I'm just trying to understand GA, so please forgive any incorrect comments or assumptionshere. I have basically got the idea of how you encode potential solutions and then combine and/or mutate them to find similar (but hopefully better) solutions.
This seems simple when you have genes that are nice and simple. For example, this tutorial describes how to use a GA to find a sequence of digits and mathematical operators that will hit a target number. Given a couple of potential solutions, I can combine them by taking (say) the first n bits of one and the last (len-n) bits from the other. However I combine and mutate, I'll get something that makes sense.
However, what if I'm trying to solve something where the genes are not so simple? For example, suppose I want to solve a puzzle like this...
The idea is to fit all the pieces inside the frame. I can represent the frame as a 8x8 array, and the pieces as smaller arrays, like this...
int[][] piece1 = new int[2][];
piece1[0] = new int[] {1, 1, 1};
piece1[1] = new int[] {0, 1, 0};
This describes the top left piece in the picture. I could describe the others in a similar manner.
I can then attempt to fit all of my pieces into the frame, and count the number of array elements left over as my error.
However, how would I combine two potential solutions to produce a third? I can't just swap individual array entries, as that would populate the frame with invalid pieces. Similarly, how would I mutate a potential solution?
Sorry if I'm on the wrong track altogether. As I said, I'm very new to this, and trying to learn. Any help would be appreciated.
A good genetic algorithm is all about the encoding and the operators, which are at least as important as the fitness function and selection rule. By choosing a naïve encoding, you can easily end up with an algorithm that takes up forever to discover an improvement, and may need some elitism to prevent good solutions from being lost to selection. This, of course, does not mean that your algorithm would never find a solution, but it may make it impractical. Dealing with hard constraints like this is tricky exactly because it may mean rethinking your encoding.
A simple encoding for your problem may be just stating where to put what piece and in what orientation. Because overlaps will happen, you will need to reject candidates which have an overlap, using a prohibitive fitness (infinity, if available in your data type) or an immediate discarding. (The former is easier to implement if you want to maintain a fixed population size.) Once you have such check implemented, it's straightforward to apply it to any result of mutation or crossover as well. Depending on your strategy you then either produce a candidate which will not be going to be selected, you retry, or you end up not generating a candidate from the current operation, if it lead to an unphysical solution.
Note that you may as well experiment with keeping the unphysical cases around, not with an infinite, just a high fitness: perhaps a second genetic operation will remove the overlap done by the first and produce something good.
Now what could an alternative encoding look like? If you want that, by its own nature, to prevent overlaps, maybe you could, instead of the final position of a piece, encode the tiling by the order the pieces are added from the top, Tetris-style. I'm not saying this is better, because that would just trade the hard limit on overlap for a hard limit on the height of the resulting structure, but it's a start. Just like in the previous case, you can then convert the hard limit to a soft one (simply make fitness proportional to height, and try to push that down to 8), leading to a reformulation of the problem equivalent to minimizing the number of unoccupied positions.
If you never want to even consider candidates that would not conform in one way or another to the hard rules, and have no intention on softening those, you would need to come up with an encoding that never encodes anything with an overlap and at the same time, never gets out of bounds. Building on the previous paragraph, you can make a distinction between a genotype and a phenotype: the genotype might be the Tetris-like encoding, and the phenotype the maximum prefix of that, cutting just before the piece that would, in Tetris terminology again, lose the game. You would then use the genotype for mutations and crossovers, but the phenotype for fitness evaluation.
Related
I have implemented a simple Genetic Algorithm to generate short story based on Aesop fables.
Here are the parameters I'm using:
Mutation: Single word swap mutation with tested rate with 0.01.
Crossover: Swap the story sentences at given point. rate - 0.7
Selection: Roulette wheel selection - https://stackoverflow.com/a/5315710/536474
Fitness function: 3 different function. highest score of each is 1.0. so total highest fitness score is 3.0.
Population size: Since I'm using 86 Aesop fables, I tested population size with 50.
Initial population: All 86 fable sentence orders are shuffled in order to make complete nonsense. And my goal is to generate something meaningful(at least at certain level) from these structure lost fables.
Stop Condition: 3000 generations.
And the results are below:
However, this still did not produce a favorable result. I was expecting the plot that goes up over the generations. Any ideas to why my GA performing worse result?
