Survival of the flexible: explaining the recent popularity of nature-inspired optimization within a rapidly evolving world

Researchers often comment on the popularity and potential of nature-inspired meta-heuristics (NIM), however there has been a paucity of data to directly support the claim that NIM are growing in prominence compared to other optimization techniques. In a companion article published in this special issue, I reported evidence that the use of NIM is not only growing, but indeed has surpassed mathematical optimization techniques (MOT) and other metaheuristics in several metrics related to academic research activity (publication frequency) and commercial activity (patenting frequency). Motivated by these findings, this article reviews several theories of algorithm utility and discusses why these arguments remain unsatisfying. I argue that any explanation of NIM popularity should directly account for the manner in which most NIM success has actually been achieved: through hybridization and customization to specific problems. By taking a problem lifecycle perspective, this paper provides simple yet important insights into how nature-inspired meta-heuristics might derive utility by being flexible. Given global trends in the evolution of business products and services where optimization algorithms are applied, I speculate that highly flexible algorithm frameworks will become increasingly popular within our rapidly changing world.

[1]  M. El-Sharkawi,et al.  Introduction to Evolutionary Computation , 2008 .

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

[3]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  Accelerating Adaptive Processes: Product Innovation in the Global Computer Industry , 1995 .

[4]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  A Hierarchy of Evolution Programs: An Experimental Study , 1993, Evolutionary Computation.

[5]  A. Wagner,et al.  Innovation and robustness in complex regulatory gene networks , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[7]  D. Teece.  Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance , 2007 .

[8]  M. Rosenau.  SPEEDING YOUR NEW PRODUCT TO MARKET , 1988 .

[9]  Basil Achilladelis,et al.  The dynamics of technological innovation: the case of the pharmaceutical industry , 2001 .

[10]  Xin Yao,et al.  Evolutionary mechanics: new engineering principles for the emergence of flexibility in a dynamic and uncertain world , 2011, Natural Computing.

[11]  G. Edelman,et al.  Degeneracy and complexity in biological systems , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[12]  K. Weick,et al.  Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking , 2005 .

[13]  Piero P. Bonissone,et al.  Evolutionary algorithms + domain knowledge = real-world evolutionary computation , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[14]  A. Wagner.  Robustness and evolvability: a paradox resolved , 2008, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[15]  Regina Frei,et al.  Degeneracy and networked buffering: principles for supporting emergent evolvability in agile manufacturing systems , 2011, Natural Computing.

[16]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Evolutionary computation: comments on the history and current state , 1997, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[17]  Ashish Sood,et al.  Technological Evolution and Radical Innovation , 2005 .

[18]  P. Husbands,et al.  Local evolvability of statistically neutral GasNet robot controllers. , 2003, Bio Systems.

[19]  J. Crutchfield,et al.  Optimizing Epochal Evolutionary Search: Population-Size Dependent Theory , 1998, Machine Learning.

[20]  G. Stalk.  Time-The Next Source of Competitive Advantage , 1988 .

[21]  T. Hout,et al.  Competing Against Time , 1990 .

[22]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES, WHAT ARE THEY? , 2000 .

[23]  Jean-Baptiste Waldner,et al.  Nanocomputers and swarm intelligence , 2008 .

[24]  A. Griffin.  Metrics for Measuring Product Development Cycle Time , 1993 .

[25]  Axel Bender,et al.  Degeneracy: a design principle for achieving robustness and evolvability. , 2009, Journal of theoretical biology.

[26]  Nostrand Reinhold,et al.  the utility of using the genetic algorithm approach on the problem of Davis, L. (1991), Handbook of Genetic Algorithms. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. , 1991 .

[27]  Zbigniew J. Czech,et al.  Selection Schemes in Evolutionary Algorithms , 2002, Intelligent Information Systems.

[28]  L. Argote,et al.  Learning Curves in Manufacturing , 1990, Science.

[29]  James M. Whitacre.  Recent trends indicate rapid growth of nature-inspired optimization in academia and industry , 2011, Computing.

[30]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution Programs , 1996, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[31]  A. Chakrabarti,et al.  Innovation Speed: A Conceptual Model of Context, Antecedents, and Outcomes , 1996 .

