By Topic

Frequency Fitness Assignment

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

6 Author(s)
Weise, T. ; Birmingham Joint Res. Inst. in Intell. Comput. & Its Applic., Univ. of Sci. & Technol. of China, Hefei, China ; Mingxu Wan ; Pu Wang ; Ke Tang
more authors

Metaheuristic optimization procedures such as evolutionary algorithms are usually driven by an objective function that rates the quality of a candidate solution. However, it is not clear in practice whether an objective function adequately rewards intermediate solutions on the path to the global optimum and it may exhibit deceptiveness, epistasis, neutrality, ruggedness, and a lack of causality. In this paper, we introduce the frequency fitness H, subject to minimization, which rates how often solutions with the same objective value have been discovered so far. The ideas behind this method are that good solutions are difficult to find and that if an algorithm gets stuck at a local optimum, the frequency of the objective values of the surrounding solutions will increase over time, which will eventually allow it to leave that region again. We substitute a frequency fitness assignment process (FFA) for the objective function into several different optimization algorithms. We conduct a comprehensive set of experiments: the synthesis of algorithms with genetic programming (GP), the solution of MAX-3SAT problems with genetic algorithms, classification with Memetic Genetic Programming, and numerical optimization with a (1+1) Evolution Strategy, to verify the utility of FFA. Given that they have no access to the original objective function at all, it is surprising that for some problems (e.g., the algorithm synthesis task) the FFA-based algorithm variants perform significantly better. However, this cannot be guaranteed for all tested problems. Thus, we also analyze scenarios where algorithms using FFA do not perform better or perform even worse than with the original objective functions.

Published in:

Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on  (Volume:18 ,  Issue: 2 )