an outcome to the entities
playing role i. In many examples, pi=pjfor all roles iand j, so that the metrics only
differ by which entity receives the outcome (but see [79] for a more nuanced discus-
sion of cooperative domains). Competitive domains, by contrast, typically have only
two roles. The two corresponding metrics often obey p2=p1, making the domain
equivalent to a zero-sum game. Naturally there is an enormous space of interactive
domains that do not fall into either the cooperative or competitive categories. Note
also that the terms “cooperative coevolution” and “competitive coevolution” refer to
coevolutionary algorithms operating on such domains.
While an interactive domain has nentity sets, two or more of these sets may be
the same. We will use the word type to refer to the sets from which entities are drawn,
independently of what domain roles the entities are playing. There are special cases
in which all domain roles are played by entities of the same set and, furthermore,
the outcomes a particular entity receives do not depend on which role it plays. We
will refer to these as role-symmetric domains.
Example 1 (Rock-paper-scissors). The game rock-paper-scissors furnishes a partic-
ularly simple example of an interactive domain. This game is generally expressed
with a payoff matrix:
rock paper scissors
rock 01 0
paper 1 0 1
scissors 1 1 0
8 Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
To view rock-paper-scissors as an interactive domain, observe
there are two roles;
X1=X2={rock,paper,scissors}are the entity sets, so there is one type;
the matrix encodes a single metric p, whose value is given to the entity on the
line. This domain is role-symmetric; for instance, rock receives the same payoff
versus paper regardless of whether it is playing the first role or the second. ut
Example 2. Here is another example coming from an abstract game:
As an interactive domain, note
there are two roles;
X1={s1,s2,s3};X2={t1,t2,t3}are the entity sets (there are two types);
the matrix encodes a single metric p. This domain is not role-symmetric. ut
For a large majority of interactive domains that have been studied in practice, the
outcome set Ris a subset of R; however, that requirement is not strictly necessary
(see [9] for a discussion of ordered outcome sets that are not subsets of the reals).
Finally, note that this definition of interactive domain closely resembles the no-
tion of game defined in [34]. What we are calling an entity is there called a behavior,
reflecting that work’s closer focus on agents selecting behaviors. What we are here
calling an interaction is called an event, and our notion of outcome corresponds to
what Ficici calls a measurement. That work should be consulted for a more detailed
treatment of interactive domains.
2.2 Co-Search and Co-Optimization Problems
A function f:XRgives values to elements of X. However, more information is
needed to define a problem that can be solved. For instance, we may wish to find
all the elements of Xthat maximize the value of f. Or, we may wish to find only
one such element. Or, we may wish to find the elements that minimize f. Notice
that for a fixed function f, there are many, distinct ways to decide what makes a
“good” element of X. To give a well-defined search or optimization problem, one
must specify not just the function fbut also one way for deciding which elements
of Xare to be found.
By analogy, once we have an interactive domain we have a way of giving one or
more values to interactions of entities, but do not yet have a well-defined problem
to solve. The purpose of this section is to detail the kinds of problem we can define
over interactive domains. We will call these co-search problems and co-optimization
problems. First,
Coevolutionary Principles 9
Definition 2 (Co-Search Problem). Given an interactive domain, a co-search
problem over it consists of:
a non-empty subset I(1,...,n)of the ndomain roles;
a set Cof potential solutions aggregated from entities of the domain roles in I;
a solution concept that specifies a partitioning of the potential solutions into (ac-
tual) solutions and non-solutions. We represent this as a subset SCof the
potential solutions. ut
Let us examine the last two components of the definition in more detail.
Potential Solutions: There are two critical points to emphasize:
In many problems of practical interest, no single entity makes for a sufficient
solution. Rock-paper-scissors stands as an intuitive example: none of the entities
rock,paper, or scissors is, by itself, a reasonable strategy to play in this game. In
such cases, potential solutions are aggregated from, meaning built or constructed
out of, multiple entities.
In some problems we would like potential solutions to either lie in or be aggre-
gated from entities in a single domain role, while in other problems, potential
solutions should be aggregates of entities from several domain roles. The subset
Iis used to distinguish cases like these. If I= (1), solutions are aggregated only
from entities playing domain role 1, while if I= (1,2,...,n), solutions are ag-
gregated from entities playing all nroles. We could, of course, have an Ithat is
not all of (1,...,n)but contains more than one domain role.
Section 2.3 will give examples of what we mean by saying potential solutions
are “aggregated from” entities. While a fully general formalization of this notion is
beyond the scope of the present chapter, in typical examples potential solutions are
sets of entities, mixtures of (distributions over) entities, tuples of entities, or perhaps
combinations of these.3The notion of potential solution here is closely related to
the idea of a configuration in [34], which should be consulted for more detail; [79]
discusses the idea of aggregating solutions in more detail as well.
Solution Concepts: While we presented the idea of a solution concept in the ab-
stract, as a subset of C, in reality solutions are identified using the metrics of the
interactive domain.4That is, it is typical to seek entities or combinations of entities
that in some sense maximize the metrics of the interactive domain. Section 2.4 illus-
trates the point by describing several examples of solution concepts that have arisen
in practice.
Aco-optimization problem is closely related to a co-search problem. However,
instead of a solution concept, a co-optimization problem specifies an order on the
potential solutions and implicitly requires that solutions be maximal elements of the
order. Specifically,
3For instance, Nash equilibria are usually pairs of mixtures.
4What Ficici calls an intensional solution concept [34].
10 Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
Definition 3 (Co-Optimization Problem). Given an interactive domain, a co-
optimization problem over it consists of
a non-empty subset I(1,...,n)of the ndomain roles;
a set Cof potential solutions built from entities of the domain roles in I;
an ordering5of Csuch that if c1,c2Cand c1c2,c2is interpreted as being
no worse a solution than c1.ut
A co-optimization problem can be converted into a co-search problem by defin-
ing the solution concept SCto be the set of maximal elements of . In that
sense, co-optimization is a more refined notion than co-search.
As a final bit of terminology, recall that both co-search and co-optimization prob-
lems have a subset Iof the domain roles that specifies which entities are aggregated
into potential solutions. Let us write b
Ifor the complement of Iin (1,...,n), so, for
instance, if n=3 and I= (1,2)then b
I= (3). Then we can distinguish two problem
If iI,Xiis a component role and xXiare component entities or components;
if ib
I,Xiis a test role and xXiare test entities or tests.
Note that b
Imay be empty, meaning there is no test role explicitly defined by the
problem. However, Icannot be empty by definition, meaning there is always at least
one set of entities playing the role of component.
To summarize some of the key concepts relating to entities that have been intro-
duced in this section:
An interactive domain defines two or more domain roles and entities that play
each role.
The notion of type is coarser than domain role: several domain roles might corre-
spond to the same type of entity, but each type corresponds to at least one domain
A co-search or co-optimization problem lies at a conceptually higher level, de-
fined over an interactive domain.
Co-search and co-optimization problems define two problem roles, components
and tests.
At the problem level, the component role corresponds to one or more lower-level
domain roles. The test role may correspond to zero or more domain roles.
Since types sit at the domain role level, the relationship between types and prob-
lem roles can be complicated. There may be components of different types, tests
of different types, components and tests that both have the same type, etc.
Section 1.2, besides distinguishing cooperative and competitive domains, also
mentioned the distinction between compositional and test-based problems. Before
elaborating on potential solutions in Sect. 2.3 and solution concepts in Sect. 2.4, let
us define and illustrate these two important classes of co-search and co-optimization
5Which may be a partial order or even a preorder.
Coevolutionary Principles 11
problems. Briefly, compositional and test-based problems correspond to the ex-
tremes where |I|=nand |I|=1, respectively. The middle ground between these
extremes is virtually unexplored.
2.2.1 Compositional Problems
Acompositional problem is a co-search or co-optimization problem in which all
domain roles are used as components to build solutions. That is, |I|=nand, con-
versely, |b
I|=0. The idea is that each entity in each domain role is a component. To
build potential solutions one must use entities from each of the domain roles; one
does not have a complete potential solution until one has used at least one compo-
nent from each domain role. An intuitive example is a baseball team: one does not
have a baseball team until one has a pitcher, a catcher, outfielders, etc.
Compositional problems have largely been explored under the rubric of coop-
erative coevolutionary algorithms (CCEAs). Besides theoretical works that study
features of algorithm behavior on arbitrary or abstract test problems [50, 49, 51], or
empirical work of algorithm dynamics on simple test problems [83, 81], work ap-
plying CCEAs to multi-variate function optimization or multi-agent learning have
also appeared. In multi-variate function optimization, one treats each input variable
as a distinct domain role, so that each entity in a particular domain role is a potential
setting for one of the input variables [86, 87, 76]. Multi-agent learning applications
have treated each domain role as the space of possible behaviors or actions for agents
that form a team performing a task together [78, 74].
2.2.2 Test-Based Problems
Atest-based problem is a co-search or co-optimization problem in which |I|=1;
that is, in which a single domain role contains components, and all other domain
roles are tests. Intuitively speaking, the test entities are used to probe or give infor-
mation about the potential solutions that can be aggregated from the components.
Test-based problems are discussed as such in [32] and analyzed in connection
with multi-objective optimization in [31]; however, the idea is implicit in early work
on Pareto coevolution [61, 38] and is more explicit in later works such as [27], [25],
and [60]. [9] and [11] formally analyze test-based problems from the perspective of
order-theory, while [12] and [71] treat compositional problems using ideas devel-
oped to study test-based problems. [28] and [52, 7, 4, 103] approach two types of
test-based problems not based on Pareto dominance.
In many of these works, the terms candidate,candidate solution, or learner are
used to describe what we would describe as a component Likewise, the term test is
used in those works to denote what we might call entities playing the test role.
12 Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
2.3 Potential Solutions in Co-Search and Co-Optimization
Section 2.2 defined a co-search problem as one that, given an interactive domain,
specifies a solution concept as a subset of a set of potential solutions that are built
from the interactive domain. This section is intended to detail, by example, several
common extant ways of creating potential solutions from entities.
2.3.1 Single Entity
The simplest and most obvious set of potential solutions is a set of entities. Imagine
we have an interactive domain with nroles and a co-search problem with I= (1), so
that the component role is being played by the entities in domain role 1. Then one
set of potential solutions for this problem is the set X1of components itself. In this
case, the set Cis X1, so that a solution concept Sgives a subset of X1.
Seminal work by Hillis [44] and Sims [97] both use the single entities as potential
solutions. Hillis’ algorithm sought a single sorting network; there was no sense in
which two or more sorting networks could be combined. Likewise, Sims’ algorithm
sought a morphology and behavior for a simulated creature; again, there was no
mechanism for combining several creatures into a composite.
Stipulating that single entities serve as solutions is appropriate in certain do-
mains, particularly those involving the design of a complex object, i.e. when no
clear way of combining entities together is present; or those in which we expect that
a single entity that solves the problem may exist. However, as noted above about
rock-paper-scissors, many domains have no single entity that is adequate to solve
the problem.
2.3.2 Sets
Consider, for concreteness, that we have an interactive domain with two roles and
our co-search problem specifies that I= (1). The entities in X1are components,
while those in X2are tests. In this example, the set Cis the powerset of X1,P(X1).
A solution concept gives a subset of P(X1), equivalently one or more subsets of X1,
where each subset is a solution.
Set-based notions of potential solution have been studied under the umbrella
of Pareto coevolution [38, 61]. Treating each test as an objective to be optimized,
the problem-solving goal is to find (an approximation of) the non-dominated front
among the components. Therefore a potential solution is a subset of X1, in other
words an element of C=P(X1). The non-dominated front itself is the solution.
When we elaborate more on solution concepts in Sect. 2.4, we will see the situa-
tion is more subtle; in fact, a set related to, but not quite, the non-dominated front is
desirable. However, we will defer that discussion until then.
Coevolutionary Principles 13
2.3.3 Mixtures
Let’s maintain the co-search problem of the previous example. However, let’s say
that a solution is not a subset of X1, but a probability distribution over X1. Follow-
ing Vose [105], denote the set of these by ΛX1. Then another choice for the set of
potential solutions Cis ΛX1.
Mixture-based solutions are most often discussed in the context of Nash equilib-
ria; the Nash Memory [39] and Parallel Nash Memory [62] are examples of algo-
rithms that treat mixtures as potential solutions.
2.3.4 Compositions in General
Sets and mixtures are both examples of aggregates; that is, potential solutions cre-
ated by putting together components drawn from one or more of the component
roles defined in the problem. Sets and mixtures are particularly simple kinds of ag-
gregates. More complicated compositions are conceivable.
Compositional coevolution in general aims to discover good assemblies. The
originally-stated aim of Cooperative Coevolutionary Algorithms, from which the
more general notion of compositional coevolution sprang, was to attack the prob-
lem of evolving complicated objects by explicitly breaking them into parts, evolving
the parts separately, and then assembling the parts into a working whole [87]. The
nature of the “coadapted subcomponents” discussed in that work was not strictly
defined; hence, the idea is that any subcomponent of any assembly (aggregate) was
fair game for the method. Since then, compositional coevolution has been applied to
coevolving teams of agents performing a task, for instance, where the composition
here is of several different agents collaborating as a team.
In the language developed in this section, agents or coadapted subcomponents are
domain entities playing the component role of a compositional problem. A collab-
oration among entities is an interaction, and the means for evaluating a team or as-
sembly would constitute the metric of the problem. The potential solutions in these
cases, then, are the possible tuples over the domain roles; that is, C=X1×.. . ×Xn.
Though the translation into the notion of a co-search problem is less obvious,
another important, non-trivial example of composition found in coevolutionary al-
gorithms are in applications of neuro-evolutionary algorithms. The Neuro-Evolution
through Augmenting Topologies (NEAT) algorithm [100] has been applied to coe-
volve robot controllers in a simulated robot duel [101, 100, 102] as well as players
of a variant of the video game Pong [60]. A hallmark of the NEAT algorithm is the
separation between components of neural networks, which consist of small assem-
blies of neurons and associated weighted synapses, and the topology of a complete
network, which functions as a blueprint for how assemblies are put together. A sec-
ond, important feature of NEAT emphasized in these works is the possibility for
complexification or elaboration: since neural network topologies are not limited by
NEAT, they can grow to arbitrary complexity, elaborating on previously-evolved
14 Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
behaviors. In contradistinction to typical CCEAs, which pre-specify the size and
complexity of compositions, NEAT permits open-ended complexity increase.6
Finally, it is worth pointing out that in general game-theoretic analysis, Nash
equilibria are pairs of mixtures of pure strategies. In many cases only the first mix-
ture in the pair is used to solve a problem; the other is there for testing purposes.
However, should we actually need both mixtures in the pair, the set of potential so-
lutions would be ΛX1×ΛX2which involves two levels of aggregating: first mixing
(over X1and X2), then pairing.
