To demonstrate our approaches we will use Sudoku puzzles, which are an excellent test bed for
evolutionary algorithms. The puzzles are accessible enough for people to enjoy. However the more complex
puzzles require thousands of iterations before an evolutionary algorithm finds a solution. If we were
attempting to compare evolutionary algorithms we could count their iterations to solution as an indicator
of relative efficiency. Evolutionary algorithms however include a process of random mutation for solution
candidates. We will show that by improving the random mutation behaviours we were able to solve
problems with minimal evolutionary optimisation. Experiments demonstrated the random mutation was at
times more effective at solving the harder problems than the evolutionary algorithms. This implies that the
quality of random mutation may have a significant impact on the performance of evolutionary algorithms
with Sudoku puzzles. Additionally this random mutation may hold promise for reuse in hybrid evolutionary
algorithm behaviours.
Differential Evolution (DE) is a renowned optimization stratagem that can easily solve nonlinear and comprehensive problems. DE is a well known and uncomplicated population based probabilistic approach for comprehensive optimization. It has apparently outperformed a number of Evolutionary Algorithms and further search heuristics in the vein of Particle Swarm Optimization at what time of testing over both yardstick and actual world problems. Nevertheless, DE, like other probabilistic optimization algorithms, from time to time exhibits precipitate convergence and stagnates at suboptimal position. In order to stay away from stagnation behavior while maintaining an excellent convergence speed, an innovative search strategy is introduced, named memetic search in DE. In the planned strategy, positions update equation customized as per a memetic search stratagem. In this strategy a better solution participates more times in the position modernize procedure. The position update equation is inspired from the memetic search in artificial bee colony algorithm. The proposed strategy is named as Memetic Search in Differential Evolution (MSDE). To prove efficiency and efficacy of MSDE, it is tested over 8 benchmark optimization problems and three real world optimization problems. A comparative analysis has also been carried out among proposed MSDE and original DE. Results show that the anticipated algorithm go one better than the basic DE and its recent deviations in a good number of the experiments.
AHP technique a way to show preferences amongst alternativesijsrd.com
This article presents a review of the applications of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). AHP is a multiple criteria decision-making tool that has been used in almost all the applications related with decision-making. Decisions involve many intangibles that need to be traded off. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a theory of measurement through pairwise comparisons and relies on the judgements of experts to derive priority scales. It is these scales that measure intangibles in relative terms. The comparisons are made using a scale of absolute judgements that represents how much more; one element dominates another with respect to a given attribute. The judgements may be inconsistent, and how to measure inconsistency and improve the judgements, when possible to obtain better consistency is a concern of the AHP. The derived priority scales are synthesised by multiplying them by the priority of their parent nodes and adding for all such nodes. An illustration is also included.
Artificial Intelligence in Robot Path Planningiosrjce
IOSR Journal of Computer Engineering (IOSR-JCE) is a double blind peer reviewed International Journal that provides rapid publication (within a month) of articles in all areas of computer engineering and its applications. The journal welcomes publications of high quality papers on theoretical developments and practical applications in computer technology. Original research papers, state-of-the-art reviews, and high quality technical notes are invited for publications.
The potential role of ai in the minimisation and mitigation of project delayPieter Rautenbach
Artificial intelligence (AI) can have wide reaching application within the construction
industry, however, the actual application of this set of technologies is currently under exploited. This
paper considers the role that the application of AI can take in optimising the efficiencies of project
execution and how this can potentially reduce project duration and minimise and mitigate delay on
projects.
Differential Evolution (DE) is a renowned optimization stratagem that can easily solve nonlinear and comprehensive problems. DE is a well known and uncomplicated population based probabilistic approach for comprehensive optimization. It has apparently outperformed a number of Evolutionary Algorithms and further search heuristics in the vein of Particle Swarm Optimization at what time of testing over both yardstick and actual world problems. Nevertheless, DE, like other probabilistic optimization algorithms, from time to time exhibits precipitate convergence and stagnates at suboptimal position. In order to stay away from stagnation behavior while maintaining an excellent convergence speed, an innovative search strategy is introduced, named memetic search in DE. In the planned strategy, positions update equation customized as per a memetic search stratagem. In this strategy a better solution participates more times in the position modernize procedure. The position update equation is inspired from the memetic search in artificial bee colony algorithm. The proposed strategy is named as Memetic Search in Differential Evolution (MSDE). To prove efficiency and efficacy of MSDE, it is tested over 8 benchmark optimization problems and three real world optimization problems. A comparative analysis has also been carried out among proposed MSDE and original DE. Results show that the anticipated algorithm go one better than the basic DE and its recent deviations in a good number of the experiments.
AHP technique a way to show preferences amongst alternativesijsrd.com
This article presents a review of the applications of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). AHP is a multiple criteria decision-making tool that has been used in almost all the applications related with decision-making. Decisions involve many intangibles that need to be traded off. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a theory of measurement through pairwise comparisons and relies on the judgements of experts to derive priority scales. It is these scales that measure intangibles in relative terms. The comparisons are made using a scale of absolute judgements that represents how much more; one element dominates another with respect to a given attribute. The judgements may be inconsistent, and how to measure inconsistency and improve the judgements, when possible to obtain better consistency is a concern of the AHP. The derived priority scales are synthesised by multiplying them by the priority of their parent nodes and adding for all such nodes. An illustration is also included.
Artificial Intelligence in Robot Path Planningiosrjce
IOSR Journal of Computer Engineering (IOSR-JCE) is a double blind peer reviewed International Journal that provides rapid publication (within a month) of articles in all areas of computer engineering and its applications. The journal welcomes publications of high quality papers on theoretical developments and practical applications in computer technology. Original research papers, state-of-the-art reviews, and high quality technical notes are invited for publications.
The potential role of ai in the minimisation and mitigation of project delayPieter Rautenbach
Artificial intelligence (AI) can have wide reaching application within the construction
industry, however, the actual application of this set of technologies is currently under exploited. This
paper considers the role that the application of AI can take in optimising the efficiencies of project
execution and how this can potentially reduce project duration and minimise and mitigate delay on
projects.
POSSIBILISTIC SHARPE RATIO BASED NOVICE PORTFOLIO SELECTION MODELScscpconf
This paper uses the concept of possibilistic risk aversion to propose a new approach for portfolio selection in fuzzy environment. Using possibility theory, the possibilistic mean,
variance, standard deviation and risk premium of a fuzzy number are established. Possibilistic Sharpe ratio is defined as the ratio of possibilistic risk premium and possibilistic standard deviation of a portfolio. The Sharpe ratio is a measure of the performance of the portfolio compared to the risk taken. The higher the Sharpe ratio, the better the performance of the portfolio is and the greater the profits of taking risk. New models of fuzzy portfolio selection
considering the possibilistic Sharpe ratio, return and skewness of the portfolio are considered. The feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed method is illustrated by numerical example extracted from Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), India and is solved by multiple objective genetic
algorithm (MOGA).
Possibility Theory versus Probability Theory in Fuzzy Measure TheoryIJERA Editor
The purpose of this paper is to compare probability theory with possibility theory, and to use this comparison in comparing probability theory with fuzzy set theory. The best way of comparing probabilistic and possibilistic conceptualizations of uncertainty is to examine the two theories from a broader perspective. Such a perspective is offered by evidence theory, within which probability theory and possibility theory are recognized as special branches. While the various characteristic of possibility theory within the broader framework of evidence theory are expounded in this paper, we need to introduce their probabilistic counterparts to facilitate our discussion.
Analysis of Parameter using Fuzzy Genetic Algorithm in E-learning SystemHarshal Jain
The aim of this project is to analyze the parameter, for the inputs to find an optimization problem than the candidate solution we have. This will help us to find more accurate knowledge level of user, using Genetic Algorithm (GA). In this algorithm a population of candidate solutions (called individuals, creatures, or phenotypes) to an optimization problem is evolved toward better solutions.
Alleviating Privacy Attacks Using Causal ModelsAmit Sharma
Machine learning models, especially deep neural networks have been shown to reveal membership information of inputs in the training data. Such membership inference attacks are a serious privacy concern, for example, patients providing medical records to build a model that detects HIV would not want their identity to be leaked. Further, we show that the attack accuracy amplifies when the model is used to predict samples that come from a different distribution than the training set, which is often the case in real world applications. Therefore, we propose the use of causal learning approaches where a model learns the causal relationship between the input features and the outcome. An ideal causal model is known to be invariant to the training distribution and hence generalizes well to shifts between samples from the same distribution and across different distributions. First, we prove that models learned using causal structure provide stronger differential privacy guarantees than associational models under reasonable assumptions. Next, we show that causal models trained on sufficiently large samples are robust to membership inference attacks across different distributions of datasets and those trained on smaller sample sizes always have lower attack accuracy than corresponding associational models. Finally, we confirm our theoretical claims with experimental evaluation on 4 moderately complex Bayesian network datasets and a colored MNIST image dataset. Associational models exhibit upto 80\% attack accuracy under different test distributions and sample sizes whereas causal models exhibit attack accuracy close to a random guess. Our results confirm the value of the generalizability of causal models in reducing susceptibility to privacy attacks. Paper available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.12732
A performance analysis of metaheuristics and hybrid metaheuristics for the travel salesman problem is presented. Four single classical metaheuristics (genetic algorithm, memetic algorithm, iterated local search, and simulated annealing) were used. In addition, hybrid variations using nine different heuristic techniques for the local search, the mutation, and the intensification were used. The performance analysis was made using the Friedman test, and for the simulated annealing and local search algorithms statistical evidence was found that hybridization provides a difference in performance, while no evidence was found for the genetic and memetic algorithms. Up to six combinations were found to improve performance, five of them based on local search and one more based on simulated annealing.
