Experimental analysis of the relevance of fitness landscape topographical characterization

The performance of any Evolutionary Algorithm (EA) is closely related to the topographical features of the problem fitness landscape it is applied to. It is therefore of paramount importance to determine a set of features that is useful in order to choose an appropriate algorithm for a given problem. This way, the inefficient trial and error stage that most EA users carry out until they find an EA that satisfies their objectives can be reduced. In fact, as this, usually lengthy, trial and error stage is generally carried out in an ad hoc manner, the information the user gleans from the performance of the algorithms chosen and their particular parameter sets, or lack thereof, can be very misleading or plain useless. Thus, in previous work, we analyze a set of features in synthetic fitness landscapes that can be used in order to characterize problems and relate them to the performance of EAs. The objective is to define a mechanism to reduce the trial and error stage when choosing the correct EA and, at the same time, provide more in depth knowledge on the nature of the problem. Here, in order to highlight the usefulness of the approach, this analysis is extended to real world application landscapes by means of the characterization of a horizontal axis wind turbine (HAWT) design problem, showing the relevance of the pre-processing stage in the selection of the most appropriate EA to solve it.

[1]  Julian Francis Miller,et al.  Information Characteristics and the Structure of Landscapes , 2000, Evolutionary Computation.

[2]  C. Reeves.  Predictive measures for problem difficulty , 1999, Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation-CEC99 (Cat. No. 99TH8406).

[3]  Devavrat Shah,et al.  Computing separable functions via gossip , 2005, PODC '06.

[4]  E. Weinberger,et al.  Correlated and uncorrelated fitness landscapes and how to tell the difference , 1990, Biological Cybernetics.

[5]  Rainer Storn,et al.  Differential Evolution – A Simple and Efficient Heuristic for global Optimization over Continuous Spaces , 1997, J. Glob. Optim..

[6]  P. N. Suganthan,et al.  Problem Definitions and Evaluation Criteria for CEC 2011 Competition on Testing Evolutionary Algorithms on Real World Optimization Problems , 2011 .

[7]  Pilar Caamaño Sobrino.  Caracterización de espacios de calidad y algoritmos evolutivos en problemas de optimización con codificación real , 2011 .

[8]  Richard J. Duro,et al.  Are evolutionary algorithm competitions characterizing landscapes appropriately , 2011, GECCO.

[9]  P. Cinnella,et al.  GA-Hardness of Aerodynamic Optimization Problems: Analysis and Proposed Cures , 2007 .

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

[11]  Xin Yao,et al.  A Note on Problem Difficulty Measures in Black-Box Optimization: Classification, Realizations and Predictability , 2007, Evolutionary Computation.

[12]  Richard J. Duro,et al.  Wind turbine design through evolutionary algorithms based on surrogate CFD methods , 2013 .

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

[14]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Tackling Real-Coded Genetic Algorithms: Operators and Tools for Behavioural Analysis , 1998, Artificial Intelligence Review.

[15]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  Information landscapes and problem hardness , 2005, GECCO '05.

[16]  Richard J. Duro,et al.  Real-Valued Multimodal Fitness Landscape Characterization for Evolution , 2010, ICONIP.

[17]  Nikolaus Hansen,et al.  A restart CMA evolution strategy with increasing population size , 2005, 2005 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[18]  Bernd Bischl,et al.  Exploratory landscape analysis , 2011, GECCO '11.

[19]  JesMar ´ in,et al.  Macroevolutionary Algorithms: A New Optimization Method on Fitness Landscapes , 1999 .

[20]  P. Stadler,et al.  Random field models for fitness landscapes , 1999 .

[21]  Bernard Manderick,et al.  The Genetic Algorithm and the Structure of the Fitness Landscape , 1991, ICGA.

[22]  Bart Naudts,et al.  A comparison of predictive measures of problem difficulty in evolutionary algorithms , 2000, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[23]  Patrick D. Surry,et al.  Fitness Variance of Formae and Performance Prediction , 1994, FOGA.

[24]  L. Darrell Whitley,et al.  Building Better Test Functions , 1995, ICGA.

[25]  Thomas Jansen,et al.  Design and Management of Complex Technical Processes and Systems by Means of Computational Intelligence Methods on Classifications of Fitness Functions on Classifications of Fitness Functions , 2022 .

[26]  Yuval Davidor,et al.  Epistasis Variance: A Viewpoint on GA-Hardness , 1990, FOGA.