2.4 Solution Concepts
In this section we will detail several solution concepts for both compositional and
test-based problems that have been used in coevolutionary algorithms. Recall that
a solution concept specifies a subset of the potential solutions, SC. For each
example we will detail the interactive domain, the co-search problem including the
space of potential solutions, and how solutions are determined from the metric(s) of
the domain. We begin with solution concepts for compositional problems.
2.4.1 Compositional Solution Concepts
Ideal Team
Say we have an interactive domain with ndomain roles, entity sets X1,X2,...,Xn
and one metric p:X1×. . .×XnR. Say also that we have a co-search problem over
this domain with potential solutions drawn from the set of tuples C=X1×.. . ×Xn,
so in fact this is a compositional problem. Observe there is a one-to-one correspon-
dence between a potential solution and an interaction. The ideal team solution con-
cept defines as solutions those potential solutions that maximize the value received
from the metric:
x0)p(¯x) = p(¯
where we have used the shorthand ¯xfor an arbitrary tuple in C. In multi-agent
parlance, the teams for which no other teams perform better are ideal teams.
The ideal team is not the only relevant compositional solution concept, and the
question has been posed to what extent cooperative coevolution algorithms converge
to it [108]. Another solution concept of interest arising from that investigation is
maximizing robustness. The idea here is that rather than maximizing the outcome
of a single potential solution, a solution should be robust in the sense that a “small”
change in one of the components results in “small” changes in the composite’s value.
6And, one would hope, an increase in capability as well.
Coevolutionary Principles 15
2.4.2 Test-Based Solution Concepts
Unless otherwise specified, the following examples of solution concepts for test-
based problems are appropriate for problems of the following form:
the interactive domain has two roles with entity sets X1and X2;
there is a single metric p:X1×X2R;
the co-search problem specifies X1as the only component role and X2as the only
test role.
What varies in these examples is the set of potential solutions and how the subset
of solutions is defined. We will detail these now.
Best Worst Case
Best Worst Case operates over single-entity potential solutions, meaning C=X1.
This solution concept specifies as solutions those components that maximize the
minimum possible outcome over interactions with all tests.7That is,
p(x,t) = min
This criterion is appropriate in real world domains where one needs to protect
against the worst scenario possible.
Simultaneous Maximization of All Outcomes
Simultaneous Maximization of All Outcomes requires a solution to be a com-
ponent that maximizes its outcome over all possible tests simultaneously. That is,
C=X1is a single entity set of potential solutions, and the solution concept is:
x0CtX2.[p(x,t)p(x0,t)p(x,t) = p(x0,t)]o(3)
This solution concept has a limited application scope, as for many problems there
does not exist a single potential solution that simultaneously maximizes the outcome
against all possible tests.
Maximization of Expected Utility
Maximization of Expected Utility (MEU) is also relevant when C=X1. It spec-
ifies as solutions those components that maximize the expected score against a ran-
domly selected opponent:
x0C.E(p(x,X2)) E(p(x0,X2)) E(p(x,X2)) = E(p(x0,X2))o
7This version has also been called maximin. The corresponding minimax can similarly be defined.
16 Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
where we are abusing notation and treating X2as a uniformly-distributed random
variable ranging over the set of tests, so that E(p(x,X2)) is the expected value of
p(x,t)when tis selected uniformly randomly from X2.
Equation (4) is equivalent to:
p(x,t) =
when all the sums are defined. That is, maximizing expected utility is equivalent
to maximizing the sum of outcome values over all tests when that sum is defined
for all the components. Thus, MEU essentially assumes that all tests are of equal
importance, which limits its generality.
Nash Equilibrium
The Nash Equilibrium solution concept is inspired by game theory [65] and op-
erates over mixtures of components. When the problem is as before, C1=ΛX1.
However, we will deviate slightly from our previous examples and also consider
problems with I= (1,2), so that C2=ΛX1×ΛX2. That is, there are no tests, so
in fact C2defines a compositional problem. Furthermore, in both cases we will as-
sume there are two metrics, p1:X1×X2Rand p2:X1×X2Rinterpreted as
giving outcomes to entities in X1and X2, respectively. In many domains such as
those arising from zero sum games, p1(x,y) = p2(x,y)for all xX1and yX2.
Let us first treat the case C2. Let αΛX1and βΛX2be two mixtures over X1
and X2, respectively. We can write these as formal sums:
where αxis the probability assigned to the component xX1by the mixture α,
and βyis the probability assigned to the test yX2by βand, since αand βare both
distributions, xX1αx=1 and yX2βy=1. Using this notation, define a function
Ep1:ΛX1×ΛX2Rsuch that for all (α,β)ΛX1×ΛX2,
Ep1(α,β) =
Ep1(α,β)is interpreted as giving the expected outcome that the mixture αre-
ceives when interacting with β.Ep2(α,β)is defined similarly and gives the ex-
pected outcome to β.
Coevolutionary Principles 17
A Nash equilibrium is a pair (α,β)ΛX1×ΛX2such that neither αnor β
can unilaterally change to some other mixture and receive a higher payoff. That
is, (α,β)is a Nash equilibrium if the following two conditions hold:
for all α0ΛX1,Ep1(α,β)Ep1(α0,β)Ep1(α,β) = Ep1(α0,β); and
for all β0ΛX2,Ep2(α,β)Ep2(α,β0)Ep2(α,β) = Ep2(α,β0)
The Nash Equilibrium solution concept for problems with C2=ΛX1×ΛX2is
(α,β)is a Nash equilibriumo(9)
For C1=ΛX1, in other words problems in which we only care about the mixture
over components in X1, the Nash Equilibrium solution concept is
where π1projects a pair (α,β)onto the first coordinate, α.
An attractive feature of the Nash equilibrium as a solution concept is that Nash
equilibria have certain “security” guarantees: the expected payoff to αin a Nash
equilibrium (α,β)can be no lower than Ep1(α,β), regardless of the strategy with
which it interacts. In a game like {rock,paper,scissors}, for example, any indi-
vidual strategy like rock will receive a -1 payoff against some opponent (if paper
plays against rock, for example). The mixture 1
3·rock +1
3·paper +1
3·scissors, by
contrast, will never receive an expected payoff lower than 0 against any opponent
because (1
3·rock +1
3·paper +1
3·rock +1
3·paper +1
3·scissors)is a
Nash equilibrium for that game and Ep1(1
3·rock +1
3·paper +1
3·rock +
3·paper +1
3·scissors) = 0. Note that this is a kind of worst-case guarantee for the
mixture αthat is similar in spirit to that sought in the Best Worst Case solution con-
cept; the primary difference is that Best Worst Case seeks single components with
such a guarantee, while Nash Equilibrium seeks a mixture of many components.
Pareto Optimal Set
Multi-Objective Optimization extends traditional optimization through the intro-
duction of multiple objectives. This may be viewed as the use of a function that is
vector-valued rather than scalar. In Pareto-based solution concepts, every possible
test is viewed as an objective to be optimized.
Potential solutions for the Pareto Optimal Set solution concept are subsets of X1;
that is, C=P(X1). Here the set of solutions will consist of a single member, the
non-dominated front, which is defined
x0C.tX2.[p(x,t)p(x0,t)] ⇒ ∀tX2.[p(x,t) = p(x0,t)]o
18 Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
We can define an order on X1, the Pareto covering order, as follows:
xx0if tX2.p(x,t)p(x0,t)(12)
for all xand x0in X1. This definition essentially says that the outcome of x0against
any test is at least as high as that of x. However, is not a total order on X1, because
it is possible that p(x,t)<p(x0,t)while p(x,t0)>p(x0,t0)for two tests t,t0X2.
Furthermore, while is reflexive and transitive, it need not be a partial order: two
distinct components xand x0might receive precisely the same outcomes on all tests,
so xx0and x0xboth hold and anti-symmetry fails to hold.
We can simplify the definition of Fusing :
The Pareto Optimal Set solution concept is defined as:
Some remarks:
There is a formal similarity between (3), the Simultaneous Maximization of All
Objectives, and the non-dominated front Fdefined in (11). They differ only
in the placement of the quantifier tX2. However, while formally similar
these two solution concepts have significantly different interpretations: while
(13) shows that Fis the set of maximal elements of the order , in fact (3)
is the set of maxima of that order, the difference being that maxima must be
larger than all other components across all tests simultaneously. Thus, the non-
dominated front puts weaker constraints on its members than the Simultaneous
Maximization of All Objectives, and we would expect the former to be a larger
set of components.
The Pareto Optimal Set solution concept has only one member, F, which is
itself a set of components. This definition is chosen for consistency with the other
solution concepts; each solution concept is a set whose members are solutions.
The non-dominated front forms a single, unique solution to a multi-objective
problem. A limitation of the Pareto Optimal Set solution concept is that this set
may be very large; while not being covered is a sensible minimum requirement
for solutions, for certain problems it may be insufficiently weak, in that it can
insufficiently narrow down the set of possible solutions.
As noted, two components may receive precisely the same outcomes against all
possible tests. Thus, while they may be distinct components in the set X1, as far
as performance against the tests in X2goes, they are indistinguishable.
Pareto Optimal [Minimal] Equivalence Set
The indistinguishability of some elements of the non-dominated front entails this
set may be too large. We can partition this set in equivalence classes by this property,
like so. Say that xx0if xx0x0x; that is, xand x0are equivalent if they receive
Coevolutionary Principles 19
the same outcomes against all tests in an equivalence relation on X1.8It is
reasonable to suppose that we only need one representative of each equivalence class
under , and this intuition leads to two more solution concepts.
A Pareto Optimal Equivalence Set is a set containing at least one element from
each equivalence class of the full Pareto Optimal Set. Note that while there is a
single Pareto Optimal Set, there may be a combinatorial number of Pareto Optimal
Equivalence sets. A Pareto Optimal Minimal Equivalence Set contains exactly one
component from each equivalence class of the full Pareto Optimal Set. There may
be a combinatorial number of Pareto Optimal Minimal Equivalence sets as well.
These two solution concepts typically define a smaller set of potential solutions
than the Pareto Optimal Set. Yet, depending on the characteristics of the problem,
such a set can still be very large.
3 Design of Coevolutionary Algorithms
As we have seen, there is a wide spectrum of problems in interactive domains. While
throughout the chapter we discuss generic issues that any algorithm targeted at such
co-search problems will have to address, in this section we concern ourselves with
issues specific to approaching these problems via coevolutionary algorithms. Like
with any method, application of coevolutionary algorithms to a problem tends to go
more smoothly and have more opportunity for success when algorithm engineers
first go through the process of formalizing the domain and the problem, and then
design the algorithm.
For domains that are inherently interactive, the formalizing process involves
more rationalization than choosing. However, sometimes we may want to refor-
mulate a non-interactive domain into an interactive one. The domains of problems
featuring the ideal team solution concept are often the result of such a reformulation.
In such cases, many different choices may exist as to how to decompose elements
in the original domain, and they may have different effects on problem-difficulty.
The design process entails finding useful and productive ways of mapping prob-
lem particulars into the algorithmic framework, and heuristic search tends to require
some means of making qualitative comparisons and decisions in order to guide the
path of algorithm. There are principles behind, and effects from these decisions.
In this section we discuss the choices available to the algorithm designer, and the
biases introduced by these mapping choices are discussed throughout Sect. 4.
Once the engineer identifies the types, domain roles, problem roles and poten-
tial solution set, they must determine how a CoEA can be structured to represent
them, and encode data structures within the algorithm to instantiate them in a way
that is consistent with the problem’s solution concept. We consider such decisions
to relate to representation. Additionally, one must decide how to explore the set of
interactions, how outcomes from multiple interaction will be aggregated for selec-
8This is a simple, well-known consequence of being a preorder.
20 Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
tion purposes, and how interaction information is communicated throughout various
parts of the algorithm. We consider such decisions to relate to evaluation.
3.1 Representation
Successful design and application of any heuristic depends on a number of key
representation decisions for how search knowledge is encoded and manipulated.
In any evolutionary system, these choices involve questions about how aspects of
potential solutions are represented genotypically, modified by genetic operators and
expressed phenotypically.
Coevolution brings additional subtleties to representation issues that are worth
special consideration. For one, the relationship between basic terms such as individ-
uals,populations and solutions can be quite complicated in coevolution. Related to
these terms are the foundational, domain-centric terms discussed above such as test
and component, and a well-designed CoEA should consider how these problem-
based concepts map to representations used by the search system. Additionally,
many modern CoEAs make use of archival and memory mechanisms for a variety
of purposes, and it is important to understand how they relate to the above notions.
We will discuss these notions in turn and provide examples of common/possible
mappings from problem to algorithm.
3.1.1 Individuals
In most traditional evolutionary systems, individuals represent potential solutions
to some search problem, and the EA manipulates encoded potential solutions by
modifying them using variational operators (mutation, crossover) and choosing the
better from among them using selection operators (proportionate selection, rank
selection, etc.). When optimizing some real-valued function, an individual might be
encoded as a vector of real values to be used as arguments for the function, mutations
could be accomplished by applying vectors of Gaussian noise, and selection might
involve simply choosing those with the highest objective function value. Since the
goal of the search is to find an optimal argument vector, one can typically equate
potential solution and individual. Even when the EA is searching program spaces,
such as in genetic programming, traditional algorithms still make use of individuals
who are essentially procedural solutions to the problem.
In coevolution, individuals serve the same mechanistic purpose as in any evolu-
tionary algorithm: they are the fundamental units being manipulated by the search
operators themselves. That is, mutation and crossover modify individuals, and se-
lection chooses among them.
Definition 4 (Individual). An individual is a representational unit that is subject to
selection and variational operators. ut
Coevolutionary Principles 21
But individuals in a CoEA will not always represent potential solutions to the
problem being solved. In coevolution, one must think of individuals in terms of how
they relate to types, domain roles and problem roles, in addition to traditional is-
sues of how to encode problem aspects. For example, suppose we are developing an
AI for controlling an airplane that generalizes over different flight conditions and
we have formalized this as an interactive domain as follows: airplane controllers
interact with different flight conditions / scenarios, while the problem is test-based
where the potential solutions are controllers and the flight scenarios are tests, and
the solution concept is maximum expected utility. We might design a CoEA that
maintains two kinds of individuals, corresponding to the two types of the domain,
namely individuals representing controllers and individuals representing flight sce-
narios. But we still have to decide how controllers and scenarios will actually be
encoded, which will involve additional choices. The consideration of how types,
domain-roles and problem-roles map to individuals is subtly different from tradi-
tional genotype / phenotype decisions.
Most often individuals represent entities from the domain’s types. Thus, for a
domain with two symmetric roles we may have a single kind of individual, and such
individuals might participate in interactions in either of the domain’s roles. In gen-
eral, we will have at least as many kinds of individuals as types in the domain. From
a problem-role perspective, individuals might represent components of a potential
solution or tests helping judge the quality of potential solutions. [44] provides a less
common example, where some of the individuals do not correspond to entities, but
to sets of entities, namely those playing the test role. We will revisit the relationship
between individual and solution in the subsection dedicated to solutions.
