Compact representations as a search strategy: Compression EDAs

The choice of representation crucially determines the capability of search processes to find complex solutions in which many variables interact. The question is how good representations can be found and how they can be adapted online to account for what can be learned about the structure of the problem from previous samples. We address these questions in a scenario that we term indirect Estimation-of-Distribution: We consider a decorrelated search distribution (mutational variability) on a variable length genotype space. A one-to-one encoding onto the phenotype space then needs to induce an adapted phenotypic search distribution incorporating the dependencies between phenotypic variables that have been observed successful previously. Formalizing this in the framework of Estimation-of-Distribution Algorithms, an adapted phenotypic search distribution can be characterized as minimizing the Kullback-Leibler divergence (KLD) to a population of previously selected samples (parents). The paper derives a relation between this KLD and the description length of the encoding, stating that compact representations provide a way to minimize the divergence. A proposed class of Compression Evolutionary Algorithms and experiments with an grammar-based compression scheme illustrate the new concept.

[1]  Erkki Oja,et al.  Independent component analysis: algorithms and applications , 2000, Neural Networks.

[2]  Ming Li,et al.  Minimum description length induction, Bayesianism, and Kolmogorov complexity , 1999, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[3]  G. Harik Linkage Learning via Probabilistic Modeling in the ECGA , 1999 .

[4]  Edwin D. de Jong,et al.  Representation Development from Pareto-Coevolution , 2003, GECCO.

[5]  Paul A. Viola,et al.  MIMIC: Finding Optima by Estimating Probability Densities , 1996, NIPS.

[6]  Marc Toussaint,et al.  On the Evolution of Phenotypic Exploration Distributions , 2002, FOGA.

[7]  Soraya B. Rana,et al.  Representation Issues in Neighborhood Search and Evolutionary Algorithms , 1998 .

[8]  Abhi Shelat,et al.  Approximation algorithms for grammar-based compression , 2002, SODA '02.

[9]  Gregory S. Hornby,et al.  The advantages of generative grammatical encodings for physical design , 2001, Proceedings of the 2001 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE Cat. No.01TH8546).

[10]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Hierarchical BOA Solves Ising Spin Glasses and MAXSAT , 2003, GECCO.

[11]  Franz Rothlauf,et al.  Redundant Representations in Evolutionary Computation , 2003, Evolutionary Computation.

[12]  Peter Nordin,et al.  Complexity Compression and Evolution , 1995, ICGA.

[13]  Ian H. Witten,et al.  Identifying Hierarchical Structure in Sequences: A linear-time algorithm , 1997, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[14]  L. Darrell Whitley,et al.  Dynamic Representations and Escaping Local Optima: Improving Genetic Algorithms and Local Search , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[15]  Marc Toussaint Factorial representations to generate arbitrary search distributions , 2005, GECCO '05.

[16]  Alden H. Wright,et al.  An Estimation of Distribution Algorithm Based on Maximum Entropy , 2004, GECCO.

[17]  J. Pollack,et al.  Hierarchically Consistent Test Problems for Genetic Algorithms: Summary and Additional Results , 1999 .

[18]  Marc Toussaint,et al.  Demonstrating the Evolution of Complex Genetic Representations: An Evolution of Artificial Plants , 2003, GECCO.

[19]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  The compact genetic algorithm , 1999, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[20]  S. Baluja,et al.  Using Optimal Dependency-Trees for Combinatorial Optimization: Learning the Structure of the Search Space , 1997 .

[21]  Jorma Rissanen,et al.  The Minimum Description Length Principle in Coding and Modeling , 1998, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[22]  Jordan B. Pollack,et al.  Theme preservation and the evolution of representation , 2005, GECCO '05.

[23]  Shun-ichi Amari,et al.  Information geometry on hierarchy of probability distributions , 2001, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[24]  Shumeet Baluja,et al.  Using Optimal Dependency-Trees for Combinational Optimization , 1997, ICML.

[25]  Marc Toussaint,et al.  The Structure of Evolutionary Exploration: On Crossover, Buildings Blocks, and Estimation-Of-Distribution Algorithms , 2002, GECCO.

[26]  M. Huynen Exploring phenotype space through neutral evolution , 1996, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

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

[28]  Christopher R. Stephens,et al.  Effective Fitness as an Alternative Paradigm for Evolutionary Computation I: General Formalism , 2000, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[29]  Alden H. Wright,et al.  Efficient Linkage Discovery by Limited Probing , 2003, Evolutionary Computation.

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

[31]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Linkage Problem, Distribution Estimation, and Bayesian Networks , 2000, Evolutionary Computation.

[32]  Julian F. Miller,et al.  Genetic and Evolutionary Computation — GECCO 2003 , 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[33]  Shumeet Baluja,et al.  A Method for Integrating Genetic Search Based Function Optimization and Competitive Learning , 1994 .