6582
22
4447
5
20841
document
4447
Manuscript.pdf
application/pdf
271121
20091208 21:09:47
http://cogprints.org/6582/1/Manuscript.pdf
6582
1
application/pdf
application/pdf
en
public
Manuscript.pdf
submitted

http://eprints.org/relation/hasVolatileVersion
http://cogprints.org/id/document/7348

http://eprints.org/relation/haspreviewThumbnailVersion
http://cogprints.org/id/document/7348

http://eprints.org/relation/hasVersion
http://cogprints.org/id/document/7348

http://eprints.org/relation/hasVolatileVersion
http://cogprints.org/id/document/7539

http://eprints.org/relation/hasVersion
http://cogprints.org/id/document/7539

http://eprints.org/relation/hasIndexCodesVersion
http://cogprints.org/id/document/7539
archive
8971
disk0/00/00/65/82
20090706 09:42:14
20110311 08:57:23
20090706 09:42:14
preprint
show
0
Although researchers often discuss the rising popularity of metaheuristics (MH), there has been a paucity of data to directly support the notion that MH are growing in prominence compared to deterministic methods (DM). Here we provide the first evidence that MH usage is not only growing, but indeed appears to have surpassed DM as the algorithm framework of choice for solving optimization problems. Motivated by these findings, this paper aims to review and discuss the origins of metaheuristic dominance.
Explanations for metaheuristic success are varied, however their robustness to variations in fitness landscape properties is often cited as an important advantage. In this paper, we review explanations for MH popularity and discuss why some of these arguments remain unsatisfying. We argue that a more compelling and comprehensive explanation would directly account for the manner in which most MH success has actually been achieved, e.g. through hybridization and customization to a particular problem environment.
This paper puts forth the hypothesis that MH derive much of their utility from being flexible. This flexibility is empirically supported by evidence that MH design can adapt to a problem environment and can integrate domain knowledge. We propose what flexibility means from a search algorithm design context and we propose key attributes that should exist in a flexible algorithm framework. Interestingly, a number of these qualities are observed in robust biological systems. In light of these similarities, we consider whether the origins of biological robustness, (e.g. loose coupling, modularity, partial redundancy) could help to inspire the development of more flexible algorithm frameworks. We also discuss current trends in optimization problems and speculate that highly flexible algorithm frameworks will become increasingly popular within our diverse and rapidly changing world.

Whitacre
James M
Dr
decision theory, genetic algorithms, mathematical programming, metaheuristics, operations research, optimization
TRUE
FALSE
[1] G. S. Hornby and T. Yu, "Results of the First Survey of Practitioners of Evolutionary Computation."
[2] J. T. Alander, "Indexed bibliography of genetic algorithms papers of 1996," Romania, vol. 3, p. 0.80, 1998.
[3] C. Cotta and J. J. Merelo, "Where is evolutionary computation going? A temporal analysis of the EC community," Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, vol. 8, pp. 239253, 2007.
[4] A. L. Barabási and R. Albert, "Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks," Science, vol. 286, p. 509, 1999.
[5] J. H. Holland, "Adaptation in Natural and Artificial System," Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, vol. 20, 1975.
[6] D. E. Goldberg, Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and machine learning: AddisonWesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. Boston, MA, USA, 1989.
[7] Q. T. Pham, "Effect of Numerical Errors on the Performance of Optimization Methods," in Proceedings of Chemeca Brisbane, Australia, 2005.
[8] D. B. Fogel, "Introduction to evolutionary computation," Modern Heuristic Optimization Techniques: Theory and Applications to Power Systems, p. 1, 2007.
[9] Y. Jin and J. Branke, "Evolutionary optimization in uncertain environmentsa survey," IEEETEC, vol. 9, pp. 303317, 2005.
[10] L. Davis, Handbook of Genetic Algorithms: Van Nostrand Reinhold New York, 1991.
[11] D. E. Goldberg and S. Voessner, "Optimizing globallocal search hybrids," Urbana, vol. 51, p. 61801, 1999.
[12] P. Merz and B. Freisleben, "A Comparison of Memetic Algorithms, Tabu Search, and Ant Colonies for the Quadratic Assignment Problem," in congress on evolutionary computation, 1999, pp. 20632070.
[13] K. A. De Jong, W. M. Spears, and D. F. Gordon, "Using Markov chains to analyze GAFOs," Foundations of genetic algorithms, vol. 3, pp. 115137, 1995.
[14] T. Back, U. Hammel, and H. P. Schwefel, "Evolutionary computation: comments on the history and current state," IEEETEC, vol. 1, pp. 317, 1997.
[15] Z. Michalewicz, "A hierarchy of evolution programs: An experimental study," Evolutionary Computation, vol. 1, pp. 5176, 1993.
[16] Z. Michalewicz, Genetic algorithms+ data structures= evolution programs: Springer, 1996.
[17] P. P. Bonissone, R. Subbu, N. Eklund, and T. R. Kiehl, "Evolutionary Algorithms+ Domain Knowledge= RealWorld Evolutionary Computation," IEEETEC, vol. 10, p. 256, 2006.
[18] D. H. Wolpert and W. G. Macready, "No free lunch theorems for optimization," IEEETEC, vol. 1, pp. 6782, 1997.
[19] K. De Jong, "Evolving in a changing world," Lecture notes in computer science, pp. 512519, 1999.
[20] H. A. Simon, A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. Santa Monica: Rand Corp, 1953.
[21] K. E. Weick, K. M. Sutcliffe, and D. Obstfeld, "Organizing and the process of sensemaking," Organization Science, vol. 16, p. 409, 2005.
[22] M. Kirschner and J. Gerhart, "Evolvability," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, vol. 95, pp. 84208427, 1998.
[23] H. W. Ma and A. P. Zeng, "The connectivity structure, giant strong component and centrality of metabolic networks," Bioinformatics, vol. 19, pp. 14231430, 2003.
[24] M. Csete and J. Doyle, "Bow ties, metabolism and disease," Trends Biotechnol., vol. 22, pp. 446450, 2004.
[25] S. Ciliberti, O. C. Martin, and A. Wagner, "Innovation and robustness in complex regulatory gene networks," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, vol. 104, p. 13591, 2007.
[26] A. Wagner, "Robustness and evolvability: a paradox resolved," Proc. R. Soc. Lond., Ser. B: Biol. Sci., vol. 275, pp. 91100, 2008.
[27] J. Whitacre and A. Bender, "Degeneracy: a design principle for achieving robustness and evolvability," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA , (Submitted March, 2009).
[28] J. Whitacre and A. Bender, "Degenerate neutrality creates evolvable fitness landscapes," in WorldComp 2009 (accepted April, 2009), Las Vegas.
 compscicomplextheory
 compsciartintel
Survival of the flexible: explaining the dominance of metaheuristics within a rapidly evolving world
completed
200907
public