The Impact of Asynchrony on Parallel Model-Based EAs

In a parallel EA one can strictly adhere to the generational clock, and wait for all evaluations in a generation to be done. However, this idle time limits the throughput of the algorithm and wastes computational resources. Alternatively, an EA can be made asynchronous parallel. However, EAs using classic recombination and selection operators (GAs) are known to suffer from an evaluation time bias, which also influences the performance of the approach. Model-Based Evolutionary Algorithms (MBEAs) are more scalable than classic GAs by virtue of capturing the structure of a problem in a model. If this model is learned through linkage learning based on the population, the learned model may also capture biases. Thus, if an asynchronous parallel MBEA is also affected by an evaluation time bias, this could result in learned models to be less suited to solving the problem, reducing performance. Therefore, in this work, we study the impact and presence of evaluation time biases on MBEAs in an asynchronous parallelization setting, and compare this to the biases in GAs. We find that a modern MBEA, GOMEA, is unaffected by evaluation time biases, while the more classical MBEA, ECGA, is affected, much like GAs are.Comment: 9 pages, 3 figures, 3 tables, submitted to GECCO 202

Storage Capacity Estimation of Commercial Scale Injection and Storage of CO2 in the Jacksonburg-Stringtown Oil Field, West Virginia

Geological capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) of carbon dioxide (CO2) in depleted oil and gas reservoirs is one method to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and extending the life of the field. Therefore CCUS coupled with EOR is considered to be an economic approach to demonstration of commercial-scale injection and storage of anthropogenic CO2. Several critical issues should be taken into account prior to injecting large volumes of CO2, such as storage capacity, project duration and long-term containment. Reservoir characterization and 3D geological modeling are the best way to estimate the theoretical CO 2 storage capacity in mature oil fields. The Jacksonburg-Stringtown field, located in northwestern West Virginia, has produced over 22 million barrels of oil (MMBO) since 1895. The sandstone of the Late Devonian Gordon Stray is the primary reservoir.;The Upper Devonian fluvial sandstone reservoirs in Jacksonburg-Stringtown oil field, which has produced over 22 million barrels of oil since 1895, are an ideal candidate for CO2 sequestration coupled with EOR. Supercritical depth (\u3e2500 ft.), minimum miscible pressure (941 psi), favorable API gravity (46.5°) and good water flood response are indicators that facilitate CO 2-EOR operations. Moreover, Jacksonburg-Stringtown oil field is adjacent to a large concentration of CO2 sources located along the Ohio River that could potentially supply enough CO2 for sequestration and EOR without constructing new pipeline facilities.;Permeability evaluation is a critical parameter to understand the subsurface fluid flow and reservoir management for primary and enhanced hydrocarbon recovery and efficient carbon storage. In this study, a rapid, robust and cost-effective artificial neural network (ANN) model is constructed to predict permeability using the model\u27s strong ability to recognize the possible interrelationships between input and output variables. Two commonly available conventional well logs, gamma ray and bulk density, and three logs derived variables, the slope of GR, the slope of bulk density and Vsh were selected as input parameters and permeability was selected as desired output parameter to train and test an artificial neural network. The results indicate that the ANN model can be applied effectively in permeability prediction.;Porosity is another fundamental property that characterizes the storage capability of fluid and gas bearing formations in a reservoir. In this study, a support vector machine (SVM) with mixed kernels function (MKF) is utilized to construct the relationship between limited conventional well log suites and sparse core data. The input parameters for SVM model consist of core porosity values and the same log suite as ANN\u27s input parameters, and porosity is the desired output. Compared with results from the SVM model with a single kernel function, mixed kernel function based SVM model provide more accurate porosity prediction values.;Base on the well log analysis, four reservoir subunits within a marine-dominated estuarine depositional system are defined: barrier sand, central bay shale, tidal channels and fluvial channel subunits. A 3-D geological model, which is used to estimate theoretical CO2 sequestration capacity, is constructed with the integration of core data, wireline log data and geological background knowledge. Depending on the proposed 3-D geological model, the best regions for coupled CCUS-EOR are located in southern portions of the field, and the estimated CO2 theoretical storage capacity for Jacksonburg-Stringtown oil field vary between 24 to 383 million metric tons. The estimation results of CO2 sequestration and EOR potential indicate that the Jacksonburg-Stringtown oilfield has significant potential for CO2 storage and value-added EOR