3.1.2 Populations
Just as with traditional EAs, it is useful to think of populations as simply collections
of individuals. Most traditional EAs (excepting island models) have only a single,
explicit population, while many CoEAs have multiple populations.
But even in traditional methods the notion of a population can be a bit murky
when dealing with mechanisms like spatial models, niching, or restrictive mating
[46, 98] since stable subsets of individuals in the overall population can arise be-
tween which very little genetic material is exchanged. These subsets are sometimes
referred to as “populations”, and it is interesting to note that many of these are es-
sentially coevolutionary in nature since fitness can be quite subjective (e.g., niching
methods using fitness sharing).
Definition 5 (Population). Apopulation is:
1. a set (or multiset) of individuals;
2. a subset of individuals isolated from other individuals by some kind of barrier
(e.g., inability to interbreed successfully, geographic, etc.). ut
Designing effective CoEAs involves decisions about how aspects of a problem
map to populations. The main purpose of the populations is to provide an explo-
22 Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
ration mechanism for the entity sets of the different types in the domain. Thus a
CoEA will generally maintain at least one population per type and most often a
single population per type.
For example, for an ideal team problem in a domain with a fixed number of
asymmetric roles (and therefore types), the typical CoEA will maintain one popula-
tion for each. For a test-based problem in a domain with two asymmetric roles (and
therefore types), the typical CoEA will also maintain one population for each type.
For domains with two symmetric roles (thus a single type), the problem defi-
nition itself may not distinguish between the component role and the test role and
the algorithm designer can choose to do the same, by maintaining a single popula-
tion, or to make the distinction explicit by maintaining two populations. A unique
case found in [85] features an ideal team problem in a domain with a variable (un-
bounded) number of symmetric roles (neural networks with variable number of neu-
rons), approached via a CoEA with a dynamic number of populations, all containing
individuals of the same type.
Populations may also be used to represent potential solutions, for example when
these are aggregates of entities (and therefore individuals) from one type, as is the
case with Pareto Optimal solution concepts.9
Last but not least, individuals in a population, by taking part in interactions, serve
the purpose of evaluating individuals in the same or other populations. This is be-
cause while a problem definition may specify only some of the domain roles as
contributing to the potential solution set, an algorithm needs some criteria based on
which to select and promote individuals for the test roles as well.
3.1.3 Archives
Coevolutionary methods often employ another kind of collection, typically referred
to as an archive. Archives span generations, and thus can be considered a kind of
search memory. The purpose of the archives is to help the populations with, or re-
lease them from, some of their multiple duties. Archives can allow algorithm de-
signers to separate exploration from evaluation and/or solution representation.
Definition 6 (Archive). An archive is a collection of individuals that spans multiple
generations of a coevolutionary algorithm. ut
Thus, archives often contain the end solution [90] or actually are the solution,
mainly when potential solutions are aggregations of entities [25, 27, 62, 28, 39, 34].
So an analogy in traditional EC for this purpose of an archive is the best-so-far
individual. But they need not only represent solutions, they can and typically do
influence the search — a bit like elitism would in a traditional generational EA.
Archives can also serve for evaluation purposes. A simple example of this are
hall-of-fame methods [90] where successful individuals discovered during search
9This is analogous to traditional multi-objective optimization, where the population can be used
as an approximation of the Pareto-front.
Coevolutionary Principles 23
are added to a hall-of-fame and part of the fitness of new individuals comes from
the outcome of interactions with some subset of individuals from that archive.
In domains with multiple types there might be an archive for each type (in addi-
tion to a population for each type). Most archive-based CoEAs involve an UP DATE
step where individuals in a current population are considered for inclusion in the
corresponding archive, and individuals in that archive may be re-organized or re-
moved. There is a certain appeal to this approach because there are often straight-
forward ways to explicitly implement a particular solution concept by crafting the
correct update procedure for an archive.
3.1.4 Solutions
A potential solution can be many different things even as part of the problem speci-
fication, the latter being a higher-level notion defined over the low-level elements of
an interactive domain. It should therefore not be surprising that, as we have already
seen, a potential solution can map to different things in the algorithm. A potential
solution may be a single individual, in which case it may be extracted out of:
Any population (e.g., if approaching a maximum expected utility problem in a
domain with two symmetric roles via two populations);
A specific population (e.g., if approaching a maximum expected utility problem
in a domain with two asymmetric roles via two populations);
An archive (e.g., if using a hall-of-fame approach).
A potential solution may also be a set of individuals, in which case it may be:
The entire contents or a subset of an archive or population (e.g., for CoEAs ap-
proaching Pareto Optimal solution concepts);
A collection of individuals, one from each archive/population (e.g., for CoEAs
approaching the ideal team solution concept for asymmetric domains).
Further, there may be populations / archives in a CoEA that never contribute any
individuals to a potential solution (e.g., populations / archives corresponding to test
roles in a test-based problem that are nevertheless used during evaluation).
3.2 Evaluation
Some issues concerning evaluation are pertinent to both single- and multi-population
CoEAs. Regardless of whether interactions occur between individuals in the same
population or in different populations, decisions need to be made as to what inter-
actions should be assessed and how the outcomes of those interactions should be
aggregated to give individuals fitness. When using multiple populations, the addi-
tional issue of communication between these populations arises. Each of these three
matters will be discussed in turn.
24 Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
3.2.1 Interactions
The definition of interactions was discussed in the previous section. Here we con-
centrate on the selection of interactions (also referred to as the interaction method
or, in cooperative domains, collaboration method). The simplest choice is to assess
all interactions possible given the individuals present in the system at evaluation
time. This has been referred to as full mixing or complete mixing. While no addi-
tional decisions would have to be made, this choice has the disadvantage of being
very expensive, as the time cost of the algorithm is counted in interactions assessed.
To reduce cost, one must assess only some of all possible interactions. This imme-
diately raises the question “which ones?”
There are two main approaches to choosing a subset of interactions: individual-
centric and population-centric. With the individual-centric approach, one individual
at a time is considered, a set of interactions is chosen for that individual to take part
in, and after the interactions are assessed, the individual’s fitness is computed. These
interactions may be reused (but generally are not) for computing the fitness of the
other individuals that took part in them. These other individuals have historically
been called collaborators in cooperative domains and opponents in competitive do-
mains. In this context, the phrase sample size denotes the number of interactions
used per fitness evaluation. Note that if there is no reuse, the number of interactions
an individual takes part in may be greater than the number of interactions used for
its evaluation. Thus, while the sample size may be (and usually is) the same for all
individuals, the number of interactions that individuals are involved in may vary.
A simple and quite common approach is to use a single interaction per fitness
evaluation and have the other individuals in this interaction be the best from their
respective populations. When solving ideal team problems this has been termed
single-best collaboration method by [108], while for domains considered competi-
tive it is referred to as last elite opponent (LEO) evaluation [97]. More generally it
is called the best-of-generation interaction scheme.
With the population-centric approach, a topology of interactions is picked such
that any individual in the population(s) is used at least once, these interactions
are assessed and then fitness is computed for all individuals. Tournaments, such
as single-elimination or round-robin, are the most common examples for single-
population algorithms. Both for single- and for multi-population models, shuffle-
and-pair (also called bipartite pairing) is a population-centric method that simplifies
the reuse of assessed interactions (meant to reduce computational time). With the
single-elimination tournament, different individuals will participate in a different
number of interactions.
Information available from previous evaluation rounds may be used to influ-
ence how interactions are chosen for the current evaluation round. We call this fit-
ness bias. Usually, individual-centric approaches use such biases, while population-
centric ones do not. Clearly, to be able to perform such biasing, the algorithm must
store some information about previous evaluations. This information usually con-
sists of individuals and their fitness, but can also be more complex in nature (e.g.,
include other properties of individuals or relationships between individuals). The
Coevolutionary Principles 25
amount of information can range from remembering the last best individual to re-
membering all interaction assessments ever performed. With generational CoEAs,
intermediary approaches include saving one or a few (usually the best) individuals
from each previous generation, saving all individuals in the previous generation, or
other memory or archive method [72, 25, 27, 39, 62].
Additional reviews and comparisons of various methods for selecting interactions
can be found in [1, 69, 97].
With individual-centric methods, some of the additional choices (in particular
the sample size) may be dynamic (i.e., they vary at run-time as a function of time)
[70, 74] or adaptive (i.e., they vary at run-time as a function of the internal state of
the algorithm, e.g. population diversity, operator success, etc.) [71, 72, 68].
Additional choices must be made when using spatially-embedded CoEAs. These
tend to use individual-centric approaches and interactions are localized in space,
namely neighborhood-based. The size of the neighborhood corresponds to the sam-
ple size, but the shape is an additional decision to be made. Fitness-biased selection
of interactions can still be used (generally within the neighborhood).
3.2.2 Aggregation
If an individual participates in a single interaction, then it must obtain a value from
it, and that value becomes the individual’s fitness. But when an individual partici-
pates in multiple interactions and thus obtains multiple values, then a choice must
be made about how to aggregate these values.
One approach is to input values from multiple interactions into some computa-
tions and output a single value per individual (to be used as fitness). The computa-
tions can simply use all values obtained by the individual and determine the best,
the worst or the average of those values. A comparison of these three methods can
be found in [109]. Other, more complex computations can take into account values
from other individuals as well, as is the case for competitive fitness sharing [89, 90]
or the biasing technique introduced by [75, 76]. The advantage of the single-value
approach is that traditional parent-selection methods can then be used by the algo-
rithm based on single-valued fitness. Unfortunately, different ways of computing a
single value have different (and strong) biases, and it is not always straightforward
to tell which bias is more or less helpful for the solution concept at hand. In partic-
ular, when dealing with the ideal team solution concept, the biases of the averaging
method proved harmful [108] while choosing the best is helpful [68]. Even so, there
has been some amount of controversy over the utility of biases [12, 71]; [8] goes so
far as to argue that single-valued fitness assessments are to blame for a number of
pathological algorithm dynamics.
The alternative is to have fitness be a tuple of values, usually the values obtained
by the individual from multiple interactions. Selecting parents based on such fit-
nesses requires more specialized methods, in particular ones akin to multi-objective
EAs. The tuples of different individuals of the same role must be somehow com-
parable, which imposes constraints on the interactions that generated the values in
26 Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
the tuples. The advantage of this approach is that its bias may be more appropriate
for solution concepts such as the Pareto Optimal Set or Simultaneous Maximiza-
tion of All Outcomes, and it is mostly algorithms targeted at these solution concepts
that use tuple fitness [25, 27, 38]. An example using tuple fitness for the ideal team
solution concept can be found in [12].
3.2.3 Communication
When using a CoEA with multiple populations, in order for individuals in one popu-
lation to interact with individuals from other populations, the populations must have
access to one another’s contents. This is an issue of communication, and thus entails
choices typical of any distributed system, such as coordination, flow and frequency.
In terms of coordination, communication can be synchronous or asynchronous.
In the asynchronous case, the populations evolve at their own pace and communicate
with one another through shared memory. They decide independently when to write
new information about their state to the shared memory and when to check the
memory for new information about the other populations (which may or may not be
available). Asynchronous CoEAs are uncommon. In the synchronous case, there is
a centralized clock that dictates when the populations exchange information.
In terms of flow,10 the asynchronous model is always parallel, in the sense that
at any point in time there may be more than one population running11. The syn-
chronous model can be either parallel or sequential (also called serial). In the par-
allel case, all populations run simultaneously for a certain period of time (dictated
by the central clock), after which they all pause and exchange (communicate) infor-
mation and then they all continue. In the sequential case, at any point in time there
is a single population running and populations take turns in a round-robin fashion.
Frequency refers to the number of evaluation-selection-breeding cycles that a
population goes through between two communication events. The frequency may
be uniform across all populations or it may differ from one population to another.
4 Analysis of Coevolution
Particularly in the last decade, there has been a great deal of activity in analyzing co-
evolutionary algorithms and their use as co-optimizers. There are two major drivers
of this field. One is the fact that most co-optimization problems pose difficulties
not encountered in traditional optimization, namely measuring (and achieving) al-
gorithmic progress and performance. The other is that coevolutionary algorithms as
dynamical systems exhibit behaviors not akin to traditional evolutionary algorithms.
10 In [108]’s hierarchy of CoEA properties, flow is called update timing.
11 When a parallel CoEA is run on a single processor, this translates into the fact that there is no
guarantee about the order in which the populations run.
Coevolutionary Principles 27
The first half of this section clarifies the complex issues pertaining to interactive
domains and co-optimization problems and places much extant research in the con-
text of addressing such issues. The second half surveys the wide variety of analytical
methods applied to understanding the search and optimization biases of coevolution-
ary algorithms, as well as the insights that were gained.
4.1 Challenges of Co-Optimization: Progress & Performance
For traditional optimization, judging the success of any algorithm attempting to
solve a given problem instance is a fairly straightforward matter. There may be
different criteria of success, such as the highest quality potential solution(s) found
with a given budget of function evaluations or, conversely, what evaluation budget is
needed to find potential solutions whose quality is above a certain threshold. Such
success metrics also allow for easy comparisons of algorithm performance, even
when aggregated over classes of problems.
Additionally, even when concerned with the behavior of a single algorithm on a
single problem instance, we have a straightforward notion of progress through time.
With each new function evaluation, we can easily keep track of the best quality
potential solution found so far. Even if we do not know the quality of the overall
best, we can know when we got closer to it. Moreover, should an algorithm actually
discover a global optimum, whether or not it is recognized, there is no danger of
“losing” it. The best-so-far quality metric is a monotonic function of time.12
All of this is largely possible because the quality of a potential solution can be
obtained with a single function evaluation and thus immediately perceived by the
algorithm, which in turn allows reliable comparison of any two potential solutions.
As trivial as the above statements may appear, they are no longer a given in many
co-optimization problems.
We shall start, however, with the one area that is most similar to traditional opti-
mization: compositional problems using the ideal team solution concept. The unique
feature of these problems is that the interaction set is actually the same as the poten-
tial solution set and the interaction function serves as the potential-solution quality
function. Thus, the quality of a potential solution can be obtained with a single func-
tion evaluation and any two potential solutions can reliably be compared. This, of
course, is not very surprising since many of these problems are actually obtained
via decomposition from traditional optimization problems. Therefore, measuring
performance and progress is not an issue.
Nevertheless, approaching these problems via coevolution raises new issues. For
example, how do we assign credit to the components of potential solutions that
are evolving in different populations? More generally, how do different algorithm
design choices affect algorithm performance? Much research around the topic has
shown that, even for these most traditional-optimization-similar problems, design
12 The potential solution with the optimal quality may change, should the algorithm be deliberately
implemented to replace the current best-so-far potential solution with a new one of equal quality.
