Evolutionary Computation: Challenges and Duties

  • Carlos Cotta
  • Pablo Moscato
Chapter
Part of the Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation book series (GENA, volume 11)

Abstract

Evolutionary Computation (EC) is now a few decades old. The impressive development of the field since its initial conception has made it one of the most vigorous research areas, specifically from an applied viewpoint. This should not hide the existence of some major gaps in our understanding on these techniques. In this essay we propose a number of challenging tasks that -according to our opinion- should be attacked in order to fill some of these gaps. They mainly refer to the theoretical basis of the paradigm; we believe that an effective cross-fertilization among different areas of Theoretical Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence (such as Parameterized Complexity and Modal Logic) is mandatory for developing a new corpus of knowledge about EC.

Keywords

Genetic Algorithm Tabu Search Modal Logic Evolutionary Computation Travel Salesman Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alander, J. (1994). Indexed bibliography of genetic algorithms and neural networks. Technical Report 94-1-NN, University of Vaasa, Department of Information Technology and Production Economics.Google Scholar
  2. Bäck, T., Fogel, D., and Michalewicz, Z. (1997). Handbook of Evolutionary Computation. Oxford University Press, New York NY.Google Scholar
  3. Berretta, R. and Moscato, P. (1999). The number partitioning problem: An open challenge for evolutionary computation ? In Corne, D., Dorigo, M., and Glover, F., editors, New Ideas in Optimization, pages 261–278. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, Berkshire, England, UK.Google Scholar
  4. Boldrin, L. and Saffiotti, A. (1999). A modal logic for merging partial belief of multiple reasoners. Journal of Logic and Computation, 9(1):81–103. Online at http://www.aass.oru.se/~asaffio/.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Bylander, T. (1994). The computational complexity of propositional STRIPS planning. Artificial Intelligence, 69(1–2): 165–204.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen, J., Kanj, I., and Jia, W. (1999). Vertex cover: further observations and further improvements. In Proceedings of the 25th International Workshop on Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science, number 1665 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 313–324. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. Coello, Coello, C. A. (1999). An updated survey of evolutionary multiobjective optimization techniques: State of the art and future trends. In Angeline, P. J., Michalewicz, Z., Schoenauer, M., Yao, X., and Zalzala, A., editors, Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, volume 1, pages 3–13, Piscataway, NJ. IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cotta, C. and Moscato, P. (2003). A mixed evolutionary-statistical analysis of an algorithm’s complexity. Applied Mathematics Letters, 16(l):41–47.Google Scholar
  9. Cotta, C. and Troya, J. (1998). Genetic forma recombination in permutation flowshop problems. Evolutionary Computation, 6(1):25–44.Google Scholar
  10. Culberson, J. (1999). Sokoban is PSPACE-complete. In Lodi, E., Pagli, L., and Santoro, N., editors, Proceedings in Informatics 4, Fun With Algorithms, pages 65–76, Waterloo. Carleton Scientific.Google Scholar
  11. Davidor, Y. (1991). Epistasis variance: A viewpoint on GA-hardness. In Rawlins, G., editor, Foundations of Genetic Algorithms, pages 23–35. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  12. Dorigo, M., Maniezzo, V., and Colorni, A. (1996). The ant system: Optimization by a colony of cooperating agents. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part B, 26(1):29–41.Google Scholar
  13. Downey, R. G. and Fellows, M. R. (1995). Fixed parameter tractability and completeness I: Basic theory. SIAM Journal of Computing, 24:873–921.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Downey, R. G., Fellows, M. R., and Stege, U. (1999). Computational Tractability: The View From Mars. Bulletin of the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science, 69:73–97.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Englemore, R. and Morgan, T. (eds.) (1988). Blackboard Systems. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  16. Fellows, M. R. (2002). Parameterized Complexity: The main ideas and connections to practical computing. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 61. available at http://www.elsevier.nl/locate/entcs/volume61.html.
  17. Forrest, S. and Mitchell, M. (1991). What makes a problem hard for a genetic algorithm? some anomalous results and their explanation. In Belew, R. and Booker, L., editors, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 182–189, San Mateo, CA. Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