Basic of Statistical Inference Part-III: The Theory of Estimation from Dexlab...Dexlab Analytics
In this 3rd segment of the basic of statistical inference series, the estimation theory, its elements, methods and characteristics have been discussed.
Basic of Statistical Inference Part-IV: An Overview of Hypothesis TestingDexlab Analytics
The fourth part of the basic of statistical inference series puts its focus on discussing the concept of hypothesis testing explaining all the nuances.
n the last years,researchers have made significant
progress on robot planning, leading to impressive
real-
time planners for such challenging tasks as driving
, flying, walking, and manipulating objects. In thi
s paper
we present a novel architecture to support applicat
ions in artificial intelligence in environments ful
ly
observable, i.e. in classical planning.On the other
hand, we developed ASP-based applications that
allowgoing of classical planning to a dynamic plann
ing, according to the real world execution through
logic programming where answer sets correspond to s
olutions, similar to of answer set programming.
Furthermore, our systems allow online planning and
replanning, depending on whether plan requires
revision during execution and replan accordingly
This paper reports results of artificial neural network for robot navigation tasks. Machine
learning methods have proven usability in many complex problems concerning mobile robots
control. In particular we deal with the well-known strategy of navigating by “wall-following”.
In this study, probabilistic neural network (PNN) structure was used for robot navigation tasks.
The PNN result was compared with the results of the Logistic Perceptron, Multilayer
Perceptron, Mixture of Experts and Elman neural networks and the results of the previous
studies reported focusing on robot navigation tasks and using same dataset. It was observed the
PNN is the best classification accuracy with 99,635% accuracy using same dataset.
POSSIBILISTIC SHARPE RATIO BASED NOVICE PORTFOLIO SELECTION MODELScscpconf
This paper uses the concept of possibilistic risk aversion to propose a new approach for portfolio selection in fuzzy environment. Using possibility theory, the possibilistic mean,
variance, standard deviation and risk premium of a fuzzy number are established. Possibilistic Sharpe ratio is defined as the ratio of possibilistic risk premium and possibilistic standard deviation of a portfolio. The Sharpe ratio is a measure of the performance of the portfolio compared to the risk taken. The higher the Sharpe ratio, the better the performance of the portfolio is and the greater the profits of taking risk. New models of fuzzy portfolio selection
considering the possibilistic Sharpe ratio, return and skewness of the portfolio are considered. The feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed method is illustrated by numerical example extracted from Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), India and is solved by multiple objective genetic
algorithm (MOGA).
Possibility Theory versus Probability Theory in Fuzzy Measure TheoryIJERA Editor
The purpose of this paper is to compare probability theory with possibility theory, and to use this comparison in comparing probability theory with fuzzy set theory. The best way of comparing probabilistic and possibilistic conceptualizations of uncertainty is to examine the two theories from a broader perspective. Such a perspective is offered by evidence theory, within which probability theory and possibility theory are recognized as special branches. While the various characteristic of possibility theory within the broader framework of evidence theory are expounded in this paper, we need to introduce their probabilistic counterparts to facilitate our discussion.
Analysis of Parameter using Fuzzy Genetic Algorithm in E-learning SystemHarshal Jain
The aim of this project is to analyze the parameter, for the inputs to find an optimization problem than the candidate solution we have. This will help us to find more accurate knowledge level of user, using Genetic Algorithm (GA). In this algorithm a population of candidate solutions (called individuals, creatures, or phenotypes) to an optimization problem is evolved toward better solutions.
Alleviating Privacy Attacks Using Causal ModelsAmit Sharma
Machine learning models, especially deep neural networks have been shown to reveal membership information of inputs in the training data. Such membership inference attacks are a serious privacy concern, for example, patients providing medical records to build a model that detects HIV would not want their identity to be leaked. Further, we show that the attack accuracy amplifies when the model is used to predict samples that come from a different distribution than the training set, which is often the case in real world applications. Therefore, we propose the use of causal learning approaches where a model learns the causal relationship between the input features and the outcome. An ideal causal model is known to be invariant to the training distribution and hence generalizes well to shifts between samples from the same distribution and across different distributions. First, we prove that models learned using causal structure provide stronger differential privacy guarantees than associational models under reasonable assumptions. Next, we show that causal models trained on sufficiently large samples are robust to membership inference attacks across different distributions of datasets and those trained on smaller sample sizes always have lower attack accuracy than corresponding associational models. Finally, we confirm our theoretical claims with experimental evaluation on 4 moderately complex Bayesian network datasets and a colored MNIST image dataset. Associational models exhibit upto 80\% attack accuracy under different test distributions and sample sizes whereas causal models exhibit attack accuracy close to a random guess. Our results confirm the value of the generalizability of causal models in reducing susceptibility to privacy attacks. Paper available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.12732
A performance analysis of metaheuristics and hybrid metaheuristics for the travel salesman problem is presented. Four single classical metaheuristics (genetic algorithm, memetic algorithm, iterated local search, and simulated annealing) were used. In addition, hybrid variations using nine different heuristic techniques for the local search, the mutation, and the intensification were used. The performance analysis was made using the Friedman test, and for the simulated annealing and local search algorithms statistical evidence was found that hybridization provides a difference in performance, while no evidence was found for the genetic and memetic algorithms. Up to six combinations were found to improve performance, five of them based on local search and one more based on simulated annealing.
Basic of Statistical Inference Part-III: The Theory of Estimation from Dexlab...Dexlab Analytics
In this 3rd segment of the basic of statistical inference series, the estimation theory, its elements, methods and characteristics have been discussed.
Basic of Statistical Inference Part-IV: An Overview of Hypothesis TestingDexlab Analytics
The fourth part of the basic of statistical inference series puts its focus on discussing the concept of hypothesis testing explaining all the nuances.
n the last years,researchers have made significant
progress on robot planning, leading to impressive
real-
time planners for such challenging tasks as driving
, flying, walking, and manipulating objects. In thi
s paper
we present a novel architecture to support applicat
ions in artificial intelligence in environments ful
ly
observable, i.e. in classical planning.On the other
hand, we developed ASP-based applications that
allowgoing of classical planning to a dynamic plann
ing, according to the real world execution through
logic programming where answer sets correspond to s
olutions, similar to of answer set programming.
Furthermore, our systems allow online planning and
replanning, depending on whether plan requires
revision during execution and replan accordingly
This paper reports results of artificial neural network for robot navigation tasks. Machine
learning methods have proven usability in many complex problems concerning mobile robots
control. In particular we deal with the well-known strategy of navigating by “wall-following”.
In this study, probabilistic neural network (PNN) structure was used for robot navigation tasks.
The PNN result was compared with the results of the Logistic Perceptron, Multilayer
Perceptron, Mixture of Experts and Elman neural networks and the results of the previous
studies reported focusing on robot navigation tasks and using same dataset. It was observed the
PNN is the best classification accuracy with 99,635% accuracy using same dataset.
Summer class catalog from UNM Continuing Education. Growth & Enrichment, Youth, Travel, Professional Development, Career Training, Digital Arts, Information Technology, and more!
An exploratory analysis on half hourly electricity load patterns leading to h...ijaia
Accurate prediction of electricity demand can bring
extensive benefits to any country as the forecaste
d
values help the relevant authorities to take decisi
ons regarding electricity generation, transmission
and
distribution appropriately. The literature reveals
that, when compared to conventional time series
techniques, the improved artificial intelligent app
roaches provide better prediction accuracies. Howev
er,
the accuracy of predictions using intelligent appro
aches like neural networks are strongly influenced
by the
correct selection of inputs and the number of neuro
-forecasters used for prediction. Deshani, Hansen,
Attygalle, & Karunarathne (2014) suggested that a c
luster analysis could be performed to group similar
day types, which contribute towards selecting a bet
ter set of neuro-forecasters in neural networks. Th
e
cluster analysis was based on the daily total elect
ricity demands as their target was to predict the d
aily
total demands using neural networks. However, predi
cting half-hourly demand seems more appropriate
due to the considerable changes of electricity dema
nd observed during a particular day. As such cluste
rs
are identified considering half-hourly data within
the daily load distribution curves. Thus, this pape
r is an
improvement to Deshani et. al. (2014), which illust
rates how the half hourly demand distribution withi
n a
day, is incorporated when selecting the inputs for
the neuro-forecasters.
Are traditional financial reports still a valid part of organisational communication and accountability? Or has the financial report become an impenetrable collection of numbers and words, prepared only for compliance purposes, and only understood by a few technical elite? Is financial reporting keeping up with the increasingly complex demands of business? What effect is digital disruption having?
Noise, Numbers and Cut-Through looks at the effectiveness of financial reporting as a communication tool and responds to these questions by examining the experiences of two leading companies and their assault against disclosure overload.
Learn more: http://www.charteredaccountants.com.au/futureinc
The Chartered Accountants Program is your pathway to becoming a CA, a widely recognised business qualification that’s sought after by employers across industries. Learn more about the Program, its content and how to apply.
Nature Inspired Models And The Semantic WebStefan Ceriu
In this paper we present a series of nature inspired models used as alternative solutions for Semantic Web concerns. Some of the methods presented in this article perform better than classic algorithms by enhancing response time and computational costs. Others are just proof of concept, first steps towards new techniques that will improve their respective field. The intricate nature of the Semantic Web urges the need for faster, more intelligent algorithms and nature inspired models have been proven to be more than suitable for such complex tasks.
