When Does Dependency Modelling Help? Using a Randomized Landscape Generator to Compare Algorithms in Terms of Problem Structure

In this paper we extend a previously proposed randomized landscape generator in combination with a comparative experimental methodology to study the behaviour of continuous metaheuristic optimization algorithms. In particular, we generate landscapes with parameterised, linear ridge structure and perform pairwise comparisons of algorithms to gain insight into what kind of problems are easy and difficult for one algorithm instance relative to another. We apply this methodology to investigate the specific issue of explicit dependency modelling in simple continuous Estimation of Distribution Algorithms. Experimental results reveal specific examples of landscapes (with certain identifiable features) where dependency modelling is useful, harmful or has little impact on average algorithm performance. The results are related to some previous intuition about the behaviour of these algorithms, but at the same time lead to new insights into the relationship between dependency modelling in EDAs and the structure of the problem landscape. The overall methodology is quite general and could be used to examine specific features of other algorithms.

[1]  Cara MacNish Towards unbiased benchmarking of evolutionary and hybrid algorithms for real-valued optimisation , 2007, Connect. Sci..

[2]  C. D. Perttunen,et al.  Lipschitzian optimization without the Lipschitz constant , 1993 .

[3]  Reha Uzsoy,et al.  Experimental Evaluation of Heuristic Optimization Algorithms: A Tutorial , 2001, J. Heuristics.

[4]  Dirk Thierens,et al.  Enhancing the Performance of Maximum-Likelihood Gaussian EDAs Using Anticipated Mean Shift , 2008, PPSN.

[5]  J. A. Lozano,et al.  Towards a New Evolutionary Computation: Advances on Estimation of Distribution Algorithms (Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing) , 2006 .

[6]  Marcus Gallagher,et al.  A general-purpose tunable landscape generator , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[7]  Jörn Grahl,et al.  Behaviour of UMDAc algorithm with truncation selection on monotonous functions , 2005 .

[8]  Pedro Larrañaga,et al.  Estimation of Distribution Algorithms , 2002, Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation.

[9]  Yaroslav D. Sergeyev,et al.  Algorithm 829: Software for generation of classes of test functions with known local and global minima for global optimization , 2003, TOMS.

[10]  Pedro Larrañaga,et al.  Mathematical modelling of UMDAc algorithm with tournament selection. Behaviour on linear and quadratic functions , 2002, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[11]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  Evolving Problems to Learn About Particle Swarm Optimizers and Other Search Algorithms , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[12]  Simon M. Lucas,et al.  Parallel Problem Solving from Nature - PPSN X, 10th International Conference Dortmund, Germany, September 13-17, 2008, Proceedings , 2008, PPSN.

[13]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  A Survey of Optimization by Building and Using Probabilistic Models , 2002, Comput. Optim. Appl..

[14]  Marcus Gallagher,et al.  Convergence analysis of UMDAC with finite populations: a case study on flat landscapes , 2009, GECCO '09.

[15]  Bo Yuan,et al.  A Mathematical Modelling Technique for the Analysis of the Dynamics of a Simple Continuous EDA , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

[16]  Nikolaus Hansen,et al.  The CMA Evolution Strategy: A Comparing Review , 2006, Towards a New Evolutionary Computation.