28 Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
heuristics for traditional evolutionary algorithms do not transfer as-is to coevolution
[80]. Still, the ability to easily measure performance and progress greatly facilitates
the study of coevolutionary algorithms for ideal team compositional problems.
Note that the equality of the potential solution set and the interaction set is not
enough to guarantee ease of performance/progress assessment. Let us consider com-
positional problems using the pure Nash equilibria solution concept. This problem
is not expressed as a co-optimization problem, but as a generic co-search problem. It
is fairly obvious that the single evaluation of the interaction function for this poten-
tial solution is not enough to determine whether it constitutes a Nash-equilibrium.
To determine that, we would need to, in turn, fix all but one component of the poten-
tial solution and evaluate interactions corresponding to, in the worst case, the entire
set of entities for that component. While this does not mean exploring the entire
interaction set, it does mean fully exploring all the component sets, which is to be
assumed intractable. We might reach a negative decision sooner than that, but to
reach a positive decision we must perform such exhaustive search.
For test-based problems, the potential solution set is always different from the
interaction set and determining the quality of a potential solution requires evalu-
ating interactions corresponding to entire entity sets (the test sets). Should this be
tractable, the problem may be expressed as a traditional optimization problem. We
assume that is not the case.
Consider a generic search algorithm that at every step evaluates a new interac-
tion and outputs a potential solution.13 How are we to judge whether the algorithm
makes progress towards the solution to the entire problem? How are we to com-
pare its output with the output of a different algorithm that has evaluated the same
number of interactions? Since determining the true quality of a potential solution is
generally computationally intractable for real problems, we are left with attempting
to compare different potential solutions based on incomplete information.
The above observations paint a rather bleak view with respect to determining
whether an algorithm could tackle one of these problems. However, the matter is
not hopeless, though more can be said and done for some problems than for others.
For example, for Pareto-dominance solution concepts it has been shown that for
any given set of ncomponent entities (components), an Ideal Evaluation Set of at
most n2ntest entities (tests) exists that results in exactly the same dominance
relations among the components as would result from using the set of all possible
tests [32]. Of course, the guaranteed existence of this limited set of tests leaves
open the question of how to identify them. However, an operational criterion is
available to determine whether any given test should be included in such a limited
test set. Specifically, the criterion of whether a test induces a distinction between
two components, introduced in [38], can be used for this purpose; see [32].
The vast majority of research on these issues has concentrated on progress of
(co-optimization) algorithms in individual runs and assessing performance on test
problems. Only recently have aggregate performance comparisons between algo-
rithms started receiving attention.
13 Algorithms that may not be ready to output a potential solution after every evaluation can be
interpreted as outputting their latest output again until ready.
Coevolutionary Principles 29
With respect to progress in individual runs, one fact facilitates the analysis: the
incomplete information that an algorithm sees, and based on which we should com-
pare different potential solutions outputted by the algorithm, is increasing over time.
The remarkable discovery of [34] is that some problems (solution concepts) permit
the construction of algorithms that can properly leverage this incomplete but in-
creasing information to guarantee that outputted potential solutions have monoton-
ically increasing global/true quality over time. We say of any such algorithm that
it guarantees global monotonicity and also call the said solution concepts globally
Some problems of practical interest have solution concepts that are not glob-
ally monotonic. This makes it difficult or even impossible to devise algorithms that
guarantee global monotonic progress as described above. Still, for some of these
problems, algorithms can be built that guarantee a different form of monotonicity
called local monotonicity, which entails that the quality of outputted potential solu-
tions with respect to all information seen so far will increase with time.
Both globally and locally monotonic algorithms guarantee convergence to a glob-
ally optimal solution, if the interaction space is finite and any point in this space can
be generated with non-zero probability at any time.
When neither global nor local monotonicity guarantees can be achieved, some
surrogate techniques can be used to instrument what the algorithm is doing, though
they do not inform about progress towards the problem solving goal. Finally, while
all of the above assume the intractability of computing global quality, one research
approach is to study various co-optimization algorithms on test problems, for which
global quality can actually be computed. This metric is not made available to the
algorithm, but used externally for instrumentation, and the hope is that the observed
results will transfer to real problems.
In the remainder of this section we review, in turn, global and local monotonicity,
surrogate measures of progress, test-bed analytical techniques and aggregate perfor-
mance comparisons.
4.1.1 Monotonicity
Central to the work on monotonicity is the idea that the solution concept can be in-
terpreted as more general than just a means of partitioning the entire set of potential
solutions based on the entire set of interactions. Namely, it can be extended to apply
to any context consisting of a subset of interactions and a corresponding subset of
potential solutions (i.e., potential solutions that can be built with entities that partic-
ipated in the given interactions). Thus, it can be viewed as a means for an algorithm
to output a potential solution when queried, based on all or some of the entities it
has generated and interactions it has assessed.14
In general, it may be difficult for an algorithm to determine the output of the
solution concept when applied to the entire history of entities discovered and inter-
14 Conversely, any mechanism for selecting a potential solution to be outputted from the algorithm
can be viewed as a solution concept.
30 Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
actions assessed if it has discarded some of the entities or some of the interaction
outcomes. However, for some solution concepts this is possible. For example, for
the best worst case solution concept, an algorithm needs to remember only the worst
value seen for any potential solution and not all the interactions it took part in, the
other entities involved in those interactions or their outcomes.
One question that arises is whether an algorithm able to report the application of
the solution concept to its entire history (whether by means of never discarding any
information or by cleverly storing parts or aggregates of this information) can guar-
antee that the global quality of the potential solutions it outputs will never decrease
over time, regardless of the means of generating new interactions to be assessed.
Ficici showed in [34] that this is possible for some solution concepts, which we
call globally monotonic, but not for others. Out of the solution concepts presented
in Sect. 2.4, the ones proven to be globally monotonic are: the Nash equilibrium,
the Pareto-Optimal minimal equivalence set [34], maximization of all outcomes and
ideal team [94]. Solution concepts proven not to be globally monotonic are: maxi-
mization of expected utility [34], best worst case [94, 84] and all Pareto-dominance
ones beside the minimal equivalence set [34].
For the globally monotonic solution concepts, the challenge from an algorithmic
perspective is being able to report the application of the solution concept to the entire
history while limiting the amount of history that must be stored. The algorithms
mentioned below are in many cases able to discard information without jeopardizing
the guarantee of global monotonicity. Yet, all of the globally monotonic algorithms
discussed below require unlimited memory.
For the Pareto-Optimal minimal equivalence set solution concept, [25] intro-
duced an algorithm called IPCA (Incremental Pareto-Coevolution Archive) that
guarantees global monotonicity [84] while discarding information along the way.
The key to achieving that lies in a carefully designed archiving mechanism. A vari-
ant named the LAyered Pareto Coevolution Archive (LAPCA) [27] addresses the
unbounded memory issue by maintaining a limited number of non-dominated lay-
ers. While it no longer provides the monotonicity guarantee, this algorithm achieves
good progress on test problems. Similarly, the Nash Memory algorithm [39, 34],
guarantees global monotonic progress for the solution concept of the Nash equi-
librium in symmetric zero-sum domains while discarding information. As before,
bounding the memory loses the theoretical monotonicity guarantee but still achieves
good progress on test problems. Based on the Nash Memory, the Parallel Nash
Memory algorithm [62] guarantees global monotonic progress for the solution con-
cept of the Nash equilibrium in asymmetric games. For the maximization of all
outcomes solution concept, the Covering Competitive Algorithm of [88] guarantees
global monotonic progress while discarding information.
While the guarantee of increasing global quality may not be possible for solution
concepts that are not globally monotonic, this does not mean that all hope is lost for
problems with such solution concepts. For such problems it may still be possible to
devise algorithms that guarantee that the quality of outputted potential solutions with
respect to the interactions seen so far increases monotonically over time. Solution
concepts with this property are called locally monotonic.
Coevolutionary Principles 31
For example, while the Maximization of Expected Utility (MEU) solution con-
cept introduced in Sect. 2.4.2 is not globally monotonic, a variant of it, namely
maximum utility sum applied to domains with a positive-valued metric, allows al-
gorithms guaranteeing locally monotonic progress [84]. As the name suggests, the
MEU solution concept is an optimization criterion, where the function to be opti-
mized is utility sum. When extended to any context consisting of a subset of inter-
actions and a corresponding subset of potential solutions, the special property this
function has (if the metric values are positive) is that the “local” value for a potential
solution in some context can only increase when the context is expanded.
Based on this property, for maximum utility sum applied to domains with a
binary-valued metric, [28] introduced an algorithm called MaxSolve that is guar-
anteed to output the application of the solution concept to the entire history (and
therefore an increasing value with respect to an increasing context), while discard-
ing information along the way. This property, coupled with unbounded memory,
allows MaxSolve to achieve local monotonicity.
As [84] showed, for the best worst case solution concept even the local mono-
tonicity guarantee cannot be fully achieved via algorithms that use the solution con-
cept as an output mechanism (and probably not in general).
While monotonicity is an interesting property that has served in clarifying the
behavior and goals of coevolutionary solution concepts and algorithms, it should
be made clear that guarantees of monotonicity can have limited value for a prac-
titioner. Three important things to keep in mind are that (a) the solution concept
is most often a given, not a choice, and for some solution concepts there are no
known algorithms with monotonicity guarantees; (b) all algorithms known to have
monotonicity guarantees require unbounded memory; and (c) even if the quality of
potential solutions can only improve over time, this provides no information about
the rate at which progress will be achieved. For these reasons, an approach that
may turn out to have more practical relevance is to consider the performance of
coevolutionary algorithms. This topic is treated in the Sect. 4.1.4.
4.1.2 Surrogate Progress Metrics
For problems where the above monotonicity guarantees are unobtainable, we are
left with two questions. One is how to design algorithms for tackling these prob-
lems. Another is how to instrument any such algorithm. The former is still an open
research question. Here we address the latter and do so from the perspective of co-
evolutionary algorithms. However, while these techniques have been introduced in
the context of coevolution, some of them may be adapted to be applicable to generic
co-optimization algorithms.
Many techniques have been introduced over the years, and while they cannot tell
how the algorithm is doing with respect to the goal, they may still provide useful
information about algorithm behavior. The techniques involve computing metrics
that are external to the algorithm (i.e. they do not influence its behavior) but rely on
its history. They may measure all potential solutions considered by the algorithm or
32 Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
only select ones (e.g. ones the algorithm outputs). Measuring all can provide more
information, but it may make it difficult to extract the important patterns within
and may also pose a challenge for visualization. One must beware that compressing
information (e.g. by means of averaging) may actually eliminate important trends
in the data. The trends to look for usually include: increase, decrease, stagnation,
noise, repeated values.
The first such technique was introduced by [24] in the form of CIAO plots. The
acronym stands for “current individual ancestral opponent”. For a two-population
CoEA, a CIAO plot is a matrix in which rows represent generations of one popula-
tion and columns represent generations of the other population. Every cell represents
an interaction between the best individual in each population (as reported by the al-
gorithm) at the corresponding generations. Thus, individuals from later generations
of one population interact with individuals from early generations of the other popu-
lation (ancestors). The cells are color-coded on a gray scale, and can be constructed
to reflect success from the perspective of either population.
The “master tournament” metric of [40] is basically a compression of the infor-
mation in CIAO plots. Averages are taken along lines for one population and across
columns for the other population.
Both these methods are computationally expensive, as they require the evaluation
of n2interactions, where nis the number of generations. The master tournament
metric makes it easier to identify “broadly-successful” individuals, but the averaging
it performs may obscure some circularities that can be observed using the CIAO
plots. An in-depth critique of CIAO plots is provided in [22].
While these metrics were introduced in the context of domains with two asym-
metric roles, they are easily applicable to domains with two symmetric roles,
whether approached by single-population or two-population CoEAs.
In the context of a domain with two symmetric roles and a two-population CoEA,
[101] introduced a less costly technique called “dominance tournament”. At each
generation, the best individual in each population is determined and the two of them
are paired; out of their interaction, the more successful one is designated the gener-
ation champion. The dominance property is then defined as follows. The champion
from the first generation is automatically considered dominant. In every subsequent
generation, the champion is paired only with previous dominant champions and it
is itself labeled dominant only if it is more successful than all of them. The method
is easily applicable to domains with two symmetric roles and a single-population
CoEA. The paper also suggests a (less straightforward) extension to some domains
with two asymmetric roles.
CIAO, master and dominance tournament are all techniques that track only
the best of generation individual. This was contrasted by [3] that introduced a
“population-differential” technique monitoring all individuals in each generation.
Plots similar to the CIAO plots are produced, but now each cell is an aggregation
over the results of all pair-wise interactions between individuals in the two popula-
tions at the generations corresponding to that cell. This is clearly more expensive,
and a number of memory policies are introduced for reducing time complexity.
Coevolutionary Principles 33
The unifying idea of these techniques is to determine whether an algorithm is
making at least some sort of “local” progress away from the starting point.
All the metrics described so far require performing additional evaluations, rather
than using the ones already performed by the algorithm. [42] introduced a technique
that took the latter approach. Their metric, called “relative strength” is still subjec-
tive, as the value it returns for a particular individual depends on the current history
of all interactions, and this history grows with time. The metric is based on paired
comparison statistics and is applicable to domains with two symmetric roles.
4.1.3 Test-Bed Analysis
A means of judging both an algorithm’s ability to make progress as well as its ex-
pected performance on some problem(s) is to test the algorithm on artificial domains
for which true quality can be computed. The domains are constructed such that they
exhibit properties thought to be present in real domains or such that they expose a
range of different behaviors of the algorithm. The hope is that the results observed
on the artificial domains will transfer to real domains.
A class of domains introduced to this effect are number games [106]. These are
domains with two roles, a common entity set consisting of real-valued vectors and
a binary-valued interaction function (based on comparisons between vector values).
The roles can be interpreted as symmetric or asymmetric. The solution concept is
Pareto-dominance. What makes these problems analysis-friendly is the fact that the
interaction function is designed such that a genotype can be used as-is to represent
its own true quality. There are a handful of such interaction functions in the literature
and many progress-focused algorithm comparisons have been performed using them
as a testbed [25, 27, 28, 29, 10, 43].
[82] introduced a set of four domains with two asymmetric roles, a common en-
tity set consisting of single real values and a real-valued interaction function given
in closed form. These domains were used to showcase the biases of symmetric last-
elite-opponent evaluation, and how this technique generally does not optimize ex-
pected utility. The closed form of the interaction function allowed for easy compu-
tation of true quality.
A number of domains of the same kind (two asymmetric roles, real-valued enti-
ties, closed-form real-valued interaction function) have been introduced specifically
for studying algorithms targeted at the best-worse-case solution concept [52], which
has been shown to be non-monotonic and difficult in terms of achieving even very
weak forms of progress [84].