Designed and implemented three variants of evolutionary algorithms using pthreads for hyperparameter optimization of
Deep Neural Networks that give upto 9x speedups on 16 cores and scale very well with increasing number of threads,
hyperparameter space, search time and accuracy compared to standard baseline algorithms in OpenMP
A Non-Revisiting Genetic Algorithm for Optimizing Numeric Multi-Dimensional F...ijcsa
Genetic Algorithm (GA) is a robust and popular stochastic optimization algorithm for large and complex search spaces. The major shortcomings of Genetic Algorithms are premature convergence and revisits to individual solutions in the search space. In other words, Genetic algorithm is a revisiting algorithm that escorts to duplicate function evaluations which is a clear wastage of time and computational resources. In this paper, a non-revisiting genetic algorithm with adaptive mutation is proposed for the domain of MultiDimensional numeric function optimization. In this algorithm whenever a revisit occurs, the underlined search point is replaced with a mutated version of the best/random (chosen probabilistically) individual from the GA population. Furthermore, the recommended approach is not using any extra memory resources to avoid revisits. To analyze the influence of the method, the proposed non-revisiting algorithm is evaluated using nine benchmarks functions with two and four dimensions. The performance of the proposed genetic algorithm is superior as contrasted to simple genetic algorithm as confirmed by the experimental results.
The amount of information in the form of features and variables available to machine learning algorithms is ever increasing. This can lead to classifiers that are prone to overfitting in high dimensions, high dimensional models do not lend themselves to interpretable results, and the CPU and memory resources necessary to run on high-dimensional datasets severly limit the applications of the approaches.
Variable and feature selection aim to remedy this by finding a subset of features that in some way captures the information provided best.
In this paper we present the general methodology and highlight some specific approaches.
Evolutionary Computing is a research area within computer science. As the name suggest, it is a special flavour of computing, which draws inspiration from the process of natural evolution. The fundamental metaphor of evolutionary computing relates this powerful natural evolution to a particular style of problem solving – that of trial and error.
GENETIC ALGORITHM FOR FUNCTION APPROXIMATION: AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONijaia
Function Approximation is a popular engineering problems used in system identification or Equation
optimization. Due to the complex search space it requires, AI techniques has been used extensively to spot
the best curves that match the real behavior of the system. Genetic algorithm is known for their fast
convergence and their ability to find an optimal structure of the solution. We propose using a genetic
algorithm as a function approximator. Our attempt will focus on using the polynomial form of the
approximation. After implementing the algorithm, we are going to report our results and compare it with
the real function output.
GA is a search technique that depends on the natural selection and genetics principles and which determines a optimal solution for even a hard issue.genetic algorithm crossover and genetic algorithm for optimization
Convergence tendency of genetic algorithms and artificial immune system in so...ijcsity
By the advances in the Evolution Algorithms (EAs) and the intelligent optimization metho
ds we witness the
big revolutions in solving the optimization problems. The application of the evolution algorithms are not
only not limited to the combined optimization problems, but also are vast in domain to the continuous
optimization problems. In this
paper we analyze and study the Genetic Algorithm (GA) and the Artificial
Immune System (AIS)
algorithm
which are capable in escaping the local optimization and also fastening
reaching the global optimization and to show the efficiency of the GA and AIS th
e application of them in
Solving Continuous Optimization Functions (SCOFs) are studied. Because of the multi variables and the
multi
-
dimensional spaces in SCOFs the use of the classic optimization methods, is generally non
-
efficient
and high cost. In other
words the use of the classic optimization methods for SCOFs generally leads to a
local optimized solution. A possible solution for SCOFs is to use the EAs which are high in probability of
succeeding reaching the local optimized solution. The results in pa
per show that GA is more efficient than
AIS in reaching the optimized solution in SCOFs.
Simulation-based Optimization of a Real-world Travelling Salesman Problem Usi...CSCJournals
This paper presents a real-world case study of optimizing waste collection in Sweden. The problem, involving approximately 17,000 garbage bins served by three bin lorries, is approached as a travelling salesman problem and solved using simulation-based optimization and an evolutionary algorithm. To improve the performance of the evolutionary algorithm, it is enhanced with a repair function that adjusts its genome values so that shorter routes are found more quickly. The algorithm is tested using two crossover operators, i.e., the order crossover and heuristic crossover, combined with different mutation rates. The results indicate that the order crossover is superior to the heuristics crossover, but that the driving force of the search process is the mutation operator combined with the repair function.
Multi-Population Methods with Adaptive Mutation for Multi-Modal Optimization ...ijscai
This paper presents an efficient scheme to locate multiple peaks on multi-modal optimization problems by
using genetic algorithms (GAs). The premature convergence problem shows due to the loss of diversity,
the multi-population technique can be applied to maintain the diversity in the population and the
convergence capacity of GAs. The proposed scheme is the combination of multi-population with adaptive
mutation operator, which determines two different mutation probabilities for different sites of the
solutions. The probabilities are updated by the fitness and distribution of solutions in the search space
during the evolution process. The experimental results demonstrate the performance of the proposed
algorithm based on a set of benchmark problems in comparison with relevant algorithms.
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DIFFERENT ALGORITHMS TO SOLVE N QUEENS PROBLEMijfcstjournal
This Paper provides a brief description of the Genetic Algorithm (GA), the Simulated Annealing (SA)
Algorithm, the Backtracking (BT) Algorithm and the Brute Force (BF) Search Algorithm and attempts to
explain the way as how the Proposed Genetic Algorithm (GA), the Proposed Simulated Annealing (SA)
Algorithm using GA, the Backtracking (BT) Algorithm and the Brute Force (BF) Search Algorithm can be
employed in finding the best solution of N Queens Problem and also, makes a comparison between these
four algorithms. It is entirely a review based work. The four algorithms were written as well as
implemented. From the Results, it was found that, the Proposed Genetic Algorithm (GA) performed better
than the Proposed Simulated Annealing (SA) Algorithm using GA, the Backtracking (BT) Algorithm and
the Brute Force (BF) Search Algorithm and it also provided better fitness value (solution) than the
Proposed Simulated Annealing Algorithm (SA) using GA, the Backtracking (BT) Algorithm and the Brute
Force (BF) Search Algorithm, for different N values. Also, it was noticed that, the Proposed GA took more
time to provide result than the Proposed SA using GA.
Let's dive deeper into the world of ODC! Ricardo Alves (OutSystems) will join us to tell all about the new Data Fabric. After that, Sezen de Bruijn (OutSystems) will get into the details on how to best design a sturdy architecture within ODC.
Key Trends Shaping the Future of Infrastructure.pdfCheryl Hung
Keynote at DIGIT West Expo, Glasgow on 29 May 2024.
Cheryl Hung, ochery.com
Sr Director, Infrastructure Ecosystem, Arm.
The key trends across hardware, cloud and open-source; exploring how these areas are likely to mature and develop over the short and long-term, and then considering how organisations can position themselves to adapt and thrive.
JMeter webinar - integration with InfluxDB and GrafanaRTTS
Watch this recorded webinar about real-time monitoring of application performance. See how to integrate Apache JMeter, the open-source leader in performance testing, with InfluxDB, the open-source time-series database, and Grafana, the open-source analytics and visualization application.
In this webinar, we will review the benefits of leveraging InfluxDB and Grafana when executing load tests and demonstrate how these tools are used to visualize performance metrics.
Length: 30 minutes
Session Overview
-------------------------------------------
During this webinar, we will cover the following topics while demonstrating the integrations of JMeter, InfluxDB and Grafana:
- What out-of-the-box solutions are available for real-time monitoring JMeter tests?
- What are the benefits of integrating InfluxDB and Grafana into the load testing stack?
- Which features are provided by Grafana?
- Demonstration of InfluxDB and Grafana using a practice web application
To view the webinar recording, go to:
https://www.rttsweb.com/jmeter-integration-webinar
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 4DianaGray10
Welcome to UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series part 4. In this session, we will cover Test Manager overview along with SAP heatmap.
The UiPath Test Manager overview with SAP heatmap webinar offers a concise yet comprehensive exploration of the role of a Test Manager within SAP environments, coupled with the utilization of heatmaps for effective testing strategies.
Participants will gain insights into the responsibilities, challenges, and best practices associated with test management in SAP projects. Additionally, the webinar delves into the significance of heatmaps as a visual aid for identifying testing priorities, areas of risk, and resource allocation within SAP landscapes. Through this session, attendees can expect to enhance their understanding of test management principles while learning practical approaches to optimize testing processes in SAP environments using heatmap visualization techniques
What will you get from this session?
1. Insights into SAP testing best practices
2. Heatmap utilization for testing
3. Optimization of testing processes
4. Demo
Topics covered:
Execution from the test manager
Orchestrator execution result
Defect reporting
SAP heatmap example with demo
Speaker:
Deepak Rai, Automation Practice Lead, Boundaryless Group and UiPath MVP
Dev Dives: Train smarter, not harder – active learning and UiPath LLMs for do...UiPathCommunity
💥 Speed, accuracy, and scaling – discover the superpowers of GenAI in action with UiPath Document Understanding and Communications Mining™:
See how to accelerate model training and optimize model performance with active learning
Learn about the latest enhancements to out-of-the-box document processing – with little to no training required
Get an exclusive demo of the new family of UiPath LLMs – GenAI models specialized for processing different types of documents and messages
This is a hands-on session specifically designed for automation developers and AI enthusiasts seeking to enhance their knowledge in leveraging the latest intelligent document processing capabilities offered by UiPath.