  18. Garey, M. and Johnson, D. (1979). Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of N P-Completeness. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  19. Gent, I. and Walsh, T. (1994). The SAT phase transition. In Cohn, A., editor, Proceedings of 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 105–109. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  20. Glover, F. and Laguna, M. (1997). Tabu Search. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  21. Hansen, P. and Mladenović N. (2001). Variable neighborhood search: Principles and applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 130(3): 449–467.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Hart, W. and Belew, R. K. (1991). Optimizing an arbitrary function is hard for the genetic algorithm. In Belew, R. K. and Booker, L., editors, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 190–195, San Mateo CA. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, D., Papadimitriou, C. H., and Yannakakis, M. (1988). How easy is local search? Journal of Computers and System Sciences, 37:79–100.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt Jr., C., and Vecchi, M. (1983). Optimization by simulated annealing. Science, 220(4598):671–680.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. Krivelevich, M. (2002). Sparse graphs usually have exponentially many optimal colorings. Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, 9(1):#R27.Google Scholar
  26. Larrañaga, P. and Lozano, J. A., editors (2001). Estimation of Distribution Algorithms. A New Tool for Evolutionary Computation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.Google Scholar
  27. Lewis, H. and Papadimitriou, C. H. (1998). Elements of the Theory of Computation. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  28. Mathias, K. and Whitley, D. (1992). Genetic operators, the fitness landscape and the traveling salesman problem. In Männer, R. and Manderick, B., editors, Parallel Problem Solving From Nature II, pages 259–268, Amsterdam. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.Google Scholar
  29. Moscato, P. (1989). On Evolution, Search, Optimization, Genetic Algorithms and Martial Arts: Towards Memetic Algorithms. Technical Report Caltech Concurrent Computation Program, Report. 826, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Moscato, P. (1999). Memetic algorithms: A short introduction. In Corne, D., Dorigo, M., and Glover, F., editors, New Ideas in Optimization, pages 219–234. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, Berkshire, England, UK.Google Scholar
  31. Niedermeier, R. and Rossmanith, P. (2000). A general method to speed up fixed-parameter-tractable algorithms. Information Processing Letters, 73: 125–129.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. Oliver, I., Smith, D., and Holland, J. R. C. (1987). A study of permutation crossover operators on the traveling salesman problem. In Grefenstette, J. J., editor, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 224–230, Hillsdale NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Radcliffe, N. J. and Surry, P. D. (1994). Fitness Variance of Formae and Performance Prediction. In Whitley, D. and Vose, M. D., editors, Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Foundations of Genetic Algorithms, pages 51–72, San Francisco. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  34. Selman, B., Kautz, H. A., and McAllester, D. A. (1997). Ten challenges in propositional reasoning and search. In Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’97), pages 50–54.Google Scholar
  35. Syswerda, G. (1989). Uniform crossover in genetic algorithms. In Schaffer, J., editor, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 2–9, San Mateo, CA. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  36. Westerberg, C. H. and Levine, J. (2001). Investigation of different seeding strategies in a genetic planner. In Boers, E., Cagnoni, S., Gottlieb, J., Hart, E., Lanzi, P., Raidl, G., Smith, R., and Tijink, H., editors, Applications of Evolutionary Computing, volume 2037 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 505–514. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  37. Wolpert, D. H. and Macready, W. G. (1997). No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, l(l):67–82.Google Scholar
  38. Yannakakis, M. (1997). Computational complexity. In Aarts, E. and Lenstra, J., editors, Local Search in Combinatorial Optimization, pages 19–55. Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos Cotta
    • 1
  • Pablo Moscato
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. Lenguajes y Ciencias de la ComputaciónUniversidad de Málaga ETSI Informática (3.2.49)MálagaSpain
  2. 2.School of Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceUniversity of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia

Personalised recommendations