Genetic Algorithms and Heuristic Search

Genetic Algorithms (GAs) and heuristic search are shown to be structurally similar. The strength of the correspondence and its practical consequences are demonstrated by considering the relationship between fitness functions in GAs and the heuristic functions of AI. By examining the extent to which fitness functions approximate an AI ideal, a measure of GA search difficulty is defined and applied to previously studied problems. The success of the measure in predicting GA performance (1) illustrates the potential advantages of viewing evolutionary search from a heuristic search perspective and (2) appears to be an important step toward answering a question that has been the subject of much research in the GAs community: what makes search hard (or easy) for a GA?

[1]  T. Rado.  On non-computable functions , 1962 .

[2]  K. Dejong,et al.  An analysis of the behavior of a class of genetic adaptive systems , 1975 .

[3]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[4]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Heuristics : intelligent search strategies for computer problem solving , 1984 .

[5]  D. E. Goldberg,et al.  Simple Genetic Algorithms and the Minimal, Deceptive Problem , 1987 .

[6]  B. Ginsburg.  Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology, William B. Provine. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1981), xvi, +545. Price $30.00 , 1987 .

[7]  D. Ackley.  A connectionist machine for genetic hillclimbing , 1987 .

[8]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[9]  J. David Schaffer,et al.  Representation and Hidden Bias: Gray vs. Binary Coding for Genetic Algorithms , 1988, ML.

[10]  John H. Holland,et al.  Distributed genetic algorithms for function optimization , 1989 .

[11]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Messy Genetic Algorithms: Motivation, Analysis, and First Results , 1989, Complex Syst..

[12]  D. E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search , 1989 .

[13]  GUNAR E. LIEPINS,et al.  Representational issues in genetic optimization , 1990, J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell..

[14]  Gunar E. Liepins,et al.  Deceptiveness and Genetic Algorithm Dynamics , 1990, FOGA.

[15]  L. Darrell Whitley,et al.  Fundamental Principles of Deception in Genetic Search , 1990, FOGA.

[16]  L. Darrell Whitley,et al.  The Only Challenging Problems Are Deceptive: Global Search by Solving Order-1 Hyperplanes , 1991, ICGA.

[17]  Melanie Mitchell,et al.  The royal road for genetic algorithms: Fitness landscapes and GA performance , 1991 .

[18]  Kenneth A. De Jong,et al.  Are Genetic Algorithms Function Optimizers? , 1992, PPSN.

[19]  John J. Grefenstette,et al.  Deception Considered Harmful , 1992, FOGA.

[20]  Gregory J. E. Rawlins,et al.  Reverse HillclimbingGenetic Algorithms and the Busy Beaver Problem , 1993, ICGA.

[21]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Long Path Problems , 1994, PPSN.

[22]  Terry Jones,et al.  A Description of Holland's Royal Road Function , 1994, Evolutionary Computation.

[23]  Terry Jones,et al.  Fitness Distance Correlation as a Measure of Problem Difficulty for Genetic Algorithms , 1995, ICGA.

[24]  Tim Jones.  Evolutionary Algorithms, Fitness Landscapes and Search , 1995 .