The Hierarchical Fair Competition (HFC) Framework for Sustainable Evolutionary Algorithms

Many current Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) suffer from a tendency to converge prematurely or stagnate without progress for complex problems. This may be due to the loss of or failure to discover certain valuable genetic material or the loss of the capability to discover new genetic material before convergence has limited the algorithm's ability to search widely. In this paper, the Hierarchical Fair Competition (HFC) model, including several variants, is proposed as a generic framework for sustainable evolutionary search by transforming the convergent nature of the current EA framework into a non-convergent search process. That is, the structure of HFC does not allow the convergence of the population to the vicinity of any set of optimal or locally optimal solutions. The sustainable search capability of HFC is achieved by ensuring a continuous supply and the incorporation of genetic material in a hierarchical manner, and by culturing and maintaining, but continually renewing, populations of individuals of intermediate fitness levels. HFC employs an assembly-line structure in which subpopulations are hierarchically organized into different fitness levels, reducing the selection pressure within each subpopulation while maintaining the global selection pressure to help ensure the exploitation of the good genetic material found. Three EAs based on the HFC principle are tested - two on the even-10-parity genetic programming benchmark problem and a real-world analog circuit synthesis problem, and another on the HIFF genetic algorithm (GA) benchmark problem. The significant gain in robustness, scalability and efficiency by HFC, with little additional computing effort, and its tolerance of small population sizes, demonstrates its effectiveness on these problems and shows promise of its potential for improving other existing EAs for difficult problems. A paradigm shift from that of most EAs is proposed: rather than trying to escape from local optima or delay convergence at a local optimum, HFC allows the emergence of new optima continually in a bottom-up manner, maintaining low local selection pressure at all fitness levels, while fostering exploitation of high-fitness individuals through promotion to higher levels.

[1]  Samir W. Mahfoud.  Crowding and Preselection Revisited , 1992, PPSN.

[2]  Jianjun Hu,et al.  Automated design approaches for multi-domain dynamic systems using bond graphs and genetic programming , 2002, Int. J. Comput. Syst. Signals.

[3]  Erik D. Goodman,et al.  Optimal design of flywheels using an injection island genetic algorithm , 1999, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[4]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  Solving High-Order Boolean Parity Problems with Smooth Uniform Crossover, Sub-Machine Code GP and Demes , 2000, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[5]  E. Goodman,et al.  Continuous Hierarchical Fair Competition Model for Sustainable Innovation in Genetic Programming , 2003 .

[6]  Pat Langley,et al.  Editorial: On Machine Learning , 1986, Machine Learning.

[7]  Erik D. Goodman,et al.  Coarse-grain parallel genetic algorithms: categorization and new approach , 1994, Proceedings of 1994 6th IEEE Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing.

[8]  Steven M. Gustafson,et al.  Genetic Programming And Multi-agent Layered Learning By Reinforcements , 2002, GECCO.

[9]  C. Waddington.  Canalization of Development and the Inheritance of Acquired Characters , 1942, Nature.

[10]  David E. Goldberg.  Using Time Efficiently: Genetic-Evolutionary Algorithms and the Continuation Problem , 1999, GECCO.

[11]  SAGAInman HarveyCSRP.  Species Adaptation Genetic Algorithms: A Basis for a Continuing SAGA , 1992 .

[12]  John R. Koza,et al.  Automatic Creation of Human-Competitive Programs and Controllers by Means of Genetic Programming , 2000, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[13]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Evolving Neural Networks through Augmenting Topologies , 2002, Evolutionary Computation.

[14]  John R. Koza,et al.  Genetic Programming II , 1992 .

[15]  J. Pollack,et al.  Hierarchically consistent test problems for genetic algorithms , 1999, Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation-CEC99 (Cat. No. 99TH8406).

[16]  L. Darrell Whitley,et al.  Delta Coding: An Iterative Search Strategy for Genetic Algorithms , 1991, ICGA.

[17]  Julian Francis Miller,et al.  Scalability problems of digital circuit evolution evolvability and efficient designs , 2000, Proceedings. The Second NASA/DoD Workshop on Evolvable Hardware.

[18]  Gary B. Lamont,et al.  An effective explicit building block MOEA, the MOMGA-IIa , 2005, 2005 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[19]  John R. Koza,et al.  Genetic programming II (videotape): the next generation , 1994 .

[20]  Jianjun Hu,et al.  Adaptive Hierarchical Fair Competition (AHFC) Model For Parallel Evolutionary Algorithms , 2002, GECCO.

[21]  Conor Ryan,et al.  Reducing Premature Convergence in Evolutionary Algorithms , 1996 .

[22]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  RapidAccurate Optimization of Difficult Problems Using Fast Messy Genetic Algorithms , 1993, ICGA.

[23]  S. Luke.  When short runs beat long runs , 2001 .

[24]  Howard Hunt Pattee,et al.  Hierarchy Theory: The Challenge of Complex Systems , 1973 .

[25]  John J. Grefenstette,et al.  Genetic Algorithms for Tracking Changing Environments , 1993, ICGA.

[26]  D. Goldberg,et al.  Escaping hierarchical traps with competent genetic algorithms , 2001 .

[27]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  The Design of Innovation: Lessons from and for Competent Genetic Algorithms , 2002 .

[28]  P. John Clarkson,et al.  A Species Conserving Genetic Algorithm for Multimodal Function Optimization , 2002, Evolutionary Computation.

[29]  Shigeyoshi Tsutsui,et al.  Search Space Division in GAs using Phenotypic Squares Estimates , 1998, Inf. Sci..

[30]  P. Nordin.  Genetic Programming III - Darwinian Invention and Problem Solving , 1999 .

[31]  Samir W. Mahfoud.  Niching methods for genetic algorithms , 1996 .

[32]  John R. Koza,et al.  Genetic Programming III: Darwinian Invention & Problem Solving , 1999 .

[33]  J. Pollack,et al.  Coevolving High-Level Representations , 1993 .

[34]  Xin Yao,et al.  Promises and challenges of evolvable hardware , 1996, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C.

[35]  Inman Harvey,et al.  Evolutionary robotics: the Sussex approach , 1997, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[36]  Paul J. Darwen,et al.  Co-Evolutionary Learning by Automatic Modularisation with Speciation , 1996 .

[37]  John H. Holland,et al.  Building Blocks, Cohort Genetic Algorithms, and Hyperplane-Defined Functions , 2000, Evolutionary Computation.

[38]  John Tyler Bonner,et al.  First Signals: The Evolution of Multicellular Development , 2000 .

[39]  Justinian P. Rosca,et al.  Hierarchical Self-Organization in Genetic programming , 1994, ICML.

[40]  Dan Boneh,et al.  On genetic algorithms , 1995, COLT '95.

[41]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Massive Multimodality, Deception, and Genetic Algorithms , 1992, PPSN.

[42]  Kenneth A. De Jong,et al.  Cooperative Coevolution: An Architecture for Evolving Coadapted Subcomponents , 2000, Evolutionary Computation.

[43]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Sizing Populations for Serial and Parallel Genetic Algorithms , 1989, ICGA.

[44]  Jim Tørresen,et al.  A Scalable Approach to Evolvable Hardware , 2002, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[45]  H. Simon,et al.  The Organization of Complex Systems , 1977 .