A Denoising Autoencoder that Guides
Stochastic Search
Alexander W. Churchill, Siddharth Sigtia, and Chrisantha Fernando

arXiv:1404.1614v1 [cs.NE] 6 Apr 2014

School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science
Queen Mary, University of London
{a.churchill,s.s.sigtia,c.t.fernando}@qmul.ac.uk

Abstract. An algorithm is described that adaptively learns a non-linear
mutation distribution. It works by training a denoising autoencoder (DA)
online at each generation of a genetic algorithm to reconstruct a slowly
decaying memory of the best genotypes so far. A compressed hidden layer
forces the autoencoder to learn hidden features in the training set that
can be used to accelerate search on novel problems with similar structure.
Its output neurons define a probability distribution that we sample from
to produce offspring solutions. The algorithm outperforms a canonical
genetic algorithm on several combinatorial optimisation problems, e.g.
multidimensional 0/1 knapsack problem, MAXSAT, HIFF, and on parameter optimisation problems, e.g. Rastrigin and Rosenbrock functions.

1

Introduction

Evolutionary algorithms do not use supervised learning methods to learn to predict which mutants are likely to be fitter than others, perhaps because natural
selection in the wild, their original biological inspiration [1], does not exhibit
such mechanisms. However, the theory of evolutionary neurodynamics [2] proposes that evolutionary computation takes place in the brain, and that it can
exploit Hebbian learning for learning linkage between alleles at distant loci [2].
This paper extends that work to learning more complex models than Hebbian
learning alone is capable of. Our motivation is similar to the inventors of estimation of distribution algorithms (EDAs) which were developed to statistically
model genotype space to bias exploration towards optimal solutions [3]. Early
work on EDAs concentrated on methods that explicitly modelled allele frequencies in the population [4,5,6]. Later, correlations between alleles at different loci
were learned [7], and recently Bayesian generative models have been learned,
e.g. hBOA [8], albeit at considerable computational cost [6]. However, an underrepresented area in EDAs is transfer learning, i.e. generalising knowledge across
different tasks, which is only beginning to be addressed, e.g. in [9].
We combine a denoising autoencoder with a genetic algorithm to allow transfer learning [10]. An autoencoder is a feed forward neural network, consisting
of at least one hidden layer, which is trained to reproduce its inputs from its
outputs. Over the course of training, the hidden layer forms a compressed representation of the inputs [11]. Neural network methods have been employed before

2

Alexander W. Churchill, Siddharth Sigtia, and Chrisantha Fernando

in this context, e.g. competitive Hebbian learning [12], restricted Boltzmann
machines [13] and Helmholtz machines [14]. However, the DA strikes a desirable
balance between learning a rich non-linear model of genotype space, rapidity,
and biological plausibility [10,11].

2
2.1

Methods
Denoising Autoencoder

A standard autoencoder consists of an encoder and a decoder. The encoder
performs an affine transformation followed by an element-wise non-linear operation. The mapping performed by the encoder is deterministic and can be
described as hθ (x) = f (Wx + b). The decoder is also a deterministic network
and operates on the encoded input hθ (x) to produce the reconstructed input
rθ0 (h) = g(W0 h + b0 ). The autoencoder, which is trained using Backpropagation, learns the distribution of the training data by means of the layer of hidden
variables. The encoder network can be viewed as a non-linear generalisation of
PCA [11]. The autoencoder learns interactions between the input attributes and
maps it to the hidden layer via a non-linear transformation, making it a powerful
model for learning and exploiting structure present in the best individuals.
We interpret the outputs of the decoder network as parameters for a conditional distribution p(X|Z = z) over the outputs of the network given an input
z. For binary optimization problems, the outputs z are considered to be parameters for the distribution X|z ∼ B(z) where B is the Bernouilli distribution.
For continuous parameter-optimisation problems, the outputs z parameterise a
multi-variate normal distribution X ∼ Nk (z, σ 2 I), where the covariance matrix
is assumed to be diagonal and the standard deviation along the diagonal is a
tuneable parameter.
In our algorithm we use a denoising autoencoder which is a variant of the
standard autoencoder [15]. The DA tries to recreate the input x from corrupted
or noisy versions of the input, which are generated by a stochastic corruption
process x̃ = q(x̃|x). Autoencoders are trained along with strong regularisation
in order to impose an information bottleneck on the model. If this is not done
carefully, it would be very easy for the autoencoder to learn the identity transformation. Adding the denoising criterion to the model forces the autoencoder to
learn transformations invariant to perturbations of the input. In our system we
employ the denoising criterion to widen the basins of attraction around the best
individuals in every generation. During training, we train the autoencoder on the
most promising solutions, and by increasing corruption we encourage individuals
that are far away from the training set to move towards the nearest high quality
solution. By making use of the corruption noise as a tuneable parameter, the
extent of the basins of attraction can be controlled, with high corruption giving
rise to large basins of attraction.
To demonstrate structure learning and the capacity of the DA to learn multiple examples, we train an autoencoder on 3 different 6-bit the target vectors: all