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

Using Parameterized Black-Box Priors to Scale Up Model-Based Policy Search for Robotics

The most data-efficient algorithms for reinforcement learning in robotics are model-based policy search algorithms, which alternate between learning a dynamical model of the robot and optimizing a policy to maximize the expected return given the model and its uncertainties. Among the few proposed approaches, the recently introduced Black-DROPS algorithm exploits a black-box optimization algorithm to achieve both high data-efficiency and good computation times when several cores are used; nevertheless, like all model-based policy search approaches, Black-DROPS does not scale to high dimensional state/action spaces. In this paper, we introduce a new model learning procedure in Black-DROPS that leverages parameterized black-box priors to (1) scale up to high-dimensional systems, and (2) be robust to large inaccuracies of the prior information. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach with the "pendubot" swing-up task in simulation and with a physical hexapod robot (48D state space, 18D action space) that has to walk forward as fast as possible. The results show that our new algorithm is more data-efficient than previous model-based policy search algorithms (with and without priors) and that it can allow a physical 6-legged robot to learn new gaits in only 16 to 30 seconds of interaction time.Comment: Accepted at ICRA 2018; 8 pages, 4 figures, 2 algorithms, 1 table; Video at https://youtu.be/HFkZkhGGzTo ; Spotlight ICRA presentation at https://youtu.be/_MZYDhfWeL

Spiking neurons with short-term synaptic plasticity form superior generative networks

Spiking networks that perform probabilistic inference have been proposed both as models of cortical computation and as candidates for solving problems in machine learning. However, the evidence for spike-based computation being in any way superior to non-spiking alternatives remains scarce. We propose that short-term plasticity can provide spiking networks with distinct computational advantages compared to their classical counterparts. In this work, we use networks of leaky integrate-and-fire neurons that are trained to perform both discriminative and generative tasks in their forward and backward information processing paths, respectively. During training, the energy landscape associated with their dynamics becomes highly diverse, with deep attractor basins separated by high barriers. Classical algorithms solve this problem by employing various tempering techniques, which are both computationally demanding and require global state updates. We demonstrate how similar results can be achieved in spiking networks endowed with local short-term synaptic plasticity. Additionally, we discuss how these networks can even outperform tempering-based approaches when the training data is imbalanced. We thereby show how biologically inspired, local, spike-triggered synaptic dynamics based simply on a limited pool of synaptic resources can allow spiking networks to outperform their non-spiking relatives.Comment: corrected typo in abstrac

Machine Learning for Fluid Mechanics

The field of fluid mechanics is rapidly advancing, driven by unprecedented volumes of data from field measurements, experiments and large-scale simulations at multiple spatiotemporal scales. Machine learning offers a wealth of techniques to extract information from data that could be translated into knowledge about the underlying fluid mechanics. Moreover, machine learning algorithms can augment domain knowledge and automate tasks related to flow control and optimization. This article presents an overview of past history, current developments, and emerging opportunities of machine learning for fluid mechanics. It outlines fundamental machine learning methodologies and discusses their uses for understanding, modeling, optimizing, and controlling fluid flows. The strengths and limitations of these methods are addressed from the perspective of scientific inquiry that considers data as an inherent part of modeling, experimentation, and simulation. Machine learning provides a powerful information processing framework that can enrich, and possibly even transform, current lines of fluid mechanics research and industrial applications.Comment: To appear in the Annual Reviews of Fluid Mechanics, 202

Modeling the Use of Nonrenewable Resources Using a Genetic Algorithm

This paper shows, how a genetic algorithm (GA) can be used to model an economic process: the interaction of profit-maximizing oil-exploration firms that compete with each other for a limited amount of oil. After a brief introduction to the concept of multi-agent-modeling in economics, a GA-based resource-economic model is developed. Several model runs based on different economic policy assumptions are presented and discussed in order to show how the GA-model can be used to gain insight into the dynamic properties of economic systems. The remainder outlines deficiencies of GA-based multi-agent approaches and sketches how the present model can be improved.