Generative Fixation

One of the mainstays of human engineering is the idea of hierarchical assembly—the assembly of useful low level modules (a.k.a. building blocks) into useful modules at higher levels. Artifacts ranging from nuclear submarines to enterprise software are all constructed in this fashion. The building block hypothesis holds that genetic algorithms also construct solutions using hierarchical assembly, and that the basic building blocks used by these algorithms are short chromosomal snippets that confer above average fitness. Tantalizing as this hypothesis may be, it is based on strong assumptions about the distribution of fitness over a search space. I’ve criticized these assumptions in my dissertation and have proposed a different hypothesis based on weaker assumptions. This alternate hypothesis is grounded in a different metaphor—generative fixation.

Though not as ubiquitously recognizable as hierarchical assembly is, generative fixation underlies progress in many areas. Like in the video industry for instance, which only really took off once the VHS/Betamax war had run its course. The “fixation” of VHS within this industry in essence generated new opportunities for advancement. For example, it permitted the development of the video rental business, which brought films from the back rooms of studio houses into living rooms everywhere. Had the tussle between VHS and Betamax continued, many of these opportunities might not have presented themselves. The economics of supporting two formats simultaneously would have been economically crippling for the fledgling industry.

VHS v. Betamax was a case where two contestants competed for dominance along a single dimension—the format accepted by video players. Consider a scenario consisting of multiple dimensions and multiple contestants in each dimension. Suppose, moreover, that no contestant in any dimension is outright superior. That is, the superioriority/non-superiority of the contestants in each dimension is dependent on the state of the contests in the other dimensions. This scenario describes the most commonly arising situation in natural evolution. Here, the “dimensions” are genetic loci, and the “contestants” are alleles. (Statistically, the scenario just described is more likely than one where one or more locus has an allele that is superior regardless of the frequencies of the alleles at other loci.)

The danger in such cases is that progress will stall because no contestant will come to dominate its dimension. The generative fixation hypothesis holds that in a system undergoing recombinative evolutionary dynamics, progress will continue. Although no locus has an allele that is outright superior, a small number of  alleles belonging to different dimensions that play nice together (i.e. confer above average fitness as a group) will come to dominate their respective dimensions. In doing so, they will set the stage for the next multi-dimensional contest over the remaining dimensions. And so on.

I’ve demonstrated the genetic algorithm’s ability to scaleably identify and fix synergistic sets of unlinked non-competing alleles in a recent manuscript and in my dissertation.

Optimization By Decimation: Explaining Adaptation in Genetic Algorithms with Uniform Crossover

I’m preparing chapter 4 of my dissertation for submission to a journal.

Manuscript: http://s3.amazonaws.com/burjorjee/www/hyperclimbing_hypothesis.pdf

Abstract:
We submit the hyperclimbing hypothesis—an explanation for adaptation in genetic algorithms with uniform crossover (UGAs). Hyperclimbing is a stochastic search heuristic that works by decimating a search space, i.e. by iteratively fixing the values of small numbers of search space attributes. Global decimation is known to be an effective way to approach large instances of hard constraint satisfaction problems. The hyperclimbing hypothesis holds that UGAs work by implicitly implementing efficient global decimation. Proof of concept for this hypothesis comes from the use of a novel analytic technique involving the exploitation of algorithmic symmetry. We also present experimental results that show that a simple tweak inspired by the hyperclimbing hypothesis significantly improves the performance of a UGA on an instance of Uniform Random MAX-3SAT . The hyperclimbing hypothesis suggests that other kinds of evolutionary algorithms may also work by implicitly implementing efficient global decimation.

Presentation at the University of Washington: Optimization by Hyperclimbing

Yesterday, I presented my research on genetic algorithms at the University of Washington.

Talk abstract

My slides

Working Abstract of my Next Paper

This one’s to catch the attention of folks in machine learning, and theoretical computer science.

We recently proposed a new explanation for the adaptive capacity of simple recombinative genetic algorithms. This explanation proceeds from evidence that the simple genetic algorithm with uniform crossover (UGA) can implement a stochastic non-local search heuristic called hyperclimbing extraordinarily efficiently. To showcase the core computational efficiency involved we take up the problem of learning a classifier for the attributes of an unknown parity function over n attributes, k of which are effective. We consider the case where the learning algorithm can make adaptive queries against a membership query oracle. Given a bitstring of length n, the oracle returns a boolean value indicating the parity of the bitstring under the unknown parity function. For certain small, but otherwise arbitrarily chosen, values of k, we “show” that a UGA that uses the oracle as its fitness function can learn a classifier that classifies any attribute of the parity function—as effective or non-effective—with arbitrary accuracy; the learning occurs in time that is linear in n, and with query complexity that is constant in n, even when the oracle is “moderately” noisy.

