Solving Hierarchically Decomposable Problems with the Evolutionary Transition Algorithm

  • Tom Lenaerts
  • Anne Defaweux
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 250)

Abstract

Capturing the metaphor of evolutionary transitions in biological complexity, the Evolutionary Transition Algorithm (ETA) evolves solutions of increasing structural and functional complexity from the symbiotic interaction of partial ones. From the definition it follows that this algorithm should be very well suited to solve hierarchically decomposable problems. In this chapter, we show that the ETA can indeed solve this kind of problems effectively.We analyze, in depth, its behavior on hierarchical problems of different size and modular complexity. These results are compared to the Symbiogenetic Model and it is shown that the ETA is more robust and efficient to tackle this kind of problems.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Defaweux, A., Lenaerts, T.: Evolutionary transitions in sequence complexity: a proof of concept. In: Proceedings of the Annual Machine Learning Conference of Belgium and The Nederlands, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, pp. 38–45 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Defaweux, A., Lenaerts, T., van Hemert, J.: Evolutionary transitions as a metaphor for evolutionary optimisation. In: Proceedings of The VIIIth European Conference on Artificial Life, Canterbury, UK, pp. 342–352 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Defaweux, A., Lenaerts, T., van Hemert, J., Parent, J.: Complexity transitions in evolutionary algorithms: Evaluating the impact of the initial population. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Edinburgh, UK, pp. 2174–2181 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Defaweux, A., Lenaerts, T., van Hemert, J., Parent, J.: Transition models as an incremental approach for problem solving in evolutionary algorithms. In: Proceedings of The Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, Washington DC, USA, pp. 599–607 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Jong, E.D., Watson, R.A.: On the complexity of hierarchical problem solving. In: Proceedings of The Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, Washington DC, USA, pp. 1201–1208 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldberg, D., Korb, B., Deb, K.: Messy genetic algorithms: motivation, analysis, and first results. Complex Systems 3, 493–530 (1989)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goldberg, D., Korb, B., Deb, K.: Messy genetic algorithms revisited: Studies in mixed size and scale. Complex Systems 4, 415–444 (1990)MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goldberg, D.E., Deb, K., Clark, J.H.: Genetic algorithms, noise, and the sizing of populations. Complex Systems 6, 333–362 (1992)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greffenstette, J.: Credit assignment in rule discovery systems based on genetic algorithms. Machine Learning 3, 225–245 (1988)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holmes, J., Lanzi, P., Stolzmann, W., Wilson, S.: Learning classifier systems: New models, successful applications. Information Processing Letters 82(1), 23–30 (2002)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoos, H.H., Stützle, T.: Stochastic Local Search: Foundations and Applications. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khor, S.: Rethinking the adaptive capability of accretive evolution on hierarchically consistent problems. In: IEEE Symposium on Artificial Life, pp. 409–416 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khor, S.: Hill climbing on discrete HIFF: exploring the role of DNA transposition in long-term artificial evolution. In: Proceedings of the 9th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, pp. 277–284 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lanzi, P.L., Stolzmann, W., Wilson, S.W. (eds.): IWLCS 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1813. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lenaerts, T.: Different Levels of Selection in Artificial Evolutionary Systems: Analysis and Simulation of Selection Dynamics. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussel (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maynard-Smith, J., Szathmáry, E.: The Major Transitions in Evolution. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco (1995)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McPhee, N.F., Crane, E.F.: A theoretical analysis of the HIFF problem. In: Proceedings of the conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, Washington DC, USA, pp. 1153–1160. Morgan Kauffman, San Francisco (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McKenzie, J.F., Castillo, L., Borrajo, D., Salido, M.A., Oddi, A.: Planning, scheduling and constraint satisfaction. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Michod, R.: Darwinian Dynamics: Evolutionary transitions in Fitness and Individuality. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mills, R., Watson, R.A.: Symbiosis, synergy and modularity: introducing the reciprocal synergy symbiosis algorithm. In: Almeida e Costa, F., Rocha, L.M., Costa, E., Harvey, I., Coutinho, A. (eds.) ECAL 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4648, pp. 1192–1201. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pelikan, M., Goldberg, D.E.: Escaping hierarchical traps with competent genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 2001 conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pp. 511–518. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Potter, M.: The Design and Analysis of a Computational Model of Cooperative Coevolution. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, George Mason University (1997)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Raynal, F., Collet, P., Lutton, E., Schoenauer, M.: Individual gp: an alternative viewpoint for the resolution of complex problems. In: Proceeding of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO), pp. 974–981. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Raynal, F., Collet, P., Lutton, E., Schoenauer, M.: Polar ifs + parisian genetic programming = efficient ifs inverse problem solving. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines Journal 1(4), 339–361 (2000)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Russell, S., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1995)MATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Salido, M.A., Garrido, A., Barták, R.: Introduction: special issue on constraint satisfaction techniques for planning and scheduling problems. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 21(5), 679–682 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thierens, D., Goldberg, D.E.: Mixing in genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on genetic algorithms, pp. 38–45. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1993)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Watson, R.: Compositional Evolution: Interdisciplinary Investigations in Evolvability, Modularity, and Symbiosis. PhD thesis, Brandeis University (2002)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Watson, R.A., Pollack, J.B.: Symbiotic combination as an alternative to sexual recombination in genetic algorithms. In: Deb, K., Rudolph, G., Lutton, E., Merelo, J.J., Schoenauer, M., Schwefel, H.-P., Yao, X. (eds.) PPSN 2000. LNCS, vol. 1917, pp. 425–434. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Watson, R.A., Pollack, J.B.: A computational model of symbiotic composition in evolutionary transitions. Biosystems Special Issue on Evolvability 69(2-3), 187–209 (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wiegand, R.P.: An Analysis of Cooperative Coevolutionary Algorithms. PhD thesis, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tom Lenaerts
    • 1
  • Anne Defaweux
    • 2
  1. 1.MLG, Département d’InformatiqueUniversité Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.COMOVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations