Gaussian adaptation (GA), also called normal or natural adaptation (NA) is an evolutionary algorithm designed for the maximization of manufacturing yield due to statistical deviation of component values of signal processing systems. In short, GA is a stochastic adaptive process where a number of samples of an n-dimensional vector x[xT = (x1, x2, ..., xn)] are taken from a multivariate Gaussian distribution, N(m, M), having mean m and moment matrix M. The samples are tested for fail or pass. The first- and second-order moments of the Gaussian restricted to the pass samples are m and M. The outcome of x as a pass sample is determined by a function s(x), 0 < s(x) < q ≤ 1, such that s(x) is the probability that x will be selected as a pass sample. The average probability of finding pass samples (yield) is P ( m ) = ∫ s ( x ) N ( x − m ) d x {\displaystyle P(m)=\int s(x)N(x-m)\,dx} Then the theorem of GA states: For any s(x) and for any value of P < q, there always exist a Gaussian p. d. f. [ probability density function ] that is adapted for maximum dispersion. The necessary conditions for a local optimum are m = m and M proportional to M. The dual problem is also solved: P is maximized while keeping the dispersion constant (Kjellström, 1991). Proofs of the theorem may be found in the papers by Kjellström, 1970, and Kjellström & Taxén, 1981. Since dispersion is defined as the exponential of entropy/disorder/average information it immediately follows that the theorem is valid also for those concepts. Altogether, this means that Gaussian adaptation may carry out a simultaneous maximisation of yield and average information (without any need for the yield or the average information to be defined as criterion functions). The theorem is valid for all regions of acceptability and all Gaussian distributions. It may be used by cyclic repetition of random variation and selection (like the natural evolution). In every cycle a sufficiently large number of Gaussian distributed points are sampled and tested for membership in the region of acceptability. The centre of gravity of the Gaussian, m, is then moved to the centre of gravity of the approved (selected) points, m. Thus, the process converges to a state of equilibrium fulfilling the theorem. A solution is always approximate because the centre of gravity is always determined for a limited number of points. It was used for the first time in 1969 as a pure optimization algorithm making the regions of acceptability smaller and smaller (in analogy to simulated annealing, Kirkpatrick 1983). Since 1970 it has been used for both ordinary optimization and yield maximization. == Natural evolution and Gaussian adaptation == It has also been compared to the natural evolution of populations of living organisms. In this case s(x) is the probability that the individual having an array x of phenotypes will survive by giving offspring to the next generation; a definition of individual fitness given by Hartl 1981. The yield, P, is replaced by the mean fitness determined as a mean over the set of individuals in a large population. Phenotypes are often Gaussian distributed in a large population and a necessary condition for the natural evolution to be able to fulfill the theorem of Gaussian adaptation, with respect to all Gaussian quantitative characters, is that it may push the centre of gravity of the Gaussian to the centre of gravity of the selected individuals. This may be accomplished by the Hardy–Weinberg law. This is possible because the theorem of Gaussian adaptation is valid for any region of acceptability independent of the structure (Kjellström, 1996). In this case the rules of genetic variation such as crossover, inversion, transposition etcetera may be seen as random number generators for the phenotypes. So, in this sense Gaussian adaptation may be seen as a genetic algorithm. == How to climb a mountain == Mean fitness may be calculated provided that the distribution of parameters and the structure of the landscape is known. The real landscape is not known, but figure below shows a fictitious profile (blue) of a landscape along a line (x) in a room spanned by such parameters. The red curve is the mean based on the red bell curve at the bottom of figure. It is obtained by letting the bell curve slide along the x-axis, calculating the mean at every location. As can be seen, small peaks and pits are smoothed out. Thus, if evolution is started at A with a relatively small variance (the red bell curve), then climbing will take place on the red curve. The process may get stuck for millions of years at B or C, as long as the hollows to the right of these points remain, and the mutation rate is too small. If the mutation rate is sufficiently high, the