Update: As all of you suggested, I've employed elitism by 10% of current generation copied to next generation. Result still remains the same:
Probably I should use tournament selection.
All of the above responses are great and I'd look into them. I'll add my thoughts.
Mutation
Your mutation rate seems fine although with Genetic Algorithms mutation rate can cause a lot of issues if it's not right. I'd make sure you test a lot of other values to be sure.
With mutation I'd maybe use two types of mutation. One that replaces words with other from your dictionary, and one that swaps two words within a sentence. This would encourage diversifying the population as a whole, and shuffling words.
Crossover
I don't know exactly how you've implemented this but one-point crossover doesn't seem like it'll be that effective in this situation. I'd try to implement an n-point crossover, which will do a much better job of shuffling your sentences. Again, I'm not sure how it's implemented but just swapping may not be the best solution. For example, if a word is at the first point, is there ever any way for it to move to another position, or will it always be the first word if it's chosen by selection?
If word order is important for your chosen problem simple crossover may not be ideal.
Selection
Again, this seems fine but I'd make sure you test other options. In the past I've found rank based roulette selection to be a lot more successful.
Fitness
This is always the most important thing to consider in any genetic algorithm and with the complexity of problem you have I'd make doubly sure it works. Have you tested that it works with 'known' problems?
Population Size
Your value seems small but I have seen genetic algorithms work successfully with small populations. Again though, I'd experiment with much larger populations to see if your results are any better.
The most popular suggestion so far is to implement elitism and I'd definitely recommend it. It doesn't have to be much, even just the best couple of chromosome every generation (although as with everything else I'd try different values).
Another sometimes useful operator to implement is culling. Destroy a portion of your weakest chromosomes, or one that are similar to others (or both) and replace them with new chromosomes. This should help to stop your population going 'stale', which, from your graph looks like it might be happening. Mutation only does so much to diversify the population.
You may be losing the best combinations, you should keep the best of each generation without crossing(elite). Also, your function seems to be quite stable, try other types of mutations, that should improve.
Drop 5% to 10% of your population to be elite, so that you don't lose the best you have.
Make sure your selection process is well set up, if bad candidates are passing through very often it'll ruin your evolution.
You might also be stuck in a local optimum, you might need to introduce other stuff into your genome, otherwise you wont move far.
Moving sentences and words around will not probably get you very far, introducing new sentences or words might be interesting.
If you think of story as a point x,y and your evaluation function as f(x,y), and you're trying to find the max for f(x,y), but your mutation and cross-over are limited to x -> y, y ->y, it makes sense that you wont move far. Granted, in your problem there is a lot more variables, but without introducing something new, I don't think you can avoid locality.
As #GettnDer said, elitism might help a lot.
What I would suggest is to use different selection strategy. The roulette wheel selection has one big problem: imagine that the best indidivual's fitness is e.g. 90% of the sum of all fitnesses. Then the roulette wheel is not likely to select the other individuals (see e.g. here). The selction strategy I like the most is the tournament selection. It is much more robust to big differences in fitness values and the selection pressure can be controlled very easily.
Novelty Search
I would also give a try to Novelty Search. It's relatively new approach in evolutionary computation, where you don't do the selection based on the actual fitness but rather based on novelty which is supposed to be some metric of how an individual is different in its behaviour from the others (but you still compute the fitness to catch the good ones). Of special interest might be combinations of classical fitness-driven algorithms and novelty-driven ones, like the this one by J.-B. Mouret.
When working with genetic algorithms, it is a good practice to structure you chromosome in order to reflect the actual knowledge on the process under optimization.
In your case, since you intend to generate stories, which are made of sentences, it could improve your results if you transformed your chromosomes into structured phrases, line <adjectives>* <subject> <verb> <object>* <adverbs>* (huge simplification here).
Each word could then be assigned a class. For instance, Fox=subject , looks=verb , grapes=object and then your crossover operator would exchange elements from the same category between chromosomes. Besides, your mutation operator could only insert new elements of a proper category (for instance, an adjective before the subject) or replace a word for a random word in the same category.
This way you would minimize the number of nonsensical chromosomes (like Fox beautiful grape day sky) and improve the discourse generation power for your GA.
Besides, I agree with all previous comments: if you are using elitism and the best performance decreases, then you are implementing it wrong (notice that in a pathological situation it may remain constant for a long period of time).
I hope it helps.
