An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms - Boente
An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms - Boente
An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms - Boente
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Results of the Formalization<br />
How can this formalization help us <strong>to</strong> better understand or predict the GA's behavior? Vose and Liepins,<br />
viewing G as a dynamical system, formulated a geometric picture of the GA's behavior and then used it <strong>to</strong><br />
prove some behavioral properties. The geometric picture is that the set of all possible vec<strong>to</strong>rs form a<br />
surface S on which G acts <strong>to</strong> move from point <strong>to</strong> point. The initial point is , and iterating G from this point<br />
forms a trajec<strong>to</strong>ry on S. In analyzing the dynamics of G, the first things <strong>to</strong> determine are the fixed points of G<br />
on S—i.e., the set of such that . In other words, we want <strong>to</strong> know what points<br />
have the property that, once the GA arrives there, it will not move away.<br />
This general problem was not solved by Vose and Liepins (1991); instead they solved the separate problems<br />
of finding the fixed points of F and and analyzing their properties. It is not difficult <strong>to</strong> show that the fixed<br />
points of F (selection alone) are the populations that have completely converged <strong>to</strong> strings of equal fitness.<br />
Vose and Liepins proved that only one class of these fixed points is stable: the set of fixed points<br />
corresponding <strong>to</strong> the maximally fit strings in the search space. In other words, if the population converges <strong>to</strong> a<br />
state that does not consist entirely of maximally fit strings, a small change in the fitness distribution of the<br />
population might result in movement away from that fixed point. However, if the population is maximally fit,<br />
then under any sufficiently small change in the fitness distribution, the GA will always return <strong>to</strong> that fixed<br />
point.<br />
Vose and Liepins then showed that working alone on has only one fixed point: the vec<strong>to</strong>r<br />
consisting of equal probabilities for all strings in the search space. Likewise, working on has one fixed<br />
point: all strings present in equal proportions. This means that, in the limit of an infinite population, crossover<br />
and mutation working in the absence of selection will eventually produce maximally "mixed" populations<br />
with equal occurrences of all strings.<br />
Vose and Liepins left open the more difficult problem of putting F and M <strong>to</strong>gether <strong>to</strong> understand the<br />
interacting effects of crossover and mutation. However, they conjectured that the formalism could shed light<br />
on the "punctuated equilibria" behavior commonly seen in genetic algorithms—relatively long periods of no<br />
improvement punctuated by quick rises in fitness. The intuition is that such punctuated equilibria arise from<br />
the combination of the "focusing" properties of F and the "diffusing" properties of . The periods of<br />
"stasis" correspond <strong>to</strong> periods spent near one of the unstable fixed points, and the periods of rapid<br />
improvement correspond <strong>to</strong> periods spent moving (under the diffusing force of recombination) from the<br />
vicinity of one fixed point <strong>to</strong> another. (Note that even though a fixed point is unstable, a dynamical system can<br />
stay in its vicinity for some time.) These effects have yet <strong>to</strong> be rigorously quantified under this or any other<br />
model. (The notion of focusing and mixing forces working <strong>to</strong>gether in a GA is discussed in less technical<br />
detail in chapter 6 of Holland 1975.)<br />
Vose and Liepins's formalization is an excellent first step <strong>to</strong>ward a more rigorous understanding of and more<br />
rigorous predictions about simple GAs. (For further work on Vose and Liepins's model see Whitley 1993a.)<br />
However, one major drawback is that the formalization and its results assume an infinite population—that is,<br />
they are phrased in terms of expectations. Assuming an infinite population is an idealization that simplifies<br />
analysis; however, the behavior of finite populations can be very different as a result of sampling error.<br />
A Finite−Population Model<br />
Chapter 4: Theoretical Foundations of <strong>Genetic</strong> <strong>Algorithms</strong><br />
The infinite−population case involves deterministic transitions from <strong>to</strong> and thus from <strong>to</strong><br />
—in an infinite population there are no sampling errors. In contrast, modeling a finite population<br />
requires taking account of the s<strong>to</strong>chastic effects of sampling.<br />
108