Automated Extraction of Problem Structure

  • Anthony Bucci
  • Jordan B. Pollack
  • Edwin de Jong
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3102)


Most problems studied in artificial intelligence possess some form of structure, but a precise way to define such structure is so far lacking. We investigate how the notion of problem structure can be made precise, and propose a formal definition of problem structure. The definition is applicable to problems in which the quality of candidate solutions is evaluated by means of a series of tests. This specifies a wide range of problems: tests can be examples in classification, test sequences for a sorting network, or opponents for board games. Based on our definition of problem structure, we provide an automatic procedure for problem structure extraction, and results of proof-of-concept experiments. The definition of problem structure assigns a precise meaning to the notion of the underlying objectives of a problem, a concept which has been used to explain how one can evaluate individuals in a coevolutionary setting. The ability to analyze and represent problem structure may yield new insight into existing problems, and benefit the design of algorithms for learning and search.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Fonseca, C.M., Fleming, P.J.: An overview of evolutionary algorithms in multiobjective optimization. Evolutionary Computation 3, 1–16 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Jong, E.D., Pollack, J.B.: Ideal evaluation from coevolution. Evolutionary Computation 12 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bucci, A., Pollack, J.B.: A mathematical framework for the study of coevolution. In: De Jong, K., Poli, R., Rowe, J. (eds.) FOGA 7: Proceedings of the Foundations of Genetic Algorithms Workshop, San Francisco, CA, pp. 221–235. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Samuel, A.L.: Some studies in machine learning using the game of checkers. IBM Journal of Research and Development 3, 210–229 (1959); Reprinted in Feigenbaum, E.A., Feldman, J. (Eds.) Computers and Thought. McGraw-Hill, New York (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Epstein, S.L.: Toward an ideal trainer. Machine Learning 15, 251–277 (1994)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scheinerman, E.R.: Mathematics: A Discrete Introduction, 1st edn. Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bucci, A., Pollack, J.B.: Focusing versus intransitivity: Geometrical aspects of coevolution. In: Cantú-Paz, E., Foster, J.A., Deb, K., Davis, L., Roy, R., O’Reilly, U.-M., Beyer, H.-G., Kendall, G., Wilson, S.W., Harman, M., Wegener, J., Dasgupta, D., Potter, M.A., Schultz, A., Dowsland, K.A., Jonoska, N., Miller, J., Standish, R.K. (eds.) GECCO 2003. LNCS, vol. 2723, pp. 250–261. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Watson, R., Pollack, J.B.: Coevolutionary dynamics in a minimal substrate. In: Spector, L., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO 2001, San Francisco, CA, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony Bucci
    • 1
  • Jordan B. Pollack
    • 1
  • Edwin de Jong
    • 2
  1. 1.DEMO LabBrandeis UniversityWalthamUSA
  2. 2.Decision Support Systems GroupUniversiteit Utrecht 

Personalised recommendations