A coworker was recently asked this when trying to land a (different) research job:
Given 10 128-character strings which have been permutated in exactly the same way, decode the strings. The original strings are English text with spaces, numbers, punctuation and other non-alpha characters removed.
He was given a few days to think about it before an answer was expected. How would you do this? You can use any computer resource, including character/word level language models.
This is a basic transposition cipher. My question above was simply to determine if it was a transposition cipher or a substitution cipher. Cryptanalysis of such systems is fairly straightforward. Others have already alluded to basic methods. Optimal approaches will attempt to place the hardest and rarest letters first, as these will tend to uniquely identify the letters around them, which greatly reduces the subsequent search space. Simply finding a place to place an "a" (no pun intended) is not hard, but finding a location for a "q", "z", or "x" is a bit more work.
The overarching goal for an algorithm's quality isn't to decipher the text, as it can be done by better than brute force methods, nor is it simply to be fast, but it should eliminate possibilities absolutely as fast as possible.
Since you can use multiple strings simultaneously, attempting to create words from the rarest characters is going to allow you to test dictionary attacks in parallel. Finding the correct placement of the rarest terms in each string as quickly as possible will decipher that ciphertext PLUS all of the others at the same time.
If you search for cryptanalysis of transposition ciphers, you'll find a bunch with genetic algorithms. These are meant to advance the research cred of people working in GA, as these are not really optimal in practice. Instead, you should look at some basic optimizatin methods, such as branch and bound, A*, and a variety of statistical methods. (How deep you should go depends on your level of expertise in algorithms and statistics. :) I would switch between deterministic methods and statistical optimization methods several times.)
In any case, the calculations should be dirt cheap and fast, because the scale of initial guesses could be quite large. It's best to have a cheap way to filter out a LOT of possible placements first, then spend more CPU time on sifting through the better candidates. To that end, it's good to have a way of describing the stages of processing and the computational effort for each stage. (At least that's what I would expect if I gave this as an interview question.)
You can even buy a fairly credible reference book on deciphering double transposition ciphers.
Update 1: Take a look at these slides for more ideas on iterative improvements. It's not a great reference set of slides, but it's readily accessible. What's more, although the slides are about GA and simulated annealing (methods that come up a lot in search results for transposition cipher cryptanalysis), the author advocates against such methods when you can use A* or other methods. :)
first, you'd need a test for the correct ordering. something fairly simple like being able to break the majority of texts into words using a dictionary ordered by frequency of use without backtracking.
one you have that, you can play with various approaches. two i would try are:
using a genetic algorithm, with scoring based on 2 and 3-letter tuples (which you can either get from somewhere or generate yourself). the hard part of genetic algorithms is finding a good description of the process that can be fragmented and recomposed. i would guess that something like "move fragment x to after fragment y" would be a good approach, where the indices are positions in the original text (and so change as the "dna" is read). also, you might need to extend the scoring with something that gets you closer to "real" text near the end - something like the length over which the verification algorithm runs, or complete words found.
using a graph approach. you would need to find a consistent path through the graph of letter positions, perhaps with a beam-width search, using the weights obtained from the pair frequencies. i'm not sure how you'd handle reaching the end of the string and restarting, though. perhaps 10 sentences is sufficient to identify with strong probability good starting candidates (from letter frequency) - wouldn't surprise me.
this is a nice problem :o) i suspect 10 sentences is a strong constraint (for every step you have a good chance of common letter pairs in several strings - you probably want to combine probabilities by discarding the most unlikely, unless you include word start/end pairs) so i think the graph approach would be most efficient.
Frequency analysis would drastically prune the search space. The most-common letters in English prose are well-known.
Count the letters in your encrypted input, and put them in most-common order. Matching most-counted to most-counted, translated the cypher text back into an attempted plain text. It will be close to right, but likely not exactly. By hand, iteratively tune your permutation until plain text emerges (typically few iterations are needed.)
If you find checking by hand odious, run attempted plain texts through a spell checker and minimize violation counts.
First you need a scoring function that increases as the likelihood of a correct permutation increases. One approach is to precalculate the frequencies of triplets in standard English (get some data from Project Gutenburg) and add up the frequencies of all the triplets in all ten strings. You may find that quadruplets give a better outcome than triplets.
Second you need a way to produce permutations. One approach, known as hill-climbing, takes the ten strings and enters a loop. Pick two random integers from 1 to 128 and swap the associated letters in all ten strings. Compute the score of the new permutation and compare it to the old permutation. If the new permutation is an improvement, keep it and loop, otherwise keep the old permutation and loop. Stop when the number of improvements slows below some predetermined threshold. Present the outcome to the user, who may accept it as given, accept it and make changes manually, or reject it, in which case you start again from the original set of strings at a different point in the random number generator.
Instead of hill-climbing, you might try simulated annealing. I'll refer you to Google for details, but the idea is that instead of always keeping the better of the two permutations, sometimes you keep the lesser of the two permutations, in the hope that it leads to a better overall outcome. This is done to defeat the tendency of hill-climbing to get stuck at a local maximum in the search space.
By the way, it's "permuted" rather than "permutated."
I'm looking for algorithms to find a "best" set of parameter values. The function in question has a lot of local minima and changes very quickly. To make matters even worse, testing a set of parameters is very slow - on the order of 1 minute - and I can't compute the gradient directly.
Are there any well-known algorithms for this kind of optimization?
I've had moderate success with just trying random values. I'm wondering if I can improve the performance by making the random parameter chooser have a lower chance of picking parameters close to ones that had produced bad results in the past. Is there a name for this approach so that I can search for specific advice?
More info:
Parameters are continuous
There are on the order of 5-10 parameters. Certainly not more than 10.
How many parameters are there -- eg, how many dimensions in the search space? Are they continuous or discrete - eg, real numbers, or integers, or just a few possible values?
Approaches that I've seen used for these kind of problems have a similar overall structure - take a large number of sample points, and adjust them all towards regions that have "good" answers somehow. Since you have a lot of points, their relative differences serve as a makeshift gradient.
Simulated
Annealing: The classic approach. Take a bunch of points, probabalistically move some to a neighbouring point chosen at at random depending on how much better it is.
Particle
Swarm Optimization: Take a "swarm" of particles with velocities in the search space, probabalistically randomly move a particle; if it's an improvement, let the whole swarm know.
Genetic Algorithms: This is a little different. Rather than using the neighbours information like above, you take the best results each time and "cross-breed" them hoping to get the best characteristics of each.
The wikipedia links have pseudocode for the first two; GA methods have so much variety that it's hard to list just one algorithm, but you can follow links from there. Note that there are implementations for all of the above out there that you can use or take as a starting point.
Note that all of these -- and really any approach to this large-dimensional search algorithm - are heuristics, which mean they have parameters which have to be tuned to your particular problem. Which can be tedious.
By the way, the fact that the function evaluation is so expensive can be made to work for you a bit; since all the above methods involve lots of independant function evaluations, that piece of the algorithm can be trivially parallelized with OpenMP or something similar to make use of as many cores as you have on your machine.
Your situation seems to be similar to that of the poster of Software to Tune/Calibrate Properties for Heuristic Algorithms, and I would give you the same advice I gave there: consider a Metropolis-Hastings like approach with multiple walkers and a simulated annealing of the step sizes.
The difficulty in using a Monte Carlo methods in your case is the expensive evaluation of each candidate. How expensive, compared to the time you have at hand? If you need a good answer in a few minutes this isn't going to be fast enough. If you can leave it running over night, it'll work reasonably well.
Given a complicated search space, I'd recommend a random initial distributed. You final answer may simply be the best individual result recorded during the whole run, or the mean position of the walker with the best result.
Don't be put off that I was discussing maximizing there and you want to minimize: the figure of merit can be negated or inverted.
I've tried Simulated Annealing and Particle Swarm Optimization. (As a reminder, I couldn't use gradient descent because the gradient cannot be computed).
I've also tried an algorithm that does the following:
Pick a random point and a random direction
Evaluate the function
Keep moving along the random direction for as long as the result keeps improving, speeding up on every successful iteration.
When the result stops improving, step back and instead attempt to move into an orthogonal direction by the same distance.
This "orthogonal direction" was generated by creating a random orthogonal matrix (adapted this code) with the necessary number of dimensions.
If moving in the orthogonal direction improved the result, the algorithm just continued with that direction. If none of the directions improved the result, the jump distance was halved and a new set of orthogonal directions would be attempted. Eventually the algorithm concluded it must be in a local minimum, remembered it and restarted the whole lot at a new random point.
