# Coevolutionary Algorithms

Coevolutionary algorithms approach problems for which no function for evaluating potential solutions is present or known. Instead, algorithms rely on the aggregation of outcomes from interactions among evolving entities in order 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. This chapter outlines the ends and means of coevolutionary algorithms: what they are meant to find, and how they should find it.

Handbook of Natural Computing
Volume 2
p. 987
Chapter 31
Coevolutionary Principles

The inspiration for coevolutionary algorithms (CoEAs) is the same as for traditional evolutionay algorithms (EAs): attempt to harness the Darwinian notions of heredity 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.

Variation on a theme. Search. Problem solving. Solutions. Design. Directed Search.

Why are the authors of this chapter mistaken?

## 70 thoughts on “Coevolutionary Algorithms”

1. Neil Rickert: I’m not seeing the relevance to “panspermia believers” (if there are such believers).

Why would you mock people who believe in alien abductions, like some on this thread, if you or many of Darwin’s faithful use more or less the same line or reasoning…or the lack of?

If materialists, like Dawkins, use panspermia belief (belief in the creation of life by aliens), as an excuse for the total lack of evidence for origins of life, what’s wrong with some people believing in aliens who may or may not have abducted them?
Do we have any proof at all for any of the 2 above mentioned sets of belief that pretty much belong to the same religion?

2. J-Mac: If materialists, like Dawkins, use panspermia belief (belief in the creation of life by aliens), as an excuse for the total lack of evidence for origins of life

3. Why would you mock people who believe in alien abductions, like some on this thread, if you or many of Darwin’s faithful use more or less the same line or reasoning…or the lack of?

1. Don’t see that Neil is mocking anyone in that comment.

2) What’s the link between people who (apparently) are convinced they’ve been abducted by aliens, probed, and returned to Earth and evolutionary biology. Seems like a non sequitur.

If materialists

Do you intend to use the word pejoratively?

…like Dawkins, use panspermia belief (belief in the creation of life by aliens)…

Panspermia is a hypothesis (that microbe spores could have come from elsewhere in the universe) that has no supporting evidence but is currently non-disprovable. I don’t think Dawkins is convinced by the idea but possibly, like me, suggests it is on a level of likelihood with divine creation.

…as an excuse for the total lack of evidence for origins of life…

Indeed there is no evidence to confirm or falsify any of the current scientific hypotheses regarding abiogenesis. So what?

…what’s wrong with some people believing in aliens who may or may not have abducted them?

Harmless delusions are harmless.

Do we have any proof at all for any of the 2 above mentioned sets of belief that pretty much belong to the same religion?

Only if you want to misuse the words “belief” and “religion”. The scientific approach to “wow, that’ odd” is to investigate, observe, measure, experiment, formulate explanatory hypotheses and test them. It’s a limited procedure that can answer “how” but not “why”. Religions tend to be belief systems built up over generations or by one “visionary” (Joseph Smith, L Ron Hubbard etc) that purport and fail to explain why we are here.

4. J-Mac: If materialists, like Dawkins, use panspermia belief (belief in the creation of life by aliens), as an excuse for the total lack of evidence for origins of life, what’s wrong with some people believing in aliens who may or may not have abducted them?

Okay, I get it.

What you are saying, is that you are totally clueless as to why people mention panspermia as a possibility.

5. Neil Rickert: Okay, I get it.

What you are saying, is that you are totally clueless as to why people mention panspermia as a possibility.

And mock people who believe in aliens at the same time…

6. 1. Don’t see that Neil is mocking anyone in that comment.
Wasn’t him

2) What’s the link between people who (apparently) are convinced they’ve been abducted by aliens, probed, and returned to Earth and evolutionary biology. Seems like a non sequitur.
panspermia see my comment above to Neil

Do you intend to use the word pejoratively?
No… but I hate hypocrisy

Panspermia is a hypothesis (that microbe spores could have come from elsewhere in the universe) that has no supporting evidence but is currently non-disprovable.
There are very few microbes that could survive this journey…I can recall only one…Panspermia doesn’t solve the problem of abiogenesis…It just pushes it further into space where no life has been found..

