On the genotype compression and expansion for evolutionary algorithms in the continuous domain

This paper investigates the influence of genotype size on evolutionary algorithms' performance. We consider genotype compression (where genotype is smaller than phenotype) and expansion (genotype is larger than phenotype) and define different strategies to reconstruct the original variables of the phenotype from both the compressed and expanded genotypes. We test our approach with several evolutionary algorithms over three sets of optimization problems: COCO benchmark functions, modeling of Physical Unclonable Functions, and neural network weight optimization. Our results show that genotype expansion works significantly better than compression, and in many scenarios, outperforms the original genotype encoding. This could be attributed to the change in the genotype-phenotype mapping introduced with the expansion methods: this modification beneficially transforms the domain landscape and alleviates the search space traversal.

[1]  Panos M. Pardalos,et al.  On the number of local minima for the multidimensional assignment problem , 2006, J. Comb. Optim..

[2]  Georg T. Becker,et al.  The Gap Between Promise and Reality: On the Insecurity of XOR Arbiter PUFs , 2015, CHES.

[3]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  A Taxonomy for Artificial Embryogeny , 2003, Artificial Life.

[4]  Jürgen Schmidhuber,et al.  A Wavelet-based Encoding for Neuroevolution , 2016, GECCO.

[5]  Nicholas J. Radcliffe,et al.  Equivalence Class Analysis of Genetic Algorithms , 1991, Complex Syst..

[6]  Tatsuya Nomura An Analysis on Crossovers for Real Number Chromosomes in an Infinite Population Size , 1997, IJCAI.

[7]  Heinz Mühlenbein,et al.  Predictive Models for the Breeder Genetic Algorithm I. Continuous Parameter Optimization , 1993, Evolutionary Computation.

[8]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Simulated Binary Crossover for Continuous Search Space , 1995, Complex Syst..

[9]  G. Edward Suh,et al.  Extracting secret keys from integrated circuits , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems.

[10]  Xiaodong Li,et al.  A Comparative Study of CMA-ES on Large Scale Global Optimisation , 2010, Australasian Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

[11]  Srinivas Devadas,et al.  A Lockdown Technique to Prevent Machine Learning on PUFs for Lightweight Authentication , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Multi-Scale Computing Systems.

[12]  Matthew Andres Moreno,et al.  Learning an evolvable genotype-phenotype mapping , 2018, GECCO.

[13]  R. Pfeifer,et al.  Evolving Complete Agents using Artificial Ontogeny , 2003 .

[14]  Alex A. Freitas,et al.  Evolutionary Computation , 2002 .

[15]  A. E. Eiben,et al.  Introduction to Evolutionary Computing 2nd Edition , 2020 .

[16]  César Hervás-Martínez,et al.  Improving crossover operator for real-coded genetic algorithms using virtual parents , 2007, J. Heuristics.

[17]  Alden H. Wright,et al.  Genetic Algorithms for Real Parameter Optimization , 1990, FOGA.

[18]  Antonio Bolufé Röhler,et al.  Measuring the curse of dimensionality and its effects on particle swarm optimization and differential evolution , 2014, Applied Intelligence.

[19]  Una-May O'Reilly,et al.  CryptoBench: benchmarking evolutionary algorithms with cryptographic problems , 2017, GECCO.

[20]  Sancho Salcedo-Sanz,et al.  Improving metaheuristics convergence properties in inductive query by example using two strategies for reducing the search space , 2007, Comput. Oper. Res..

[21]  Jeroen Delvaux,et al.  Machine-Learning Attacks on PolyPUFs, OB-PUFs, RPUFs, LHS-PUFs, and PUF–FSMs , 2019, IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security.

[22]  Jürgen Schmidhuber,et al.  Evolving neural networks in compressed weight space , 2010, GECCO '10.

[23]  Anne Auger,et al.  COCO: a platform for comparing continuous optimizers in a black-box setting , 2016, Optim. Methods Softw..