Test-bed analysis has also been performed for algorithms targeted at the ideal
team solution concept, yet with a different motivation (e.g. studying problem prop-
erties and algorithm design choices) since in this case assessing global quality is not
an issue. Examples are given in section 4.2.4.
34 Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
4.1.4 Comparing Performance
As emphasized throughout the previous section, instrumenting an algorithm from a
progress-making perspective or, indeed, designing an algorithm such that it guaran-
tees progress relies rather heavily on the fact that the amount of information seen by
the algorithm increases over time. How an algorithm uses this information can be
key to instrumenting/achieving progress. Therefore, the theoretical work on mono-
tonicity has so far had nothing to say about how to compare algorithms since there
is no connection between the information that different algorithms see. This line of
research provided no generic advice on how to design efficient algorithms.
While test-bed analysis is useful for determining whether an algorithm makes
progress or not, when global quality can be computed, one can also use test-beds
to compare algorithms based on the expected rate of progress or expected level of
solution quality over multiple runs. This kind of performance analysis, especially
when backed by dynamics analysis of the kind reviewed in section 4.2.5, has pro-
vided insight into the biases of design choices by providing a means of comparison;
however, it is unclear how well the results transfer to real-world problems, so the
generality of such results is unclear.
From traditional optimization research, the famous no free lunch (NFL) theorem
has approached the issue of performance generality [114, 93]. This result has led to
a welcome shift in EC research towards identifying classes of problems where NFL
does not hold and designing algorithms targeted at a specific class [48]. This is of
particular current interest in co-optimization/co-evolution [115] since recent work
states the opposite, namely that free lunches do exist for certain solution concepts.
Wolpert and Macready extended their formalism of traditional optimization al-
gorithms to co-optimization algorithms (albeit without using this terminology) as
having two components: a search heuristic and an output selection function. The
search heuristic takes as input the sequence of interactions assessed so far and re-
turns a new interaction to be assessed. The output selection function takes the same
input and returns a potential solution. The need to explicitly model the output selec-
tion function comes from the algorithms’ lack of access to a global quality function:
in traditional optimization output selection is based on the quality values seen so
far (usually picking the best of them); in co-optimization what an algorithm sees
are values of the interaction function, which provide incomplete information about
global quality. The use of archives in CoEAs is often targeted at implementing the
output selection function, thus relieving the populations of this duty so they can
focus on the search component.
Wolpert and Macready showed that aggregate performance advantages (free
lunches) can be obtained both via the output selection function and via the search
heuristic. The former means that if we fix the search heuristic, some output functions
perform better than others. The optimal output function is the so-called Bayes out-
put function, which outputs the potential solution with the highest estimated global
quality, estimated over all possible problems consistent with the measurements of
the interactions seen so far. The latter was showcased in the context of the best worst
Coevolutionary Principles 35
case solution concept: fixing the output selection function to Bayes, two specific
search heuristics were shown to have different average performance.
This line of work was extended by [96], which showed that the same two algo-
rithms from [115] exhibit different aggregate performance for the maximization of
all outcomes solution concept.
Generally, such free lunches are believed to exist in co-optimization whenever the
performance of an algorithm depends on information not available in the algorithm’s
trace of interactions, in other words it explicitly depends on the interaction function
(as opposed to implicitly, via the values in the trace). Therefore, the ideal team
solution concept does not exhibit free lunches since the interaction set is actually the
same as the potential solution set and the interaction function serves as the potential
solution quality function.
The existence or lack of free lunches can be seen as a property of solution con-
cepts, which has been named “bias” [94]. Since monotonicity is also a solution
concept property, the natural question that arises is how these two properties relate
to one another. [94] showed they are orthogonal to one another: solution concepts
exist in all four classes combining monotonic/non-monotonic with biased/unbiased.
Especially for monotonic and biased solution concepts, the next natural question
is whether the algorithms that can achieve monotonicity (known to exist) are also
the best-performing. This question was investigated in [84], which showed that the
output selection function used by monotonic algorithms is not equivalent to the best-
performing Bayes, thus exposing a potential trade-off in algorithm design between
monotonicity and performance.
4.2 Analysis of CoEA Biases: A Survey
The previous half of this section discussed the difficulties of measuring and achiev-
ing algorithmic progress for co-optimization problems, and reviewed the state of
the art in understanding and dealing with these issues. However, when applying co-
evolutionary algorithms to such problems, an additional concern is understanding
and harnessing the biases these algorithms have as dynamical systems. This section
surveys the analytical research that contributed such understanding.
4.2.1 Model Analysis
A common algorithm analysis method is to model an algorithm mathematically,
then to study the properties of that model. The advantage is that certain mathemat-
ical facts can sometimes be precisely learned from these models, facts that help us
understand system behavior in ways that are simply not possible via traditional ap-
proaches. The disadvantage is that the model is not a real algorithm, and it is not
always clear what can be transferred from model to algorithm. This step is typically
bridged by empirical study of some kind.
36 Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
The simplest way to approach modeling evolutionary computation as a dynami-
cal system is the so-called “infinite population model” [105]. Here we assume that a
population is infinitely large and focus on how the distribution of genotypes within
the population changes over time. Questions about the existence (and sometimes the
location) of stable, attracting fixed points, or their nature and quality, can sometimes
be answered by applying traditional dynamical systems methods to such a model.
Evolutionary Game Theory (EGT) [45, 107, 58] is an appealing dynamical sys-
tems model of biological systems that is well-suited for studying coevolution. In
EGT, interactions between genotypes are treated as a stage game, and the payoff
from that game informs how the distribution is altered for the next play of the game
(replicator dynamics). Because of its incorporation of game theory, a number of
game-theoretic properties of such systems become useful points of consideration
(e.g., Nash equilibria). Additionally, EGT has received a great deal of attention by
the economics community [41]. Consequently, quite a bit is already known about
the dynamical properties of these mathematical models under different conditions.
For the most part, EGT analysis has focused on the dynamics of CoEAs under se-
lection only; however, variational operators in CoEAs can be (and have been) mod-
eled as is typically done in dynamical systems models of traditional EAs, by con-
structing a matrix that transforms the probability distribution resulting from the se-
lection operator into one that reflects the properties of the population after crossover
and mutation are applied, the so-called mixing matrix [105]. To specify this, one
must be explicit about representation. Despite these simplifications some interest-
ing things are known about the system that inform our understanding of CoEAs.
In single population EGT models of CoEAs, for example, stable attracting poly-
morphic equilibria can exist when the underlying stage game is not a constant sum
game. That is, aside from the stochastic effects of genetic drift, selection alone can
drive the systems to states where the population is a mixture of different kinds of
genotypes, and these stable, mixed strategies correspond with a Nash equilibrium
of the stage game. Moreover, examining this system using other selection meth-
ods has uncovered some fascinating results. Common EC selection methods (e.g.,
truncation, (µ,λ), linear rank, Boltzman) can sometimes lead to systems in which
there are stable cycles and even chaotic orbits [37]. Indeed, the dynamics of CoEAs
can be much more complex than traditional EAs in that stable attractors of infinite
population models can be quite unrelated to the specific values in the game payoff
matrix itself. Empirical experiments on real algorithms verify that these fundamen-
tal dynamical pressures of the selection operator do, in fact, affect how real CoEAs
perform on real problems.
Additionally, by considering certain game-theoretic properties of the stage game
(a particular variation of the notion of constant-sum), one can show that the behavior
of certain single population CoEAs using non-parametric selection operators will,
in principle, behave dynamically like a comparable EA on some unknown fitness
function [57], while this cannot be said for other systems even when the payoff is
fully transitive. This reinforces the idea that certain co-optimization problems are
fundamentally different from traditional optimization problems.
Coevolutionary Principles 37
EGT-based models have also been used to study two-population compositional
CoEAs. From these we learn that any pure Nash equilibrium of the underlying pay-
off game is a stable, attracting fixed point. This suggests selection alone can drive
compositional CoEAs toward points that are globally very suboptimal in terms of
their actual payoff value. Experimentation confirms this is so in real, analogous
compositional CoEAs even to the extent that highly inferior local optima draw sig-
nificantly more populations than do the true global optima. Indeed, complete mixing
implies a solution concept wherein “optimality” is defined solely based on how in-
dividual strategies do on average over all possible partners. If one is using such
methods to try to find a globally maximal payoff value, this can be seen as a kind
of pathology (relative generalization). This dynamic may well be consistent with
obtaining solutions that meet certain specific definitions of robustness [111].
But most compositional CoEAs use best-of-generation interaction methods, not
complete mixing, and [73] noted that these more common methods bias compo-
sitional coevolutionary search of projections of the payoff space to favor aggre-
gate projections that suit identifying the global optimum. Further, by incorporating
archival notions that help retain informative partners in terms of these projection
estimates, we can further improve the compositional CoEAs optimization potential.
These analytical lessons have been applied to both real compositional CoEAs, as
well as other RL-based co-optimization processes [68].
From these studies, we see that interaction and aggregation have profound im-
pacts on the dynamical influences of selection in compositional coevolution. More
specifically, the complete mixing interaction pattern may be ill-suited for problems
with an ideal team solution concept. Another, altogether different dynamical sys-
tems approach by Subbu and Sanderson [104] provides convergence results for a
particular class of distributed compositional CoEAs to ideal team style solutions
under conditions where complete mixing is not even possible.
In addition to the infinite population models described above, several works have
focused on finite populations. EGT itself has been applied to finite population sit-
uations [58, 36], but typically under very constrained circumstances (two-strategy
games). Outside of using EGT-based methods, there have been attempts to model
the dynamics of finite, two-population CoEAs using Markov models [56]. While
these methods also restrict the size of the problem spaces for obvious reasons, they
have important implications for infinite population models in the sense that they
clearly demonstrate that the long-term behavior of these systems can differ quite
significantly from infinite population models.
4.2.2 Runtime Analysis
EC has made good use of classical algorithm analysis methods to find bounds on
the expected number of evaluations necessary before a global optimum has been
obtained as a function of the size of the (typically, but not always, combinatorial)
genotype space [63]. These methods have the advantage of providing precise and
correct performance bounds on real algorithms for real problems, but their chief
38 Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
disadvantage is that it is often difficult to gain crucial insight into the behavior of
an algorithm. This concern is typically addressed by selecting problem classes that
help identify important properties in the problem and falsify hypotheses regarding
how EAs address them.
Indeed, runtime analysis has been quite useful in understanding how simple com-
positional coevolutionary algorithms approach problems with ideal team solution
concepts. A common hypothesis about such algorithms is that they tend to perform
better when the representation choices result in a linear separation of problem com-
ponents with respect to the objective function. Runtime analysis of simple (1+1)
[49, 50] and steady-state-like [51] variants of compositional CoEAs revealed this
hypothesis to be conclusively false: though non-linear relationships between com-
ponents can have profound effects on the relative performance differences between a
coevolutionary algorithm and a similarly structured EA, separability itself is neither
a sufficient nor necessary property with which to predict problem difficulty [51].
Additionally, there exist certain problem classes that essentially cannot be solved
by a large class of compositional coevolutionary algorithms. Finally, this work sug-
gests that compositional CoEAs solve such optimization problems by leveraging the
decomposition to partition the problem while increasing the focus of the explorative
effects of the variational operators (so-called partitioning and focusing effect).
Runtime analysis of other CoEAs is more challenging and has not yet been
done. Fortunately, recent research provides several needed pieces to overcome these
challenges. First, there’s been a great deal of recent progress in analyzing increas-
ingly more complex multi-objective methods [55], and much of this may help study
CoEAs that employ multi-objective mechanisms (e.g., archives). Second, the for-
malisms for explicit definition of solution concepts and the guarantee of monotonic-
ity in certain concepts provide clear global goals needed for runtime analysis.
4.2.3 Probabilistic / Convergence Analysis
Another way to investigate algorithms theoretically, is to consider the dynamical
behaviors of the real algorithms (as opposed to abstractly modeling them). Typically
such analyses are focused on providing convergence guarantees, but often careful
consideration of problem and algorithm properties can provide greater insight.
[91, 92] provide a strong type of convergence analysis. For the maximization of
all outcomes solution concept, the proposed algorithm is guaranteed not only to find
a solution, but to have its populations converge to containing only genotypes corre-
sponding to the solution(s). Markov-chain analysis is used for the proofs. Bounds on
convergence speed are not given; however, the work provides some useful general
advice for how to apply rates of genetic operators to ensure such convergence.
Additionally, [43] conducts a probability theory based investigation into the rela-
tionships between problem properties, algorithm properties, and system dynamics.
This work focuses on test-based CoEAs, and demonstrates that the interplay of the
considered properties cause trajectories through the domain-role sets to either make
progress or resemble random-walk behaviors.
Coevolutionary Principles 39
4.2.4 Empirical Black-Box Analysis
Analysis of coevolution can be approached empirically by viewing the system as
a black box whose inputs are the algorithm and the problem, and the output is
observed performance (e.g. quality of potential solution outputted given a certain
amount of time). The algorithm and / or the problem are then varied and the out-
put of the system re-observed, with the goal of determining the rules governing the
dependency between inputs and outputs. Such studies are performed for problems
with computable global quality, such as ideal team problems or test-beds of the kind
reviewed in Sect. 4.1.3.
Two different approaches can be distinguished within the black-box analysis cat-
egory. One approach focuses on properties of the algorithms, of the problems or
of both. When algorithm properties are involved, this approach has been referred
to as component analysis [108]. The other approach varies the algorithm and / or
the problem and compares the resulting performance without a clear isolation of the
properties responsible for the differences in performance.
We review this latter approach first. Most works introducing new algorithms
are of this kind. This includes some of the early research comparing CoEAs with
traditional EAs, such as [44, 1] for test-based problems and [86] for composi-
tional problems. Later on, the approach was used to compare CoEAs amongst
themselves, usually “enhanced” algorithms with basic ones. Examples include
[38, 39, 34, 32, 25, 27, 28] for test-based problems and [12, 72, 71, 68] for compo-
sitional problems. Some of the algorithms introduced by these works [25, 28, 32]
are backed-up by theoretical results.
Property-focused approaches address problem properties, algorithm properties,
or the interactions between them. We discuss these cases in order.
Some of the CoEA-versus-EA comparisons were extended to determine the
classes of problems for which one type of algorithm would provide performance
advantages over the other. Such work was performed for compositional problems by
[85] and [111]. The scrutinized problem properties were separability [108], inter-
agent epistasis [15], dimensionality15,noise and relative sizes of basins of attraction
of local optima.
For test-based problems, empirical black-box analysis was used to investigate
problem properties such as role asymmetry [64], intransitivity [26] and dimension-
ality16 [30]. These works introduced specialized algorithms intended to target the
respective problem property.
Studies focusing only on algorithm properties investigated either the mechanism
for selecting interactions [74, 70, 78, 6] or the mechanism for aggregating the result
of those interactions [75, 109, 19]. All but the last cited work were concerned with
compositional problems.