This approach performed considerably better than Simulated Annealing and Particle Swarm: it required fewer evaluations of the (very slow) function to achieve a result of the same quality.
Of course my implementations of S.A. and P.S.O. could well be flawed - these are tricky algorithms with a lot of room for tweaking parameters. But I just thought I'd mention what ended up working best for me.
I can't really help you with finding an algorithm for your specific problem.
However in regards to the random choosing of parameters I think what you are looking for are genetic algorithms. Genetic algorithms are generally based on choosing some random input, selecting those, which are the best fit (so far) for the problem, and randomly mutating/combining them to generate a next generation for which again the best are selected.
If the function is more or less continous (that is small mutations of good inputs generally won't generate bad inputs (small being a somewhat generic)), this would work reasonably well for your problem.
There is no generalized way to answer your question. There are lots of books/papers on the subject matter, but you'll have to choose your path according to your needs, which are not clearly spoken here.
Some things to know, however - 1min/test is way too much for any algorithm to handle. I guess that in your case, you must really do one of the following:
get 100 computers to cut your parameter testing time to some reasonable time
really try to work out your parameters by hand and mind. There must be some redundancy and at least some sanity check so you can test your case in <1min
for possible result sets, try to figure out some 'operations' that modify it slightly instead of just randomizing it. For example, in TSP some basic operator is lambda, that swaps two nodes and thus creates new route. Your can be shifting some number up/down for some value.
then, find yourself some nice algorithm, your starting point can be somewhere here. The book is invaluable resource for anyone who starts with problem-solving.
I'm coding something at the moment where I'm taking a bunch of values over time from a hardware compass. This compass is very accurate and updates very often, with the result that if it jiggles slightly, I end up with the odd value that's wildly inconsistent with its neighbours. I want to smooth those values out.
Having done some reading around, it would appear that what I want is a high-pass filter, a low-pass filter or a moving average. Moving average I can get down with, just keep a history of the last 5 values or whatever, and use the average of those values downstream in my code where I was once just using the most recent value.
That should, I think, smooth out those jiggles nicely, but it strikes me that it's probably quite inefficient, and this is probably one of those Known Problems to Proper Programmers to which there's a really neat Clever Math solution.
I am, however, one of those awful self-taught programmers without a shred of formal education in anything even vaguely related to CompSci or Math. Reading around a bit suggests that this may be a high or low pass filter, but I can't find anything that explains in terms comprehensible to a hack like me what the effect of these algorithms would be on an array of values, let alone how the math works. The answer given here, for instance, technically does answer my question, but only in terms comprehensible to those who would probably already know how to solve the problem.
It would be a very lovely and clever person indeed who could explain the sort of problem this is, and how the solutions work, in terms understandable to an Arts graduate.
If you are trying to remove the occasional odd value, a low-pass filter is the best of the three options that you have identified. Low-pass filters allow low-speed changes such as the ones caused by rotating a compass by hand, while rejecting high-speed changes such as the ones caused by bumps on the road, for example.
A moving average will probably not be sufficient, since the effects of a single "blip" in your data will affect several subsequent values, depending on the size of your moving average window.
If the odd values are easily detected, you may even be better off with a glitch-removal algorithm that completely ignores them:
if (abs(thisValue - averageOfLast10Values) > someThreshold)
{
thisValue = averageOfLast10Values;
}
Here is a guick graph to illustrate:
The first graph is the input signal, with one unpleasant glitch. The second graph shows the effect of a 10-sample moving average. The final graph is a combination of the 10-sample average and the simple glitch detection algorithm shown above. When the glitch is detected, the 10-sample average is used instead of the actual value.
If your moving average has to be long in order to achieve the required smoothing, and you don't really need any particular shape of kernel, then you're better off if you use an exponentially decaying moving average:
a(i+1) = tiny*data(i+1) + (1.0-tiny)*a(i)
where you choose tiny to be an appropriate constant (e.g. if you choose tiny = 1- 1/N, it will have the same amount of averaging as a window of size N, but distributed differently over older points).
Anyway, since the next value of the moving average depends only on the previous one and your data, you don't have to keep a queue or anything. And you can think of this as doing something like, "Well, I've got a new point, but I don't really trust it, so I'm going to keep 80% of my old estimate of the measurement, and only trust this new data point 20%". That's pretty much the same as saying, "Well, I only trust this new point 20%, and I'll use 4 other points that I trust the same amount", except that instead of explicitly taking the 4 other points, you're assuming that the averaging you did last time was sensible so you can use your previous work.
