{"title":"作为可信赖进化算法设计框架的文化算法","authors":"Anas Al-Tirawi, R. Reynolds","doi":"10.1142/s1793351x22400062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the major challenges facing Artificial Intelligence in the future is the design of trustworthy algorithms. The development of trustworthy algorithms will be a key challenge in Artificial Intelligence for years to come. Cultural Algorithms (CAs) are viewed as one framework that can be employed to produce a trustable evolutionary algorithm. They contain features to support both sustainable and explainable computation that satisfy requirements for trustworthy algorithms proposed by Cox [Nine experts on the single biggest obstacle facing AI and algorithms in the next five years, Emerging Tech Brew, January 22, 2021]. Here, two different configurations of CAs are described and compared in terms of their ability to support sustainable solutions over the complete range of dynamic environments, from static to linear to nonlinear and finally chaotic. The Wisdom of the Crowds method was selected for the one configuration since it has been observed to work in both simple and complex environments and requires little long-term memory. The Common Value Auction (CVA) configuration was selected to represent those mechanisms that were more data centric and required more long-term memory content. Both approaches were found to provide sustainable performance across all the dynamic environments tested from static to chaotic. Based upon the information collected in the Belief Space, they produced this behavior in different ways. First, the topologies that they employed differed in terms of the “in degree” for different complexities. The CVA approach tended to favor reduced “indegree/outdegree”, while the WM exhibited a higher indegree/outdegree in the best topology for a given environment. These differences reflected the fact the CVA had more information available for the agents about the network in the Belief Space, whereas the agents in the WM had access to less available knowledge. It therefore needed to spread the knowledge that it currently had more widely throughout the population.","PeriodicalId":217956,"journal":{"name":"Int. J. Semantic Comput.","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cultural Algorithms as a Framework for the Design of Trustable Evolutionary Algorithms\",\"authors\":\"Anas Al-Tirawi, R. Reynolds\",\"doi\":\"10.1142/s1793351x22400062\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"One of the major challenges facing Artificial Intelligence in the future is the design of trustworthy algorithms. The development of trustworthy algorithms will be a key challenge in Artificial Intelligence for years to come. Cultural Algorithms (CAs) are viewed as one framework that can be employed to produce a trustable evolutionary algorithm. They contain features to support both sustainable and explainable computation that satisfy requirements for trustworthy algorithms proposed by Cox [Nine experts on the single biggest obstacle facing AI and algorithms in the next five years, Emerging Tech Brew, January 22, 2021]. Here, two different configurations of CAs are described and compared in terms of their ability to support sustainable solutions over the complete range of dynamic environments, from static to linear to nonlinear and finally chaotic. The Wisdom of the Crowds method was selected for the one configuration since it has been observed to work in both simple and complex environments and requires little long-term memory. The Common Value Auction (CVA) configuration was selected to represent those mechanisms that were more data centric and required more long-term memory content. Both approaches were found to provide sustainable performance across all the dynamic environments tested from static to chaotic. Based upon the information collected in the Belief Space, they produced this behavior in different ways. First, the topologies that they employed differed in terms of the “in degree” for different complexities. The CVA approach tended to favor reduced “indegree/outdegree”, while the WM exhibited a higher indegree/outdegree in the best topology for a given environment. These differences reflected the fact the CVA had more information available for the agents about the network in the Belief Space, whereas the agents in the WM had access to less available knowledge. It therefore needed to spread the knowledge that it currently had more widely throughout the population.\",\"PeriodicalId\":217956,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Int. J. Semantic Comput.\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Int. J. Semantic Comput.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1142/s1793351x22400062\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Int. J. Semantic Comput.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/s1793351x22400062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
未来人工智能面临的主要挑战之一是可信赖算法的设计。可信算法的开发将是未来几年人工智能领域的一个关键挑战。文化算法(ca)被视为一个框架,可以用来产生一个可信的进化算法。它们包含支持可持续和可解释计算的功能,满足Cox提出的可信赖算法的要求[九位专家关于未来五年人工智能和算法面临的最大障碍,Emerging Tech Brew, 2021年1月22日]。本文描述并比较了两种不同配置的ca在各种动态环境(从静态到线性到非线性,最后是混沌)中支持可持续解决方案的能力。选择群体智慧方法作为一种配置,因为它被观察到在简单和复杂的环境中都有效,并且需要很少的长期记忆。选择Common Value Auction (CVA)配置来表示那些更以数据为中心、需要更多长期内存内容的机制。两种方法都可以在从静态到混沌的所有动态环境中提供可持续的性能。基于在信念空间中收集的信息,他们以不同的方式产生了这种行为。首先,他们采用的拓扑在不同复杂性的“in degree”方面有所不同。CVA方法倾向于降低“度外度”,而WM方法在给定环境下的最佳拓扑结构中表现出更高的度外度。这些差异反映了CVA在信念空间中可以获得更多关于网络的信息,而在WM中可以获得较少的知识。因此,它需要在人口中更广泛地传播它目前掌握的知识。
Cultural Algorithms as a Framework for the Design of Trustable Evolutionary Algorithms
One of the major challenges facing Artificial Intelligence in the future is the design of trustworthy algorithms. The development of trustworthy algorithms will be a key challenge in Artificial Intelligence for years to come. Cultural Algorithms (CAs) are viewed as one framework that can be employed to produce a trustable evolutionary algorithm. They contain features to support both sustainable and explainable computation that satisfy requirements for trustworthy algorithms proposed by Cox [Nine experts on the single biggest obstacle facing AI and algorithms in the next five years, Emerging Tech Brew, January 22, 2021]. Here, two different configurations of CAs are described and compared in terms of their ability to support sustainable solutions over the complete range of dynamic environments, from static to linear to nonlinear and finally chaotic. The Wisdom of the Crowds method was selected for the one configuration since it has been observed to work in both simple and complex environments and requires little long-term memory. The Common Value Auction (CVA) configuration was selected to represent those mechanisms that were more data centric and required more long-term memory content. Both approaches were found to provide sustainable performance across all the dynamic environments tested from static to chaotic. Based upon the information collected in the Belief Space, they produced this behavior in different ways. First, the topologies that they employed differed in terms of the “in degree” for different complexities. The CVA approach tended to favor reduced “indegree/outdegree”, while the WM exhibited a higher indegree/outdegree in the best topology for a given environment. These differences reflected the fact the CVA had more information available for the agents about the network in the Belief Space, whereas the agents in the WM had access to less available knowledge. It therefore needed to spread the knowledge that it currently had more widely throughout the population.