I am a data mining student and I have a problem that I was hoping that you guys could give me some advice on:
I need a genetic algo that optimizes the weights between three inputs. The weights need to be positive values AND they need to sum to 100%.
The difficulty is in creating an encoding that satisfies the sum to 100% requirement.
As a first pass, I thought that I could simply create a chrom with a series of numbers (ex.4,7,9). Each weight would simply be its number divided by the sum of all of the chromosome's numbers (ex. 4/20=20%).
The problem with this encoding method is that any change to the chromosome will change the sum of all the chromosome's numbers resulting in a change to all of the chromosome's weights. This would seem to significantly limit the GA's ability to evolve a solution.
Could you give any advice on how to approach this problem?
I have read about real valued encoding and I do have an implementation of a GA but it will give me weights that may not necessarily add up to 100%.
It is mathematically impossible to change one value without changing at least one more if you need the sum to remain constant.
One way to make changes would be exactly what you suggest: weight = value/sum. In this case when you change one value, the difference to be made up is distributed across all the other values.
The other extreme is to only change pairs. Start with a set of values that add to 100, and whenever 1 value changes, change another by the opposite amount to maintain your sum. The other could be picked randomly, or by a rule. I'd expect this would take longer to converge than the first method.
If your chromosome is only 3 values long, then mathematically, these are your only two options.
Related
Considering this problem : Having a vector of 1000 real positive numbers,find the optim partition of the 1000 elements in 7 parts so that the sum of parts have aproximative(close) values.
How would you make the chromosome representation, operators (mutation,crossover), fitness function, selection.. so that you solve the problem in the most efficent & optimized way ?
My idea is to give each number a index (the lowest number has index 1, the highest has index 1000 for example)... but I don't think this is the most efficent way? Any suggestions are welcome !
Since its a partition problem I think you need to have the whole set in a single chromosome. Say you have an array of length 1000 that can have values from 1 to 7. The fitness function can calculate the difference of the sum of every partition (less is better). Crossover can be done with single point or double point. Then mutation can randomly change an individual gene from its value to a random value, say position 102 is 4, then mutates to 1. With this solution you guarantee that every chromosome is a valid solution, altough possibly a bad one, so you don't have to check after every iteration for chromosomes that do not follow the problem rules (a problem you would have if you choose to have one chromosome per partition). As usual the criteria for crossover and the likelihood of mutation needs exploration and tunning before achiving best performance.
I am playing around with genetic programming algorithms, and I want to know how I can valorize and make sure my best exemplares reproduce more by substituting or improving the way I choose which one will reproduce. Currently the method I use looks like this:
function roulette(population)
local slice = sum_of_fitnesses(population) * math.random()
local sum = 0
for iter = 1, #population do
sum = sum + population[iter].fitness
if sum >= slice then
return population[iter]
end
end
end
But I can't get my population to reach an average fitness which is above a certain value and I worry it's because of less fit members reproducing with more fit members and thus continuing to spread their weak genes around.
So how can I improve my roulette selection method? Or should I use a completely different fitness proportionate selector?
There are a couple of issues at play here.
You are choosing the probability of an individual replicating based on its fitness, so the fitness function that you are using needs to exaggerate small differences or else having a minor decrease in fitness isn't so bad. For example, if a fitness drops from 81 to 80, this change is probably within the noise of the system and won't make much of a different to evolution. It will certainly be almost impossible to climb to a very high fitness if a series of small changes need to be made because the selective pressure simply won't be strong enough.
The way you solve this problem is by using something like tournament selection. In it's simplest form, every time you want to choose another individual to be born, you pick K random individuals (K is known and the "tournament size"). You calculate the fitness of each individual and whomever has the highest fitness is replicated. It doesn't matter if the fitness difference is 81 vs 80 or if its 10000 vs 2, since it simply takes the highest fitness.
