EA 2001: Artificial Evolution pp 77-87 | Cite as
Measuring the Spatial Dispersion of Evolutionary Search Processes: Application to Walksat
Conference paper
First Online:
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a simple and efficient method for measuring the spatial dispersion of a set of points in a metric space. This method allows the quantifying of the population diversity in genetic algorithms. It can also be used to measure the spatial dispersion of any local search process during a specified time interval. We then use this method to study the way Walksat explores its search space, showing that the search for a solution often includes several stages of intensification and diversification.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Barker A.L., Martin W.N.: Dynamics of a Distance Based Population Diversity Measure. Congress on Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Press, 2000.Google Scholar
- 2.Chvátal V., Szemerédi E.: Many hard examples for Resolution. In Journal of the ACM, pages 759–768, 1988.Google Scholar
- 3.Cook S.A.: The complexity of theorem proving procedures. In Conference Records of Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 151–158, 1971.Google Scholar
- 4.Dubois O., Andre P., Boufkhad Y., Carlier J.: SAT versus UNSAT. In Clique, Coloring and Satisfiability: Second DIMACS implementation challenge, Volume 26 of DIMACS series in Discrete Mathematics and Computer Science, pages 415–136, American Mathematical Society, 1996.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 5.Frank J., Cheeseman P., Stutz, J. (to appear): When gravity fails: local search topology. Gupta and Nau (1992). On the complexity of blocks-world planning. Artificial Intelligence (1997) 56, 139–403Google Scholar
- 6.Goldberg D.E., Richardson J.J.: Genetic algorithms with sharing for multimodal function optimization. Gen. Algs. and their Apps.: Proc. 2nd Intl. Conf. Gen. Algs., Cambridge, MA, July 1987, 28–31 (Lawrence Erlbaum).Google Scholar
- 7.Jones T., Forest S.: Fitness Distance Correlation as a Measure of Problem Difficulty for Genetic Algorithms. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms (1995) 184–192.Google Scholar
- 8.Mauldin M.L.: Maintaining diversity in genetic search. In Proceedings of the National Conference on AI (1984) 247–250. AAAI.Google Scholar
- 9.McAllester D., Selman B., Kautz H.: Evidence for Invariants in Local Search. In Proceedings of AAAI-97 (1997) 321–326.Google Scholar
- 10.Michalewicz Z.: Genetic algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution Programs. Artificial Intelligence, Springer Verlag. New York, 1992.Google Scholar
- 11.Miller B.L., Shaw M.J.: Genetic Algorithms with Dynamic Niche Sharing for Multimodal Function Optimization. IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, pp786–791, Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press 1995.Google Scholar
- 12.Schuurmans D., Southey F.: Local search characteristics of incomplete SAT procedures. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Articial Intelligence (AAAI-2000), pages 297–302, 2000.Google Scholar
- 13.Sefrioui M., Périaux J.: Fast convergence thanks to diversity. In Proc. of the Fifth Annual Conference on Evolutionary Programming (1996) 313–321Google Scholar
- 14.Selman B., Kautz H., Cohen, B.: Noise Strategies for Local Search. In Proceedings of AAAI-94 (1994) 337–343.Google Scholar
- 15.Sidaner A., Chabrier J.-J., Bailleux O.: Towards a quantification of attraction in stochastic local search. Proc. of the Workshop on Empirical Methods in Artificial Intelligence at ECAI’00, Berlin, Germany, pp 39–41, August 2000.Google Scholar
Copyright information
© Springer-VerlagBerlin Heidelberg 2002