Finally and perhaps most importantly, some black-box empirical studies ana-
lyzed the effects on performance of the interdependency between algorithm prop-
15 Here dimensionality refers to the number of roles.
16 Here dimensionality refers to the number of underlying objectives implicitly defined by the test
40 Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
erties and problem properties. Most studied has been the mechanism for selecting
interactions, and most of those targeted compositional problems [85, 109, 110, 108,
14, 16]. The launched hypothesis was that the performance effects of the interaction
method are tightly related to the (previously mentioned) problem property separa-
bility and the kind of cross-population epistasis created when representation choices
split up inseparable pieces of the problem. This dependency however proved not to
be as straightforward as thought, as it was later shown in [81] via empirical dynam-
ics analysis. For test-based problems, two different methods for selecting interac-
tions were analyzed by [69], suggesting that the amount of noise in the problem
affects their influence on performance.
For compositional problems, [76] extended their previous work on the mech-
anism for aggregating results from multiple interactions by studying how its per-
formance effects are affected by the problem’s local optima and their basins of
attraction. [112] studied the potential benefits of spatially-distributed schemes for
selecting interactions and / or selecting parents on domains with role asymmetry.
[15] studied the effects of mutation and crossover in the context of “mixed-
payoff” domains ([54]’s NKC landscapes) and found them to be sensitive to inter-
agent epistasis.
4.2.5 Empirical Dynamics Analysis
While black-box analysis can provide some heuristics for improving performance,
it cannot explain the causes for the observed dependencies between the inputs and
the outputs of a CoEC setup. To understand these causes, one needs to observe
the system while running and track some of its time-varying properties. Instead,
dynamics analysis is used to explain the connection between algorithm and problem
properties on one side and performance on the other side. Individual studies connect
different subsets of the pieces, analyzing:
dynamics in isolation [24, 101, 3, 40, 2, 22];
problem properties and dynamics [17];
problem properties, algorithm properties and dynamics [18, 54];
dynamics and performance [67, 53, 35, 59, 42, 77];
problem properties, dynamics and performance [106];
algorithm properties, dynamics and performance [113, 66, 89, 90, 20, 21, 10];
how the combination of algorithm properties and problem properties influences
dynamics and how dynamics influence performance [79].
These analyses used some of the progress metrics described in Sect. 4.1.2, and/or
various techniques for tracking genotypic/phenotypic changes. Studies involving the
latter were performed for domains and representations that are easily amenable to
[24] were also the first to use techniques for tracking genotypic changes in or-
der to analyze the run-time behavior (dynamics) of CoEAs. They introduce “elite
Coevolutionary Principles 41
bitmaps”, “ancestral Hamming plots” and “consensus distance plots” as tools com-
plementary to CIAO plots. They all work on binary representations. Elite bitmaps
simply display the genotype of best-of-generation individuals next to each other
in temporal sequence. Some additional processing can reveal interesting patterns.
Ancestral Hamming plots display the Hamming distance between elite individuals
from different generations. Consensus distance plots monitor the genotypic make-
up of the whole population through the distribution of Hamming distances from
the genotype of each individual to the population’s “consensus sequence”. All three
techniques are applicable to EAs in general, not just CoEAs.
[79] extensively used best-of-generation trajectory plots for understanding the
effects of various CoEA design choices and exposed best-response curves as a prob-
lem property that is a strong driver of coevolutionary algorithm behavior.
It is via the empirical dynamics analysis approach that most knowledge about
the pros and cons of using CoEAs for co-optimization was generated. And just as
traditional canonical evolutionary algorithms can be used for optimization, yet they
are not intrinsically optimizers [33], canonical coevolutionary algorithms may be
useful in co-optimization, yet they are not intrinsically co-optimizers.
5 The Future of Coevolution
The bulk of this chapter has focused on how coevolutionary algorithms, co-search
problems, and interactive domains have been studied. This section is dedicated to
the future of coevolution, including current lines of work, research questions, and
results with intriguing but so-far-untapped potential.
5.1 Open Issues
Recent research has helped establish a firm, formal foundation for coevolutionary
problem solvers, and it has provided some principled ways to think about, design,
and apply such systems. Nevertheless, many issues remain quite unresolved. We
group these into two categories: those relating disparate theoretical analyses and
those relating our analytical understanding of CoEAs to their practical application.
Relating Theories:
Dynamical systems analysis of compositional coevolution has demonstrated that
certain robustness properties in the problem can attract populations [111]. But there
has yet to be any attempt to formalize this idea as a solution concept, and it remains
to be seen whether such a concept is monotonic. Similarly, Lothar Schmidtt’s con-
vergence analysis [92] provides useful feedback about how to manage the param-
42 Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
eters of operators; however, it makes very specific assumptions about the solution
concept, and no work has yet approached the task of generalizing his ideas to include
CoEAs as applied to problems with different concepts of solution. Runtime analysis
for compositional approaches has yielded precise bounds for those algorithms on
certain optimization problems [51], and there has been a lot of success using similar
methods to analyze performance of EAs on multi-objective optimization problems.
This suggests it should be possible to apply such analyses to CoEAs for test-based
problems, due to their underlying multi-objective nature.
Though in a handbook of natural computing, this chapter has tried to present co-
evolutionary algorithms in the broader context of co-optimization. As pointed out
in Sect. 4.1, some of the difficulties CoEAs face, such as the difficulty to monitor
and achieve progress, are specific to the nature of certain co-optimization problems
and not the evolutionary aspect of these algorithms. Any other algorithms attempt-
ing to solve such problems will have to deal with these issues. Formalizing co-
optimization algorithms as having two components, a search heuristic and an output
selection function, allows for easy transfer of results pertaining to monotonicity
and performance to algorithms using non-evolutionary search heuristics, such as the
ones introduced in [95].
Last but not least, many research questions on how algorithms should be designed
have been opened by the recent confluence of the two generic co-optimization the-
ories concerning monotonicity and performance [94, 84]. We expound below.
Relating Theory to Practice:
As discussed earlier in the chapter, the notion of monotonic solution concept not
only provides a way to characterize problems but also allows engineers to construct
principled algorithms for which consistent progress toward a solution can be ex-
pected [34]. Still, on a practical level, several questions remain. Many algorithms
that implement monotonic solution concepts have unrealistic memory requirements.
Researchers are only beginning to try to understand what the impact of practical
limits on mechanisms such as archive size have on performance and theoretical
guarantees about progress. Similarly, hidden in the free lunch proofs of [115] was
advice on how to obtain some performance advantage, such as avoiding unnecessary
evaluations, exploiting biases introduced by the solution concept and using a Bayes
output selection function. Still, determining how to use this advice in real algorithms
for real problems is very much an open research issue. Further, the design choices
required by monotonicity can conflict with those required for performance [84] and
additional research is needed to determine when/if this tradeoff can be avoided or at
least how to minimize it. Indeed, recent work relating monotonicity, solution con-
cepts, and the NFL suggest this relationship could be quite complex [94, 84].
The same types of questions can be raised with respect to methods used for the
discovery of informative dimensions of co-optimization problems: Can heuristic
methods be developed that can approximate this search process in the general case,
and what are the precise tradeoffs of such an approximation? Finally, under certain
Coevolutionary Principles 43
conditions, it is theoretically possible for some CoEAs to prefer components con-
sidered later in the run, which in turn will tend to require larger supporting test sets
[8]. This implies the possibility of a kind of bloating that practitioners may need to
address in practical application.
5.2 Discovery of Search Space Structure
[32] presents empirical results suggesting that a Pareto coevolutionary algorithm
could find what were dubbed the underlying objectives of a problem. These are
hypothetical objectives that determine the performance of components without the
need to interact them with all possible tests. [32] applies a two-population Pareto
coevolutionary algorithm, DELPHI, to instances of a class of abstract interactive
domains. Figs 13 and 15 of that work suggest that evaluator individuals17 evolve in
a way that tracks the underlying objectives of the domain. The results suggest that
the algorithm is sensitive to the presence of underlying objectives even though it
is not given explicit information about those objectives, exhibiting what has been
called an “emergent geometric organization” of test individuals [8]. [10] makes a
similar observation, also empirical though using a different algorithm; Fig. 5 of that
work suggests a similar sensitivity to underlying objectives. In both cases, clus-
ters of individuals, rather than single individuals, move along or collect around the
known objectives of the domain. The problems considered, namely numbers games
[106], were designed to have a known and controllable number of objectives, but
the algorithms used in these two studies did not rely on that fact. The work there-
fore raises the question of whether underlying objectives exist in all domains, and
whether algorithms can discover them.
A partial answer to this question is found in the notion of coordinate system
defined in [13]. Coordinate systems, which were defined for a class of test-based
problems,18 can be viewed as a formalization of the empirically-observed underly-
ing objectives of [32]. To elaborate, a coordinate system consists of several axes.
Each axis is a list of tests ordered in such a way that any component can be placed
somewhere in the list. A component’s placement is such that it does well against all
tests before that spot and does poorly against all tests after it. For this reason, an axis
can be viewed as measuring some aspect of a component’s performance: a compo-
nent that places high on an axis is “better than” one that sits lower in the sense that
it does well against more tests (more of the tests present in the axis, not more tests
of the domain as a whole). Formally, an axis corresponds to a numerical function
over the components, in other words to an objective function. It can be proven [13]
that every domain of the considered class possesses at least one coordinate system,
meaning it has a decomposition into a set of axes. In short, every such domain has
17 What we have called tests.
18 Specifically, problems with a finite number of components and a finite number of binary-
outcome tests.
44 Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
some set of objective functions associated with it, one for each axis in a coordinate
system for the problem.
Besides defining coordinate systems formally, [13] gives an algorithm that finds
a coordinate system for an interactive domain in polynomial time. The algorithm,
though fast, is not guaranteed to produce the smallest-possible coordinate system for
the domain, however. Finite domains must have a minimal coordinate system, but in
general even finite domains can have distinct coordinate systems of different sizes.
The algorithm is not coevolutionary per se, as it examines the outcomes of tests on
components. It is therefore applicable to the entire class of test-based problems and
agnostic about the specific algorithm used to solve the problem.
The above work leaves open the question of whether underlying objectives or co-
ordinate systems are simply mathematical curiosities with no practical or theoretical
utility. [31] addresses that question in two ways. First, it provides an exact coordi-
nate system extraction algorithm that, unlike the approximate algorithm of [13], is
slow but is guaranteed to return a minimal-sized coordinate system for a finite inter-
active domain.19 Second, it applies the exact extraction algorithm to several small
instances of the game of Nim, and observes that for all instances tested, the axes of
extracted coordinate systems contain significant information about how a strategy
performs at the game. Thus, far from being theoretical peculiarities, at least in this
case (minimal) coordinate systems intuitively relate to real structure in the domain.
Given this last fact and that certain coevolutionary algorithms seem to be sensi-
tive to the underlying dimensions of a domain, we are led to an intriguing possibility:
that appropriately-designed coevolutionary algorithms could discover and extract
meaningful structure from interactive domains in the process of solving problems
over them. Besides solving problems, algorithms might be able to simultaneously
output useful knowledge about domains. For complex, ill-understood domains, the
knowledge output might be at least as useful as a solution.
5.3 Open-Ended Evolution and Novelty
An important possibility that should not be lost to our solution-based, problem-
oriented view is the idea that the goal of evolutionary systems needn’t necessarily
be to find a particular solution (be it a set of points or otherwise) at all. In partic-
ular, in cases where a representation space is not explicitly limited, evolutionary
systems can be seen as dynamical methods to explore “interesting” spaces. Here
“interesting” might correspond with some problem-oriented view or relate to as-
pects of some simulation that involves the evolutionary process itself, but it may
also simply correspond with notions of novelty.
In traditional, non-coevolutionary systems, an objective fitness measure in con-
junction with selection methods will tend to drive the systems in particular direc-
tions. Explicit construction of fitness functions that encourage some direct notion
19 It is unclear whether interactive domains can have more than one minimal-sized coordinate
system, whence aand not the.
Coevolutionary Principles 45
of novelty can certainly be developed; however, coevolution offers some very natu-
ral and interesting possibilities here. Indeed, some of the earliest forms of artificial
evolution involved game-playing as means of exploring some of basic mechanisms
of evolution and self-maintenance themselves [5].
Many of the concepts discussed above (e.g., informativeness,distinctions, etc.)
are very natural measures of novelty, and algorithms that literally function by mov-
ing in directions that work to maintain these are compelling for this purpose. Even
more compelling is the idea just discussed above: Since CoEAs can be used to
discover geometries of comparisons, to construct and report dimensions of infor-
mativeness in a space, they are very appealing mechanisms for novelty search in
open-ended evolution because they may be capable of providing much more than
new, unusual individuals — they may well be able to place such individuals in rela-
tionship with things already seen.
1. Angeline, P.J., Pollack, J.B.: Competitive environments evolve better solutions for complex
tasks. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms ICGA-
1993, pp. 264–270 (1993)
2. Axelrod, R.: The evolution of strategies in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma. In: L. Davis (ed.)
Genetic Algorithms and Simulated Annealing, pp. 32–41. Morgan Kaufmann (1989)
3. Bader-Natal, A., Pollack, J.B.: A population-differential method of monitoring success and
failure in coevolution. In: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Confer-
ence, GECCO-2004, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3102, pp. 585–586. Springer
Verlag (2004)
4. Barbosa, H.: A coevolutionary genetic algorithm for constrained optimization. In: Proceed-
ings of the Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC-1999. IEEE Press (1999)
5. Barricelli, N.: Numerical testing of evolution theories. Part II. Preliminary tests of perfor-
mance. Symbiogenesis and terrestrial life. Acta Biotheoretica 16(3–4), 99–126 (1963)
6. Blumenthal, H.J., Parker, G.B.: Punctuated anytime learning for evolving multi-agent capture
strategies. In: Proceedings of the Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC-2004. IEEE
Press (2004)
7. Branke, J., Rosenbusch, J.: New approaches to coevolutionary worst-case optimization. In:
Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, PPSN-X, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol.
