2006
DOI: 10.1007/11861201_31
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Neutral Fitness Landscape in the Cellular Automata Majority Problem

Abstract: Abstract. We study in detail the fitness landscape of a difficult cellular automata computational task: the majority problem. Our results show why this problem landscape is so hard to search, and we quantify the large degree of neutrality found in various ways. We show that a particular subspace of the solution space, called the "Olympus", is where good solutions concentrate, and give measures to quantitatively characterize this subspace.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The question of "what makes a fitness landscape hard" continues Forrest and Mitchell (1993); Jones and Forrest (1995), and new methods of capturing the hardness of the problems are proposed, like algebraic properties of the solutions in the landscape Grover (1992); Stadler (1995), modality (number of local optima) Horn and Goldberg (1995) and the fractal dimension of the fitness landscape Hoshino et al (1998). Some researchers try to explain when a problem becomes hard, by studying the area in the landscape called "Olympus", in which the better local optima are located Verel et al (2007); Vérel et al (2008). Fitness cloud is another method proposed to visualise the fitness landscape which tries to represent some properties of the fitness landscape Collard et al (2007); Lu et al (2011);Vanneschi et al (2007), reflecting the problem hardness.…”
Section: Previous Landscape Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The question of "what makes a fitness landscape hard" continues Forrest and Mitchell (1993); Jones and Forrest (1995), and new methods of capturing the hardness of the problems are proposed, like algebraic properties of the solutions in the landscape Grover (1992); Stadler (1995), modality (number of local optima) Horn and Goldberg (1995) and the fractal dimension of the fitness landscape Hoshino et al (1998). Some researchers try to explain when a problem becomes hard, by studying the area in the landscape called "Olympus", in which the better local optima are located Verel et al (2007); Vérel et al (2008). Fitness cloud is another method proposed to visualise the fitness landscape which tries to represent some properties of the fitness landscape Collard et al (2007); Lu et al (2011);Vanneschi et al (2007), reflecting the problem hardness.…”
Section: Previous Landscape Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Problems such as these that present an algorithm with misleading information are known as deceptive problems and many studies on problem hardness have focussed on deception as the main determining factor [5,18,19,27]. Neutrality is yet another factor that can have an influence on problem difficulty [59,60,63,55,41]. This phenomenon is illustrated in Figure 4.5d, where there is a lack of information around the candidate solution x for guiding search towards the global optimum.…”
Section: What Makes An Optimisation Problem Hard?mentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Algebraic properties of the solutions in the landscape [16], [25], modality (number of local optima) [26] and the fractal dimension of the fitness landscape [27] are other examples. Some researchers try to explain when a problem becomes hard, by studying the area in the landscape called "Olympus", in which the better local optima are located [28], [29]. Fitness clouds is another method proposed to visualise the fitness landscape, which tries to represent some properties of the fitness landscape [30], [31], [32], reflecting the problem hardness.…”
Section: A Previous Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%