Speakers:
👨🏫 Andras Palfi, Senior Product Manager, UiPath
👩🏫 Lenka Dulovicova, Product Program Manager, UiPath
Search and Society: Reimagining Information Access for Radical FuturesBhaskar Mitra
The field of Information retrieval (IR) is currently undergoing a transformative shift, at least partly due to the emerging applications of generative AI to information access. In this talk, we will deliberate on the sociotechnical implications of generative AI for information access. We will argue that there is both a critical necessity and an exciting opportunity for the IR community to re-center our research agendas on societal needs while dismantling the artificial separation between the work on fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics in IR and the rest of IR research. Instead of adopting a reactionary strategy of trying to mitigate potential social harms from emerging technologies, the community should aim to proactively set the research agenda for the kinds of systems we should build inspired by diverse explicitly stated sociotechnical imaginaries. The sociotechnical imaginaries that underpin the design and development of information access technologies needs to be explicitly articulated, and we need to develop theories of change in context of these diverse perspectives. Our guiding future imaginaries must be informed by other academic fields, such as democratic theory and critical theory, and should be co-developed with social science scholars, legal scholars, civil rights and social justice activists, and artists, among others.
Essentials of Automations: Optimizing FME Workflows with ParametersSafe Software
Are you looking to streamline your workflows and boost your projects’ efficiency? Do you find yourself searching for ways to add flexibility and control over your FME workflows? If so, you’re in the right place.
Join us for an insightful dive into the world of FME parameters, a critical element in optimizing workflow efficiency. This webinar marks the beginning of our three-part “Essentials of Automation” series. This first webinar is designed to equip you with the knowledge and skills to utilize parameters effectively: enhancing the flexibility, maintainability, and user control of your FME projects.
Here’s what you’ll gain:
- Essentials of FME Parameters: Understand the pivotal role of parameters, including Reader/Writer, Transformer, User, and FME Flow categories. Discover how they are the key to unlocking automation and optimization within your workflows.
- Practical Applications in FME Form: Delve into key user parameter types including choice, connections, and file URLs. Allow users to control how a workflow runs, making your workflows more reusable. Learn to import values and deliver the best user experience for your workflows while enhancing accuracy.
- Optimization Strategies in FME Flow: Explore the creation and strategic deployment of parameters in FME Flow, including the use of deployment and geometry parameters, to maximize workflow efficiency.
- Pro Tips for Success: Gain insights on parameterizing connections and leveraging new features like Conditional Visibility for clarity and simplicity.
We’ll wrap up with a glimpse into future webinars, followed by a Q&A session to address your specific questions surrounding this topic.
Don’t miss this opportunity to elevate your FME expertise and drive your projects to new heights of efficiency.
Slack (or Teams) Automation for Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Soluti...Jeffrey Haguewood
Sidekick Solutions uses Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Solutions Apricot) and automation solutions to integrate data for business workflows.
We believe integration and automation are essential to user experience and the promise of efficient work through technology. Automation is the critical ingredient to realizing that full vision. We develop integration products and services for Bonterra Case Management software to support the deployment of automations for a variety of use cases.
This video focuses on the notifications, alerts, and approval requests using Slack for Bonterra Impact Management. The solutions covered in this webinar can also be deployed for Microsoft Teams.
Interested in deploying notification automations for Bonterra Impact Management? Contact us at sales@sidekicksolutionsllc.com to discuss next steps.
DevOps and Testing slides at DASA ConnectKari Kakkonen
My and Rik Marselis slides at 30.5.2024 DASA Connect conference. We discuss about what is testing, then what is agile testing and finally what is Testing in DevOps. Finally we had lovely workshop with the participants trying to find out different ways to think about quality and testing in different parts of the DevOps infinity loop.
Epistemic Interaction - tuning interfaces to provide information for AI supportAlan Dix
Paper presented at SYNERGY workshop at AVI 2024, Genoa, Italy. 3rd June 2024
https://alandix.com/academic/papers/synergy2024-epistemic/
As machine learning integrates deeper into human-computer interactions, the concept of epistemic interaction emerges, aiming to refine these interactions to enhance system adaptability. This approach encourages minor, intentional adjustments in user behaviour to enrich the data available for system learning. This paper introduces epistemic interaction within the context of human-system communication, illustrating how deliberate interaction design can improve system understanding and adaptation. Through concrete examples, we demonstrate the potential of epistemic interaction to significantly advance human-computer interaction by leveraging intuitive human communication strategies to inform system design and functionality, offering a novel pathway for enriching user-system engagements.
Software Delivery At the Speed of AI: Inflectra Invests In AI-Powered QualityInflectra
In this insightful webinar, Inflectra explores how artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming software development and testing. Discover how AI-powered tools are revolutionizing every stage of the software development lifecycle (SDLC), from design and prototyping to testing, deployment, and monitoring.
Learn about:
• The Future of Testing: How AI is shifting testing towards verification, analysis, and higher-level skills, while reducing repetitive tasks.
• Test Automation: How AI-powered test case generation, optimization, and self-healing tests are making testing more efficient and effective.
• Visual Testing: Explore the emerging capabilities of AI in visual testing and how it's set to revolutionize UI verification.
• Inflectra's AI Solutions: See demonstrations of Inflectra's cutting-edge AI tools like the ChatGPT plugin and Azure Open AI platform, designed to streamline your testing process.
Whether you're a developer, tester, or QA professional, this webinar will give you valuable insights into how AI is shaping the future of software delivery.
Neuro-symbolic is not enough, we need neuro-*semantic*Frank van Harmelen
Neuro-symbolic (NeSy) AI is on the rise. However, simply machine learning on just any symbolic structure is not sufficient to really harvest the gains of NeSy. These will only be gained when the symbolic structures have an actual semantics. I give an operational definition of semantics as “predictable inference”.
All of this illustrated with link prediction over knowledge graphs, but the argument is general.
AI for Every Business: Unlocking Your Product's Universal Potential by VP of ...
Optimised random mutations for
1. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications (IJAIA), Vol. 5, No. 4, July 2014
DOI : 10.5121/ijaia.2014.5402 15
OPTIMISED RANDOM MUTATIONS FOR
EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHMS
Sean McGerty and Frank Moisiadis
University of Notre Dame , Australia
ABSTRACT
To demonstrate our approaches we will use Sudoku puzzles, which are an excellent test bed for
evolutionary algorithms. The puzzles are accessible enough for people to enjoy. However the more complex
puzzles require thousands of iterations before an evolutionary algorithm finds a solution. If we were
attempting to compare evolutionary algorithms we could count their iterations to solution as an indicator
of relative efficiency. Evolutionary algorithms however include a process of random mutation for solution
candidates. We will show that by improving the random mutation behaviours we were able to solve
problems with minimal evolutionary optimisation. Experiments demonstrated the random mutation was at
times more effective at solving the harder problems than the evolutionary algorithms. This implies that the
quality of random mutation may have a significant impact on the performance of evolutionary algorithms
with Sudoku puzzles. Additionally this random mutation may hold promise for reuse in hybrid evolutionary
algorithm behaviours.
KEYWORDS
Attention, adaption, artificial intelligence, evolution, exploitation, exploration, satisficing, Sudoku, particle
swarm, genetic algorithm, simulated annealing, mutation.
1. INTRODUCTION
Evolutionary algorithms attempt to iteratively improve a population of candidate solutions. Each
solution is randomly mutated. Random mutations are applied to each solution, and a fitness
function is used to assess if an improvement has occurred. Evolutionary algorithms may then
attempt to replicate attributes of the more successful candidates to the others. In this way weaker
solutions become more like the better solutions and the cycle continues. This behaviour can be
seen in both particle swarm optimisation and genetic algorithm heuristics [1] [2].
The optimisation in this approach can be seen as an accumulating behaviour for solution
candidates around optimal points in the namespace. The forces of random mutation and fitness
function assessment bring more candidates close to the best solution found so far. Diversification
within the candidate population is being transferred into specificity. This accumulation of
candidates can be seen as an exploitation strategy, which needs balancing against exploration
[3][4]. We can describe non-optimal behaviours in evolutionary algorithms in these terms [5].
At higher levels of namespace complexity is inefficient to scan every possible candidate to know
definitively which is the best. Doing so would be the ultimate in exploration, and in relational
terms very little optimisation exploitation would be occurring. The strength in a heuristic is in the
expectation of being ample to find a good solution and potentially the best solution without
checking all possible solutions.
2. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications (IJAIA), Vol. 5, No. 4, July 2014
16
2. EXPLORATION VS. EXPLOITATION
Evolutionary algorithms face the same problems that people often do. Should we continue to try
and solve a problem from where we are at the moment? Or should we diversify in case we are not
making enough progress in the hope that there are better opportunities elsewhere?
The reality with most evolutionary algorithms is that they will only support one of these modes.
For the most part evolutionary algorithms have their random mutation options for exploration
inline with the rest of the optimisation. This means that the optimisation has to be held in balance
with optimisation. The act of sharing successful attributes makes the candidates look more
similar, while the actions of random mutation push them further apart. If we take the assumption
that we are working towards an achievable solution in a logical way then the exploitative action
of optimisation will have to overpower the explorative desire of randomisation to move apart.
This balance may work well in most cases. However where there is little change occurring
because we have reached a local maximum, we have a problem. Those forces making the
candidates exploit the incorrect but best solution so far hamper the ability of the randomisation to
escape and find other better solutions.
Strengths in exploitation may lead to weaknesses in exploration. By replicating attributes among
the solution candidates it is entirely possible that they may accumulate around a local maximum.
In this case the desire to exploit has overpowered the entropy of the randomisation function,
which now lacks the ability to break from the local maximum.
At this point the algorithm may relatively prioritise a repulsion factor between candidate
neighbours [6]. The algorithm may de-prioritise the optimisation component allowing more
random mutation. In either case the algorithm requires awareness that relative improvement is no
longer occurring. There is also the question of how to parameterise these exploration modes,
preferably in a non-namespace specific way.
