RGFGA: An efficient representation and crossover for grouping genetic algorithms

There is substantial research into genetic algorithms that are used to group large numbers of objects into mutually exclusive subsets based upon some fitness function. However, nearly all methods involve degeneracy to some degree. We introduce a new representation for grouping genetic algorithms, the restricted growth function genetic algorithm, that effectively removes all degeneracy, resulting in a more efficient search. A new crossover operator is also described that exploits a measure of similarity between chromosomes in a population. Using several synthetic datasets, we compare the performance of our representation and crossover with another well known state-of-the-art GA method, a strawman optimisation method and a well-established statistical clustering algorithm, with encouraging results

Towards efficient multiobjective optimization: multiobjective statistical criterions

The use of Surrogate Based Optimization (SBO) is widely spread in engineering design to reduce the number of computational expensive simulations. However, "real-world" problems often consist of multiple, conflicting objectives leading to a set of equivalent solutions (the Pareto front). The objectives are often aggregated into a single cost function to reduce the computational cost, though a better approach is to use multiobjective optimization methods to directly identify a set of Pareto-optimal solutions, which can be used by the designer to make more efficient design decisions (instead of making those decisions upfront). Most of the work in multiobjective optimization is focused on MultiObjective Evolutionary Algorithms (MOEAs). While MOEAs are well-suited to handle large, intractable design spaces, they typically require thousands of expensive simulations, which is prohibitively expensive for the problems under study. Therefore, the use of surrogate models in multiobjective optimization, denoted as MultiObjective Surrogate-Based Optimization (MOSBO), may prove to be even more worthwhile than SBO methods to expedite the optimization process. In this paper, the authors propose the Efficient Multiobjective Optimization (EMO) algorithm which uses Kriging models and multiobjective versions of the expected improvement and probability of improvement criterions to identify the Pareto front with a minimal number of expensive simulations. The EMO algorithm is applied on multiple standard benchmark problems and compared against the well-known NSGA-II and SPEA2 multiobjective optimization methods with promising results

The Evolutionary Unfolding of Complexity

We analyze the population dynamics of a broad class of fitness functions that exhibit epochal evolution---a dynamical behavior, commonly observed in both natural and artificial evolutionary processes, in which long periods of stasis in an evolving population are punctuated by sudden bursts of change. Our approach---statistical dynamics---combines methods from both statistical mechanics and dynamical systems theory in a way that offers an alternative to current ``landscape'' models of evolutionary optimization. We describe the population dynamics on the macroscopic level of fitness classes or phenotype subbasins, while averaging out the genotypic variation that is consistent with a macroscopic state. Metastability in epochal evolution occurs solely at the macroscopic level of the fitness distribution. While a balance between selection and mutation maintains a quasistationary distribution of fitness, individuals diffuse randomly through selectively neutral subbasins in genotype space. Sudden innovations occur when, through this diffusion, a genotypic portal is discovered that connects to a new subbasin of higher fitness genotypes. In this way, we identify innovations with the unfolding and stabilization of a new dimension in the macroscopic state space. The architectural view of subbasins and portals in genotype space clarifies how frozen accidents and the resulting phenotypic constraints guide the evolution to higher complexity.Comment: 28 pages, 5 figure

Modeling and evolving biochemical networks: insights into communication and computation from the biological domain

This paper is concerned with the modeling and evolving of Cell Signaling Networks (CSNs) in silico. CSNs are complex biochemical networks responsible for the coordination of cellular activities. We examine the possibility to computationally evolve and simulate Artificial Cell Signaling Networks (ACSNs) by means of Evolutionary Computation techniques. From a practical point of view, realizing and evolving ACSNs may provide novel computational paradigms for a variety of application areas. For example, understanding some inherent properties of CSNs such as crosstalk may be of interest: A potential benefit of engineering crosstalking systems is that it allows the modification of a specific process according to the state of other processes in the system. This is clearly necessary in order to achieve complex control tasks. This work may also contribute to the biological understanding of the origins and evolution of real CSNs. An introduction to CSNs is first provided, in which we describe the potential applications of modeling and evolving these biochemical networks in silico. We then review the different classes of techniques to model CSNs, this is followed by a presentation of two alternative approaches employed to evolve CSNs within the ESIGNET project. Results obtained with these methods are summarized and discussed

Fast calculation of multiobjective probability of improvement and expected improvement criteria for Pareto optimization

The use of surrogate based optimization (SBO) is widely spread in engineering design to reduce the number of computational expensive simulations. However, "real-world" problems often consist of multiple, conflicting objectives leading to a set of competitive solutions (the Pareto front). The objectives are often aggregated into a single cost function to reduce the computational cost, though a better approach is to use multiobjective optimization methods to directly identify a set of Pareto-optimal solutions, which can be used by the designer to make more efficient design decisions (instead of weighting and aggregating the costs upfront). Most of the work in multiobjective optimization is focused on multiobjective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs). While MOEAs are well-suited to handle large, intractable design spaces, they typically require thousands of expensive simulations, which is prohibitively expensive for the problems under study. Therefore, the use of surrogate models in multiobjective optimization, denoted as multiobjective surrogate-based optimization, may prove to be even more worthwhile than SBO methods to expedite the optimization of computational expensive systems. In this paper, the authors propose the efficient multiobjective optimization (EMO) algorithm which uses Kriging models and multiobjective versions of the probability of improvement and expected improvement criteria to identify the Pareto front with a minimal number of expensive simulations. The EMO algorithm is applied on multiple standard benchmark problems and compared against the well-known NSGA-II, SPEA2 and SMS-EMOA multiobjective optimization methods

What is Computational Intelligence and where is it going?

What is Computational Intelligence (CI) and what are its relations with Artificial Intelligence (AI)? A brief survey of the scope of CI journals and books with ``computational intelligence'' in their title shows that at present it is an umbrella for three core technologies (neural, fuzzy and evolutionary), their applications, and selected fashionable pattern recognition methods. At present CI has no comprehensive foundations and is more a bag of tricks than a solid branch of science. The change of focus from methods to challenging problems is advocated, with CI defined as a part of computer and engineering sciences devoted to solution of non-algoritmizable problems. In this view AI is a part of CI focused on problems related to higher cognitive functions, while the rest of the CI community works on problems related to perception and control, or lower cognitive functions. Grand challenges on both sides of this spectrum are addressed