Population subdivision and molecular sequence variation: Theory and analysis of Drosophila ananassae data

Population subdivision complicates analysis of molecular variation. Even if neutrality is assumed, three evolutionary forces need to be considered: migration, mutation, and drift. Simplification can be achieved by assuming that the process of migration among and drift within subpopulations is occurring fast compared to Mutation and drift in the entire population. This allows a two-step approach in the analysis: (i) analysis of population subdivision and (ii) analysis of molecular variation in the migrant pool. We model population subdivision using an infinite island model, where we allow the migration/drift parameter Theta to vary among populations. Thus, central and peripheral populations can be differentiated. For inference of Theta, we use a coalescence approach, implemented via a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) integration method that allows estimation of allele frequencies in the migrant pool. The second step of this approach (analysis of molecular variation in the migrant pool) uses the estimated allele frequencies in the migrant pool for the study of molecular variation. We apply this method to a Drosophila ananassae sequence data set. We find little indication of isolation by distance, but large differences in the migration parameter among populations. The population as a whole seems to be expanding. A population from Bogor (Java, Indonesia) shows the highest variation and seems closest to the species center.

A technique for evaluation of interactive evolutionary systems

Very large scale scheduling and planning tasks cannot be effectively addressed by fully automated schedule optimisation systems, since many key factors which govern 'fitness' in such cases are unformalisable. This raises the question of an interactive (or collaborative) approach, where fitness is assigned by the expert user. Though well-researched in the domains of interactively evolved art and music, this method is as yet rarely used in logistics. This paper concerns a difficulty shared by all interactive evolutionary systems (IESs), but especially those used for logistics or design problems. The difficulty is that objective evaluation of IESs is severely hampered by the need for expert humans in the loop. This makes it effectively impossible to, for example, determine with statistical confidence any ranking among a decent number of configurations for the parameters and strategy choices. We make headway into this difficulty with an Automated Tester (AT) for such systems. The AT replaces the human in experiments, and has parameters controlling its decision-making accuracy (modelling human error) and a built-in notion of a target solution which may typically be at odds with the solution which is optimal in terms of formalisable fitness. Using the AT, plausible evaluations of alternative designs for the IES can be done, allowing for (and examining the effects of) different levels of user error. We describe such an AT for evaluating an IES for very large scale planning.

RBF equalizer design using directional evolutionary multi-objective optimization

Whilst radial basis function (RBF) equalizers have been employed to combat the linear and nonlinear distortions in modern communication systems, most of them do not take into account the equalizer's generalization capability. In this paper, it is firstly proposed that the. model's generalization capability can be improved by treating the modelling problem as a multi-objective optimization (MOO) problem, with each objective based on one of several training sets. Then, as a modelling application, a new RBF equalizer learning scheme is introduced based on the directional evolutionary MOO (EMOO). Directional EMOO improves the computational efficiency of conventional EMOO, which has been widely applied in solving MOO problems, by explicitly making use of the directional information. Computer simulation demonstrates that the new scheme can be used to derive RBF equalizers with good performance not only on explaining the training samples but on predicting the unseen samples.