Related blog post: Red Dots, Blue Dots

Update (June 11, 2010): Had a back and forth with Vitaly Feldman about the “angle” I take in this paper.  He suggested that it may not be the best. For small values of k, and particular regimes of the noise parameter, a GA based learning algorithm performs at par (in an asymptotic sense) with the best known algorithms for solving the learning parities problem. Vitaly cautioned, however, that the problem of learning parities with an adaptive memebership oracle is currently not of practical interest. And since the GA based learning algorithm does not improve upon an existing computational bound, he thinks that from a pure computational learning perspective, this result it is unlikely to be of interest.

So, back to the drawing board. Taking it from the top, the goal is to draw the attention of the machine learning community to the hyperclimbing heuristic, and the GA’s ability to implement this heuristic extraordinarily efficiently. One way to do this is to showcase the core computational efficiency at play in this implementation . And one way to do this is by showing how this core efficiency can be used to efficiently solve a problem that members of the computational learning community care about—presuming that such a problem currently exists.

Hello Production Environment

My first day at Amazon.com. Hello production evironment. It’s been a while :-)

Screencast Presentation: An Introduction to the Generative Fixation Hypothesis

Hyperclimbing and Decimation

In recent years, probabilistic inference algorithms such as survey propagation and belief propagation have been shown to be remarkably effective at tackling large, random instances of SAT, and other combinatorial optimization problems that lie beyond the reach of previous approaches. These inference algorithms belong to a class of techniques called decimation strategies. Decimation strategies monotonically reduce the size of a problem instance by iteratively fixing partial solutions (partial variable assignments in the case of SAT).

The generative fixation hypothesis essentially states that genetic algorithms work by efficiently implementing a decimation strategy called hyperclimbing.

Hyperclimbing, Genetic Algorithms, and Machine Learning

I’ve identified a promising stochastic search heuristic, called hyperclimbing, for large-scale optimization over massive attribute product spaces (e.g., the set of all binary strings of some length N, where N is very large) with rugged fitness functions. Hyperclimbing works by progressively limiting sampling to a series of nested subsets with increasing expected fitness. At any given step, this heuristic sifts through vast numbers of coarse partitions of the subset it “inhabits”, and identifies ones that partition this set into subsets whose expected fitness values are significantly variegated. Because hyperclimbing is sensitive, not to the local features of a search space, but to certain more global statistics, it is not susceptible to the kinds of issues that waylay local search heuristics.

The chief barrier to the wide and enthusiastic use of hyperclimbing is that it seems to scale very poorly with the number of attributes. If one heeds the seemingly high cost of applying hyperclimbing to large search spaces, this heuristic quickly looses its shine. A key conclusion of my doctoral work is that this seemingly high cost is illusory. I have uncovered evidence that strongly suggests that genetic algorithms can implement hyperclimbing extraordinarily efficiently.

As readers of this blog probably know, genetic algorithms are search algorithms that mimic natural evolution. These algorithms have been used in a wide range of engineering and scientific fields to quickly procure useful solutions to poorly understood (i.e. black-box) optimization problems. Unfortunately, despite the routine use of genetic algorithms for over three decades, their adaptive capacity has not been adequately accounted for. Given the evidence that genetic algorithms can implement efficient hyperclimbing, I’ve proposed a new explanation for the adaptive capacity of these algorithms. This new account—the generative fixation hypothesis—promises to spark significant advances in the fields of genetic algorithmics and discrete optimization.

The discovery that hyperclimbing is efficiently implementable also promises to have a non-negligible impact on the ecology of machine learning research. Optimization and machine learning are, after all, intimately related. Overlooking a few exceptions, the practice of machine learning research, can be characterized as the effective reduction of difficult learning problems to optimization problems for which efficient algorithms exist. In other words, the machine learning problems that can effectively be tackled are in large part those that can in practice be reduced to optimization problems that can be tackled efficiently. Currently, this largely limits the class of tractable machine learning problems to the class of learning problems that can in practice be reduced to convex optimization problems [1] . The identification of general-purpose non-convex optimization heuristics with efficient implementations (e.g. hyperclimbing), thus, has the potential to significantly extend the reach of machine learning.

For a description of hyperclimbing, and evidence that genetic algorithms can implement this heuristic efficiently, please see my dissertation

[1]  Kristin P. Bennett and Emilio Parrado-Hernandez. The interplay of optimization and machine  learning research. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 7:1265–1281, 2006.

Google Group for Generative Fixation

The generative fixation hypothesis now has a Google group—a place to ask  questions and share your insights.  If you’re intrigued by the idea of generative fixation, please sign up.

http://groups.google.com/group/generativefixation

Dissertation Deposition

I deposited my dissertation today.

Click here to see the final version (single spaced for easy reading).

« Older entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.