Ruggedness, funnels and gradients in fitness landscapes and the effect on PSO performance

Fitness landscape analysis has focussed on many different aspects of optimisation problems such as ruggedness, neutrality, epistasis and evolvability. Although many techniques have been proposed, there are very few that have been shown to be practically useful as predictors of algorithm performance. This paper investigates three metrics related to the structure of fitness landscapes of continuous problems: a ruggedness measure based on entropy, a dispersion index measure for detecting the presence of funnels and a new proposed technique for estimating gradients. Results on a range of benchmark problems show that all proposed measures show some correlation to performance of a traditional particle swarm optimisation (PSO) algorithm on the same benchmark problems. The three metrics could therefore have value as part-predictors of PSO performance on unknown problems if used in conjunction with measures approximating other features that have been linked to problem difficulty for PSOs.

[1]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  Information landscapes and problem hardness , 2005, GECCO '05.

[2]  Marco Locatelli,et al.  A Note on the Griewank Test Function , 2003, J. Glob. Optim..

[3]  Leonardo Vanneschi,et al.  Theory and practice for efficient genetic programming , 2004 .

[4]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  Information landscapes , 2005, GECCO '05.

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

[6]  C. Reeves,et al.  Properties of fitness functions and search landscapes , 2001 .

[7]  Xin Yao,et al.  Fitness-Probability Cloud and a Measure of Problem Hardness for Evolutionary Algorithms , 2011, EvoCOP.

[8]  Jing J. Liang,et al.  Problem Definitions and Evaluation Criteria for the CEC 2005 Special Session on Real-Parameter Optimization , 2005 .

[9]  Terry Jones,et al.  Fitness Distance Correlation as a Measure of Problem Difficulty for Genetic Algorithms , 1995, ICGA.

[10]  Julian Francis Miller,et al.  Information Characteristics and the Structure of Landscapes , 2000, Evolutionary Computation.

[11]  E. Weinberger,et al.  Correlated and uncorrelated fitness landscapes and how to tell the difference , 1990, Biological Cybernetics.

[12]  Peter F. Stadler,et al.  Amplitude Spectra of Fitness Landscapes , 1998, Adv. Complex Syst..

[13]  Bernard Manderick,et al.  The Genetic Algorithm and the Structure of the Fitness Landscape , 1991, ICGA.

[14]  Yun Shang,et al.  A Note on the Extended Rosenbrock Function , 2006 .

[15]  Sébastien Vérel,et al.  Fitness Clouds and Problem Hardness in Genetic Programming , 2004, GECCO.

[16]  Marc Lipsitch,et al.  Adaptation on Rugged Landscapes Generated by Iterated Local Interactions of Neighboring Genes , 1991, ICGA.

[17]  Jie Chen,et al.  Problem difficulty analysis for particle swarm optimization: deception and modality , 2009, GEC '09.

[18]  Vesselin K. Vassilev,et al.  Smoothness, ruggedness and neutrality of fitness landscapes: from theory to application , 2003 .

[19]  S. Kauffman,et al.  Towards a general theory of adaptive walks on rugged landscapes. , 1987, Journal of theoretical biology.

[20]  L. Darrell Whitley,et al.  The dispersion metric and the CMA evolution strategy , 2006, GECCO.

[21]  Russell C. Eberhart,et al.  A new optimizer using particle swarm theory , 1995, MHS'95. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Micro Machine and Human Science.

[22]  Andries Petrus Engelbrecht,et al.  Fundamentals of Computational Swarm Intelligence , 2005 .

[23]  Andrew M. Sutton,et al.  PSO and multi-funnel landscapes: how cooperation might limit exploration , 2006, GECCO.

[24]  Andries Petrus Engelbrecht,et al.  A survey of techniques for characterising fitness landscapes and some possible ways forward , 2013, Inf. Sci..

[25]  Andries Petrus Engelbrecht,et al.  Quantifying ruggedness of continuous landscapes using entropy , 2009, 2009 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.