disorder or variance may increase and the parameter(s) may become distributed like the green bell curve. Then the climbing will take place on the green curve, which is even more smoothed out. Because the hollows to the right of B and C have now disappeared, the process may continue up to the peaks at D. But of course the landscape puts a limit on the disorder or variability. Besides — dependent on the landscape — the process may become very jerky, and if the ratio between the time spent by the process at a local peak and the time of transition to the next peak is very high, it may as well look like a punctuated equilibrium as suggested by Gould (see Ridley). == Computer simulation of Gaussian adaptation == Thus far the theory only considers mean values of continuous distributions corresponding to an infinite number of individuals. In reality however, the number of individuals is always limited, which gives rise to an uncertainty in the estimation of m and M (the moment matrix of the Gaussian). And this may also affect the efficiency of the process. Unfortunately very little is known about this, at least theoretically. The implementation of normal adaptation on a computer is a fairly simple task. The adaptation of m may be done by one sample (individual) at a time, for example m(i + 1) = (1 – a) m(i) + ax where x is a pass sample, and a < 1 a suitable constant so that the inverse of a represents the number of individuals in the population. M may in principle be updated after every step y leading to a feasible point x = m + y according to: M(i + 1) = (1 – 2b) M(i) + 2byyT, where yT is the transpose of y and b << 1 is another suitable constant. In order to guarantee a suitable increase of average information, y should be normally distributed with moment matrix μ2M, where the scalar μ > 1 is used to increase average information (information entropy, disorder, diversity) at a suitable rate. But M will never be used in the calculations. Instead we use the matrix W defined by WWT = M. Thus, we have y = Wg, where g is normally distributed with the moment matrix μU, and U is the unit matrix. W and WT may be updated by the formulas W = (1 – b)W + bygT and WT = (1 – b)WT + bgyT because multiplication gives M = (1 – 2b)M + 2byyT, where terms including b2 have been neglected. Thus, M will be indirectly adapted with good approximation. In practice it will suffice to update W only W(i + 1) = (1 – b)W(i) + bygT. This is the formula used in a simple 2-dimensional model of a brain satisfying the Hebbian rule of associative learning; see the next section (Kjellström, 1996 and 1999). The figure below illustrates the effect of increased average information in a Gaussian p.d.f. used to climb a mountain Crest (the two lines represent the contour line). Both the red and green cluster have equal mean fitness, about 65%, but the green cluster has a much higher average information making the green process much more efficient. The effect of this adaptation is not very salient in a 2-dimensional case, but in a high-dimensional case, the efficiency of the search process may be increased by many orders of magnitude. == The evolution in the brain == In the brain the evolution of DNA-messages is supposed to be replaced by an evolution of signal patterns and the phenotypic landscape is replaced by a mental landscape, the complexity of which will hardly be second to the former. The metaphor with the mental landscape is based on the assumption that certain signal patterns give rise to a better well-being or performance. For instance, the control of a group of muscles leads to a better pronunciation of a word or performance of a piece of music. In this simple model it is assumed that the brain consists of interconnected components that may add, multiply and delay signal values. A nerve cell kernel may add signal values, a synapse may multiply with a constant and An axon may delay values. This is a basis of the theory of digital filters and neural networks consisting of components that may add, multiply and delay signalvalues and also of many brain models, Levine 1991. In the figure below the brain stem is supposed to deliver Gaussian distributed signal patterns. This may be possible since certai
DAVI
The Dutch Automated Vehicle Initiative (DAVI) is a research and demonstration initiative developing automated vehicles for use on public roads. The project is unique in that, besides simply making driverless cars, it also focuses on having automated vehicles share information among each other. The aim is to have the cars help to avoid traffic congestion by reducing the safety distance between the cars (from 2 seconds to 0.5 seconds) and avoiding sudden traffic slow-downs due to maneuvers undertaken by drivers.
