A Hardware Implementation Method of Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithms

CEC2006 : IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation , Jul 16-21, 2006 , Vancouver, BC, CanadaMulti-objective genetic algorithms (MOGAs) are approximation techniques to solve multi-objective optimization problems. Since MOGAs search a wide variety of pareto optimal solutions at the same time, MOGAs require large computation power. In order to solve practical sizes of the multi objective optimization problems, it is desirable to design and develop a hardware implementation method for MOGAs with high search efficiency and calculation speed. In this paper, we propose a new method to easily implement MOGAs as high performance hardware circuits. In the proposed method, we adopt simple Minimal Generation Gap (MGG) model as the generation model, because it is easy to be pipelined. In order to preserve diversity of individuals, we need a special selection mechanism such as the niching method which takes large computation time to repeatedly compare superiority among all individuals in the population. In the proposed method, we developed a new selection mechanism which greatly reduces the number of comparisons among individuals, keeping diversity of individuals. Our method also includes a parallel execution architecture based on Island GA which is scalable to the number of concurrent pipelines and effective to keep diversity of individuals. We applied our method to multi-objective Knapsack Problem. As a result, we confirmed that our method has higher search efficiency than existing method

On-line multiobjective automatic control system generation by evolutionary algorithms

Evolutionary algorithms are applied to the on- line generation of servo-motor control systems. In this paper, the evolving population of controllers is evaluated at run-time via hardware in the loop, rather than on a simulated model. Disturbances are also introduced at run-time in order to pro- duce robust performance. Multiobjective optimisation of both PI and Fuzzy Logic controllers is considered. Finally an on-line implementation of Genetic Programming is presented based around the Simulink standard blockset. The on-line designed controllers are shown to be robust to both system noise and ex- ternal disturbances while still demonstrating excellent steady- state and dvnamic characteristics

A controlled migration genetic algorithm operator for hardware-in-the-loop experimentation

In this paper, we describe the development of an extended migration operator, which combats the negative effects of noise on the effective search capabilities of genetic algorithms. The research is motivated by the need to minimize the num- ber of evaluations during hardware-in-the-loop experimentation, which can carry a significant cost penalty in terms of time or financial expense. The authors build on previous research, where convergence for search methods such as Simulated Annealing and Variable Neighbourhood search was accelerated by the implementation of an adaptive decision support operator. This methodology was found to be effective in searching noisy data surfaces. Providing that noise is not too significant, Genetic Al- gorithms can prove even more effective guiding experimentation. It will be shown that with the introduction of a Controlled Migration operator into the GA heuristic, data, which repre- sents a significant signal-to-noise ratio, can be searched with significant beneficial effects on the efficiency of hardware-in-the- loop experimentation, without a priori parameter tuning. The method is tested on an engine-in-the-loop experimental example, and shown to bring significant performance benefits

Analytical results for the multi-objective design of model-predictive control

In model-predictive control (MPC), achieving the best closed-loop performance under a given computational resource is the underlying design consideration. This paper analyzes the MPC design problem with control performance and required computational resource as competing design objectives. The proposed multi-objective design of MPC (MOD-MPC) approach extends current methods that treat control performance and the computational resource separately -- often with the latter as a fixed constraint -- which requires the implementation hardware to be known a priori. The proposed approach focuses on the tuning of structural MPC parameters, namely sampling time and prediction horizon length, to produce a set of optimal choices available to the practitioner. The posed design problem is then analyzed to reveal key properties, including smoothness of the design objectives and parameter bounds, and establish certain validated guarantees. Founded on these properties, necessary and sufficient conditions for an effective and efficient solver are presented, leading to a specialized multi-objective optimizer for the MOD-MPC being proposed. Finally, two real-world control problems are used to illustrate the results of the design approach and importance of the developed conditions for an effective solver of the MOD-MPC problem

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

A service oriented architecture for engineering design

Decision making in engineering design can be effectively addressed by using genetic algorithms to solve multi-objective problems. These multi-objective genetic algorithms (MOGAs) are well suited to implementation in a Service Oriented Architecture. Often the evaluation process of the MOGA is compute-intensive due to the use of a complex computer model to represent the real-world system. The emerging paradigm of Grid Computing offers a potential solution to the compute-intensive nature of this objective function evaluation, by allowing access to large amounts of compute resources in a distributed manner. This paper presents a grid-enabled framework for multi-objective optimisation using genetic algorithms (MOGA-G) to aid decision making in engineering design

A Survey on Compiler Autotuning using Machine Learning

Since the mid-1990s, researchers have been trying to use machine-learning based approaches to solve a number of different compiler optimization problems. These techniques primarily enhance the quality of the obtained results and, more importantly, make it feasible to tackle two main compiler optimization problems: optimization selection (choosing which optimizations to apply) and phase-ordering (choosing the order of applying optimizations). The compiler optimization space continues to grow due to the advancement of applications, increasing number of compiler optimizations, and new target architectures. Generic optimization passes in compilers cannot fully leverage newly introduced optimizations and, therefore, cannot keep up with the pace of increasing options. This survey summarizes and classifies the recent advances in using machine learning for the compiler optimization field, particularly on the two major problems of (1) selecting the best optimizations and (2) the phase-ordering of optimizations. The survey highlights the approaches taken so far, the obtained results, the fine-grain classification among different approaches and finally, the influential papers of the field.Comment: version 5.0 (updated on September 2018)- Preprint Version For our Accepted Journal @ ACM CSUR 2018 (42 pages) - This survey will be updated quarterly here (Send me your new published papers to be added in the subsequent version) History: Received November 2016; Revised August 2017; Revised February 2018; Accepted March 2018

Easy over Hard: A Case Study on Deep Learning

While deep learning is an exciting new technique, the benefits of this method need to be assessed with respect to its computational cost. This is particularly important for deep learning since these learners need hours (to weeks) to train the model. Such long training time limits the ability of (a)~a researcher to test the stability of their conclusion via repeated runs with different random seeds; and (b)~other researchers to repeat, improve, or even refute that original work. For example, recently, deep learning was used to find which questions in the Stack Overflow programmer discussion forum can be linked together. That deep learning system took 14 hours to execute. We show here that applying a very simple optimizer called DE to fine tune SVM, it can achieve similar (and sometimes better) results. The DE approach terminated in 10 minutes; i.e. 84 times faster hours than deep learning method. We offer these results as a cautionary tale to the software analytics community and suggest that not every new innovation should be applied without critical analysis. If researchers deploy some new and expensive process, that work should be baselined against some simpler and faster alternatives.Comment: 12 pages, 6 figures, accepted at FSE201

A decision support methodology for process in the loop optimisation

Experimental optimisation with hardware-in-the-loop is a common procedure in engineering, particularly in cases where accurate modelling is not possible. A common methodology to support experimental search is to use one of the many gradient descent methods. However, even sophisticated and proven methodologies such as Simulated Annealing (SA) can be significantly challenged in the presence of significant noise. This paper introduces a decision support methodology based upon Response Surfaces (RS), which supplements experimental management based on variable neighbourhood search, and is shown to be highly effective in directing experiments in the presence of significant signal to noise (S-N) ratio and complex combinatorial functions. The methodology is developed on a 3-dimensional surface with multiple local-minima and large basin of attraction, and high S-N ratio. Finally, the method is applied to a real-life automotive experimental application