This hybrid behaviour between exploration and exploitation is also seen when different
evolutionary algorithms are combined [5]. If we compare particle swarm optimisation and
simulated annealing we might consider particle swarm optimisation to be a relatively strong
exploiter [7]. In the same terms simulated annealing may rely more on random mutation and
therefore be a relatively strong explorer. If our implementation allowed each algorithm to share
the same solution candidate population, then we would be able to swap between the two
algorithms as needed. We would then be able to rebalance between exploitation and exploration
at will.
The ideal partner for a normal evolutionary algorithm is therefore a randomisation algorithm that
we optimised in such a way to preferentially find better solution candidates without traditional
optimisation.
3. BROAD BASED ATTENTION
We draw many similarities between human vision and evolutionary algorithms. Much of the
processing power at the back of your eye is devoted to peripheral vision. The right hemisphere of
your brain is most likely dedicated to qualitative processing and broad based attention.
3. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications (IJAIA), Vol. 5, No. 4, July 2014
17
In these modes coverage and efficiency of operation appear to be primary concerns. Your
peripheral vision is optimised to detect unexpected motion and changes in light intensity. This
allows the majority of your left hemisphere and the central aspects of your vision to focus on
specific tasks while not losing the bigger picture. If nothing else, consider it a survival mechanism
where autonomic processing can save you while you think about something else.
We can achieve many of the same goals in an heuristic if we first notice that simulated
annealing’s optimisation modes are a bit different from the others. Rather than replicate attributes
from solution candidates with better fitness function scores to weaker ones, simulated annealing
has a random mutation step that discards it if the result is a net loss. This is an example of being
able to direct changes in a beneficial way. You can also see that not needing to select or correlate
solution candidates might have efficiencies over normal processing modes. Efficiency is the main
consideration for an exploration mode broad-based attention agent. The most comprehensive
mechanism of this type would be scanning every possibility in the namespace, but as we
mentioned earlier this rapidly becomes unworkable for large namespaces.
A broad-based attention algorithm expects that we can disperse candidates through a data
namespace and in so doing gain a better view. Each solution candidate is a mapping between
causal input variables and a resulting fitness scalar. By varying these inputs as much as possible
we gain a broader view of the distribution of this fitness curve.
Note too that the simplex algorithm is a use case for a select type of problem that evolutionary
algorithms would be able to solve. The simplex algorithm understands that the best values will be
the boundary values of one or more variables. This then leads to checks where correlated
variables are set to boundary values and transitions between these combinations will maximise
the fitness function. In a topographical sense we navigate the boundary of an n-dimensional
object for a corner value we prefer.
In the same way we could, for example, recognise that we could add more values than we remove
during random mutation. This is similar to saying that we expect a solution to be more likely with
cells added than removed, and as we are solving Sudoku puzzles this is the case.
Using these ideas we will create a population of randomly mutating solution candidates that will
move about sampling the namespace in a directed way. With optimising mechanisms these
candidates will disperse, giving an aggregated view of a subsection of the problem. Note that we
should be able to direct this mutator towards more interesting parts of the namespace without
using evolutionary algorithm style optimisations. Visualise this as being more interested in the
surface of a bubble than the air inside. We are beginning to make a case that there is benefit to
thinking of random mutation as having a lifecycle.
We can also optimise the fitness function to our needs. We will always need to check that any
solution is valid and consistent. Also if we accept that we may find an endpoint solution through
random change then we want to know if we have reached the endpoint solution. We do not need
the fitness scalar for comparing the solution candidates within this population, as we do not
optimise by exchanging attributes. We are interested in the scalar sometimes, but only when we
are interested to know if we have found a better solution via random change if we are running a
separate random mutation solution candidate population. For the most part though, our processing
for broad attention modes is simplified with respect to optimisation.
Take for example Sudoku puzzles, which are completed when all cells have been filled [8]. We
are restricted to adding digits such that each digit can only occur once with in a row or column or
4. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications (IJAIA), Vol. 5, No. 4, July 2014
18
a region. We can separate these considerations: we are attempting to add digits, and solutions
cannot be invalid.
The check for validity of the solution is a subset of the fitness function. Rather than returning a
fitness score we can simply return true or false. We can combine our simplified fitness function
with a random mutation agent with a bias for addition. We call this mechanism the greedy
random.
Solution candidates are spread through the namespace by the greedy random. This behaviour
attempts to fill as many cells as possible. If we correlate to human vision, the greedy random
moves around the boundaries of what a human can see flagging changes. Note as well that the
greedy random uses less resources as a subset of an evolutionary algorithm, so we can run more
of them with less effort.
4. ATTENTION ADAPTION
Darwin was asked what he considered to be the most important attribute for continued success in
his model of evolution. He avoided factors like strength, or speed, and instead suggested it was
far more important to be able to adapt [9]. When an evolutionary algorithm collects around a local
maximum we could see this specificity as a failure to adapt. Any candidate undergoing random
mutation does not have the entropy to produce a candidate better than the current population. In
these cases these insufficiently adapted mutations are removed or assimilated. We suggest that is
need is a mechanism for being aware of candidates sufficiently outside the local maximum to
allow us to adapt and escape.
Think of this as an attention mechanism, which allows the adaptation away from the local
maximum to occur. By implementing this ability we gain understanding of a mechanism that has
been known to plant sciences for most of a century. It is entirely possible to be able to separate
changes into those based on internal factors from those that occur in response to their
environment.
By being able to notice beneficial change in candidates undergoing random mutation we can
adopt that change, even when it is outside the realm of experience for the evolutionary algorithm.
5. FITNESS FUNCTION
Evolutionary algorithms work by attempting to maximise a scalar fitness function by changing
values within constraints [10]. For example we may attempt to maximise the sum of two numbers
greater than zero but less than five. The constraints place acceptable input values from one to
four. We may start the process with values of one, and a fitness of two. Over time we randomly
change values and remember those pairs that lead to improved fitness function scalars. Eventually
as a result of random changes and using the best candidates so far as a reference, our paired
values improve. Eventually we reach a stable solution with four and four equalling eight, and we
no longer see improvement with any random change.
A random mutation component capable of integrating with evolutionary heuristics will need to
inter-operate with this evolutionary algorithm lifecycle. As previously mentioned we do not
include optimisation, but the question remains how much of the fitness remains relevant to
random change function.
5. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications (IJAIA), Vol. 5, No. 4, July 2014
19
At its simplest the fitness function returns a scalar value, which increases as our solution
candidate improves if we are attempting maximisation. However there is also an expectation that
candidate solutions that violate the problem constraints are invalid. In this case the fitness
function may return a value equal to or less than zero to mark that this candidate is less valuable
than any other current candidate. If we were to realise that we had produced an invalid candidate
we could then choose to discard it, or to revert to the most recent valid version.
If we are not optimising, then we are not necessarily comparing candidates by fitness. It remains a
serious issue if a candidate should receive random mutations that render it invalid. Therefore we
still have interest in a subset of the fitness function outcomes. The assumption is that in most
cases it should require less processing to validate a candidate than produce the complete fitness
scalar.
6. RANDOM MUTATION
We have used the phrase random mutation, however not all random changes have equal effect
[11]. If our fitness function is linear then we may prefer boundary conditions to our input values.
If we are attempting to fill a region we may prefer adding cells than removing them. In any case,
we have an opportunity to favour some types of random changes over others.
This leads to the idea of the greedy random. The greedy random understands in general terms that
either setting values or removing values is preferential to the fitness function. For example we
may set a probability to add as 0.8, and a probability to remove at 0.2. In this case before
performing an operation we first choose whether we are in addition or removal mode. The net
effect of this bias is to produce candidate solutions with as many added cells as possible. We call
this process the greedy random because of this perspective of attempting to fill as many cells as it
can before removal.
In this case the relative fitness function assessment of any candidate is less important than
knowing if the candidate remains valid. So we can perform these greedy operations more
efficiently as a result. In testing, this represented an opportunity for more random mutation cycles
to each evolutionary algorithm cycle.
The risk of course is that a candidate solution may rapidly fill and lose degrees of freedom. This
problem replicates the issue experienced by evolutionary algorithms around a local maximum.
This was an important design consideration during testing. The solution to this problem became
apparent during attempts to integrate with the evolutionary algorithm lifecycle. For iterations, the
candidates in the population are assessed by the fitness function. In the case of attempting to
maximise the process of filling a board such as Sudoku puzzle, performance was greatly
improved by ensuring that the last change before fitness function assessment was a removal.
6. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications (IJAIA), Vol. 5, No. 4, July 2014
20
Figure 1. The modified heuristic iteration lifecycle
We realised a further implication of the fitness function lifecycle. In one respect the fitness
function tells us when we have reached a global maximum. In the case of a Sudoku puzzle we
may have a valid candidate with all the cells occupied by digits. If not there is a subtle difference
between asking which candidate is the best, and which candidate has the best chance of
improving with more random mutations. It seems that a strong candidate with additional degrees
of freedom can be as valuable as a stronger candidate with more cells filled.
It is important to check fitness with as many cells as possible filled in order to find completed
solutions. However if we are attempting to measure potential for improvement in a process where
we are filling as many cells is possible, testing showed it was more meaningful to rank the
candidates after a single removal. Doing so concentrates the random mutation entropy around the
boundary conditions of the solution. Once again we have a collection pressure, but while
evolutionary heuristics concentrate around local maxima the greedy random collects the
candidates around input boundary values.
We can also better conform to the problem namespace by prioritising changes with fewer degrees
of freedom. In this way additions are validated against the cells that are already filled in this
solution candidate. If we were to choose a more empty part of the namespace we could choose
from more values for a cell, however we may be introducing a combinatorial issue with later
additions.