Memetic algorithm
In computer science and operations research, a memetic algorithm (MA) is an extension of an evolutionary algorithm (EA) that aims to accelerate the evolutionary search for the optimum. An EA is a metaheuristic that reproduces the basic principles of biological evolution as a computer algorithm in order to solve challenging optimization or planning tasks, at least approximately. An MA uses one or more suitable heuristics or local search techniques to improve the quality of solutions generated by the EA and to speed up the search. The effects on the reliability of finding the global optimum depend on both the use case and the design of the MA. Memetic algorithms represent one of the recent growing areas of research in evolutionary computation. The term MA is now widely used as a synergy of evolutionary or any population-based approach with separate individual learning or local improvement procedures for problem search. Quite often, MAs are also referred to in the literature as Baldwinian evolutionary algorithms, Lamarckian EAs, cultural algorithms, or genetic local search. == Introduction == Inspired by both Darwinian principles of natural evolution and Dawkins' notion of a meme, the term memetic algorithm (MA) was introduced by Pablo Moscato in his technical report in 1989 where he viewed MA as being close to a form of population-based hybrid genetic algorithm (GA) coupled with an individual learning procedure capable of performing local refinements. The metaphorical parallels, on the one hand, to Darwinian evolution and, on the other hand, between memes and domain specific (local search) heuristics are captured within memetic algorithms thus rendering a methodology that balances well between generality and problem specificity. This two-stage nature makes them a special case of dual-phase evolution. The basic idea behind an MA is to combine the advantages of a global search performed by an EA (or another global search method) with the local refinement provided by one or more local search techniques, while avoiding their drawbacks. The main disadvantage of EAs is that, when searching in the vicinity of an optimum, they perform poorly in determining the exact position of that optimum. The downside of local search methods lies simply in the locality of their search relative to the chosen starting point. The combination of these two classes of methods aims to merge global and local search so that the advantages of both approaches can be leveraged. The idea of this approach can be illustrated by the search for the highest mountain in the Alps. A local search method would climb one of the mountains near the starting point, ignoring Mont Blanc as long as the starting point is not in its vicinity. An EA, on the other hand, will likely only find Mont Blanc after examining many other mountains, valleys, and hills, and then it will have difficulty identifying the summit cross. From the perspective of an MA’s global search procedure, however, only the summits of hills and mountains are seen, and its search is limited to finding the best summit. The open question is whether the additional effort required for the local search is worthwhile. This depends not only on the design of the MA but also on the specific application and the local search methods used. In the context of complex optimization, many different instantiations of memetic algorithms have been reported across a wide range of application domains, in general, converging to high-quality solutions more efficiently than their conventional evolutionary counterparts. In general, using the ideas of memetics within a computational framework is called memetic computing or memetic computation (MC). With MC, the traits of universal Darwinism are more appropriately captured. Viewed in this perspective, MA is a more constrained notion of MC. More specifically, MA covers one area of MC, in particular dealing with areas of evolutionary algorithms that marry other deterministic refinement techniques for solving optimization problems. MC extends the notion of memes to cover conceptual entities of knowledge-enhanced procedures or representations. == Theoretical Background == The no-free-lunch theorems of optimization and search state that all optimization strategies are equally effective with respect to the set of all optimization problems. Conversely, this means that one can expect the following: The more efficiently an algorithm solves a problem or class of problems, the less general it is and the more problem-specific knowledge it builds on. This insight leads directly to the recommendation to complement generally applicable metaheuristics with application-specific methods or heuristics, which fits well with the concept of MAs. == The development of MAs == === 1st generation === Pablo Moscato characterized an MA as follows: "Memetic algorithms are a marriage between a population-based global search and the heuristic local search made by each of the individuals. ... The mechanisms to do local search can be to reach a local optimum or to improve (regarding the objective cost function) up to a predetermined level." And he emphasizes "I am not constraining an MA to a genetic representation.". This original definition of MA although encompasses characteristics of cultural evolution (in the form of local refinement) in the search cycle, it may not qualify as a true evolving system according to universal Darwinism, since all the core principles of inheritance/memetic