Moving average I can get down with ...
but it strikes me that it's probably
quite inefficient.
There's really no reason a moving average should be inefficient. You keep the number of data points you want in some buffer (like a circular queue). On each new data point, you pop the oldest value and subtract it from a sum, and push the newest and add it to the sum. So every new data point really only entails a pop/push, an addition and a subtraction. Your moving average is always this shifting sum divided by the number of values in your buffer.
It gets a little trickier if you're receiving data concurrently from multiple threads, but since your data is coming from a hardware device that seems highly doubtful to me.
Oh and also: awful self-taught programmers unite! ;)
An exponentially decaying moving average can be calculated "by hand" with only the trend if you use the proper values. See http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/e4/ for an idea on how to do this quickly with a pen and paper if you are looking for “exponentially smoothed moving average with 10% smoothing”. But since you have a computer, you probably want to be doing binary shifting as opposed to decimal shifting ;)
This way, all you need is a variable for your current value and one for the average. The next average can then be calculated from that.
there's a technique called a range gate that works well with low-occurrence spurious samples. assuming the use of one of the filter techniques mentioned above (moving average, exponential), once you have "sufficient" history (one Time Constant) you can test the new, incoming data sample for reasonableness, before it is added to the computation.
some knowledge of the maximum reasonable rate-of-change of the signal is required. the raw sample is compared to the most recent smoothed value, and if the absolute value of that difference is greater than the allowed range, that sample is thrown out (or replaced with some heuristic, eg. a prediction based on slope; differential or the "trend" prediction value from double exponential smoothing)
Let's imagine I have an unknown function that I want to approximate via Genetic Algorithms. For this case, I'll assume it is y = 2x.
I'd have a DNA composed of 5 elements, one y for each x, from x = 0 to x = 4, in which, after a lot of trials and computation and I'd arrive near something of the form:
best_adn = [ 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 ]
Keep in mind I don't know beforehand if it is a linear function, a polynomial or something way more ugly, Also, my goal is not to infer from the best_adn what is the type of function, I just want those points, so I can use them later.
This was just an example problem. In my case, instead of having only 5 points in the DNA, I have something like 50 or 100. What is the best approach with GA to find the best set of points?
Generating a population of 100,
discard the worse 20%
Recombine the remaining 80%? How?
Cutting them at a random point and
then putting together the first
part of ADN of the father with the
second part of ADN of the mother?
Mutation, how should I define in
this kind of problem mutation?
Is it worth using Elitism?
Any other simple idea worth using
around?
Thanks
Usually you only find these out by experimentation... perhaps writing a GA to tune your GA.
But that aside, I don't understand what you're asking. If you don't know what the function is, and you also don't know the points to being with, how do you determine fitness?
From my current understanding of the problem, this is better fitted by a neural network.
edit:
2.Recombine the remaining 80%? How? Cutting them at a random point and then putting together the first part of ADN of the father with the second part of ADN of the mother?
This is called crossover. If you want to be saucey, do something like pick a random starting point and swapping a random length. For instance, you have 10 elements in an object. randomly choose a spot X between 1 and 10 and swap x..10-rand%10+1.. you get the picture... spice it up a little.
3.Mutation, how should I define in this kind of problem mutation?
usually that depends more on what is defined as a legal solution than anything else. you can do mutation the same way you do crossover, except you fill it with random data (that is legal) rather than swapping with another specimen... and you do it at a MUCH lower rate.
4.Is it worth using Elitism?
experiment and find out.
Gaussian adaptation usually outperforms standard genetic algorithms. If you don't want to write your own package from scratch, the Mathematica Global Optimization package is EXCELLENT -- I used it to fit a really nasty nonlinear function where standard fitters failed miserably.
Edit:
Wikipedia Article
If you hunt down prints of the listed papers on the article, you can find whitepapers and implementations. In general though, you should have some idea what the solution space for your maximizing the fitness function look like. If the number of variables is small, or the number of local maxima is small or they are connected/slope down to a global maxima, simple least squares works fine. If the area around each local maxima is small (IE you have to get a damned good solution to hit the best one, otherwise you hit a bad one), then fancier algorithms are needed.
Choosing variables for a genetic algorithm depends on what the solution space will look like.