Why coevolution doesn't "work": superiority and progress in coevolution

Created by W.Langdon from gp-bibliography.bib Revision:1.4420

  author =       "Thomas Miconi",
  title =        "Why coevolution doesn't {"}work{"}: superiority and
                 progress in coevolution",
  booktitle =    "Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Genetic
                 Programming, EuroGP 2009",
  year =         "2009",
  editor =       "Leonardo Vanneschi and Steven Gustafson and 
                 Alberto Moraglio and Ivanoe {De Falco} and Marc Ebner",
  volume =       "5481",
  series =       "LNCS",
  pages =        "49--60",
  address =      "Tuebingen",
  month =        apr # " 15-17",
  organisation = "EvoStar",
  publisher =    "Springer",
  keywords =     "genetic algorithms, genetic programming",
  isbn13 =       "978-3-642-01180-1",
  URL =          "http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~txm/eurogp09.pdf",
  DOI =          "doi:10.1007/978-3-642-01181-8_5",
  size =         "12 pages",
  abstract =     "Coevolution often gives rise to counter-intuitive
                 dynamics that defy our expectations. Here we suggest
                 that much of the confusion surrounding co-evolution
                 results from imprecise notions of superiority and
                 progress. In particular, we note that in the
                 literature, three distinct notions of progress are
                 implicitly lumped together: local progress (superior
                 performance against current opponents), historical
                 progress (superior performance against previous
                 opponents) and global progress (superior performance
                 against the entire opponent space). As a result, valid
                 conditions for one type of progress are unduly assumed
                 to lead to another. In particular, the confusion
                 between historical and global progress is a case of a
                 common error, namely using the training set as a test
                 set. This error is prevalent among standard methods for
                 coevolutionary analysis (CIAO, Master Tournament,
                 Dominance Tournament, etc.) By clearly defining and
                 distinguishing between different types of progress, we
                 identify limitations with existing techniques and
                 algorithms, address them, and generally facilitate
                 discussion and understanding of co-evolution. We
                 conclude that the concepts proposed in this paper
                 correspond to important aspects of the coevolutionary
  notes =        "overfitting, hall of fame

                 Part of \cite{conf/eurogp/2009} EuroGP'2009 held in
                 conjunction with EvoCOP2009, EvoBIO2009 and

Genetic Programming entries for Thomas Miconi