Advertisement

Fitness Landscapes Based on Sorting and Shortest Paths Problems

  • Jens Scharnow
  • Karsten Tinnefeld
  • Ingo Wegener
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2439)

Abstract

The analysis of evolutionary algorithms is up to now limited to special classes of functions and fitness landscapes. It is not possible to describe those subproblems of NP-hard optimization problems where certain evolutionary algorithms work in polynomial time. Therefore, fitness landscapes based on important computer science problems as sorting and shortest paths problems are investigated here. Although it cannot be expected that evolutionary algorithms outperform the well-known problem specific algorithms on these simple problems, it is interesting to analyze how evolutionary algorithms work on these fitness landscapes which are based on practical problems. The following results are obtained:
  • Sorting is the maximization of “sortedness” which is measured by one of several well-known measures of presortedness. The different measures of presortedness lead to fitness landscapes of quite different difficulty for EAs.

  • Shortest paths problems are hard for all types of EA, if they are considered as single-objective optimization problems, while they are easy as multi-objective optimization problems.

Keywords

Evolutionary Algorithm Success Probability Mutation Operator Fitness Landscape Short Path Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bäck, T., Fogel, D.B., and Michalewicz, Z. (Eds.) (1997). Handbook of Evolutionary Computation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Droste, S., Jansen, T., and Wegener, I. (1998a). A rigorous complexity analysis of the (1+1) evolutionary algorithm for separable functions with Boolean inputs. Evolutionary Computation 6, 185–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Droste, S., Jansen, T., and Wegener, I. (1998b). On the optimization of unimodal functions with the (1+1) evolutionary algorithm. Parallel Problem Solving from Nature— PPSN V, LNCS 1498, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Horn, J., Goldberg, D.E., and Deb, K. (1994). Long path problems. Parallel Problem Solving from Nature— PPSN III, LNCS 866, 149–158.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jansen, T., and Wegener, I. (2001a). Real royal road functions-where crossover provably is essential. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conf.— GECCO, 375–382.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jansen, T., and Wegener, I. (2001b). Evolutionary algorithms-how to cope with plateaus of constant fitness and when to reject strings of the same fitness. IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation 5, 589–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mitchell, M., Holland, J.H., and Forrest, S. (1994). When will a genetic algorithm outperform hill climbing. In J. Cowan, G. Tesauro, and J. Alspector (Eds.): Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Petersson, O., and Moffat, A. (1995). A framework for adaptive sorting. Discrete Applied Mathematics 59, 153–179.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rudolph, G. (1997). How mutations and selection solve long path problems in polynomial expected time. Evolutionary Computation 4, 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wegener, I. (2001). Theoretical aspects of evolutionary algorithms. Int. Colloq. on Automata, Languages, and Programming— ICALP, LNCS 2076, 64–78.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jens Scharnow
    • 1
  • Karsten Tinnefeld
    • 1
  • Ingo Wegener
    • 1
  1. 1.FB Informatik, LS2Univ. DortmundDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations