Metaheuristic design of feedforward neural networks: a review of two decades of research

Over the past two decades, the feedforward neural network (FNN) optimization has been a key interest among the researchers and practitioners of multiple disciplines. The FNN optimization is often viewed from the various perspectives: the optimization of weights, network architecture, activation nodes, learning parameters, learning environment, etc. Researchers adopted such different viewpoints mainly to improve the FNN's generalization ability. The gradient-descent algorithm such as backpropagation has been widely applied to optimize the FNNs. Its success is evident from the FNN's application to numerous real-world problems. However, due to the limitations of the gradient-based optimization methods, the metaheuristic algorithms including the evolutionary algorithms, swarm intelligence, etc., are still being widely explored by the researchers aiming to obtain generalized FNN for a given problem. This article attempts to summarize a broad spectrum of FNN optimization methodologies including conventional and metaheuristic approaches. This article also tries to connect various research directions emerged out of the FNN optimization practices, such as evolving neural network (NN), cooperative coevolution NN, complex-valued NN, deep learning, extreme learning machine, quantum NN, etc. Additionally, it provides interesting research challenges for future research to cope-up with the present information processing era

FEMOSAA: Feature guided and knEe driven Multi-Objective optimization for Self-Adaptive softwAre

Self-Adaptive Software (SAS) can reconfigure itself to adapt to the changing environment at runtime, aiming to continually optimize conflicted nonfunctional objectives (e.g., response time, energy consumption, throughput, cost, etc.). In this article, we present Feature-guided and knEe-driven Multi-Objective optimization for Self-Adaptive softwAre (FEMOSAA), a novel framework that automatically synergizes the feature model and Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm (MOEA) to optimize SAS at runtime. FEMOSAA operates in two phases: at design time, FEMOSAA automatically transposes the engineers’ design of SAS, expressed as a feature model, to fit the MOEA, creating new chromosome representation and reproduction operators. At runtime, FEMOSAA utilizes the feature model as domain knowledge to guide the search and further extend the MOEA, providing a larger chance for finding better solutions. In addition, we have designed a new method to search for the knee solutions, which can achieve a balanced tradeoff. We comprehensively evaluated FEMOSAA on two running SAS: One is a highly complex SAS with various adaptable real-world software under the realistic workload trace; another is a service-oriented SAS that can be dynamically composed from services. In particular, we compared the effectiveness and overhead of FEMOSAA against four of its variants and three other search-based frameworks for SAS under various scenarios, including three commonly applied MOEAs, two workload patterns, and diverse conflicting quality objectives. The results reveal the effectiveness of FEMOSAA and its superiority over the others with high statistical significance and nontrivial effect sizes

Cloud manufacturing – scheduling as a service for sheet metal manufacturing

Cloud manufacturing refers to a new concept of using centralized cloud computing for manufacturing information systems to support distributed and dynamic collaborative manufacturing environment. The core of cloud manufacturing is to provide service to geographically distributed manufacturers centralized services. This paper introduces a cloud based production scheduling system for sheet metal manufacturing and discusses the requirements of scheduling as a service. A genetic algorithm based scheduling application has been developed to serve distributed manufacturing lines in form of cloud manufacturing. The characteristics of the prototype system are described and performance estimates are tested.fi=vertaisarvioitu|en=peerReviewed

FEMOSAA: feature-guided and knee-driven multi-objective optimization for self-adaptive software

Self-Adaptive Software (SAS) can reconfigure itself to adapt to the changing environment at runtime, aiming to continually optimize conflicted nonfunctional objectives (e.g., response time, energy consumption, throughput, cost, etc.). In this article, we present Feature-guided and knEe-driven Multi-Objective optimization for Self-Adaptive softwAre (FEMOSAA), a novel framework that automatically synergizes the feature model and Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm (MOEA) to optimize SAS at runtime. FEMOSAA operates in two phases: at design time, FEMOSAA automatically transposes the engineers’ design of SAS, expressed as a feature model, to fit the MOEA, creating new chromosome representation and reproduction operators. At runtime, FEMOSAA utilizes the feature model as domain knowledge to guide the search and further extend the MOEA, providing a larger chance for finding better solutions. In addition, we have designed a new method to search for the knee solutions, which can achieve a balanced tradeoff. We comprehensively evaluated FEMOSAA on two running SAS: One is a highly complex SAS with various adaptable real-world software under the realistic workload trace; another is a service-oriented SAS that can be dynamically composed from services. In particular, we compared the effectiveness and overhead of FEMOSAA against four of its variants and three other search-based frameworks for SAS under various scenarios, including three commonly applied MOEAs, two workload patterns, and diverse conflicting quality objectives. The results reveal the effectiveness of FEMOSAA and its superiority over the others with high statistical significance and nontrivial effect sizes

Uma abordagem de otimização multiobjetivo para projeto arquitetural de linha de produto de software