transmission, variation, and selection are missing. This suggests why the term MA stirred up criticisms and controversies among researchers when first introduced. The following pseudo code would correspond to this general definition of an MA: Pseudo code Procedure Memetic Algorithm Initialize: Generate an initial population, evaluate the individuals and assign a quality value to them; while Stopping conditions are not satisfied do Evolve a new population using stochastic search operators. Evaluate all individuals in the population and assign a quality value to them. Select the subset of individuals, Ω i l {\displaystyle \Omega _{il}} , that should undergo the individual improvement procedure. for each individual in Ω i l {\displaystyle \Omega _{il}} do Perform individual learning using meme(s) with frequency or probability of f i l {\displaystyle f_{il}} , with an intensity of t i l {\displaystyle t_{il}} . Proceed with Lamarckian or Baldwinian learning. end for end while Lamarckian learning in this context means to update the chromosome according to the improved solution found by the individual learning step, while Baldwinian learning leaves the chromosome unchanged and uses only the improved fitness. This pseudo code leaves open which steps are based on the fitness of the individuals and which are not. In question are the evolving of the new population and the selection of Ω i l {\displaystyle \Omega _{il}} . Since most MA implementations are based on EAs, the pseudo code of a corresponding representative of the first generation is also given here, following Krasnogor: Pseudo code Procedure Memetic Algorithm Based on an EA Initialization: t = 0 {\displaystyle t=0} ; // Initialization of the generation counter Randomly generate an initial population P ( t ) {\displaystyle P(t)} ; Compute the fitness f ( p ) ∀ p ∈ P ( t ) {\displaystyle f(p)\ \ \forall p\in P(t)} ; while Stopping conditions are not satisfied do Selection: Accordingly to f ( p ) {\displaystyle f(p)} choose a subset of P ( t ) {\displaystyle P(t)} and store it in M ( t ) {\displaystyle M(t)} ; Offspring: Recombine and mutate individuals p ∈ M ( t ) {\displaystyle p\in M(t)} and store them in M ′ ( t ) {\displaystyle M'(t)} ; Learning: Improve p ′ {\displaystyle p'} by local search or heuristic ∀ p ′ ∈ M ′ ( t ) {\displaystyle \forall p'\in M'(t)} ; Evaluation: Compute the fitness f ( p ′ ) ∀ p ′ ∈ M ′ ( t ) {\displaystyle f(p')\ \ \forall p'\in M'(t)} ; if Lamarckian learning then Update chromosome of p ′ {\displaystyle p'} according to improvement ∀ p ′ ∈ M ′ ( t ) {\displaystyle \forall p'\in M'(t)} ; fi New generation: Generate P ( t + 1 ) {\displaystyle P(t+1)} by selecting some individuals from P ( t ) {\displaystyle P(t)} and M ′ ( t ) {\displaystyle M'(t)} ; t = t + 1 {\displaystyle t=t+1} ; // Increment the generation counter end while Return best individual p ∈ P ( t − 1 ) {\displaystyle p\in P(t-1)} as result; There are some alternatives for this MA scheme. For example: All or some of the initial individuals may be improved by the meme(s). The parents may be locally improved instead of the offspring. Instead of all offspring, only a randomly selected or fitness-dependent fraction may undergo local improvement. The latter requires the evaluation of the offspring in M ′ ( t ) {\displaystyle M'(t)} prior to the Learning step. === 2nd generation === Multi-meme, hyper-heuristic and meta-Lamarckian MA are referred to as second generation MA exhibiting the principles of me
Genetic operator
A genetic operator is an operator used in evolutionary algorithms (EA) to guide the algorithm towards a solution to a given problem. There are three main types of operators (mutation, crossover and selection), which must work in conjunction with one another in order for the algorithm to be successful. Genetic operators are used to create and maintain genetic diversity (mutation operator), combine existing solutions (also known as chromosomes) into new solutions (crossover) and select between solutions (selection). The classic representatives of evolutionary algorithms include genetic algorithms, evolution strategies, genetic programming and evolutionary programming. In his book discussing the use of genetic programming for the optimization of complex problems, computer scientist John Koza has also identified an 'inversion' or 'permutation' operator; however, the effectiveness of this operator has never been conclusively demonstrated and this operator is rarely discussed in the field of genetic programming. For combinatorial problems, however, these and other operators tailored to permutations are frequently used by other EAs. Mutation (or mutation-like) operators are said to be unary operators, as they only operate on one chromosome at a time. In contrast, crossover operators are said to be binary operators, as they operate on two chromosomes at a time, combining two existing chromosomes into one new chromosome. == Operators == Genetic variation is a necessity for the process of evolution. Genetic operators used in evolutionary algorithms are analogous to those in the natural world: survival of the fittest, or selection; reproduction (crossover, also called recombination); and mutation. === Selection === Selection operators give preference to better candidate solutions (chromosomes), allowing them to pass on their 'genes' to the next generation (iteration) of the algorithm. The best solutions are determined using some form of objective function (also known as a 'fitness function' in