Slashdot Mirror
Genetic Algorithm Improves Shellsort
gstover writes "As a personal programming project recently, I used a genetic algorithm to find a better sequence of increments for Shellsort. It found at least one sequence that out-performs the best previously known by about 5 percent. Here
is an article about it (also here).
I believe this is the first time a
genetic algorithm has actually improved Shellsort."
There may be some cases where shellsort is more desirable for the exact data being sorted, I don't really know for sure. The importance of this is that he has used a GA to better the optimization work of humans on shellsort. He has laid the groundwork and circumstantial proof out for others to do the same with other algorithms. Of course he evolved a set of constants more than an algorithm itself.
The next logical place to go with this work, IMHO:
1) Invent a concise fake machine language for sorting algorithms (a convenience to make the rest of this easier). It should have basic instructions used in manipulating and sorting arrays (move, compare, copy, branching, etc...).
2) Write a "sort engine" that takes as input algorithms written in your fake language and uses them to sort things (outputting some performance numbers).
3) Implement every known array sorting algorithm you can find in your little fake machine sort language.
4) Let a GA evolve the whole algorithm by arbitrarily replacing bytes with other valid bytes from your specialized assembler language, starting with all the known sort algs as parents. Let it run until it stabilizes, using a relatively high mutation rate.
Of course, the big problem is that if your language implements any kind of looping construct, or any other way that code can be re-executed (and it will almost have to), then you face a "halting problem" when testing each new child. The pratical workaround is of course to know that any reasonable algorithm must finish the sort in a certain bounded amount of cpu cycles, and terminate any children who take longer.
5) Translate the winning candidate(s) custom machien source back into a generic language like C, and puzzle over exactly why it works so damn well.
11*43+456^2
"Notice that the mating process has nothing to do with the constraints placed on valid organisms."
I wish more women would read Slashdot. Chalk one up for the "Size Doesn't Matter" team.
"I chose single-point crossover as the method of mating because it is simple & generic."
I choose doggie style for the same reasons.
GA is good for a lot of things. For instance, it was used to redesign diesel engines to be more efficient.
The big problem with GA though, IIRC, is that the resulting solution is often incomprehensible to a human. I believe Bill Joy did some work with GAs and had comments along those lines (sorry, I couldn't find the quote). Consider for a moment though trying to troubleshoot code generated by a computer. Bad variable names would be just the start of your problems. The logic patterns employed would be essentially random to a human. Many of the patterns would be vestigial and wouldn't even be relevant, but you wouldn't even know that. Identifying the primary execution paths would be a huge chore... never mind actually understanding the basis for why the generated solution actually works.
How comfortable would you be deploying a solution (hardware or software) where the fundamental design isn't even understood? How the heck do you fix such a thing once it's deployed?
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
One of my professors at Midwestern State University (texas) has done this before. Although it seems you may have improved on his solution. (but I couldnt find a copy of his paper)
"Faster Shellsort Sequences: A Genetic Algorithm Application", Proceedings of the International Society for Computers and Their Applications(ISCA), April 7-9, 1999. (With Shashidhar Yachavaram) Presented at the conference, Cancun Mexico.
You're generalising, which is an easy mistake. Quicksort is good but for many data sets, it is very likely suboptimal and another alogorithm would perform better. Shellsort is good for small data sets. In fact, a good quicksort implementation may use shellsort once the divisions get small enough.
Another example:, quicksort is poor at sorting strings. This is because you have to perform a full strcmp() (or equivalent) at each comparison. For this reason, a modified radix sort is often used.
Danny Hillis used his CM-1 to evolve sorting networks for known lengths. Using a predator-prey model (the predator won by generating sequences that the networks failed to sort), he evolved several "optimal" sorters.
An obvious extension to generic lengths is to use these precomputed networks as recursion base cases for quicksort, instead of switching to selection sort for lengths x (x ~ 5 typically).
IIRC shellsort works similarly: recursively sorting subsequences and merging results.
How comfortable would you be deploying a solution (hardware or software) where the fundamental design isn't even understood? How the heck do you fix such a thing once it's deployed?
:)
I'm just happy my parents didn't have the same concerns when they "deployed" me!
People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.