Advertisement

Fitness Distributions and GA Hardness

  • Yossi Borenstein
  • Riccardo Poli
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3242)

Abstract

Considerable research effort has been spent in trying to formulate a good definition of GA-Hardness. Given an instance of a problem, the objective is to estimate the performance of a GA. Despite partial successes current definitions are still unsatisfactory. In this paper we make some steps towards a new, more powerful way of assessing problem difficulty based on the properties of a problem’s fitness distribution. We present experimental results that strongly support this idea

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. 1.
    Goldberg, D.E.: Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1989)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Forrest, S., Mitchell, M.: Relative Building Block Fitness and the Building Block Hypothesis. In: Whitley, D. (ed.) Foundations of Genetic Algorithms, vol. 2, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goldberg, D.E.: Making genetic algorithm fly: a lesson from the Wright brothers. Advanced Technology For Developers 2, 1–8 (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rana, S.: Examining the Role of Local Optima and Schema Processing in Genetic Search. PhD thesis, Colorado State University (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grefenstette, J.J.: Deception considered harmful. In: Whitley, D. (ed.) Foundations of Genetic Algorithms, vol. 2, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jansen, T.: On Classifications of Fitness Functions. Reihe CI 76/99, SFB 531, Universität Dortmund (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davidor, Y.: Epistasis variance: A viewpoint on GA-hardness. In: Rawlines, G.J.E. (ed.) FOGA-1, pp. 23–55. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Naudts, B.: Measuring GA-hardness. Ph.d thesis. UV. Of Antwerp. Belgium (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kauffman, S.A.: The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1993)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Altenberg, L.: NK fitness landscapes. Handbook of Evolutionary Computation (1997b)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Naudts, B., Kallel, L.: Comparison of summery statistics of fitness landscapes. IEEE Trans.Evol.Comp. (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guo, H., Hsu, W.H.: GA-hardness Revisited. 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. 2724, Springer, Heidelberg (2003) (poster paper)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jones, T., Forrest, S.: Fitness distance correlation as a measure of problem difficulty for genetic algorithms. In: Eshelman, L. (ed.) Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, San Francisco, CA, pp. 184–192 (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Altenberg, L.: Fitness Distance Correlation analysis: An instructive counter-example. In: ICGA, pp. 57–64 (1997a)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rothlauf, F.: Representations for Genetic and Evolutionary Algorithms. In: Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, 1st edn. 104, Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Altenberg, L.: Evolving better representations through selective genome growth. In: Proceedings of the 1st IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation. Part 1 (1994)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moraglio, A., Poli, R.: Topological interpretation of crossover. In: GECCO 2004Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Radcliffe, N.J.: Equivalence class analysis of genetic algorithms. In: Foundations of Genetic Algorithms, vol. 3, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huttel, H.: On Rice’s Theorem. Aalborg University (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wolpert, D.H., Macready, W.G.: No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 4, 67–82 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liepins, G.E., Vose, M.D.: Representational issues in genetic optimization. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 2, 101–115 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rose, H., Ebeling, W., Asselmeyer, T.: The Density of States – a Measure of the Difficulty of Optimization Problems. In: Ebeling, W., Rechenberg, I., Voigt, H.-M., Schwefel, H.-P. (eds.) PPSN 1996. LNCS, vol. 1141, Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Naudts, B., Landrieu, I.: Comparing population mean curves. In: FOGA 2000 (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yossi Borenstein
    • 1
  • Riccardo Poli
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Essex 

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options