Now the question is: what should you set K to? K can be thought of as the strength of selection. If you set it low (e.g., K=2) then many low fitness individuals will get lucky and slip through, being competed against other low-fitness individuals. You'll get a lot of diversity, but very little section. On the flip side, if you set K to be high (say, K=100), you're ALWAYS going to pick one of the highest fitnesses in the population, ensuring that the population average is driven closer to the max, but also driving down diversity in the population.
The particular tradeoff here depends on the specific problem. I recommend trying out different options (including your original algorithm) with a few different problems to see what happens. For example, try the all-ones problem: potential solutions are bit strings and a fitness is simply the number of 1's. If you have weak selection (as in your original example, or with K=2), you'll see that it never quite gets to a perfect all-ones solution.
So, why not always use a high K? Well consider a problem where ones are negative unless they appear in a block of four consecutive ones (or eight, or however many), when they suddenly become very positive. Such a problem is "deceptive", which means that you need to explore through solutions that look bad in order to find ones that are good. If you set your strength of selection too high, you'll never collect three ones for that final mutation to give you the fourth.
Lots of more advanced techniques exist that use tournament selection that you might want to look at. For example, varying K over time, or even within a population, select some individuals using a low K and others using a high K. It's worth reading up on some more if you're planning to build a better algorithm.
There is a very expensive computation I must make frequently.
The computation takes a small array of numbers (with about 20 entries) that sums to 1 (i.e. the histogram) and outputs something that I can store pretty easily.
I have 2 things going for me:
I can accept approximate answers
The "answers" change slowly. For example: [.1 .1 .8 0] and [.1
.1 .75 .05] will yield similar results.
Consequently, I want to build a look-up table of answers off-line. Then, when the system is running, I can look-up an approximate answer based on the "shape" of the input histogram.
To be precise, I plan to look-up the precomputed answer that corresponds to the histogram with the minimum Earth-Mover-Distance to the actual input histogram.
I can only afford to store about 80 to 100 precomputed (histogram , computation result) pairs in my look up table.
So, how do I "spread out" my precomputed histograms so that, no matter what the input histogram is, I'll always have a precomputed result that is "close"?
Finding N points in M-space that are a best spread-out set is more-or-less equivalent to hypersphere packing (1,2) and in general answers are not known for M>10. While a fair amount of research has been done to develop faster methods for hypersphere packings or approximations, it is still regarded as a hard problem.
It probably would be better to apply a technique like principal component analysis or factor analysis to as large a set of histograms as you can conveniently generate. The results of either analysis will be a set of M numbers such that linear combinations of histogram data elements weighted by those numbers will predict some objective function. That function could be the “something that you can store pretty easily” numbers, or could be case numbers. Also consider developing and training a neural net or using other predictive modeling techniques to predict the objective function.
Building on #jwpat7's answer, I would apply k-means clustering to a huge set of randomly generated (and hopefully representative) histograms. This would ensure that your space was spanned with whatever number of exemplars (precomputed results) you can support, with roughly equal weighting for each cluster.
The trick, of course, will be generating representative data to cluster in the first place. If you can recompute from time to time, you can recluster based on the actual data in the system so that your clusters might get better over time.
I second jwpat7's answer, but my very naive approach was to consider the count of items in each histogram bin as a y value, to consider the x values as just 0..1 in 20 steps, and then to obtain parameters a,b,c that describe x vs y as a cubic function.
To get a "covering" of the histograms I just iterated through "possible" values for each parameter.
e.g. to get 27 histograms to cover the "shape space" of my cubic histogram model I iterated the parameters through -1 .. 1, choosing 3 values linearly spaced.
Now, you could change the histogram model to be quartic if you think your data will often be represented that way, or whatever model you think is most descriptive, as well as generate however many histograms to cover. I used 27 because three partitions per parameter for three parameters is 3*3*3=27.
For a more comprehensive covering, like 100, you would have to more carefully choose your ranges for each parameter. 100**.3 isn't an integer, so the simple num_covers**(1/num_params) solution wouldn't work, but for 3 parameters 4*5*5 would.
Since the actual values of the parameters could vary greatly and still achieve the same shape it would probably be best to store ratios of them for comparison instead, e.g. for my 3 parmeters b/a and b/c.
Here is an 81 histogram "covering" using a quartic model, again with parameters chosen from linspace(-1,1,3):
edit: Since you said your histograms were described by arrays that were ~20 elements, I figured fitting parameters would be very fast.
edit2 on second thought I think using a constant in the model is pointless, all that matters is the shape.
Ok this is an abstract algorithmic challenge and it will remain abstract since it is a top secret where I am going to use it.
Suppose we have a set of objects O = {o_1, ..., o_N} and a symmetric similarity matrix S where s_ij is the pairwise correlation of objects o_i and o_j.
Assume also that we have an one-dimensional space with discrete positions where objects may be put (like having N boxes in a row or chairs for people).
Having a certain placement, we may measure the cost of moving from the position of one object to that of another object as the number of boxes we need to pass by until we reach our target multiplied with their pairwise object similarity. Moving from a position to the box right after or before that position has zero cost.
Imagine an example where for three objects we have the following similarity matrix:
1.0 0.5 0.8
S = 0.5 1.0 0.1
0.8 0.1 1.0
Then, the best ordering of objects in the tree boxes is obviously:
[o_3] [o_1] [o_2]
The cost of this ordering is the sum of costs (counting boxes) for moving from one object to all others. So here we have cost only for the distance between o_2 and o_3 equal to 1box * 0.1sim = 0.1, the same as:
[o_3] [o_1] [o_2]
On the other hand:
[o_1] [o_2] [o_3]
would have cost = cost(o_1-->o_3) = 1box * 0.8sim = 0.8.
The target is to determine a placement of the N objects in the available positions in a way that we minimize the above mentioned overall cost for all possible pairs of objects!
An analogue is to imagine that we have a table and chairs side by side in one row only (like the boxes) and you need to put N people to sit on the chairs. Now those ppl have some relations that is -lets say- how probable is one of them to want to speak to another. This is to stand up pass by a number of chairs and speak to the guy there. When the people sit on two successive chairs then they don't need to move in order to talk to each other.
So how can we put those ppl down so that every distance-cost between two ppl are minimized. This means that during the night the overall number of distances walked by the guests are close to minimum.
Greedy search is... ok forget it!
I am interested in hearing if there is a standard formulation of such problem for which I could find some literature, and also different searching approaches (e.g. dynamic programming, tabu search, simulated annealing etc from combinatorial optimization field).
Looking forward to hear your ideas.
PS. My question has something in common with this thread Algorithm for ordering a list of Objects, but I think here it is better posed as problem and probably slightly different.
That sounds like an instance of the Quadratic Assignment Problem. The speciality is due to the fact that the locations are placed on one line only, but I don't think this will make it easier to solve. The QAP in general is NP hard. Unless I misinterpreted your problem you can't find an optimal algorithm that solves the problem in polynomial time without proving P=NP at the same time.
If the instances are small you can use exact methods such as branch and bound. You can also use tabu search or other metaheuristics if the problem is more difficult. We have an implementation of the QAP and some metaheuristics in HeuristicLab. You can configure the problem in the GUI, just paste the similarity and the distance matrix into the appropriate parameters. Try starting with the robust Taboo Search. It's an older, but still quite well working algorithm. Taillard also has the C code for it on his website if you want to implement it for yourself. Our implementation is based on that code.
There has been a lot of publications done on the QAP. More modern algorithms combine genetic search abilities with local search heuristics (e. g. Genetic Local Search from Stützle IIRC).
Here's a variation of the already posted method. I don't think this one is optimal, but it may be a start.
Create a list of all the pairs in descending cost order.
While list not empty:
Pop the head item from the list.
If neither element is in an existing group, create a new group containing
the pair.
If one element is in an existing group, add the other element to whichever
end puts it closer to the group member.