Therefore we reduce rework by using a fitness function that can be thought of as the count of
neighbours that each filled cell has. For Sudoku we are checking each row, cell and region, so we
are looking for 8x8x3x9 = 2781 as the score for a solved board and 0 for an empty one.
7. COMPARING DIFFERENT EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHMS
Consider the situation in which we are attempting to evaluate the suitability of different
evolutionary algorithms for the same problem. If we were simply reusing algorithms then we
would find a way of encoding the problem in a format that each algorithm could recognise. This
would give us a time to completion for each of the algorithms, but we would not be able to
7. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications (IJAIA), Vol. 5, No. 4, July 2014
21
differentiate the performance factors within each algorithmic lifecycle. This would leave us less
capable of classifying performance by problem type, and less capable of predicting performance
with other problems in the future. Finally we are also at the mercy of the quality of the
implementation of each component. What might be a specialised optimisation for a given
example of a problem may be suboptimal in the more general case. We argue that when
comparing the performance of evolutionary algorithms we need to separate those components that
are less related to optimisation and more likely to be shared between implementations.
We would argue that a fitness function that is better suited to the namespace topology has better
alignment to the data than the optimisation. In this case it would make more sense to rework the
fitness function to each problem data type than to attempt to re-use the fitness function between
different problem types. If we separate these shared functions from the optimisation then we can
better evaluate the efficiency of the optimisations in isolation. All we need to do is create an
encapsulating lifecycle, which accepts differentiated optimisation components in the data
management, and fitness functions should be reusable.
In the same way that we have managed to isolate the fitness function from the optimisations we
can also isolate random mutation. As mentioned the reasons for differentiating random mutation
are less obvious. When we look at randomisation it soon becomes apparent that not all random
variations are the same. We have stated that in the middle time period of solving the problem it
may make sense to add as many cells as we remove during random mutation. However as we fill
more of the board we encounter reduced degrees of freedom and so more cell additions will fail
consistency checks. In effect it will be more successful removing cells than adding cells and
random mutation may be detrimental to optimisation in that case. To remediate we may decide to
bias in favour of cell additions rather than cell deletions, or we may retry additions until
successful.
If we follow this path we introduce another anti-pattern in that we may leave the solution
candidates with no degrees of freedom entering the optimisation component processing. During
experimentation we had greater success when we left deletion steps at the end of the process. We
expect there are two factors for the observed behaviours. Firstly it may be preferential to leave a
degree of combinatorial flexibility for the process of attribute replication during optimisation to
occur. Secondly the question arises of the optimal time to evaluate fitness in the optimisation
lifecycle.
If we accept that producing a scalar for comparison and evaluating the possibility of an end point
solution are different questions then we open the possibility that it may make sense to check for
these conditions at different times in the life-cycle. Consider waves at a beach. Our endpoint
condition may be a wave reaching a distant point along the shore. However the fitness of any
wave might be better measured by the height of the swell before the wave approaches the beach
as an indicator of future success. In these terms the fitness is the height of the swell and the
endpoint condition is achieving the required distance up the beach as a Boolean consistent with a
causal relationship. Increase the swell and the waves drive further up the beach. So if we are
attempting to solve a Sudoku problem then it may be more valuable to rank candidate solutions
with better fitness and degrees of freedom than fitness alone.
In any case if we are complicating the random mutation, particularly if we are doing so to suit
conditions in the data namespace, then it also makes sense to separate the random mutation from
the evolutionary algorithm component. We can see by a process of optimisation that we have
extracted reusable components and encapsulated complexity to the point where optimisation
components have become more specialised. The fitness function and random mutations have
become more specialised to the namespace topologies of the data. These components are
8. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications (IJAIA), Vol. 5, No. 4, July 2014
22
orchestrated by an extensible component lifecycle. We can now test different evolutionary
algorithms by implementing their optimisations within the shared component framework.
At this point we have evolved a component framework that allows us to differentially optimise
and orchestrate discrete components:
• We have identified a common lifecycle among evolutionary algorithms
• We argue that the fitness function can be better suited to the data namespace than the
optimisation. The fitness function is modal as the checks for consistency, endpoint
solution and fitness scalar have different processing and usage modes.
• We argue that random mutation can be a collection of different random action types. We
argue that differentiating these modes leads to performance optimisations and further that
these can be orchestrated in their own lifecycle to optimise degrees of freedom.
• If we follow this path we come to the conclusion that optimisation may be best
implemented as a component within a framework that uses a fitness function and a
random mutation that are detailed to each data namespace.
• A framework of this type allows us to compare and contrast the suitability and
performance of different evolutionary algorithms.
• If we accept that random mutation can reach solutions then a subset of fitness function
modes will allow bypassing of optimisation if an endpoint solution has been reached.
Most interestingly we have also gained the ability to test the efficiency of the random mutation in
isolation by deactivating the optimisation components entirely. We have already made an
argument that the random mutation can be better suited to the data than the optimisation, and so it
makes sense that the random mutation be optimised independently for each dataset before
integration with evolutionary optimisations. It was during this optimisation that we realised
random mutation is capable of solving Sudoku puzzles without an optimisation component.
The question of the optimising component is an intriguing one. Sudoku has regularly been used to
demonstrate the ability of evolutionary algorithms. On various occasions particle swarm, genetic
algorithms and hybrid Meta heuristics have been shown to be capable of solving Sudoku
problems. Using the component framework above we managed to confirm that indeed particle
swarm, genetic algorithms and simulated annealing could solve these problems.
However as noted each of these heuristics has a random mutation component which is separately
optimisable. Our aim therefore was to improve this function in isolation, which would then
improve the baseline performance of each of the evolutionary algorithms. Doing so involves
operating lifecycle with out the optimisation components. At this point it became apparent that
the random mutation is capable of solving the problems.
This of course implies that all of the optimisations within this lifecycle may be able to solve the
same problems as the random mutation, as long as they do not sufficiently overpower the random
mutation function.
This also implies that an inability to solve Sudoku problems may be implementation specific.
Results indicated a benefit in using evolutionary algorithms for most problems, for which
evolutionary algorithms received lower main iteration counts to the endpoint solution. However,
in the same way that some problems are more difficult for humans, the evolutionary algorithms
also seem to struggle by concentrating around local maxima. In these cases the optimised random
mutation lacked concentrating behaviour and achieved faster solution times. This result seemed
counterintuitive. We would have hoped that by applying focused attention we should be more
capable of solving problems in all conditions. Yet we appear to see evidence that a broader
solution mode can lead to answers for more difficult problems in a shorter time frame.
9. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications (IJAIA), Vol. 5, No. 4, July 2014
23
Consider too that the value of each solution candidate is a sample of the fitness of that point in the
namespace. Aggregating the population of candidate solutions might be considered as analogous
to an awareness of the solution candidates so far.
This brings an intriguing correlation to the anatomy of human vision, and the implications of
having too narrow a focus. Split brain theory shows the left hemisphere has a predilection for
focused mono-procedural tools based processing, much like the way optimisation acts as a
concentrating force for solution candidates around the best solution found so far. The longer an
evolutionary algorithm spends around a maximum the more attributes are copied from the better
solutions to the weaker, the more similar the population becomes. We can see this as a
concentration of attention focus around the best solution so far.
The human brain uses both strategies at the same time. The left hemisphere has a preference for
focused attention, much in the way evolutionary algorithms concentrate solution candidates
around local maxima. The right hemisphere prefers a broader attention mode. Human vision in
particular has peripheral perception modes, which have strengths in motion detection and changes
in light intensity. These modes benefit from the widest possible distribution of attention, which
correlates to the idea of reduced optimisation for solution candidates, and more of a bias towards
random mutation. In the same way that optimisation concentrates candidates, random mutation
distributes them through the namespace topology. This matches how we look for something
we’ve lost. The way we attempt to remember where we have left an object is dealt with as though
it were a problem to solve, while we were also broadly paying attention by looking around, as we
look in case we have forgotten something or someone else may have moved the object in
question.
8. PARALLELISATION
Consider the approaches we would take if we were intending to parallelise heuristic or iterative
approaches across many processor cores. We would be intending to balance the workload across
the cores to minimise aggregated execution time. This might typically be achieved by the
introduction of a queuing mechanism whereby each thread of execution requests the next piece of
work. Or we may ‘shard’ the problem into discrete domains that each core can then work on in
isolation. There are multitudes of successful implementations of these types, particularly with the
advent of software as a service and cloud computing.
Along with implementations of this type we also assume the anti-patterns required for
synchronisation and delegation. There is an overhead required for multi core processes that share
cached information. There are overheads for delegation processes whereby the client acquires the
next piece of work. There are inefficiencies in sharing approaches, which may lack the
adaptability to devote more processes to current interval areas of attention. If we look at
implementations of this type then our random mutation has some distinct advantages.
Most evolutionary algorithms represent with challenges to parallelisation. The optimisation
process uses the results of the fitness calculation to replicate attributes from stronger candidates to
the weaker, which implies identifying differences between the two and changing attributes where
possible. There are some exceptions to this process as in the case of simulated annealing where
optimisation represents more as a backtracking mechanism against retrograde fitness changes. In
general though, the processes we see in genetic algorithms and particle swarm optimisation
require granulated comparisons and replications between candidates in the same logical group.
Parallelisation therefore implies attribute comparisons and replications between different
processing groups.
10. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications (IJAIA), Vol. 5, No. 4, July 2014
24
A possible remediation to this granulation problem can be seen in some of the swarm grouping
behaviours in particle swarm optimisation. Rather than have the entire population follow the
generic population wide candidate we instead break the population into separate groups, which
allows for each group to move separately. We then track the global best solution as the best of the
lead candidates in each swarm.
