Download 14. Development and Plasticity

Evolutionary Computation vol. 2:
Advanced Algorithms and Operators
CH. 22 - 26
30 March. 2011
Summarized by Kim Soo-Jin
Contents

CH 22. Meta-evolutionary approaches

CH 23. Coevolutionary algorithms

CH 24. Efficient implementation of algorithms

CH 25. Computation time of evolutionary operators

CH 26. Hardware realizations of evolutionary
algorithms
(C) 2011, SNU Biointelligence Lab, http://bi.snu.ac.kr/
2
CH 22. Meta-evolutionary approaches
(C) 2011, SNU Biointelligence Lab, http://bi.snu.ac.kr/
3
Working mechanism

After having defined the individuals of a population for a
given problem, the designer of an evolutionary algorithm
(EA) is faced with the problem of deciding what types of
operator and control parameter settings are likely to produce
the best results.
 systematically checking a range of operators and/or parameter values
and assessing the performance of the EA (De Jong 1975, Schaffer et
a1 1989)
 the experiences reported in the literature describing similar application
scenarios (Goldberg I989a, Jog et a1 1989, Oliver et a1 1987,
Starkweather et a1 1991)
 the results of theoretical analyses for determining the optimal
parameter settings (Goldberg 1989b, Hesser and Manner 1990,
Nakano et a1 1994).
(C) 2011, SNU Biointelligence Lab, http://bi.snu.ac.kr/
4
Meta-evolutionary approaches

Two-level optimization
strategy
 Top level: a metalevel
EA operates on a
population of base-level
EAs, each of which is
represented by a
separate individual.
 Bottom level: the baselevel EAs work on a
population of
individuals which
represent possible
solutions of the
problem to be solved.
(C) 2011, SNU Biointelligence Lab, http://bi.snu.ac.kr/
5
Formal description

Let B be a base-level problem, IB its solution space, we
assume that FB should be maximized

Thus, the search for a good solution for the base-level
problem B reduces to a metalevel problem M of maximizing
the objective function FM
(C) 2011, SNU Biointelligence Lab, http://bi.snu.ac.kr/
6
Pseudocode

The code is based on the selection, recombination, mutation
and replacement sequence of operations typically found in the
genetic algorithm paradigm.
(C) 2011, SNU Biointelligence Lab, http://bi.snu.ac.kr/
7
Related works (1/2)





(i) Mercer and Sampson (1978) gave presumably one of the first
descriptions of a meta-evolutionary approach.
(ii) Grefenstette’ s meta-CA (Grefenstette 1986) operated on individuals
representing the population size, crossover probability, mutation rate,
generation gap, scaling window, and selection strategy.
(iii) Shahookar and Mazumder ( 1990) used a meta-GA to optimize the
crossover rate, the mutation rate, and the inversion rate of a GA to solve
the standard cell placement problem for industrial circuits consisting of
between 100 and 800 cells.
(iv) Freisleben and Hartfelder ( I993a, b) proposed a meta-GA approach
which was based on a much larger space of up to 20 components, divided
into decisions and parameters.
(vi) Back’s meta-algorithm (1994) combines principles of ESs and GAS in
order to optimize a population of GAs.
(C) 2011, SNU Biointelligence Lab, http://bi.snu.ac.kr/
8
Related works (2/2)



(vii) Lee and Takagi (1994) have presented a meta-CA-based approach for
studying the effects of a dynamically adaptive population size, crossover,
and mutation rate on De Jong’s set of test functions.
(viii) Pham ( I 994) repeated Grefenstette’s approach for different baselevel objective functions as a preliminary step towards a proposal called
competitive evolution.
(ix) Tuson and Ross (1 996a, b) have investigated the dynamic adaptation
of GA operator settings by means of two different approaches.
(C) 2011, SNU Biointelligence Lab, http://bi.snu.ac.kr/
9
CH 23. Coevolutionary algorithms
(C) 2011, SNU Biointelligence Lab, http://bi.snu.ac.kr/
10
Coevolution


Coevolution: Complementary evolution of closely associated
species. The interlocking adaptations of many flowering
plants and their pollinating insects provide some striking
examples of coevolution. In a broader sense, predator-prey
relationships also involve coevolution, with an evolutionary
advance in the predator, for instance, triggering an
evolutionary response in the prey. (The Oxford Dictionary of
Natural History, 1985)
According to the description above, coevolution involves
closely interacting species.
(C) 2011, SNU Biointelligence Lab, http://bi.snu.ac.kr/
11
Competitive fitness

