16.01.2013 Views

An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms - Boente

An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms - Boente

An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms - Boente

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Deceiving a <strong>Genetic</strong> Algorithm<br />

Chapter 4: Theoretical Foundations of <strong>Genetic</strong> <strong>Algorithms</strong><br />

The theory of schemas has been used by some in the GA community <strong>to</strong> propose an answer <strong>to</strong> "What makes a<br />

problem hard for a GA?" As described above, the view is that competition among schemas roughly proceeds<br />

from low−order schema partitions at early times <strong>to</strong> higher−order schema partitions at later times. Bethke<br />

(1980) reasoned that it will be hard for a GA <strong>to</strong> find the optimum of a fitness function if low−order partitions<br />

contain misleading information about higher−order partitions. The following extreme example illustrates this.<br />

Call a schema H a "winner" if its static average fitness is highest in its partition. Suppose that any schema<br />

whose defined bits are all ones is a winner except for the length L schema 1111···1, and let 0000···0 be a<br />

winner. In principle, it should be hard for a GA <strong>to</strong> find 0000···0, since every lower−order partition gives<br />

misleading information about where the optimum is likely <strong>to</strong> be found. Such a fitness function is termed "fully<br />

deceptive." (The term "deceptive" was introduced by Goldberg (1987).) Fitness functions with lesser amounts<br />

of deception are also possible (i.e., some partitions give correct information about the location of the<br />

optimum). Bethke used "Walsh Transforms"—similar <strong>to</strong> Fourier transforms—<strong>to</strong> design fitness functions with<br />

various degrees of deception. For reviews of this work, see Goldberg 1989b,c and Forrest and Mitchell 1993a.<br />

Subsequent <strong>to</strong> Bethke's work, Goldberg and his colleagues carried out a number of theoretical studies of<br />

deception in fitness functions, and deception has become a central focus of theoretical work on GAs. (See,<br />

e.g., Das and Whitley 1991; Deb and Goldberg 1993; Goldberg 1989c; Liepins and Vose 1990, 1991; Whitley<br />

1991.)<br />

It should be noted that the study of GA deception is generally concerned with function optimization; the<br />

deception in a fitness function is assumed <strong>to</strong> make it difficult <strong>to</strong> find a global optimum. In view of the<br />

widespread use of GAs as function optimizers, deception can be an important fac<strong>to</strong>r for GA practitioners <strong>to</strong><br />

understand. However, if one takes the view that GAs are not function optimizers but rather "satisficers" or<br />

payoff maximizers, then deception may be less of a concern. As De Jong (1993, p. 15) puts it, the GA (as<br />

formulated by Holland) "is attempting <strong>to</strong> maximize cumulative payoff from arbitrary landscapes, deceptive or<br />

otherwise. In general, this is achieved by not investing <strong>to</strong>o much effort in finding cleverly hidden peaks (the<br />

risk/reward ratio is <strong>to</strong>o high)."<br />

Limitations of "Static" Schema <strong>An</strong>alysis<br />

A number of recent papers have questioned the relevance of schema analysis <strong>to</strong> the understanding of real GAs<br />

(e.g., Grefenstette 1993; Mason 1993; Peck and Dhawan 1993). Here I will focus on Grefenstette's critique of<br />

the "Static Building Block Hypothesis."<br />

The following qualitative formulation of the Schema Theorem and the Building Block Hypothesis should now<br />

be familiar <strong>to</strong> the reader: The simple GA increases the number of instances of low−order,<br />

short−defininglength, high−observed−fitness schemas via the multi−armed−bandit strategy, and these<br />

schemas serve as building blocks that are combined, via crossover, in<strong>to</strong> candidate solutions with increasingly<br />

higher order and higher observed fitness. The rationale for this strategy is based on the assumption that the<br />

observed and static fitnesses of schemas are correlated; some potential problems with this assumption have<br />

been pointed out in the previous sections.<br />

Grefenstette (1993, p. 78) claims that much work on GA theory has assumed a stronger version that he calls<br />

the "Static Building Block Hypothesis" (SBBH): "Given any low−order, short−defining−length hyperplane<br />

[i.e., schema] partition, a GA is expected <strong>to</strong> converge <strong>to</strong> the hyperplane [in that partition] with the best static<br />

average fitness (the 'expected winner')." This is stronger than the original formulation, since it states that the<br />

GA will converge on the actual winners of each short, low−order partition competition rather than on the<br />

93

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!