evolutionary algorithms), before being passed to the crossover operator. Different methods for choosing the best solutions exist, for example, fitness proportionate selection and tournament selection. A further or the same selection operator is used to determine the individuals for being selected to form the next parental generation. The selection operator may also ensure that the best solution(s) from the current generation always become(s) a member of the next generation without being altered; this is known as elitism or elitist selection. === Crossover === Crossover is the process of taking more than one parent solutions (chromosomes) and producing a child solution from them. By recombining portions of good solutions, the evolutionary algorithm is more likely to create a better solution. As with selection, there are a number of different methods for combining the parent solutions, including the edge recombination operator (ERO) and the 'cut and splice crossover' and 'uniform crossover' methods. The crossover method is often chosen to closely match the chromosome's representation of the solution; this may become particularly important when variables are grouped together as building blocks, which might be disrupted by a non-respectful crossover operator. Similarly, crossover methods may be particularly suited to certain problems; the ERO is considered a good option for solving the travelling salesman problem. === Mutation === The mutation operator encourages genetic diversity amongst solutions and attempts to prevent the evolutionary algorithm converging to a local minimum by stopping the solutions becoming too close to one another. In mutating the current pool of solutions, a given solution may change between slightly and entirely from the previous solution. By mutating the solutions, an evolutionary algorithm can reach an improved solution solely through the mutation operator. Again, different methods of mutation may be used; these range from a simple bit mutation (flipping random bits in a binary string chromosome with some low probability) to more complex mutation methods in which genes in the solution are changed, for example by adding a random value from the Gaussian distribution to the current gene value. As with the crossover operator, the mutation method is usually chosen to match the representation of the solution within the chromosome. == Combining operators == While each operator acts to improve the solutions produced by the evolutionary algorithm working individually, the operators must work in conjunction with each other for the algorithm to be successful in finding a good solution. Using the selection operator on its own will tend to fill the solution population with copies of the best solution from the population. If the selection and crossover operators are used without the mutation operator, the algorithm will tend to converge to a local minimum, that is, a good but sub-optimal solution to the problem. Using the mutation operator on its own leads to a random walk through the search space. Only by using all three operators together can the evolutionary algorithm become a noise-tolerant global search algorithm, yielding good solutions to the problem at hand.
Evolutionary algorithm
Evolutionary algorithms (EA) reproduce essential elements of biological evolution in a computer algorithm in order to solve "difficult" problems, at least approximately, for which no exact or satisfactory solution methods are known. They are metaheuristics and population-based bio-inspired algorithms and evolutionary computation, which itself are part of the field of computational intelligence. The mechanisms of biological evolution that an EA mainly imitates are reproduction, mutation, recombination and selection. Candidate solutions to the optimization problem play the role of individuals in a population, and the fitness function determines the quality of the solutions (see also loss function). Evolution of the population then takes place after the repeated application of the above operators. Evolutionary algorithms often perform well approximating solutions to all types of problems because they ideally do not make any assumption about the underlying fitness landscape. Techniques from evolutionary algorithms applied to the modeling of biological evolution are generally limited to explorations of microevolution (microevolutionary processes) and planning models based upon cellular processes. In most real applications of EAs, computational complexity is a prohibiting factor. In fact, this computational complexity is due to fitness function evaluation. Fitness approximation is one of the solutions to overcome this difficulty. However, seemingly simple EA can solve often complex problems; therefore, there may be no direct link between algorithm complexity and problem complexity. == Generic definition == The following is an example of a generic evolutionary algorithm: Randomly generate the initial population of individuals, the first generation. Evaluate the fitness of each individual in the population. Check, if the goal is reached and the algorithm can be terminated. Select individuals as parents, preferably of higher fitness. Produce offspring with optional crossover (mimicking reproduction). Apply mutation operations on the offspring. Select individuals preferably of lower fitness for replacement with new individuals (mimicking natural selection). Return to 2 == Types == Similar techniques differ in genetic representation and other