I don’t think Dawkins is convinced by the idea but possibly, like me, suggests it is on a level of likelihood with divine creation.
Please tell me you really don’t believe this…

Indeed there is no evidence to confirm or falsify any of the current scientific hypotheses regarding abiogenesis. So what?

I usually end the discussion at SO WHAT? because it reveals that I’m wasting may time because you are not going to accept any evidence and yet you are willing to believe in anything…

What evidence though persuaded you to believe in abiogenesis?

Harmless delusions are harmless.

Harmless to who?

Only if you want to misuse the words “belief” and “religion”.

Coyne did it and others do it…even many philosophers… I know the meaning so why would I misuse the terms? Wouldn’t be dishonest?

The scientific approach to “wow, that’ odd” is to investigate, observe, measure, experiment, formulate explanatory hypotheses and test them. It’s a limited procedure that can answer “how” but not “why”.
How did you enjoy Dr. Dail’s bird experiment keiths posted?

Religions tend to be belief systems built up over generations or by one “visionary” (Joseph Smith, L Ron Hubbard etc) that purport and fail to explain why we are here.

I agree…which means only one thing…

BTW: If a jellyfish can be technically immortal, maybe we were designed to be “immortal’? And if that is true, then why we are here should be easier do comprehend….

7. J-Mac: panspermia see my comment above to Neil

You still have not explained why you think that is analogous to alien abduction.

Panspermia doesn’t solve the problem of abiogenesis

It isn’t intended to solve that problem.

You still seem confused.

Suppose that your God (or some god) intervened and created life. That is still life from non-life, so that still counts as abiogenesis.

The only alternative to abiogenesis seems to be that there was always life. If Big Bang cosmology is correct, that seems unlikely. But let’s still allow it as a possibility.

There wasn’t always an earth. So even if there was always life, there is still the question of how that life got to earth. That’s what panspermia could explain.

And I’m still not seeing why you try to connect panspermia with alien abduction.

8. Neil Rickert: You still have not explained why you think that is analogous to alien abduction.

It isn’t intended to solve that problem.

You still seem confused.

Suppose that your God (or some god) intervened and created life.That is still life from non-life, so that still counts as abiogenesis.

The only alternative to abiogenesis seems to be that there was always life.If Big Bang cosmology is correct, that seems unlikely.But let’s still allow it as a possibility.

There wasn’t always an earth.So even if there was always life, there is still the question of how that life got to earth.That’s what panspermia could explain.

And I’m still not seeing why you try to connect panspermia with alien abduction.

OMG Neil!
I linked Dawkins’ Panspermia with people’s beliefs in aliens…abductions were not part of my point!

9. Neil Rickert: I’m not an apologist for Dawkins.

Now, explain it to me why I wasted all this time over the issue you were not interested in the explanation of in the first place?
On the other hand…Goodbye!

10. J-Mac: Now, explain it to me why I wasted all this time over the issue you were not interested in the explanation of in the first place?
On the other hand…Goodbye!

The reason Neil was asking what you thought panspermia had to do with aliens is that the panspermia hypothesis does not involve alien abductors, just alien microbial spores that are postulated to travel frozen in comet debris.

11. Mung:

You mean panspermia doesn’t actually involve sperm?

Woodbine:

Nor goats.

Mung can’t catch a break. Life always lets him down.

12. Alan Fox: The reason Neil was asking what you thought panspermia had to do with aliens is that the panspermia hypothesis does not involve alien abductors, just alien microbial spores that are postulated to travel frozen in comet debris.

Another one wasting my time who didn’t bother to read the thread….God! Help!

13. keiths: Mung can’t catch a break. Life always lets him down.

Don’t know why you would think that. I have a wonderful life. And I live in an earthquake zone in the shadow of a volcano just to keep things interesting.

🙂

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.