The fitness function of most EAs is a user-defined optimization criterion
which evaluates the individuals in isolation from each other.
 Competitive fitness functions (Angeline and Pollack 1993) are a type of
relative fitness function. They calculate the fitness of an individual through
competition ‘duels’ with other individuals.
 Static fitness functions work well for simple problems, but for more
complex or nondeterministic environments it can be difficult to create a
function that accurately captures the fitness of every individual in the
population.
 Competitive fitness functions help to deal with this problem, by judging
the fitness of individuals relative to the rest of the population instead of
compared to a single objective standard. A genetic programming system
which uses a competitive fitness function is called a coevolutionary
system, because the behavior of an individual evolves depending on the
behavior of the other members of the population.
(C) 2011, SNU Biointelligence Lab, http://bi.snu.ac.kr/
12
Coevolving sorting network

Hillis (1992) put the computational use of predator-prey
coevolution in the spotlight.
 The goal is to find a network which correctly sorts all possible lists of
16 numbers with as few comparisons as possible.
 Hillis used two population.
The first population: sorting network
 The second population: sets of test lists which contain numbers to be
sorted.

 Both populations were geographically distributed over a grid with each
location containing one set of test lists and one sorting network.
At each generation, a sorting network was tested on the set of test lists at
the same location. (selection is made locally)
 The fitness of a sorting network was defined as the percentage of correctly
sorted test lists. The fitness of the set of test lists was equal to the
percentage of test lists incorrectly sorted by the network.

(C) 2011, SNU Biointelligence Lab, http://bi.snu.ac.kr/
13
A general coevolutionay genetic algorithm

Coevolutionay genetic algorithm
(CGA)
 Coevolutionary GA consists of two
GA populations.
Host-GA(H-GA) is a traditional GA
to search for better solutions in
given problems.
 Parasite-GA(P-GA) searches for
better schemata in H-GAs.
 Supersposition and transcription
operators play a role in
communicating genetic information
between H-GAs and P-GAs.

(C) 2011, SNU Biointelligence Lab, http://bi.snu.ac.kr/
14
Solving test-solution problems with a CGA

Test-solution problems consist of two types of elements
 Potential solution (concept description
 Test (examples or constraints)

CGAs operate on two interacting populations.
 Fitness interaction between two types of individuals.
 Once the fitness of the initial populations is calculated, the
individuals are sorted on fitness; that is, the fitter solutions and
tests are located at the top of their respective populations.
(C) 2011, SNU Biointelligence Lab, http://bi.snu.ac.kr/
15
CGA applications






Classification
Path planning
Constraint satisfaction
Density classification
Symbiosis
Recently, researchers have been using CGAs in realworld applications such as object motion estimation from
video images (Dixon et al 1997) and timetabling for an
emergency service (Kragelund 1997)
(C) 2011, SNU Biointelligence Lab, http://bi.snu.ac.kr/
16
CH 24. Efficient implementation of algorithms

Given the variety of evolutionary techniques, it is not possible
to present a complete discussion of implementation details.
 Random number generators
 generating random populations as usual, and then performing
repeated crossover operations with uniform random pairing
 Selection operators

compute selection probabilities for the current population based on
fitness.
 Mutation operators
 sampling from a random variable for each gene position
 Evaluation phase
Deterministic evaluation
 Monte Carlo evaluation
 Parallel evaluation

(C) 2011, SNU Biointelligence Lab, http://bi.snu.ac.kr/
17
CH 25. Computation time of evolutionary operators

Computation time of selection operators









Proportional selection vici roulette wheel
Stochastic universal sampling
q-ary tournament selection
(µ, A) selection
(µ+A) selection
q-fold binary tournament selection (EP selection)
Computation time of mutation operators
Computation time of recombination operators
Remarks
 Without any doubt, it is always useful to employ the most efficient data structures
and algorithms to realize variation and selection operators, but in almost all
practical applications most time is spent during the calculation of the objective
function value. Therefore, the realization of this operation ought to be always
checked with regard to potential savings of computing time.
(C) 2011, SNU Biointelligence Lab, http://bi.snu.ac.kr/
18
CH 26. Hardware realization of evolutionary
algorithms

In order to use evolutionary algorithms (EAs) including genetic
algorithms(GAs) in real time or for hard real-world applications.
 As EA computation has inherent parallelisms, EA computation
using parallel machines is a versatile and effective way for speeding
up.
 parallel implementations of GAs on different parallel machines
 dedicated hardware systems for EAs

a TSP GA machine, a wafer-scale GA machine, and vector processing of
GA operators
 evolvable hardware (EHW)
It is built on FPGAs (field programmable gate arrays) and whose
architecture can be reconfigured by using evolutionary computing
techniques to adapt to the new environment.
 If hardware errors occur or if new hardware functions are required, EHW
can alter its own hardware structure in order to accommodate such
changes.

(C) 2011, SNU Biointelligence Lab, http://bi.snu.ac.kr/
19