implementation details, and the nature of the particular applied problem. Genetic algorithm – This is the most popular type of EA. One seeks the solution of a problem in the form of strings of numbers (traditionally binary, although the best representations are usually those that reflect something about the problem being solved), by applying operators such as recombination and mutation (sometimes one, sometimes both). This type of EA is often used in optimization problems. Genetic programming – Here the solutions are in the form of computer programs, and their fitness is determined by their ability to solve a computational problem. There are many variants of Genetic Programming: Cartesian genetic programming Gene expression programming Grammatical evolution Linear genetic programming Multi expression programming Evolutionary programming – Similar to evolution strategy, but with a deterministic selection of all parents. Evolution strategy (ES) – Works with vectors of real numbers as representations of solutions, and typically uses self-adaptive mutation rates. The method is mainly used for numerical optimization, although there are also variants for combinatorial tasks. CMA-ES Natural evolution strategy Differential evolution – Based on vector differences and is therefore primarily suited for numerical optimization problems. Coevolutionary algorithm – Similar to genetic algorithms and evolution strategies, but the created solutions are compared on the basis of their outcomes from interactions with other solutions. Solutions can either compete or cooperate during the search process. Coevolutionary algorithms are often used in scenarios where the fitness landscape is dynamic, complex, or involves competitive interactions. Neuroevolution – Similar to genetic programming but the genomes represent artificial neural networks by describing structure and connection weights. The genome encoding can be direct or indirect. Learning classifier system – Here the solution is a set of classifiers (rules or conditions). A Michigan-LCS evolves at the level of individual classifiers whereas a Pittsburgh-LCS uses populations of classifier-sets. Initially, classifiers were only binary, but now include real, neural net, or S-expression types. Fitness is typically determined with either a strength or accuracy based reinforcement learning or supervised learning approach. Quality–Diversity algorithms – QD algorithms simultaneously aim for high-quality and diverse solutions. Unlike traditional optimization algorithms that solely focus on finding the best solution to a problem, QD algorithms explore a wide variety of solutions across a problem space and keep those that are not just high performing, but also diverse and unique. == Theoretical background == The following theoretical principles apply to all or almost all EAs. === No free lunch theorem === The no free lunch theorem of optimization states that all optimization strategies are equally effective when the set of all optimization problems is considered. Under the same condition, no evolutionary algorithm is fundamentally better than another. This can only be the case if the set of all problems is restricted. This is exactly what is inevitably done in practice. Therefore, to improve an EA, it must exploit problem knowledge in some form (e.g. by choosing a certain mutation strength or a problem-adapted coding). Thus, if two EAs are compared, this constraint is implied. In addition, an EA can use problem specific knowledge by, for example, not randomly generating the entire start population, but creating some individuals through heuristics or other procedures. Another possibility to tailor an EA to a given problem domain is to involve suitable heuristics, local search procedures or other problem-related procedures in the process of generating the offspring. This form of extension of an EA is also known as a memetic algorithm. Both extensions play a major role in practical applications, as they can speed up the search process and make it more robust. === Convergence === For EAs in which, in addition to the offspring, at least the best individual of the parent generation is used to form the subsequent generation (so-called elitist EAs), there is a general proof of convergence under the condition that an optimum exists. Without loss of generality, a maximum search is assumed for the proof: From the property of elitist offspring acceptance and the existence of the optimum it follows that per generation k {\displaystyle k} an improvement of the fitness F {\displaystyle F} of the respective best individual x ′ {\displaystyle x'} will occur with a probability P > 0 {\displaystyle P>0} . Thus: F ( x 1 ′ ) ≤ F ( x 2 ′ ) ≤ F ( x 3 ′ ) ≤ ⋯ ≤ F ( x k ′ ) ≤ ⋯ {\displaystyle F(x'_{1})\leq F(x'_{2})\leq F(x'_{3})\leq \cdots \leq F(x'_{k})\leq \cdots } I.e., the fitness values represent a monotonically non-decreasing sequence, which is bounded due to the existence of the optimum. From this follows the convergence of the sequence against the optimum. Since the proof makes no statement about the speed of convergence, it is of little help in practical applications of EAs. But it does justify the recommendation to use elitist EAs. However, when using the usual panmictic population model, elitist EAs tend to converge prematurely more than non-elitist ones. In a panmictic population model, mate selection (see step 4 of the generic definition) is such that every individual in the entire population is eligible as a