If both elements are in existing groups, combine them so as to minimize
the distance between the pair.
Group combining may require reversal of order in a group, and the data structure should
be designed to support that.
Let me help the thread (of my own) with a simplistic ordering approach.
1. Order the upper half of the similarity matrix.
2. Start with the pair of objects having the highest similarity weight and place them in the center positions.
3. The next object may be put on the left or the right side of them. So each time you may select the object that when put to left or right
has the highest cost to the pre-placed objects. Goto Step 2.
The selection of Step 3 is because if you left this object and place it later this cost will be again the greatest of the remaining, and even more (farther to the pre-placed objects). So the costly placements should be done as earlier as it can be.
This is too simple and of course does not discover a good solution.
Another approach is to
1. start with a complete ordering generated somehow (random or from another algorithm)
2. try to improve it using "swaps" of object pairs.
I believe local minima would be a huge deterrent.
I have a optimzation problem i'm trying to solve using a genetic algorithm. Basically, there is a list of 10 bound real valued variables (-1 <= x <= 1), and I need to maximize some function of that list. The catch is that only up to 4 variables in the list may be != 0 (subset condition).
Mathematically speaking:
For some function f: [-1, 1]^10 -> R
min f(X)
s.t.
|{var in X with var != 0}| <= 4
Some background on f: The function is NOT similar to any kind of knapsack objective function like Sum x*weight or anything like that.
What I have tried so far:
Just a basic genetic algorithm over the genome [-1, 1]^10 with 1-point-crossover and some gaussian mutation on the variables. I tried to encode the subset condition in the fitness function by using just the first 4 nonzero (zero as in close enough to 0) values. This approach doesn't work that well and the algorithm is stuck at the 4 first variables and never uses values beyond that. I saw some kind of GA for the 01-knapsack problem where this approach worked well, but apparently this works just with binary variables.
What would you recommend me to try next?
If your fitness function is quick and dirty to evaluate then it's cheap to increase your total population size.
The problem you are running into is that you're trying to select two completely different things simultaneously. You want to select which 4 genomes you care about, and then what values are optimal.
I see two ways to do this.
You create 210 different "species". Each specie is defined by which 4 of the 10 genomes they are allowed to use. Then you can run a genetic algorithm on each specie separately (either serially, or in parallel within a cluster).
Each organism has only 4 genome values (when creating random offspring choose which genomes at random). When two organisms mate you only cross over with genomes that match. If your pair of organisms contain 3 common genomes then you could randomly pick which of the genome you may prefer as the 4th. You could also, as a heuristic, avoid mating organisms that appear to be too genetically different (i.e. a pair that shares two or fewer genomes may make for a bad offspring).
I hope that gives you some ideas you can work from.
You could try a "pivot"-style step: choose one of the existing nonzero values to become zero, and replace it by setting one of the existing zero values to become nonzero. (My "pivot" term comes from linear programming, in which a pivot is the basic step in the simplex method).
Simplest case would be to be evenhandedly random in the selection of each of these values; you can choose a random value, or multiple values, for the new nonzero variable. A more local kind of step would be to use a Gaussian step only on the existing nonzero variables, but if one of those variables crosses zero, spawn variations that pivot to one of the zero values. (Note that these are not mutually exclusive, as you can easily add both kinds of steps).
If you have any information about the local behavior of your fitness score, you can try to use that to guide your choice. Just because actual evolution doesn't look at the fitness function, doesn't mean you can't...
Does your GA solve the problem well without the subset constraint? If not, you might want to tackle that first.
Secondly, you might make your constraint soft instead of hard: Penalize a solution's fitness for each zero-valued variable it has, beyond 4. (You might start by loosening the constraint even further, allowing 9 0-valued variables, then 8, etc., and making sure the GA is able to handle those problem variants before making the problem more difficult.)
Thirdly, maybe try 2-point or multi-point crossover instead of 1-point.
Hope that helps.
-Ted