[32]  Wendy Johnson,et al.  Introduction to Evolutionary Computation (lesson & activity) , 2012 .

[33]  Jürgen Branke,et al.  Evolutionary optimization in uncertain environments-a survey , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[34]  C. Crawford.  The Hidden Costs of Accelerated Product Development , 1992 .

[35]  A. Page.  Assessing New Product Development Practices and Performance: Establishing Crucial Norms , 1993 .

[36]  Barry L. Bayus,et al.  Are Product Life Cycles Really Getting Shorter , 1994 .

[37]  Xin Yao,et al.  From an individual to a population: an analysis of the first hitting time of population-based evolutionary algorithms , 2002, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[38]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Optimizing Global-Local Search Hybrids , 1999, GECCO.

[39]  Stephan Alberth,et al.  Forecasting technology costs via the experience curve — Myth or magic? , 2008 .

[40]  D. Wilemon,et al.  A Survey of Major Approaches for Accelerating New Product Development , 1992 .

[41]  J. Gerhart,et al.  The theory of facilitated variation , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[42]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A Comparative Analysis of Selection Schemes Used in Genetic Algorithms , 1990, FOGA.

[43]  S. Zahra,et al.  Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capabilities: A Review, Model and Research Agenda , 2006 .

[44]  Constance E. Helfat,et al.  The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles , 2003 .

[45]  M. Hitt,et al.  The new competitive landscape , 1995 .

[46]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  An analysis of the behavior of simplified evolutionary algorithms on trap functions , 2003, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[47]  H. Simon,et al.  A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice , 1955 .

[48]  Tobias Blickle,et al.  Theory of evolutionary algorithms and application to system synthesis , 1997 .

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

[50]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution Programs , 1992, Artificial Intelligence.

[51]  Axel Bender,et al.  Networked buffering: a basic mechanism for distributed robustness in complex adaptive systems , 2009, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling.

[52]  Ruhul A. Sarker,et al.  Making and breaking power laws in evolutionary algorithm population dynamics , 2009, Memetic Comput..

[53]  R. Färe,et al.  Productivity Growth, Technical Progress, and Efficiency Change in Industrialized Countries , 1994 .

[54]  Christopher L. Magee,et al.  A functional approach for studying technological progress: Extension to energy technology , 2008 .

[55]  A. E. Eiben,et al.  Introduction to Evolutionary Computing , 2003, Natural Computing Series.

[56]  Lawrence. Davis,et al.  Handbook Of Genetic Algorithms , 1990 .

[57]  Kenneth A. De Jong,et al.  Evolving in a Changing World , 1999, ISMIS.

[58]  R. Kurzweil.  The Law of Accelerating Returns , 2004 .

[59]  Per Kristian Lehre,et al.  Crossover Can Be Constructive When Computing Unique Input Output Sequences , 2008, SEAL.

[60]  Xin Yao,et al.  The Role of Degenerate Robustness in the Evolvability of Multi-agent Systems in Dynamic Environments , 2010, PPSN.

[61]  B. Freisleben,et al.  A comparison of memetic algorithms, tabu search, and ant colonies for the quadratic assignment problem , 1999, Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation-CEC99 (Cat. No. 99TH8406).

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

[63]  C. Gersick.  REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE THEORIES: A MULTILEVEL EXPLORATION OF THE PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM PARADIGM , 1991 .

[64]  Kenneth A. De Jong,et al.  Using Markov Chains to Analyze GAFOs , 1994, FOGA.

[65]  A. E. Eiben,et al.  A critical note on experimental research methodology in EC , 2002, Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC'02 (Cat. No.02TH8600).

[66]  Jürgen Branke *,et al.  Anticipation and flexibility in dynamic scheduling , 2005 .

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

[68]  C. Walter.  Kryder's law. , 2005, Scientific American.

[69]  Richard W. Olshavsky,et al.  Shortening of the PLC—AN Empirical Test , 1981 .

[70]  Dr. Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  How to Solve It: Modern Heuristics , 2004 .

[71]  C. Harmon,et al.  Experience Curves of Photovoltaic Technology , 2000 .