ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
A game-theoretic investigation of selection methods in two-population coevolution
Full text PdfPdf (655 KB)
Source Genetic And Evolutionary Computation Conference archive
Proceedings of the 8th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation table of contents
Seattle, Washington, USA
SESSION: Coevolution: papers table of contents
Pages: 321 - 328  
Year of Publication: 2006
ISBN:1-59593-186-4
Author
Sevan G. Ficici  Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Sponsors
SIGEVO: ACM Special Interest Group on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 8,   Downloads (12 Months): 38,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1143997.1144057
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

We examine the dynamical and game-theoretic properties of several selection methods in the context of two-population coevolution. The methods we examine are fitness-proportional, linear rank, truncation, and (μ,λ)-ES selection. We use simple symmetric variable-sum games in an evolutionary game-theoretic framework. Our results indicate that linear rank, truncation, and (μ,λ)-ES selection are somewhat better-behaved in a two-population setting than in the one-population case analyzed by Ficici et al. [4]. These alternative selection methods maintain the Nash-equilibrium attractors found in proportional selection, but also add non-Nash attractors as well as regions of phase-space that lead to cyclic dynamics. Thus, these alternative selection methods do not properly implement the Nash-equilibrium solution concept.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
R. Axelrod. The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, 1984.
 
2
 
3
 
4
S. G. Ficici, O. Melnik, and J. B. Pollack. A game-theoretic and dynamical-systems analysis of selection methods in coevolution. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 9(6):580--602, 2005.
 
5
D. B. Fogel. An overview of evolutionary programming. In L. D. Davis, K. De Jong, M. D. Vose, and L. D. Whitley, editors, Evolutionary Algorithms, pages 89--109. Springer, 1997.
 
6
D. B. Fogel and G. B. Fogel. Evolutionary stable strategies are not always stable under evolutionary dynamics. In J. R. McDonnell, R. G. Reynolds, and D. B. Fogel, editors, Evolutionary Programming IV: The Proceedings of Fourth Annual Conference on Evolutionary Programming, pages 565--577. MIT Press, 1995.
 
7
D. Fudenberg and D. K. Levine. The Theory of Learning in Games. MIT Press, 1998.
 
8
D. Fudenberg and J. Tirole. Game Theory. MIT Press, 1998.
 
9
 
10
J. Hofbauer and K. Sigmund. Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
 
11
J. Maynard Smith. Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge University Press, 1982.
 
12