Towards Automatic Domain Knowledge Extraction for Evolutionary Heuristics

  • Márk Jelasity
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1917)

Abstract

Domain knowledge is essential for successful problem solving and optimization. This paper introduces a framework in which a form of automatic domain knowledge extraction can be implemented using concepts from the field of machine learning. The result is an encoding of the type used in most evolutionary computation (EC) algorithms. The approach focuses on whole problem domains instead of single problems. After the theoretical validation of the algorithm the main idea is given impetus by showing that on different subdomains of linear functions the method finds different encodings which result in different problem complexities.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Wolfgang Banzhaf, Jason Daida, Agoston E. Eiben, Max H. Garzon, Vasant Honavar, Mark Jakiela, and Robert E. Smith, editors. GECCO-99: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, San Francisco, CA, 1999. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Márk Jelasity. A wave analysis of the subset sum problem. In Thomas Back, editor, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 89–96, San Francisco, California, 1997. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Márk Jelasity. The adaptationist stance and evolutionary computation. In Jason Daida, Agoston E. Eiben, Max H. Garzon, Vasant Honavar, Mark Jakiela, and Robert E. Smith, editors. GECCO-99: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, San Francisco, CA, 1999. Morgan Kaufmann Banzhaf et al. [1], pages 1859–1864.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mark Jelasity and Jozsef Dombi. Implicit formae in genetic algorithms. In W. Ebeling, Ingo Rechenberg, Hans-Paul Schwefel, and Hans-Michael Voigt, editors, Parallel Problem Solving from Nature-PPSN IV, volume 1141 of Lecture Notes in Computational Science, pages 154–163. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Mitchell, J. H. Holland, and S. Forrest. When will a genetic algorithm outperform hill-climbing? In J. D. Cowan et al., editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 6. Morgan Kaufmann, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tom M. Mitchell. Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Masaharu Munetomo and David E. Goldberg. Identifying linkage groups by nonlinearity/non-monotonicity detection. In Jason Daida, Agoston E. Eiben, Max H. Garzon, Vasant Honavar, Mark Jakiela, and Robert E. Smith, editors. GECCO-99: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, San Francisco, CA, 1999. Morgan Kaufmann Banzhaf et al. [1], pages 433–440.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Martin Pelikan, David E. Goldberg, and Fernando Lobo. A survey of optimization by building and using probablistic models. Technical Report 99018, Illinois Genetic Algorithms Laboratory, 1999.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Ross Quinlan. Induction of decision trees. Machine Learning, l(l):81–106, 1986.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nicholas J. Radcliffe. The algebra of genetic algorithms. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 10(4):339–384, 1994.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alexander I. Rudnicky, Alexander G. Hauptmann, and Kai-fu Lee. Survey of current speech technology. Communications of the ACM, 37(3):52–57, March 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    David H. Wolpert and William G. Macready. No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, l(l):67–82, April 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Márk Jelasity
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Research Group on Artificial IntelligenceUniversity of SzegedHungary
  2. 2.Leiden Institute of Advanced Computer ScienceLeiden UniversityThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations