Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
A Comparison of Evaluation
Methods in Coevolution
Ting-Shuo Yo
● Introduction
● Evaluation methods in coevolution
● Performance measures
● Test problems
● Results and discussion
● Concluding remarks
Introduction
● Evolutionary computation
● Coevolution
● Coevolution for test-based problems
● Motivation of this study
Genetic Algorithm
Initialization
2. SELECTION Parents
1. EVALUATION
3. REPRODUCTION
Population (crossover, mutation,...)
4. REPLACEMENT
Offspring
While (not TERMINATE)
TERMINATE
End
Coevolution
Initialization
1. EVALUATION
................
Subpopulation Subpopulation
2. SELECTION 2. SELECTION
3. REPRODUCTION 3. REPRODUCTION
4. REPLACEMENT 4. REPLACEMENT
TERMINATE
End
Test-Based Problems
f(x)
original function
regression curve s1
s2
s3
x
t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7 t8 t9 t10
Coevolution for Test-Based Problems
Test 1. EVALUATION
population Interaction:
2. SELECTION ● Does the solution solve the
3. REPRODUCTION test?
4. REPLACEMENT ● How good does the solution
perform on the test?
Solution
population Solutions: the more tests it
solves the better.
2. SELECTION
3. REPRODUCTION Tests: the less solutions pass it
4. REPLACEMENT the better.
Motivation
● Interaction
● Distinction and informativeness
● Dominance and multi-objective approach
Interaction
● A function that returns the outcome of interaction
between two individuals from different
subpopulations.
– Checkers players: which one wins
– Test / Solution: if the solution succeeds in solving the
test S 1 S 2 S 3 S 4 S 5 sum
T1 0 1 0 0 1 2
T2 0 0 1 1 0 2
● Interaction matrix T3 0 1 1 0 0 2
T4 1 0 0 0 0 1
T5 1 0 1 0 0 2
sum 2 2 3 1 1
Distinction
Solutions T3
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 sum S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 sum
T1 0 1 0 0 1 2 S1 - 0 0 0 0
T2 0 0 1 1 0 2 S2 1 - 0 1 1
Test T3 0 1 1 0 0 2 S3 1 0 - 1 1
cases T4 1 0 0 0 0 1 S4 0 0 0 - 0
T5 1 0 1 0 0 2 S5 0 0 0 0 -
sum 2 2 3 1 1 sum 2 0 0 2 2 6
non-dominated
S1 is dominated by S2 iff:
dominated
f1
non-dominated
f1
Performance Measures
● Objective Fitness (OF)
– Evaluation against a fix set of test cases
– Here we use "all possible test cases" since we have
picked problems with small sizes.
A sample IC with n = 9 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1
neighbor bits
target bit
- x x x
x x
2x
x
Test Problems
● Parity Problem (PP)
– Determine odd/even for the number of 1's in a bit
string
– Two parameter: odd/even and bit string length (n)
A problem with n = 10
0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 11
A solution tree
Test Problems: PP
5-even Parity
Boolean-vector 0 0 0 1 0 false (0)
D0 D1 D2 D3 D4
0
AND false
GP Tree
1 0
OR AND
1 1 0
NOT AND D2 NOT OR AND
0
D0 D3 D0 D1 D1 D2
0 1 0 0 0 0
Results of MFP (r=2, n=9)
Results of MFP (r=2, n=9)
Results of SRP 6 4
x −2x x
2
Results of SRP 6 4
x −2x x
2
Results of PP (odd, n=10)
Results of PP (odd, n=10)
Summary of Results
Multi-objective Approach
WeiSum-AS-WI
MO-AS-AI
MO-WS-AI
MO approach to improve WI
PP
MO-AS-WI
Conclusions
● MO2 approach with weighted informativeness
(MO-AS-WI and MO-WS-WI) outperforms other
evaluation methods in coevolution.
● MO1 approach does not work well because
there are usually too many objectives. This can
be represented by a high NDR and results in a
random search.
● Coevolution is efficient for the MFP and SRP.
Issues
● Test problems used are small, and there is not
proof of generalizability to larger problems.
T2 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.4
Test T3 0 1 1 0 0 2 0.4
cases T4 1 0 0 0 0 2 0.4
T5 1 0 1 0 0 2 0.4
2 2 3 1 1
0.4 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.2
Max(O(m),O(n))
Weighted Score
Solutions
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
T1 0 1 0 0 1 2
T2 0 0 1 1 0 2
Test T3 0 1 1 0 0 2
cases T4 1 0 0 0 0 2
T5 1 0 1 0 0 2
2 2 3 1 1
Max(O(m),O(n))
Average Informativeness
Max(O(mn2),O(nm2))
Weighted Informativeness
Max(O(mn2),O(nm2))
MO
Max(O(mn2),O(nm2))