Calendar of upcoming AI meetings, conferences, and other events.

Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Email: zhong@ai.csse.

Unlike other entrants that fashioned good softbot teams from a battery of relatively wellunderstood robotics techniques, our goal was to see if it was even possible to use evolutionary computation to develop high-level soccer behaviors that were competitive with the human-crafted strategies of other teams. "Everyone Go after the Ball": A Popular but in a domain such as robot soccer. Our approach was to evolve a population of teams of Lisp s-expression algorithms, evaluating each team by attaching its algorithms to robot players and trying them out in the simulator. Early experiments tested individual players, but ultimately, the final runs pitted whole teams against each other using coevolution. After evaluation, a team's fitness assessment was based on its success relative to its opponent.

However, all eligible students are Intelligence (AAAI-98) will be Third Annual Genetic Programming encouraged to apply. After the conference, available in late March by writing to Conference (GP-98), July 22-25 an expense report will be required ncai@aaai.org Please note that the deadline Eleventh Annual Conference on scholarships@aaai.org or at 445 Burgess for early registrations is May 27, 1998. Computational Learning Theory Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025, The conference will be held July (COLT '98), July 24-26 (theory.lcs.mit. All student scholarship recipients Monona Terrace Convention Center, Fifteenth International Conference will be required to participate in the designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, in on Machine Learning (ICML '98), July Student Volunteer Program to support Madison, Wisconsin.

The genetic algorithm (GA) is a heuristic search procedure based on mechanisms abstracted from population genetics. In a previous paper [Baluja & Caruana, 1995], we showed that much simpler algorithms, such as hillcIimbing and Population Based Incremental Learning (PBIL), perform comparably to GAs on an optimization problem custom designed to benefit from the GA's operators. This paper extends these results in two directions. First, in a large-scale empirical comparison of problems that have been reported in GA literature, we show that on many problems, simpler algorithms can perform significantly better than GAs. Second, we describe when crossover is useful, and show how it can be incorporated into PBIL. 1 IMPLICIT VS.

The genetic algorithm (GA) is a heuristic search procedure based on mechanisms abstracted from population genetics. In a previous paper [Baluja & Caruana, 1995], we showed that much simpler algorithms, such as hillcIimbing and Population Based Incremental Learning (PBIL), perform comparably to GAs on an optimization problem custom designed to benefit from the GA's operators. This paper extends these results in two directions. First, in a large-scale empirical comparison of problems that have been reported in GA literature, we show that on many problems, simpler algorithms can perform significantly better than GAs. Second, we describe when crossover is useful, and show how it can be incorporated into PBIL. 1 IMPLICIT VS.

The genetic algorithm (GA) is a heuristic search procedure based on mechanisms abstracted from population genetics. In a previous paper [Baluja & Caruana, 1995], we showed that much simpler algorithms, such as hillcIimbing and Population Based Incremental Learning (PBIL), perform comparably to GAs on an optimization problemcustom designed to benefit from the GA's operators. This paper extends these results in two directions. First, in a large-scale empirical comparison of problems that have been reported in GA literature, we show that on many problems, simpleralgorithms can perform significantly better than GAs. Second, we describe when crossover is useful, and show how it can be incorporated into PBIL. 1 IMPLICIT VS.

We investigate the effectiveness of stochastic hillclimbing as a baseline for the performance of genetic algorithms (GAs) as combinatorialevaluating In particular, we address two problems to whichfunction optimizers.

We investigate the effectiveness of stochastic hillclimbing as a baseline for evaluating the performance of genetic algorithms (GAs) as combinatorial function optimizers. In particular, we address two problems to which GAs have been applied in the literature: Koza's ll-multiplexer problem and the jobshop problem. We demonstrate that simple stochastic hillclimbing methods are able to achieve results comparable or superior to those obtained by the GAs designed to address these two problems. We further illustrate, in the case of the jobshop problem, how insights obtained in the formulation of a stochastic hillclimbing algorithm can lead to improvements in the encoding used by a GA.

We investigate the effectiveness of stochastic hillclimbing as a baseline for evaluating the performance of genetic algorithms (GAs) as combinatorial function optimizers. In particular, we address two problems to which GAs have been applied in the literature: Koza's ll-multiplexer problem and the jobshop problem. We demonstrate that simple stochastic hillclimbing methods are able to achieve results comparable or superior to those obtained by the GAs designed to address these two problems. We further illustrate, in the case of the jobshop problem, how insights obtained in the formulation of a stochastic hillclimbing algorithm can lead to improvements in the encoding used by a GA.