mate. In non-panmictic populations, selection is suitably restricted, so that the dispersal speed of better individuals is reduced compared to panmictic ones. Thus, the general risk of premature convergence of elitist EAs can be significantly reduced by suitable population models that restrict mate selection. === Virtual alphabets === With the theory of virtual alphabets, David E. Goldberg showed in 1990 that by using a representation with real numbers, an EA that uses classical recombination operators (e.g. uniform or n-point crossover) cannot reach certain areas of the search space, in contrast to a coding with binary numbers. This results in the recommendation for EAs with real representation to use arithmetic operators for recombination (e.g. arithmetic mean or intermediate recombination). With suitable operators, real-valued representations are more effective than binary ones, contrary to earlier opinion. == Comparison to other concepts == === Biological processes === A possible limitation of many evolutionary algorithms is their lack of a clear genotype–phenotype distinction. In nature, the fertilized egg cell undergoes a complex process known as embryogenesis to become a mature p
Summify
Summify was a social news aggregator founded by Mircea Paşoi and Cristian Strat, two former Google and Microsoft interns from Romania. The service emailed its users a periodic summary of news articles shared from their social networks based on their relevance and importance. The platform supported Twitter, Facebook, and Google Reader accounts. == History == In 2009, Paşoi and Strat created ReadFu, a plugin that provided a contextual summary and statistics of the target page of a hyperlink. In January 2010, ReadFu was accepted into the Vancouver-based start-up incubator Bootup Labs. On March 20, 2010 the service was renamed to Summify and a private beta began. On August 11, 2010 Paşoi and Strat announced a new direction for the service. It would become a real-time social news reader that aggregates incoming news from social networks and displays articles by importance using social reactions. After some feedback that the users preferred article digests by email more than the real-time news reader version, Summify discontinued the news reader version. In March 2011, Summify completed a Seed round, with investors including Rob Glaser, Accel Partners, and Stewart Butterfield. Summify received coverage from various news and media outlets such as TechCrunch. It was also featured in various news platforms, such as Time, The Globe and Mail, Mashable, VentureBeat, Gizmodo, Lifehacker, and The Next Web. Summify released a free app on the Apple App Store on July 8, 2011. The app allowed users to read their web summaries from iOS mobile devices. Summify was acquired by Twitter on January 19, 2012. The service shut down soon after, on June 22, 2012.
Multilinear principal component analysis
Multilinear principal component analysis (MPCA) is a multilinear extension of principal component analysis (PCA) that is used to analyze M-way arrays, also informally referred to as "data tensors". M-way arrays may be modeled by linear tensor models, such as CANDECOMP/Parafac, or by multilinear tensor models, such as multilinear principal component analysis (MPCA) or multilinear (tensor) independent component analysis (MICA). In 2005, Vasilescu and Terzopoulos introduced the Multilinear PCA terminology as a way to better differentiate between multilinear data models that employed 2nd order statistics versus higher order statistics to compute a set of independent components for each mode, such as Multilinear ICA Multilinear PCA may be applied to compute the causal factors of data formation, or as signal processing tool on data tensors whose individual observation have either been vectorized, or whose observations are treated as a collection of column/row observations, an "observation as a matrix", and concatenated into a data tensor. The latter approach is suitable for compression and reducing redundancy in the rows, columns and fibers that are unrelated to the causal factors of data formation. Vasilescu and Terzopoulos in their paper "TensorFaces" introduced the M-mode SVD algorithm which are algorithms misidentified in the literature as the HOSVD or the Tucker which employ the power method or gradient descent, respectively. Vasilescu and Terzopoulos framed the data analysis, recognition and synthesis problems as multilinear tensor problems. Data is viewed as the compositional consequence of several causal factors, that are well suited for multi-modal tensor factor analysis. The power of the tensor framework was showcased by analyzing human motion joint angles, facial images or textures in the following papers: Human Motion Signatures (CVPR 2001, ICPR 2002), face recognition – TensorFaces, (ECCV 2002, CVPR 2003, etc.) and computer graphics – TensorTextures (Siggraph 2004). == The algorithm == The MPCA solution follows the alternating least square (ALS) approach. It is iterative in nature. As in PCA, MPCA works on centered data. Centering is a little more complicated for tensors, and it is problem dependent. == Feature selection == MPCA features: Supervised MPCA is employed in causal factor analysis that facilitates object recognition while a semi-supervised MPCA feature selection is employed in visualization tasks. == Extensions == Various extension of MPCA: Robust MPCA (RMPCA) Multi-Tensor Factorization, that also finds the number of components automatically (MTF)