Resumo: A indústria de software tem adotado a abordagem de Linha de Produto de Software (LPS) com o objetivo de aumentar o reúso de software e diminuir o tempo de produção e os custos de desenvolvimento dos produtos. Nessa abordagem, o principal artefato e a arquitetura de LPS (PLA - Product Line Architecture). No entanto, obter uma PLA modular, extensível e reusável e uma tarefa não trivial. O arquiteto pode se apoiar em métricas arquiteturais para definir e melhorar o projeto da PLA. Contudo, essa tarefa pode envolver vários fatores, muitas vezes conflitantes entre si, e encontrar o melhor trade-off entre as métricas utilizadas para avaliar o projeto transforma o projeto de PLA em uma tarefa que demanda grande esforço humano. Nesse contexto, o projeto de PLA pode ser formulado como um problema de otimização com varios fatores. Porém, elaborar um projeto que atenda a todos os fatores envolvidos pode ser mais difícil do que reconhecer um bom projeto. Problemas da Engenharia de Software similares a esse tem sido eficientemente resolvidos com algoritmos de busca em um campo de pesquisa conhecido como Engenharia de Software Baseada em Busca (SBSE - Search Based Software Engineering). Entretanto, as abordagens existentes utilizadas para otimizar arquiteturas de software nãao são apropriadas para projeto de PLAs, pois não consideram características específicas de LPS. Desse modo, este trabalho propõe uma abordagem de otimização multiobjetivo automatizada para avaliar e melhorar um projeto de PLA no que tange a modularização de características, estabilidade do projeto e extensibilidade de LPS. A abordagem proposta inclui: (a) um processo sistemático para conduzir a otimização de projeto de PLA por meio de algoritmos de busca; (b) um metamodelo que permite que esses algoritmos manipulem projetos de PLA; (c) novos operadores de busca para evoluir projetos de PLA em termos de modularização de características; e (d) um tratamento multiobjetivo para o problema de projeto de PLA. Esse tratamento multiobjetivo engloba métricas que indicam a modularização de características e a extensibilidade de LPS, além de métricas convencionais para medir princípios básicos de projeto como coesão e acoplamento. Ao final do processo de otimização, um conjunto de possíveis soluções de projeto de PLA que representam os melhores trade-off entre os objetivos otimizados e retornado. O arquiteto deve selecionar uma solução de acordo com as suas prioridades. A ferramenta OPLA-Tool foi desenvolvida para instanciar a abordagem usando algoritmos evolutivos multiobjetivos, os quais tem sido usados com sucesso na área de SBSE. Utilizando a OPLA-Tool, quatro estudos empíricos foram realizados com nove PLAs para avaliar: os operadores de busca propostos; o uso das métricas de LPS; e os algoritmos escolhidos. Em comparação às PLAs originais, os resultados mostraram que a abordagem proposta consegue gerar projetos mais estáveis, mais elegantes e com melhor modularização de características

EvoRecSys: Evolutionary framework for health and well-being recommender systems

Hugo Alcaraz-Herrera's PhD is supported by The Mexican Council of Science and Technology (Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia - CONACyT).In recent years, recommender systems have been employed in domains like ecommerce, tourism, and multimedia streaming, where personalising users’ experience based on their interactions is a fundamental aspect to consider. Recent recommender system developments have also focused on well-being, yet existing solutions have been entirely designed considering one single well-being aspect in isolation, such as a healthy diet or an active lifestyle. This research introduces EvoRecSys, a novel recommendation framework that proposes evolutionary algorithms as the main recommendation engine, thereby modelling the problem of generating personalised well-being recommendations as a multi-objective optimisation problem. EvoRecSys captures the interrelation between multiple aspects of well-being by constructing configurable recommendations in the form of bundled items with dynamic properties. The preferences and a predefined well-being goal by the user are jointly considered. By instantiating the framework into an implemented model, we illustrate the use of a genetic algorithm as the recommendation engine. Finally, this implementation has been deployed as a Web application in order to conduct a users’ study.Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACyT

A Field Guide to Genetic Programming

xiv, 233 p. : il. ; 23 cm.Libro ElectrónicoA Field Guide to Genetic Programming (ISBN 978-1-4092-0073-4) is an introduction to genetic programming (GP). GP is a systematic, domain-independent method for getting computers to solve problems automatically starting from a high-level statement of what needs to be done. Using ideas from natural evolution, GP starts from an ooze of random computer programs, and progressively refines them through processes of mutation and sexual recombination, until solutions emerge. All this without the user having to know or specify the form or structure of solutions in advance. GP has generated a plethora of human-competitive results and applications, including novel scientific discoveries and patentable inventions. The authorsIntroduction -- Representation, initialisation and operators in Tree-based GP -- Getting ready to run genetic programming -- Example genetic programming run -- Alternative initialisations and operators in Tree-based GP -- Modular, grammatical and developmental Tree-based GP -- Linear and graph genetic programming -- Probalistic genetic programming -- Multi-objective genetic programming -- Fast and distributed genetic programming -- GP theory and its applications -- Applications -- Troubleshooting GP -- Conclusions.Contents xi 1 Introduction 1.1 Genetic Programming in a Nutshell 1.2 Getting Started 1.3 Prerequisites 1.4 Overview of this Field Guide I Basics 2 Representation, Initialisation and GP 2.1 Representation 2.2 Initialising the Population 2.3 Selection 2.4 Recombination and Mutation Operators in Tree-based 3 Getting Ready to Run Genetic Programming 19 3.1 Step 1: Terminal Set 19 3.2 Step 2: Function Set 20 3.2.1 Closure 21 3.2.2 Sufficiency 23 3.2.3 Evolving Structures other than Programs 23 3.3 Step 3: Fitness Function 24 3.4 Step 4: GP Parameters 26 3.5 Step 5: Termination and solution designation 27 4 Example Genetic Programming Run 4.1 Preparatory Steps 29 4.2 Step-by-Step Sample Run 31 4.2.1 Initialisation 31 4.2.2 Fitness Evaluation Selection, Crossover and Mutation Termination and Solution Designation Advanced Genetic Programming 5 Alternative Initialisations and Operators in 5.1 Constructing the Initial Population 5.1.1 Uniform Initialisation 5.1.2 Initialisation may Affect Bloat 5.1.3 Seeding 5.2 GP Mutation 5.2.1 Is Mutation Necessary? 5.2.2 Mutation Cookbook 5.3 GP Crossover 5.4 Other Techniques 32 5.5 Tree-based GP 39 6 Modular, Grammatical and Developmental Tree-based GP 47 6.1 Evolving Modular and Hierarchical Structures 47 6.1.1 Automatically Defined Functions 48 6.1.2 Program Architecture and Architecture-Altering 50 6.2 Constraining Structures 51 6.2.1 Enforcing Particular Structures 52 6.2.2 Strongly Typed GP 52 6.2.3 Grammar-based Constraints 53 6.2.4 Constraints and Bias 55 6.3 Developmental Genetic Programming 57 6.4 Strongly Typed Autoconstructive GP with PushGP 59 7 Linear and Graph Genetic Programming 61 7.1 Linear Genetic Programming 61 7.1.1 Motivations 61 7.1.2 Linear GP Representations 62 7.1.3 Linear GP Operators 64 7.2 Graph-Based Genetic Programming 65 7.2.1 Parallel Distributed GP (PDGP) 65 7.2.2 PADO 67 7.2.3 Cartesian GP 67 7.2.4 Evolving Parallel Programs using Indirect Encodings 68 8 Probabilistic Genetic Programming 8.1 Estimation of Distribution Algorithms 69 8.2 Pure EDA GP 71 8.3 Mixing Grammars and Probabilities 74 9 Multi-objective Genetic Programming 75 9.1 Combining Multiple Objectives into a Scalar Fitness Function 75 9.2 Keeping the Objectives Separate 76 9.2.1 Multi-objective Bloat and Complexity Control 77 9.2.2 Other Objectives 78 9.2.3 Non-Pareto Criteria 80 9.3 Multiple Objectives via Dynamic and Staged Fitness Functions 80 9.4 Multi-objective Optimisation via Operator Bias 81 10 Fast and Distributed Genetic Programming 83 10.1 Reducing Fitness Evaluations/Increasing their Effectiveness 83 10.2 Reducing Cost of Fitness with Caches 86 10.3 Parallel and Distributed GP are Not Equivalent 88 10.4 Running GP on Parallel Hardware 89 10.4.1 Master–slave GP 89 10.4.2 GP Running on GPUs 90 10.4.3 GP on FPGAs 92 10.4.4 Sub-machine-code GP 93 10.5 Geographically Distributed GP 93 11 GP Theory and its Applications 97 11.1 Mathematical Models 98 11.2 Search Spaces 99 11.3 Bloat 101 11.3.1 Bloat in Theory 101 11.3.2 Bloat Control in Practice 104 III Practical Genetic Programming 12 Applications 12.1 Where GP has Done Well 12.2 Curve Fitting, Data Modelling and Symbolic Regression 12.3 Human Competitive Results – the Humies 12.4 Image and Signal Processing 12.5 Financial Trading, Time Series, and Economic Modelling 12.6 Industrial Process Control 12.7 Medicine, Biology and Bioinformatics 12.8 GP to Create Searchers and Solvers – Hyper-heuristics xiii 12.9 Entertainment and Computer Games 127 12.10The Arts 127 12.11Compression 128 13 Troubleshooting GP 13.1 Is there a Bug in the Code? 13.2 Can you Trust your Results? 13.3 There are No Silver Bullets 13.4 Small Changes can have Big Effects 13.5 Big Changes can have No Effect 13.6 Study your Populations 13.7 Encourage Diversity 13.8 Embrace Approximation 13.9 Control Bloat 13.10 Checkpoint Results 13.11 Report Well 13.12 Convince your Customers 14 Conclusions Tricks of the Trade A Resources A.1 Key Books A.2 Key Journals A.3 Key International Meetings A.4 GP Implementations A.5 On-Line Resources 145 B TinyGP 151 B.1 Overview of TinyGP 151 B.2 Input Data Files for TinyGP 153 B.3 Source Code 154 B.4 Compiling and Running TinyGP 162 Bibliography 167 Inde