5199. Springer-Verlag (2008)
8. Bucci, A.: Emergent geometric organization and informative dimensions in coevolution-
ary algorithms. Ph.D. thesis, Michtom School of Computer Science, Brandeis University,
Waltham, MA (2007)
9. Bucci, A., Pollack, J.B.: Order-theoretic analysis of coevolution problems: Coevolutionary
statics. In: W.B. Langdon, et al. (eds.) Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
Workshop: Understanding Coevolution. Morgan Kaufmann (2002)
10. Bucci, A., Pollack, J.B.: Focusing versus intransitivity: geometrical aspects of coevolution.
In: E. Cantu-Paz, et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation
Conference, GECCO-2003. Springer (2003)
11. Bucci, A., Pollack, J.B.: A mathematical framework for the study of coevolution. In: K.A. De
Jong, et al. (eds.) Foundations of Genetic Algorithms Workshop VII, pp. 221–235. Morgan
Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA (2003)
12. Bucci, A., Pollack, J.B.: On identifying global optima in cooperative coevolution. In: H.G.
Beyer, et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference,
GECCO-2005. ACM Press, New York, NY (2005)
46 Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
13. Bucci, A., Pollack, J.B., de Jong, E.D.: Automated extraction of problem structure. In: Pro-
ceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO-2004, Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3102. Springer Verlag (2004)
14. Bull, L.: Evolutionary computing in multi-agent environments: Partners. In: T. Baeck (ed.)
Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pp. 370–377. Mor-
gan Kaufmann (1997)
15. Bull, L.: Evolutionary computing in multi-agent environments: Operators. In: D. Wagen,
A.E. Eiben (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Evolutionary Program-
ming, pp. 43–52. Springer Verlag (1998)
16. Bull, L.: On coevolutionary genetic algorithms. Soft Computing 5(3), 201–207 (2001)
17. Bull, L.: Coevolutionary species adaptation genetic algorithms: A continuing saga on cou-
pled fitness landscapes. In: M. Capcarrere, et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th European
Conference on Advances in Artificial Life, ECAL-2005, pp. 845–853. Springer (2005)
18. Bull, L.: Coevolutionary species adaptation genetic algorithms: growth and mutation on cou-
pled fitness landscapes. In: Proceedings of the Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC-
2005. IEEE (2005)
19. Cartlidge, J., Bullock, S.: Learning lessons from the common cold: How reducing parasite
virulence improves coevolutionary optimization. In: Proceedings of the Congress on Evolu-
tionary Computation, CEC-2002, pp. 1420–1425. IEEE (2002)
20. Cartlidge, J., Bullock, S.: Caring versus sharing: How to maintain engagement and diversity
in coevolving populations. In: W. Banzhaf, et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th European
Conference on Advances in Artificial Life, ECAL-2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
vol. 2801, pp. 299–308. Springer (2003)
21. Cartlidge, J., Bullock, S.: Combating coevolutionary disengagement by reducing parasite
virulence. Evolutionary Computation 12(2), 193–222 (2004)
22. Cartlidge, J., Bullock, S.: Unpicking tartan ciao plots: Understanding irregular co-
evolutionary cycling. Adaptive Behavior 12(2), 69–92 (2004)
23. Chellapilla, K., Fogel, D.B.: Evolving neural networks to play checkers without expert
knowledge. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 10(6), 1382–1391 (1999)
24. Cliff, D., Miller, G.F.: Tracking the red queen: Measurements of adaptive progress in co-
evolutionary simulations. In: Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Advances in
Artificial Life, ECAL-1995, pp. 200–218 (1995)
25. De Jong, E.D.: The incremental Pareto-coevolution archive. In: Proceedings of the Genetic
and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO-2004, Lecture Notes in Computer Sci-
ence, vol. 3102, pp. 525–536. Springer Verlag (2004)
26. De Jong, E.D.: Intransitivity in coevolution. In: X. Yao, et al. (eds.) Parallel Problem Solv-
ing from Nature, PPSN-VIII, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3242, pp. 843–851.
Birmingham, UK (2004)
27. De Jong, E.D.: Towards a bounded Pareto-coevolution archive. In: Proceedings of the
Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC-2004, pp. 2341–2348. IEEE Press (2004)
28. De Jong, E.D.: The MaxSolve algorithm for coevolution. In: H.G. Beyer, et al. (eds.) Pro-
ceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO-2005. ACM
Press, New York, NY (2005)
29. De Jong, E.D.: Objective fitness correlation. In: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary
Computation Conference, GECCO-2007, pp. 440–447. ACM Press, New York, NY (2007)
30. De Jong, E.D., Bucci, A.: DECA: Dimension extracting coevolutionary algorithm. In: Pro-
ceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO-2006. ACM
Press, New York, NY (2006)
31. De Jong, E.D., Bucci, A.: Multi-Objective Problem Solving From Nature: From Concepts
to Applications, chap. Objective Set Compression: Test-based Problems and Multi-objective
Optimization. Natural Computing Series. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2007)
32. De Jong, E.D., Pollack, J.B.: Ideal evaluation from coevolution. Evolutionary Computation
Journal 12(2), 159–192 (2004)
33. De Jong, K.A.: Genetic algorithms are not function optimizers. In: L.D. Whitley (ed.) Foun-
dations of Genetic Algorithms II, pp. 5–17. Morgan Kaufmann (1992)
Coevolutionary Principles 47
34. Ficici, S.G.: Solution concepts in coevolutionary algorithms. Ph.D. thesis, Brandeis Univer-
sity Department of Computer Science, Waltham, MA (2004)
35. Ficici, S.G., Pollack, J.B.: Challenges in coevolutionary learning: Arms-race dynamics,
open-endedness, and mediocre stable states. In: C. Adami, et al. (eds.) Artificial Life VI
Proceedings, pp. 238–247. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1998)
36. Ficici, S.G., Pollack, J.B.: Effects of finite populations on evolutionary stable strategies. In:
D. Whitley, et al (eds.) Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Confer-
ence, GECCO-2000, pp. 880–887. Morgan Kaufmann (2000)
37. Ficici, S.G., Pollack, J.B.: Game–theoretic investigation of selection methods used in evolu-
tionary algorithms. In: D. Whitley (ed.) Proceedings of the 2000 Congress on Evolutionary
Computation, pp. 880–887. IEEE Press (2000)
38. Ficici, S.G., Pollack, J.B.: Pareto optimality in coevolutionary learning. In: Proceedings
of the 6th European Conference on Advances in Artificial Life, ECAL-2001, pp. 316–325.
Springer-Verlag, London, UK (2001)
39. Ficici, S.G., Pollack, J.B.: A game-theoretic memory mechanism for coevolution. In:
E. Cantu-Paz, et al. (eds.) Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO-
2003, pp. 286–297. Springer (2003)
40. Floreano, D., Nolfi, S.: God save the red queen! competition in co-evolutionary robotics. In:
J.R. Koza, et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd Genetic Programming Conference, GP-1997,
pp. 398–406. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA (1997)
41. Friedman, D.: On economic applications of evolutionary game theory. Journal of Evolution-
ary Economics 8, 15–43 (1998)
42. Funes, P., Pollack, J.B.: Measuring progress in coevolutionary competition. In: From Ani-
mals to Animats 6: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Simulation of Adap-
tive Behavior, pp. 450–459. MIT Press (2000)
43. Funes, P., Pujals, E.: Intransitivity revisited coevolutionary dynamics of numbers games. In:
Proceedings of the Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO-2005,
pp. 515–521. ACM Press, New York, NY (2005)
44. Hillis, W.D.: Co-evolving parasites improve simulated evolution as an optimization proce-
dure. In: CNLS ’89: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Center for
Nonlinear Studies on Self-organizing, Collective, and Cooperative Phenomena in Natural
and Artificial Computing Networks on Emergent Computation, pp. 228–234. North-Holland
Publishing Co. (1990)
45. Hofbauer, J., Sigmund, K.: Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press (1998)
46. Horn, J.: The nature of niching: Genetic algorithms and the evolution of optimal, cooperative
populations. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana-Champaign,
IL (1995)
47. Husbands, P., Mill, F.: Simulated coevolution as the mechanism for emergent planning and
scheduling. In: R. Belew, L. Booker (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth International Confer-
ence on Genetic Algorithms, pp. 264–270. Morgan Kaufmann (1991)
48. Igel, C., Toussaint, M.: On classes of functions for which no free lunch results hold. Infor-
mation Processing Letters 86(6), 317–321 (2003)
49. Jansen, T., Wiegand, R.P.: Exploring the explorative advantage of the CC (1+1) EA. In:
Proceedings of the 2003 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference. Springer (2003)
50. Jansen, T., Wiegand, R.P.: Sequential versus parallel cooperative coevolutionary (1+1) EAs.
In: Proceedings of the Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC-2003. IEEE (2003)
51. Jansen, T., Wiegand, R.P.: The cooperative coevolutionary (1+1) EA. Evolutionary Compu-
tation 12(4), 405–434 (2004)
52. Jensen, M.T.: Robust and flexible scheduling with evolutionary computation. Ph.D. thesis,
Department of Computer Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark (2001)
53. Juill´
e, H., Pollack, J.B.: Coevolving the ideal trainer: Application to the discovery of cellular
automata rules. In: J.R. Koza, et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd Genetic Programming
Conference, GP-1998, pp. 519–527. Morgan Kaufmann (1998)
48 Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
54. Kauffman, S., Johnson, S.: Co-evolution to the edge of chaos: coupled fitness landscapes,
poised states and co-evolutionary avalanches. In: C. Langton, et al. (eds.) Artificial Life II
Proceedings, vol. X, pp. 325–369. Addison-Wesley (1991)
55. Laumanns, M., Thiele, L., Zitzler, E.: Running time analysis of multiobjective evolutionary
algorithms on pseudo-boolean functions. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation
8(2), 170–182 (2004)
56. Liekens, A., Eikelder, H., Hilbers, P.: Finite population models of co-evolution and their
application to haploidy versus diploidy. In: E. Cant ´
u-Paz, et al (eds.) Proceedings of the
Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO-2003, pp. 344–355. Springer
57. Luke, S., Wiegand, R.P.: Guaranteeing coevolutionary objective measures. In: K.A. De Jong,
et al. (eds.) Foundations of Genetic Algorithms VII, pp. 237–251. Morgan Kaufman (2003)
58. Maynard Smith, J.: Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge University Press (1982)
59. Miller, J.H.: The coevolution of automata in the repeated prisoner’s dilemma. Journal of
Economic Behavior and Organization 29(1), 87–112 (1996)
60. Monroy, G.A., Stanley, K.O., Miikkulainen, R.: Coevolution of neural networks using a lay-
ered Pareto archive. In: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Confer-
ence, GECCO-2006, pp. 329–336. ACM Press, New York, NY (2006)
61. Noble, J., Watson, R.A.: Pareto coevolution: Using performance against coevolved opponents
in a game as dimensions for Pareto selection. In: L. Spector, et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the
Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO-2001, pp. 493–500. Morgan
Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA (2001)
62. Oliehoek, F.A., de Jong, E.D., Vlassis, N.: The parallel Nash Memory for asymmetric games.
In: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO-2006,
pp. 337–344. ACM Press, New York, NY (2006)
63. Oliveto, P., He, J., Yao, X.: Time complexity of evolutionary algorithms for combinatorial
optimization: A decade of results. International Journal of Automation and Computing 04(3)
64. Olsson, B.: Co-evolutionary search in asymmetric spaces. Information Sciences 133(3-4),
103–125 (2001)
65. Osborne, M.J., Rubinstein, A.: A course in game theory. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
66. Pagie, L., Hogeweg, P.: Information integration and red queen dynamics in coevolutionary
optimization. In: Proceedings of the Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC-2000, pp.
1260–1267. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ (2000)
67. Pagie, L., Mitchell, M.: A comparison of evolutionary and coevolutionary search. Interna-
tional Journal of Computational Intelligence and Applications 2(1), 53–69 (2002)
68. Panait, L.: The analysis and design of concurrent learning algorithms for cooperative multi-
agent systems. Ph.D. thesis, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA (2006)
69. Panait, L., Luke, S.: A comparison of two competitive fitness functions. In: W.B. Langdon,
et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO-
2002, pp. 503–511. Morgan Kaufmann (2002)
70. Panait, L., Luke, S.: Time-dependent collaboration schemes for cooperative coevolutionary
algorithms. In: AAAI Fall Symposium on Coevolutionary and Coadaptive Systems. AAAI
Press (2005)
71. Panait, L., Luke, S.: Selecting informative actions improves cooperative multiagent learning.
In: Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi
Agent Systems, AAMAS-2006. ACM Press, New York, NY (2006)
72. Panait, L., Luke, S., Harrison, J.F.: Archive-based cooperative coevolutionary algorithms. In:
Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO-2006. ACM
Press, New York, NY (2006)
73. Panait, L., Luke, S., Wiegand, R.P.: Biasing coevolutionary search for optimal multiagent
behaviors. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 10(6), 629–645 (2006)
Coevolutionary Principles 49
74. Panait, L., Sullivan, K., Luke, S.: Lenience towards teammates helps in cooperative multi-
agent learning. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous
Agents and Multi Agent Systems, AAMAS-2006. ACM Press, New York, NY (2006)
75. Panait, L., Wiegand, R.P., Luke, S.: Improving coevolutionary search for optimal multia-
gent behaviors. In: G. Gottlob, T. Walsh (eds.) Proceedings of the 18th International Joint
Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-2003, pp. 653–658 (2003)
76. Panait, L., Wiegand, R.P., Luke, S.: A sensitivity analysis of a cooperative coevolutionary
algorithm biased for optimization. In: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Compu-
tation Conference, GECCO-2004, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3102. Springer
Verlag (2004)
77. Paredis, J.: Coevolving cellular automata: Be aware of the red queen. In: T. B¨
ack (ed.) Pro-
ceedings of the 7th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, ICGA-1997. Morgan
Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA (1997)
78. Parker, G.B., Blumenthal, H.J.: Comparison of sample sizes for the co-evolution of coopera-
tive agents. In: Proceedings of the Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC-2003. IEEE
79. Popovici, E.: An analysis of two-population coevolutionary computation. Ph.D. thesis,
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA (2006)
80. Popovici, E., De Jong, K.A.: Understanding competitive co-evolutionary dynamics via fitness
landscapes. In: S. Luke (ed.) AAAI Fall Symposium on Artificial Multiagent Learning.
AAAI Press (2004)
81. Popovici, E., De Jong, K.A.: A dynamical systems analysis of collaboration methods in co-
operative co-evolution. In: AAAI Fall Symposium Series Co-evolution Workshop (2005)
82. Popovici, E., De Jong, K.A.: Relationships between internal and external metrics in co-
evolution. In: Proceedings of the Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC-2005. IEEE
83. Popovici, E., De Jong, K.A.: Understanding cooperative co-evolutionary dynamics via sim-
ple fitness landscapes. In: H.G. Beyer, et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolu-
tionary Computation Conference, GECCO-2005. ACM Press, New York, NY (2005)
84. Popovici, E., De Jong, K.A.: Monotonicity versus performance in co-optimization. In: Foun-
dations of Genetic Algorithms X. ACM Press, New York, NY (2009). (to appear)
85. Potter, M.: The design and analysis of a computational model of cooperative coevolution.
Ph.D. thesis, George Mason University, Computer Science Department (1997)
86. Potter, M., De Jong, K.A.: A cooperative coevolutionary approach to function optimization.
In: Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, PPSN-III, pp. 249–257. Springer, Jerusalem, Israel
87. Potter, M.A., De Jong, K.A.: Cooperative coevolution: An architecture for evolving coad-
apted subcomponents. Evolutionary Computation 8(1), 1–29 (2000)
88. Rosin, C.D.: Coevolutionary search among adversaries. Ph.D. thesis, University of Califor-
nia, San Diego, CA (1997)
89. Rosin, C.D., Belew, R.K.: Methods for competitive co-evolution: Finding opponents worth
beating. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, ICGA-
1995, pp. 373–381. Morgan Kaufmann (1995)
90. Rosin, C.D., Belew, R.K.: New methods for competitive coevolution. Evolutionary Compu-
tation 5(1), 1–29 (1997)
91. Schmitt, L.M.: Coevolutionary convergence to global optima. In: E. Cantu-Paz, et al. (eds.)
Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO-2003, pp. 373–374. Springer
92. Schmitt, L.M.: Theory of coevolutionary genetic algorithms. In: M. Guo, et al. (eds.) Parallel
and Distributed Processing and Applications, International Symposium, ISPA-2003, pp. 285–
293. Springer (2003)
93. Schumacher, C., Vose, M., Whitley, L.: The no free lunch and description length. In: Proceed-
ings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO-2001, pp. 565–570.
