In the foregoing sections, learning algorithms can be seen as operating as if they had knowledge of a minimization principle termed minimum- description-length. But how do the algorithms “know” about this princi. ple? Herein we introduce the final set of algorithms based on Darwin's theory of evolution, The astonishing featuze is that the algorithms do not have to “know” about the principle at all! The right thing will happen as Tong as (1) variations of the algorithms can be produced in different ani- mals of the species and (2) the environment can reward good algorithms ‘with higher probabilities of survival. The nature of evolution’s undirected directedness is very counterintuitive.'? GENE PRIMER Let’ start by looking at the biological setting. A species’ population con- tains individuals, each with a set of chromosomes. Human chromosomes come in pairs, Each pair of chromosomes isa very long string of DNA con- taining genes at given loci, as shown in Figure IV.1.? The genes are also in pairs owing to their chromosomes. Pairs of genes are termed alleles. Each allele can represent a different trait or the same trait. Different traits are termed heterozygous; alike traits are termed homozygous. During sexual reproduction, the chromosome pairs from each sex split up into singletons (haploid) and then recombine (diploid). After this process the chromo- some genotype is read by numerous proteins to construct an individual, termed a phenotype. Of the pairs of genes, only one, the dominant gene, is ‘used in the building process; the unused gene is recessive. Thus we can see that there isa one-in-four chance that a particular gene from one ofthe sex- ual partners is dominant. ek a aa ag vit, Figure IVA chromosome sa lnen strcture with genes specific lok. (From Wallace, 1992)Besides this basic splitting and pairing, there are other ways of modify- ing the new pairs: + In crossover, subsequences of genes from the pairs may be exchanged. + In inversion, a subsequence may appear in inverted order. + In mutation, a single gene may be randomly changed. Ina vertebrate there are tens of thousands of genes, so that, assuming two alleles per gene, there are 23°% = 10%®° different individuals that are possible. So in the present population of about 5 billion, only a tiny fraction of the number of possible individuals are represented. ‘The process of creating an individual or phenotype has many epistatic (nonlinear) effects, For one thing, the chemical building process depends ‘on sequences of gene loci. For another, there are many additional environ- mental effects, such as competing species. Thus the fitness function that rates each genetic code is a highly nonlinear function of loci permutations, Nonetheless, despite these caveats, genes specify the building of compo- nents of living things and are very much the genesis for biological pro- ‘grams that build them. A stunning demonstration of this fact was the splicing of the gene related to building a mouse eye into the genetic code for a fly. The fly developed with a faceted eye at the end of its antennae (Figure 1V.2), showing that the “code” for an eye was interpretable across this huge species gulf Figure 1V.2_Seanning elecon microscope image of «fy after gene transplant showing cc topic eyes under the wing and on the antennae (ertows). (From Halder, Callers, and UGeneng, 1995; repent wth pemushon from Selene, © 1959 Amencan Assocation for he ‘Advancement of ence) Despite the huge number of genes, there are not enough to specify the 10 synapses of the neurons in the brain, so the function of the genes has to be limited to more gross architectural features such as the wiring patterns. LEARNING ACROSS GENERATIONS: SYSTEMS Look-up tables and reinforcement strategies can reconfigure the existing structures, but to alter the hardware design, genetic changes are needed. Modeling the genetic process dates from the work of Holland in the 1960s.* Such genetic algorithms model the alteration of the genes during re- production in order to create new architectural forms. These algorithms can be understood as experimenting with brain hardware and the struc- ture of the body. The brain occupies the position of central importance: It is believed that about one-third of the DNA is used to design the brain. The gross features of the brain are relatively similar across mammals. For example, humans and chimps seem to have about 98% of their DNA in common. However, there are dramatic differences in certain details. For example, in cats the connections from the LGN enervate many disparate visual cortical areas, but in humans and monkeys, the connections are lim- ited to cortical visual area V1. Such differences in tum affect the choice of software that gets learned. ‘Changing hardware is a slow process that operates across millions of generations; nevertheless, genetic algorithms are comparable in power to algorithms derived from developmental and behavioral learning. ‘The process of decoding DNA to construct amino acids, complicated proteins, and ultimately the exquisite structures that ar living formsis in- credibly complex. Genetic algorithms are huge abstractions that capture just the overall features ofthe reproductive process. + They use a coding of the problem to be solved in a DNA-like string, + The search uses a substantial population of state space points rather than a single point, + The control of the population is governed by a fitness function that rates each individual. + The reproductive rules are nondeterministic. Since genetic algorithm (GA) search uses a population and nondeter- rinistic reproductive rules, one might think that the secret to its success is just random search. However, ithas been shown that GA populations are vastly more efficient than just guessing new state space points. As the pa- rameters governing the search have become better understood, there have been remarkable successes. For example, a GA has produced a program that replicates itself and that is shorter than those designed by human pro- grammers The force behind the genetic algorithm is captured in the schemata theorem. This shows that if any piece of the DNA confers anabove-average survival rate on its host, then there is a good chance that that piece will spread through the population at an exponential rate. Thus sexual reproduction promotes the rapid spread of good algorithmic fea- tures. Its various DNA-shuffling mechanisms also provide a way of trying out new features, Remarkably, our brains owe their existence to this blind watchmaking” process” ‘There are two main types of genetic algorithms: standard Gas and the more recently developed genetic programming ® Standard Genetic Algorithms Genetic algorithms use strings of symbols to represent the genetic code and a fitness function to score the code, Populations of strings represent @ species, and the most fit species represents the best solution found so far. ‘The operations of sexual combination are translated into operations on the symbol strings, so that the population of symbol strings can evolve through “sexual” reproduction. Search proceeds by preferentially selecting the fittest strings for reproduction. Genetic Programming Biologically, DNA is only part ofthe story. Proteins must be manufactured, ‘which in turn assemble the phenotype, or living individual. In standard Gas all this is implicitly incorporated into the fitness function. This fune- tion scores the entire process, although itis never explicitly represented. In contrast, genetic programs represent individuals as actwal programs. The genetic operations are carried out on the program code. That i, the string. representing the "DNA is also representing an individual as a function ing program. As a consequence, the program can be directly tested in an environment of data. Therefore, the fitness function has less to do. Adding. the additional structure of a program operating on data also allows the en- coding of the problem to be more refined, in turn leading to better fitness functions, At this time, picking good fitness functions is very much an art form, although there has been very recent work in describing hierarchical fatness functions. NOTES 1. Richard Dawkins, The Sef Gene (Neve Yorks Oxford University Press, 196). 2 Daniel € Dennett, Derain’s Dangerons Het Balaton andthe Mein of Life (New York Simon and Schuster, 1995) 45 Brace Wallace, The Ssh or Hie Gone (Uuhaes, NY: Comell University Press, 199) p.72. 4. Georg Halder, atic Callas, and Wale | Gebsing, “Induction of Ectopic Eyesby Te seted Expression of Eyeess Gene in Drow,” Science 267 (March 1995)178-92 5. John H, Holland, Adaptation n Netra and Arif Syste A Intrducery Analysis wih ‘Appleton Bilgy, Conta Artif Tnteligenee, 2a ed (Ist, 1975) (Cambridge -MA:MIT Press, Bradford 199) 6 Thomas §. Ray, “Evolution, Complesty, Entropy, and Ariel Rely," Physica D 75, no. 1/3 (August 1, 1993)239. 17. Rlehard Dawkins, Te Bnd Wtchnakr (New York Norton, 1986) 8 John R. Koza, Genetic Pragramntng- hte Programing of Computers by Means of Natur! Se eon (Carabridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford 192),