Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorJansen, Thomasde
dc.date.accessioned2004-12-07T08:20:13Z-
dc.date.available2004-12-07T08:20:13Z-
dc.date.created1999de
dc.date.issued2001-10-16de
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2003/5381-
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.17877/DE290R-16081-
dc.description.abstractIt is well-known that evolutionary algorithms succeed to optimize some functions efficiently and fail for others. Therefore, one would like to classify fitness functions as more or less hard to optimize for evolutionary algorithms. The aim of this paper is to clarify limitations and possibilities for classifications of fitness functions from theoretical point of view. We distinguish two different types of classifications, descriptive and analytical ones. We shortly discuss three widely known approaches, namely the NK model, epistasis variance, and fitness distance correlation. Furthermore, we consider nother recent measure, bit-wise epistasis introduced by Fonlupt, Robilliard,and Preux (1998). We discuss shortcomings and counter-examples for all four measures and use this to motivate discussion of possibilities and limitations of classifications of fitness functions in broader context and find out its shortcomings.en
dc.format.extent181798 bytes-
dc.format.extent334389 bytes-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/postscript-
dc.language.isoende
dc.publisherUniversität Dortmundde
dc.relation.ispartofseriesReihe Computational Intelligence ; 76de
dc.subject.ddc004de
dc.titleOn Classifications of Fitness Functionsen
dc.typeTextde
dc.type.publicationtypereport-
dcterms.accessRightsopen access-
Appears in Collections:Sonderforschungsbereich (SFB) 531

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
ci76.pdfDNB177.54 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
ci76.ps326.55 kBPostscriptView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



This item is protected by original copyright rightsstatements.org