Morgan Kaufmann (2001)
50 Elena Popovici, Anthony Bucci, R. Paul Wiegand and Edwin D. de Jong
94. Service, T.C.: Unbiased coevolutionary solution concepts. In: Foundations of Genetic Algo-
rithms X. ACM Press, New York, NY (2009). (to appear)
95. Service, T.C., Tauritz, D.R.: Co-optimization algorithms. In: M. Keijzer, et al. (eds.) Proceed-
ings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO-2008, pp. 387–388.
ACM Press, New York, NY (2008)
96. Service, T.C., Tauritz, D.R.: A no-free-lunch framework for coevolution. In: M. Keijzer, et al.
(eds.) Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO-2008,
pp. 371–378. ACM Press, New York, NY (2008)
97. Sims, K.: Evolving 3D morphology and behaviour by competition. In: R. Brooks, P. Maes
(eds.) Artificial Life IV Proceedings, pp. 28–39. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1994)
98. Spears, W.: Simple subpopulation schemes. In: Proceedings of the 1994 Evolutionary Pro-
gramming Conference. World Scientific (1994)
99. Stanley, K.O.: Efficient evolution of neural networks through complexification. Ph.D. thesis,
The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas (2004)
100. Stanley, K.O., Miikkulainen, R.: Continual coevolution through complexification. In: W.B.
Langdon, et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference,
GECCO-2002, pp. 113–120. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA (2002)
101. Stanley, K.O., Miikkulainen, R.: The dominance tournament method of monitoring progress
in coevolution. In: W.B. Langdon, et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary
Computation Conference, GECCO-2002. Morgan Kaufmann (2002)
102. Stanley, K.O., Miikkulainen, R.: Competitive coevolution through evolutionary complexifi-
cation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 21, 63–100 (2004)
103. Stuermer, P., Bucci, A., Branke, J., Funes, P., Popovici, E.: Analysis of coevolution for worst-
case optimization. In: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Confer-
ence, GECCO-2009. ACM Press, New York, NY (2009). (to appear)
104. Subbu, R., Sanderson, A.: Modeling and convergence analysis of distributed coevolutionary
algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics 34(2),
806–822 (2004)
105. Vose, M.: The Simple Genetic Algorithm. MIT Press (1999)
106. Watson, R.A., Pollack, J.B.: Coevolutionary dynamics in a minimal substrate. In: L. Spector,
et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO-
2001, pp. 702–709. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA (2001)
107. Weibull, J.: Evolutionary game theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1992)
108. Wiegand, R.P.: An analysis of cooperative coevolutionary algorithms. Ph.D. thesis, George
Mason University, Fairfax, VA (2004)
109. Wiegand, R.P., Liles, W., De Jong, K.A.: An empirical analysis of collaboration methods in
cooperative coevolutionary algorithms. In: L. Spector (ed.) Proceedings of the Genetic and
Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO-2001, pp. 1235–1242. Morgan Kaufmann
(2001). Errata available at
110. Wiegand, R.P., Liles, W.C., De Jong, K.A.: The effects of representational bias on collabora-
tion methods in cooperative coevolution. In: Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Parallel
Problem Solving from Nature, pp. 257–268. Springer (2002)
111. Wiegand, R.P., Potter, M.: Robustness in cooperative coevolution. In: Proceedings of the
Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO-2006. ACM Press, New York,
NY (2006)
112. Wiegand, R.P., Sarma, J.: Spatial embedding and loss of gradient in cooperative coevolution-
ary algorithms. In: X. Yao, et al. (eds.) Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, PPSN-VIII,
pp. 912–921. Springer, Birmingham, UK (2004)
113. Williams, N., Mitchell, M.: Investigating the success of spatial coevolution. In: Proceed-
ings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO-2005, pp. 523–530.
ACM Press, New York, NY (2005)
114. Wolpert, D., Macready, W.: No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Transactions on
Evolutionary Computation 1(1), 67–82 (1997)
115. Wolpert, D., Macready, W.: Coevolutionary free lunches. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary
Computation 9(6), 721–735 (2005)
... We propose an Optimal Priority Assignment Method for real-time systems (OPAM). Specifically, we apply multi-objective, two-population competitive coevolution (Popovici et al. 2012) to address the problem of finding near-optimal priority assignments, aiming at maximizing the magnitude of safety margins from deadlines and constraint satisfaction. In OPAM, two species relate to priority assignment and stress testing coevolve synchronously, and compete against each other to find the best possible solutions. ...
... Thus, if OPAM simply monitors internal fitness, it cannot reliably detect coevolutionary progress as an individual's internal fitness changes according to competing individuals. The problem of monitoring progress in coevolution has been observed in many studies (Ficici 2004;Popovici et al. 2012). To address it, OPAM computes external fitness values of priority assignments in P based on a set E of task-arrival sequences generated independently from the coevolution process. ...
... By doing so, OPAM can observe the monotonic improvement of external fitness for priority assignments. We note that, in general, if interactions between two competing populations are finite and any interaction can be examined with non-zero probability at any time, monotonicity guarantees that a coevolutionary algorithm converges to a solution (Popovici et al. 2012). ...
Full-text available
In real-time systems, priorities assigned to real-time tasks determine the order of task executions, by relying on an underlying task scheduling policy. Assigning optimal priority values to tasks is critical to allow the tasks to complete their executions while maximizing safety margins from their specified deadlines. This enables real-time systems to tolerate unexpected overheads in task executions and still meet their deadlines. In practice, priority assignments result from an interactive process between the development and testing teams. In this article, we propose an automated method that aims to identify the best possible priority assignments in real-time systems, accounting for multiple objectives regarding safety margins and engineering constraints. Our approach is based on a multi-objective, competitive coevolutionary algorithm mimicking the interactive priority assignment process between the development and testing teams. We evaluate our approach by applying it to six industrial systems from different domains and several synthetic systems. The results indicate that our approach significantly outperforms both our baselines, i.e., random search and sequential search, and solutions defined by practitioners. Our approach scales to complex industrial systems as an offline analysis method that attempts to find near-optimal solutions within acceptable time, i.e., less than 16 hours.
... disengage and stop progressing entirely (Watson and Pollack, 2001). These pathologies have been studied in depth and a variety of techniques have been introduced as remedy (Popovici et al., 2012). However, there is still much to be understood, and no panacea has been discovered. ...
... Numerous techniques have been proposed for mitigating the pathologies that prevent continual coevolutionary progress (for detailed reviews, see (Popovici et al., 2012;Miguel Antonio and Coello Coello, 2018)). We can roughly group these approaches into three broad categories; although in practice many techniques straddle more than one category. ...
Full-text available
We propose substitution of the fittest (SF), a novel technique designed to counteract the problem of disengagement in two-population competitive coevolutionary genetic algorithms. The approach presented is domain-independent and requires no calibration. In a minimal domain, we perform a controlled evaluation of the ability to maintain engagement and the capacity to discover optimal solutions. Results demonstrate that the solution discovery performance of SF is comparable with other techniques in the literature, while SF also offers benefits including a greater ability to maintain engagement and a much simpler mechanism.
... In this section, the implemented methodology including demand preparation, mobility simulation, scoring, and re-planning (i.e., innovation is made on the initial demand by using a GA) are explained (Horni et al. 2016). The implementation of the methodology was conducted by MATSim, which is an open-source, activity-based microsimulation software that applies the concept of a coevolutionary algorithm (i.e., the aggregation of findings is obtained from the interactions of all agents/travellers to make selection decisions) based on flexible functions (Popovici et al. 2012;Maciejewski, Nagel 2013). The mobility simulation, the scoring, and the re-planning form an iterative loop called MATSim loop (Horni et al. 2016). ...
Full-text available
An agent-based transport simulation model is used to examine the impacts of Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) on the mobility of certain groups of people. In the state of the art, it has been found that the researchers primarily have simulation studies focusing on the impacts of AVs on people regardless of certain groups. However, this study focuses on assessing the impacts of AVs on different groups of users, where each group is affected variously by the introduction of different penetration levels of AVs into the market. The Multi-Agent Transport Simulation (MATSim) software, which applies the co-evolutionary algorithm and provides a framework to carry out large-scale agent-based transport simulations, is used as a tool for conducting the simulations. In addition to the simulation of all travellers, 3 groups of users are selected as potential users of AVs, as follow: (1) long commuters with high-income, (2) elderly people who are retired, and (3) part-time workers. Budapest (Hungary) is examined in a case study, where the daily activity plans of the households are provided. Initially, the existing daily activity plans (i.e., the existing condition) of each group are simulated and assessed before the introduction of AVs into the market. After that, the AVs are inserted into the road network, where different fleet sizes of AVs are applied based on the demand of each group. The marginal utility of the travel time spent in case of a transport mode, the AV fleet size, and the cost of the travel are the key variables that determine the use of a transport mode. The key variables are set based on the characteristics of the case study (i.e., demand) and the AVs. The results of the simulations suggest that the AVs have different degrees of influences on certain groups as demonstrated in the occurred changes on the modal share. The value of changes depends on the Value of Travel Time (VOT) of people and the used fleet size of AVs. Moreover, the influence of the traveller's characteristics on the AVs is manifested, such as different values of fleet utilization. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that an increase in the fleet size of AVs beyond 10% of the demand does not significantly raise the modal share of AVs. The outcome of this paper might be used by decision-makers to define the shape of the AVs' use and those groups who are interested in using AVs.
... CEAs showed similar pathologies as the ones reported in GAN training, such as focusing, and lost of gradient, which have been attributed to a lack of diversity [21]. Thus, spatially distributed populations have been demonstrated to be particularly effective at maintaining diversity, while reducing the computational cost from quadratic to linear form [30]. Lipizzaner locates the individuals of a population of GANs (pairs of generators and discriminators) in a 2D toroidal grid. ...
... CEAs showed similar pathologies as the ones reported in GAN training, such as focusing, and lost of gradient, which have been attributed to a lack of diversity [21]. Thus, spatially distributed populations have been demonstrated to be particularly effective at maintaining diversity, while reducing the computational cost from quadratic to linear form [30]. Lipizzaner locates the individuals of a population of GANs (pairs of generators and discriminators) in a 2D toroidal grid. ...
Full-text available
Generative adversarial networks (GANs) exhibit training pathologies that can lead to convergence-related degenerative behaviors, whereas spatially-distributed, coevolutionary algorithms (CEAs) for GAN training, e.g. Lipizzaner, are empirically robust to them. The robustness arises from diversity that occurs by training populations of generators and discriminators in each cell of a toroidal grid. Communication, where signals in the form of parameters of the best GAN in a cell propagate in four directions: North, South, West, and East, also plays a role, by communicating adaptations that are both new and fit. We propose Lipi-Ring, a distributed CEA like Lipizzaner, except that it uses a different spatial topology, i.e. a ring. Our central question is whether the different directionality of signal propagation (effectively migration to one or more neighbors on each side of a cell) meets or exceeds the performance quality and training efficiency of Lipizzaner Experimental analysis on different datasets (i.e, MNIST, CelebA, and COVID-19 chest X-ray images) shows that there are no significant differences between the performances of the trained generative models by both methods. However, Lipi-Ring significantly reduces the computational time (14.2%. . . 41.2%). Thus, Lipi-Ring offers an alternative to Lipizzaner when the computational cost of training matters.
The aim of this work is to design a hardware-efficient implementation of data preprocessing in the task of levodopa-induced dyskinesia classification. In this task, there are three approaches implemented and compared: 1) evolution of magnitude approximation using Cartesian genetic programming, 2) design of preprocessing unit using two-population coevolution (2P-CoEA) of cartesian programs and fitness predictors, which are small subsets of training set, and 3) a design using three-population coevolution (3P-CoEA) combining compositional coevolution of preprocessor and classifier with coevolution of fitness predictors. Experimental results show that all of the three investigated approaches are capable of producing energy-saving solutions, suitable for implementation in hardware unit, with a quality comparable to baseline software implementation. Design of approximate magnitude leads to correctly working solutions, however, more energy-demanding than other investigated approaches. 3P-CoEA is capable of designing both preprocessor and classifier compositionally while achieving smaller solutions than the design of approximate magnitude. Presented 2P-CoEA results in the smallest and the most energy-efficient solutions along with producing a solution with significantly better classification quality for one part of test data in comparison with the software implementation.
Full-text available
In this article, we leverage ideas from the theory of coevolutionary computation to analyze interactions of students with problems. We introduce the idea of informatively easy or hard concepts. Our approach is different from more traditional analyses of problem difficulty such as item analysis in the sense that we consider Pareto dominance relationships within the multidimensional structure of student–problem performance data rather than average performance measures. This method allows us to uncover not just the problems on which students are struggling but also the variety of difficulties different students face. Our approach is to apply methods from the Dimension Extraction Coevolutionary Algorithm to analyze problem-solving logs of students generated when they use an online software tutoring suite for introductory computer programming called problets . The results of our analysis not only have implications for how to scale up and improve adaptive tutoring software but also have the promise of contributing to the identification of common misconceptions held by students and thus, eventually, to the construction of a concept inventory for introductory programming.
Conference Paper
Zero-sum games such as chess and poker are, abstractly, functions that evaluate pairs of agents, for example labeling them ‘winner’ and ‘loser’. If the game is approximately transitive, then self-play generates sequences of agents of increasing strength. However, nontransitive games, such as rock-paper-scissors, can exhibit strategic cycles, and there is no longer a clear objective – we want agents to increase in strength, but against whom is unclear. In this paper, we introduce a geometric framework for formulating agent objectives in zero-sum games, in order to construct adaptive sequences of objectives that yield open-ended learning. The framework allows us to reason about population performance in nontransitive games, and enables the development of a new algorithm (rectified Nash response, PSRO_rN) that uses game-theoretic niching to construct diverse populations of effective agents, producing a stronger set of agents than existing algorithms. We apply PSRO_rN to two highly nontransitive resource allocation games and find that PSRO_rN consistently outperforms the existing alternatives.