An Experimental Design Perspective on Genetic Algorithms

Abstract In this paper we examine the relationship between genetic algorithms (GAs) and traditional methods of experimental design. This was motivated by an investigation into the problem caused by epistasis in the implementation and application of GAs to optimization problems: one which has long been acknowledged to have an important influence on GA performance. Davidor [1, 2] has attempted an investigation of the important question of determining the degree of epistasis of a given problem. In this paper, we shall first summarise his methodology, and then provide a critique from the perspective of experimental design. We proceed to show how this viewpoint enables us to gain further insights into the determination of epistatic effects, and into the value of different forms of encoding a problem for a GA solution. We also demonstrate the equivalence of this approach to the Walsh transform analysis popularized by Goldberg [3, 4], and its extension to the idea of partition coefficients [5]. We then show how the experimental design perspective helps to throw further light on the nature of deception.

[1]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms and Walsh Functions: Part I, A Gentle Introduction , 1989, Complex Syst..

[2]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Messy Genetic Algorithms: Motivation, Analysis, and First Results , 1989, Complex Syst..

[3]  Yuval Davidor,et al.  Epistasis Variance: A Viewpoint on GA-Hardness , 1990, FOGA.

[4]  GUNAR E. LIEPINS,et al.  Representational issues in genetic optimization , 1990, J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell..

[5]  Jim Antonisse,et al.  A New Interpretation of Schema Notation that Overtums the Binary Encoding Constraint , 1989, ICGA.

[6]  Andrew J. Mason,et al.  Partition Coefficients, Static Deception and Deceptive Problems for Non-Binary Alphabets , 1991, ICGA.

[7]  Nicholas J. Radcliffe,et al.  Non-Linear Genetic Representations , 1992, PPSN.

[8]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[9]  Colin R. Reeves,et al.  Using Genetic Algorithms with Small Populations , 1993, ICGA.

[10]  J. David Schaffer,et al.  Representation and Hidden Bias: Gray vs. Binary Coding for Genetic Algorithms , 1988, ML.

[11]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[12]  Margaret J. Robertson,et al.  Design and Analysis of Experiments , 2006, Handbook of statistics.

[13]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms and Walsh Functions: Part II, Deception and Its Analysis , 1989, Complex Syst..

[14]  Yuval Davidor,et al.  Epistasis Variance: Suitability of a Representation to Genetic Algorithms , 1990, Complex Syst..

[15]  Stephanie Forrest,et al.  Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms , 1993 .

[16]  Albert Donally Bethke,et al.  Genetic Algorithms as Function Optimizers , 1980 .

[17]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Messy Genetic Algorithms Revisited: Studies in Mixed Size and Scale , 1990, Complex Syst..

[18]  Andrew J. Mason,et al.  Crossover Non-linearity Ratios and the Genetic Algorithm: Escaping the Blinkers of Schema Processing , 1993 .