Mapping this consideration to multiple cores of execution in multiple domains we use the fitness
check to identify best candidates in local populations that can be copied into other groups of
optimisers. At that point the best candidate across any of the processing groups us accessible to
the local optimisation processing and granular processing can continue within this core
processing group.
For random mutation processing to participate in this style of processing we can simply reuse the
results of the fitness function check that we are already performing to see if we have reached and
endpoint solution. If we have improved our candidate beyond any other population then we can
replicate this candidate to other optimiser populations. We have noted hover that we do not need
to replicate candidates between the randomisation populations, so there is little incremental effort
to their participation in the scheme.
9. ADAPTIVE SHARDING OF SURFACES
These behaviours also serve to illustrate the advantages of random mutation as a sharding
strategy. A natural consequence of parallelisation is the segmentation of the namespace into more
than one population. An evolutionary algorithm identifies the best solution candidate so far and
replicates its attributes. When we segregate the populations this behaviour maps to the best
candidate in that population. As we have mentioned particle swarm optimisation can vary this
behaviour by maintaining multiple parallel swarms. In general however we rarely see large
numbers of small swarms.
The random mutation population does not replicate attributes in this manner. So if we argue that
the best solution candidate for an evolutionary algorithm is the focus of attention, then we might
also argue that each candidate in a random mutation population is a separate focus of attention.
By this metric each of the random mutation solution candidates works like a focus of attention
implemented in a green thread time-sharing scheme.
Additionally the random mutation life cycle is a subset of the evolutionary algorithm life cycle
and so more iterations are achieved through random mutation for the same resource spends. The
optimisers and the random mutator life cycles are decoupled by the introduction of a push
mechanism towards the optimisers, which allows inclusion of new best candidates at the
commencement of the next optimiser life-cycle iteration. This removes more common
parallelisation strategies such as queuing or synchronisation between processes.
10. QUESTIONS OF HOMOGENEITY
Evolutionary algorithms work in part because changes in the fitness function are not large for
small changes in the input variables. More gradual differentials allow for more predictable results
and help remediate the possibility of spike maxima that we might not find, or might have
difficulty escaping from.
11. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications (IJAIA), Vol. 5, No. 4, July 2014
25
The extreme of this condition where fitness function deltas become too radical might be where
the set of combinatorially permissible inputs are not contiguous. If we were to randomly start in a
region not connected to the global maximum then no degree of optimisation may lead us to it.
Using a population of random mutators helps reduce these occurrences by placing hundreds of
candidates throughout the input namespace. Initially we place them in a uniformly random
manner, which implies that the percentage of random mutators starting in each region is related to
the ratios of their volumes. In testing we often use populations of 500 or more greedy random
candidates. By weight of numbers we would expect a workable number of candidates to fall into
most non-contiguous regions.
We also start evolutionary algorithms in the name space. When they start they begin with they
identify their best candidate so far and from that point the population receives attributes from this
candidate. Time passes, and with each iteration the dispersed candidates make an attempt to
acquire the attributes of this candidate. With time, where possible, candidates may achieve the
entropy required to make the jump between regions and join the best candidates' region.
At the same time the greedy random continues to mutate in a directed fashion. At some point a
greedy random candidate may achieve a state better than the evolutionary algorithm has found.
The greedy random candidate then becomes the lead evolutionary algorithm candidate. If possible
the evolutionary algorithm will bring other candidates to this new region. This ongoing
revalidation allows modes of mutation entropy that the evolutionary algorithms lack on their own.
11. ON REVALIDATION AND PROBLEM COMPLETION
The complete model for these interactions includes a number of evolutionary algorithms and two
populations of random mutators. We use one population as a dispersion agent throughout the
namespace. The second is a random mutation behaviour applied to the satisficing cache, which
orchestrates these interactions.
The satisficing cache is a normal population of the greedy random. However if any other
population of candidates finds a solution candidate better than the current best then this is
replicated into the cache and a random candidate is removed. This allows each optimising
population to be able to check at the start of iteration in the satisficing cache to see if a new best
candidate has evolved. Interactions with segregated parallel models can then occur between these
caches.
We note in related work that this design is intended to have similarities with split brain theory,
where the right hemisphere is more aware of the environment you are in and the passing of time,
while the left hemisphere is more focused, mono-procedural and within the current time frame. In
this case the satisficing cache works like attention around the most recent region of work. In this
way the satisficing cache is a good contributor for improving random mutation entropy around
local maxima.
This idea became highly significant with related work attempting to model human vision
processing modes into heuristics. Having a central cache allows us to better track when a
population that are meeting more success supplies the best candidate. When there are few local
maxima we might see particle swarm optimisation providing more of the best candidates. If we
have problems with local maxima we might see the particle swarm take the lead and then wait
until the greedy random finds a new approach.
Most surprisingly we saw that the conditions around final completion represent in a similar way
to a local maximum. In both cases it seems to the optimiser that there are few opportunities for
12. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications (IJAIA), Vol. 5, No. 4, July 2014
26
improvement with a lack of combinatorial freedom around the best candidates so far. In these
conditions we saw the satisficing cache take over more often than not, and finish the solution
more often than the evolutionary algorithms or cache.
In this work we were attempting to model human decision patterns. The comparison we drew was
to how humans check to see if they have really finished a job. If a person is engaged in a tool
based exercise they might check that a nail has been left at the correct depth, or a screw is flush to
a surface, before deciding if they should continue or correct current work. Continuing to hammer
or screw until forward progress ends might be successful in the middle scenario but a wider focus
is required for fine detail. We appear to have heuristically simulated something like this
validation interaction.
We expect this occurs in the byplay between two behaviours. The first behaviour comes from the
ability of the random mutation to be able to chain together multiple iterations of change
uncorrected by optimisation. This gives a decided advantage in such situations. The second
behaviour comes from the replication of the best candidate into the satisficing cache. The best
candidate is replicated each iteration into the satisficing cache until a significant number of
candidates surround the area with random mutation. These accumulate and then diversify in a
stream of candidates until they probabilistically find the global solution.
12. COMBINATORIALLY ADAPTIVE EFFECTS
The greedy random represents as an optimisation along one or more input variables where we
have an expectation of a boundary condition leading to higher solution candidate fitness values. If
we have an expectation that the boundary value of a variable, or the value next to it, represents as
2 in perhaps 100 possible values for this variable then we have excluded a requirement to
combinatorially test the remainder of the range for this variable. This leads to as much as a 50x
efficiency in randomisation across the namespace.
Of course problems of consequence often have complicated combinatorial restrictions. The
greedy random behaviour adapts to the surface between valid and invalid inputs irrespective of
the remainder of the input variables.
Perhaps most significantly empowering greedy random behaviours across multiple variables lead
to a multiplicand efficiency improvement. If for example we were able to apply the greedy
random behaviour to two different variables similar to our earlier example we would expect a
50x50 = 2500 speed improvement. We have identified that we do not need to test the majority of
the namespaces for these two variables, and yet will remain valid across the entire namespace if
the problem becomes combinatorially difficult.
13. IMPLEMENTATION
We will perform two validations of the framework. The first will be a python-based component
framework implementation of heuristics for solving Sudoku problems. Sudoku problems are
defined on a 9 x 9 grid where the digits from 1 to 9 are arranged such that no digit is repeated on
any column, row or 3 by 3 cell grid of which there are 9. Sudoku puzzles are simple enough to be
enjoyed as a diversion, and yet the more complex ones can occupy heuristics for thousands of
iterations [12][13].
We have collected a sample of 60 or so Sudoku puzzles which were all solved by the evolutionary
algorithms and greedy random. Most significantly we tested against 4 Sudoku puzzles, which
13. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications (IJAIA), Vol. 5, No. 4, July 2014
27
have been known as some of the most difficult created: ”The Easter Monster”, the ”Golden
Nugget”, ”tarek071223170000-052” and ”col-02-08-071”.
Our implementation shows the greedy random acting as the usual random mutation agent for each
of the evolutionary algorithms. During testing each of the evolutionary algorithms can be selected
or deselected individually via a command line option.
During initial testing the algorithm was run separately with each evolutionary algorithm selected
and we verified that all the sample Sudoku puzzles could be solves with each.
It then became apparent that it would be a useful comparison to produce a baseline where no
optimisation was selected. This would help identify the net benefit of the optimisation action
above random mutation.
Figure 2. The four most difficult Sudoku puzzles tested.
14. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications (IJAIA), Vol. 5, No. 4, July 2014
28
Figure 3. The component hierarchy as pseudo-code
15. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications (IJAIA), Vol. 5, No. 4, July 2014
29
The second validation will be an attempt to validate the greedy random behaviours in an
accessible problem. We will initialise a population of 100 candidates in the (x,y) plane such that -
1 < x < 1, and -1.1 < y < cos(pi *x). We will then perform 100 iterations of random mutation on
these candidates allowing them free movement, excepting we will enforce y < cos(pi *x) as a
constraint. We will manage two of these populations. The first will be a control group undergoing
normal random mutation. The second will be a group undergoing greedy random mutations.
If the greedy random is successful then we should see more candidates closer to the y = cos(pi *x)
surface. This action will normalise mutations for greedy random candidates to be along the
surface. In practice we would have configured the greedy random to attempt to maximise
expecting this would improve fitness values.
Figure 4. Greedy random test code
16. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications (IJAIA), Vol. 5, No. 4, July 2014
30
14. TESTING OUTCOMES
Figure 5. Sudoku Results
The pure random mutation (with no optimisation) and all three evolutionary algorithms were
shown to be able to solve all 60 Sudoku puzzles. These are the results for the 4 hardest puzzles:
1. The effect of being caught in local maxima had a significant effect on average times. If
the algorithm catches a local maxima on harder problems in 20% of runs average
iteration counts can double or triple. The algorithms recover and complete, but at large
time scales.
2. The genetic algorithm had median performance. This is thought to be of a consequence of
a relatively higher complexity in the optimiser combined with a slower propagation rate
for good attributes. This idea is correlated in the genetic algorithm showing less benefit
from larger population sizes (17280 to 12100 to 3650 to 2655) of thousand boards.
3. Where optimisation outperformed random mutation on the harder problems it was usually
particle swarm optimisation. If we multiple the size of the population by the number of
iterations as a number of boards then particle swarm achieves end point solution in less
than half the number of (1465 to 3138) of thousand boards for populations of 1000.
4. Simulated annealing held the closest correlation to pure random (2920 to 3183) of
thousand boards for populations of 1000. This is to be expected, as there is no real
propagation of attributes in this optimisation. Rather there is an additional random
mutation, which is only significant on improvement.
17. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications (IJAIA), Vol. 5, No. 4, July 2014
31
We now consider the results of the greedy random efficiency testing. The tests show a control
population of normal random mutators and a greedy random each varying 100 candidates starting
in the range x=(-1, 1) 100 times each. We impose y < cos(pi *x) as an uneven constraint surface.
Figure 6. Random mutation efficiency
We can see the random mutator starts in the x=(-1,1) and y>-1.1 range and expands in all
directions. The candidates near the curve seem relatively compressed and lateral movement past
the x=-1 and x=1 values seems reduced unless y < -1. The uneven constraint initially appears to
effect expansion rates in an uneven way.
Figure 7. Greedy random efficiency
Here we see the greedy random solution candidates adjacent to but just below the constraint
surface. Movement is forced along the constraint surface consistent with the expectations of a
simplex algorithm.
18. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications (IJAIA), Vol. 5, No. 4, July 2014
32
We were not required to set expected optimal or control values. Linear optimisation can show
preferences for boundary conditions for input values, and we are doing the same. However the
boundary conditions can vary due to combinatorial restrictions or the behaviours of other input
variables. While we cannot plan for a specific input boundary value we can ask the greedy
random to prefer values with a directional bias. In this case, increase values while still remaining
valid below y=cos(pi *x). In usual terms we would not know this constraint, or how it varies with
combinations of inputs. The greedy random would adapt.
The net effect is that we are now treating a 2-dimensional area below the curve as more like a
linear position along the curve itself. We believe improved fitness occurs with these inputs on the
line, so we randomise along it. We are converting the examination of the larger volume into the
more specific boundary in a probabilistic way.
Figure 8. Check for correlating behaviours
These results show the plots of delta between the randomised (x,y) and the y=cos(pi *x) surface
for 1000 runs. With an R^2 of 9.1E-11 we show there is no appreciable correlation between the
truly random mutation and the greedy random. We can therefore expect the greedy random is as
relatively random, just within a smaller range.
If we process 1000 runs of 100 points for the control group and the greedy random we do not find
a significant correlation (R^2 = 9.1e-11). On average the greedy random was better than 20 times
more efficient than the test control group at reducing distance to the test function.
Each input variable for a problem can be represented this way, and the effects multiply.
15. DISCUSSION
We have shown that an optimised random mutation is capable of solving Sudoku puzzles on its
own. We have shown that evolutionary algorithms, which used this random mutation, were also
capable of solving the puzzles.
19. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications (IJAIA), Vol. 5, No. 4, July 2014
33
The major danger to completion would therefore appear to be in the balance between random
mutation and optimisation. If the action of copying attributes from the strongest candidates were
capable of offsetting randomisation then any attempt to break away from a local maximum would
be lost.
An amenable solution to this problem would appear to be the addition of a separate random
mutation population to the action of the evolutionary algorithm. In this way one population would
always be capable of random mutation. Whenever the random mutation population finds a better
solution than the evolutionary algorithm then this can be replicated across to the evolutionary
algorithm population. Optimisation will then replicate these new preferable attributes among the
evolutionary algorithm population.
We have also attempted to demonstrate and quantify the strength of optimisation that the greedy
random represents. We have shown how operating in this way can convert the behaviour of
candidates from occupying a volume into populating a complex boundary. We have shown this
operation does not affect the random nature of the mutations, excepting that they now occur in a
more confined space. Finally we have discussed how these effects multiply by the number of
participant input variables, which lends hope for major performance improvements in more
complex problems.
Finally it is worth noting that the greedy random mutator and related optimisations better model
human broad based attention modes by distributing solution candidates without the attractive
forces of optimisation.
16. FUTURE WORK
This implementation was created to test optimisation of the evolutionary algorithms. In this case
the random mutations are inline with the rest of the evolutionary algorithm, and the candidate
population has one heuristic mode. During the discussion on satisficing behaviours we noted
possibilities for additional modes.
We have seen that the greedy random has promise with problems that challenge evolutionary
algorithms. Creating a hybrid with a population for each will allow us to displace the evolutionary
algorithm from local maxima by replicating better candidates from the mutation population.
We could also be able to create a secondary population of mutation that was seeded from the
evolutionary algorithm. This population:
1. Improves randomisation around the best exploitation targets.
2. Can operate as a satisficing cache [13][14][15] between different algorithms where the
best candidates can be shared between populations.
Since this work began new evaluations of Sudoku puzzles have emerged and we would enjoy
retesting against some of the newer higher ranked puzzles.
We see promise in representing combinatorial boundaries as n-dimensional surfaces. In these
conditions we have shown the greedy random may provide significant performance
improvements. More than this however, this geometric analogy of problem spaces may yet yield
more improvements.
20. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications (IJAIA), Vol. 5, No. 4, July 2014
34
REFERENCES
[1] Carlos M Fonseca and Peter J Fleming. Genetic algorithms for multiobjective optimization:
Formulation, discussion and generalization. 423:416–423, 1993.
[2] J Kennedy and R Eberhart. Particle swarm optimization. . . . 1995 Proceedings, 1995.
[3] Sylvain Gelly and Yizao Wang. Exploration exploitation in go: UCT for Monte- Carlo go. 2006.
[4] Enrique Alba and Bernab ́e Dorronsoro. The exploration/exploitation tradeoff in dynamic cellular
genetic algorithms. Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on, 9(2):126–142, 2005.
[5] Urszula Boryczka and Przemyslaw Juszczuk. Solving the sudoku with the differential evolution.
Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Bialostockiej. Informatyka, pages 5–16, 2012.
[6] Kyun Ho Lee, Seung Wook Baek, and Ki Wan Kim. Inverse radiation analysis using repulsive
particle swarm optimization algorithm. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer,
51(11):2772–2783, 2008.
[7] Scott Kirkpatrick, D Gelatt Jr, and Mario P Vecchi. Optimization by simulated annealing. science,
220(4598):671–680, 1983.
[8] Rhyd Lewis. Metaheuristics can solve sudoku puzzles. Journal of Heuristics, 13(4):387–401, 2007.
[9] Charles Darwin. On the origin of the species by natural selection. 1859.
[10] Dirk Buche, Nicol N Schraudolph, and Petros Koumoutsakos. Accelerating evolutionary algorithms
with gaussian process fitness function models. Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications
and Reviews, IEEE Transactions on, 35(2):183–194, 2005.
[11] Ajith Abraham, Rajkumar Buyya, and Baikunth Nath. Nature’s heuristics for scheduling jobs on
computational grids. In The 8th IEEE international conference on advanced computing and
communications (ADCOM 2000), pages 45–52, 2000.
[12] Sean McGerty. Solving Sudoku Puzzles with Particle Swarm Optimisation. Final Report, Macquarie
University, 2009.
[13] Sean McGerty, Frank Moisiadis. Managing Namespace Topology as a Factor in Evolutionary
Algorithms. Artificial Intelligence in Computer Science and ICT 2013.
[14] Herbert A Simon. Theories of bounded rationality. Decision and organization, 1:161–176, 1972.
[15] Herbert A Simon. Rationality as Process and as Product of Thought. The American Economic
Review, 68(2):1–16, 1978.
[16] Francesco Grimaccia, Marco Mussetta, and Riccardo E Zich. Genetical swarm optimization: Self-
adaptive hybrid evolutionary algorithm for electromagnetics. Antennas and Propagation, IEEE
Transactions on, 55(3):781–785, 2007.
Authors
Sean McGerty is a PhD Research student at the University of Notre Dame Sydney.
Sean studies relationships between human satisficing behaviour patterns and
evolutionary algorithms. His current research areas include modelling broad based
attention modes, namespace topology optimisations and satisficing solution
behaviours. Using these taxonomies Sean has mapped the anatomy of human vision
into services architectures. From these he has produced artificial intelligence models,
which predict observable behaviours. Most recently Sean is working on modalities of
human task sequence prioritisation.
Dr Frank Moisiadis is the Head of Mathematics and a Senior Lecturer at the University
of Notre Dame, Sydney. Frank has a PhD in Software Engineering (thesis on
Prioritisation Algorithms for System Requirements Using Fuzzy Graphical Rating
Scales., a MSc in Computer Science (thesis on Improving Search Algorithms and Path
Planning for Autonomous Robots) and a BSc(Hons) in Mathematics. His current
research focuses on using fuzzy graphical rating scales for requirements engineering and
optimising information flows in health systems. He has authored over 30 international
and national research papers, supervised PhD students in Artificial Intelligence, Health Informatics,
Information Systems and Software Engineering and authored two editions of the textbook, “Principles of
Information Systems” published by Cengage Learning (2007 and 2010).