A Denoising Autoencoder that Guides Stochastic Search

3

ones, all zeros, and the 3 least significant bits set to 1. Fig 1(a) shows the matrix
of transition probabilities for all possible pairs of 64 genotypes. The indices of
the X and Y axes are labelled as the sequence of binary numbers: the 0-index
corresponds to the string of all 0s and the 63rd index corresponds to the string
of all ones. Each point (a,b) in the figure denotes the probability of transition
from genome a to b. From the figure we observe that there are bands of high
probabilities along Y = 0, 7, 63. This implies that for most input genomes, the
autoencoder has a high probability of producing a genome that is close to one
of the target solutions. In Fig 1(a), we also plot the marginalised probabilities
of each of the target genomes. We observe peaks at the location of the three
target vectors. We also notice that there is a band of high probability between
the vectors 000000 and 000111. This demonstrates that the autoencoder learns
the structure of the best solutions and yields outputs that are closer to the best
solutions. The fact that the new population has probability peaks around all
three target solutions demonstrates that the autoencoder learns a complex nonlinear mapping from input to output and is capable of retaining information
about several classes of solutions.
To demonstrate the influence of corruption noise on widening the basin of
attraction around the training examples we train the GA on a 20-bit MaxOnes
problem. MaxOnes has a unique optimum solution and the Hamming distances
from the optimal solution are easy to interpret. We allow the GA to run for 10
generations, with a population of 200 and train the autoencoder on the top 20
solutions at every generation. The inputs to the DA are corrupted by a binary
corruption process that stochastically flips a fixed proportion of bits for each example. The DA is then trained to reconstruct the true targets from the corrupted
inputs. After training, 100 randomly generated input vectors are presented to
the DA, and a new population is sampled. We repeat this experiment with different corruption rates and the same random input vectors and plot the Hamming
distances of the sampled population from the optimum solution. Fig 1(b) shows
that increasing the corruption rate leads to a decrease in the Hamming distances
of offspring from the target. This shows that as corruption noise is increased,
the outputs of the DA are more likely to be closer to an example in the training
set.
2.2

Optimisation Algorithm

The pipeline of the Denoising Autoencoder Genetic Algorithm (DAGA) is similar
to EDAs and is inspired by methods in HBOA [8]. A population of solutions
is maintained, Pt , and updated at each iteration, t. An initial population of
solutions, P0 , is drawn from a uniform distribution. These solutions are evaluated
and the fittest unique x% are selected (i.e. truncation selection) to be in the
training set, P̂t . The Denoising Autoencoder, Dt , is then trained with P̂t for e
epochs. Following training, a new set of solutions, St , is selected from P using
tournament selection (with replacement). Each member of St is inputted to Dt ,
and the output vector, y, is sampled from using a binomial distribution, to
produce a new solution. This solution is included in Pt+1 if it is better than its
closest neighbour according to Restricted Tournament Selection (RTR) [8].

4

Alexander W. Churchill, Siddharth Sigtia, and Chrisantha Fernando

Fig. 1: Showing (a) transition probabilities (from inputs to outputs) for all possible genomes on the 6-bit problem, with the plot on the right showing probabilities
of different outputs, P (g), marginalised over all possible inputs and (b) Hamming distances of a randomly sampled population from the optimal solution on
a 20-bit MaxOnes problem with different corruption levels.

3

Experiments

DAGA is tested on three sets of experiments: (1) discrete, (2) continuous and
(3) accumulation of adaptation problems. We perform experiments on two different instances of the Multi-dimensional Knacksack problem. The first is the
Weing8 instance [16], which has 105 items and two constraints (optimal solution
is 602,319), and the second is a randomly generated instance with 500 items and
one constraint (optimal solution is 10,104). Both instances are available in the
supplementary material.1 . The proposed system is then applied to the 128-bit
and the 256-bit Hierarchical If and Only If problem (HIFF) [17]. In order to
remove any possible bias towards an all 1s solution, solutions from DAGA have
a random bit mask (fixed before each trial) applied to them before evaluating
fitness. We also test the system on a 128-bit Royal Road problem with 8-bit
partitions [18]. As with the HIFF, a random mask is applied to the output of
DAGA before fitness evaluation. Finally, the system is tested on a 3-CNF, 100bit MAXSAT problem obtained from SATLIB [19]. The problem consists of 430
clauses and belongs to the phase transition region, which is the point at which
the problem transitions from generally solvable to generally unsolvable.
We evaluate our system’s performance on continuous parameter optimisation
problems by applying it to a 50-d Sphere, a 10-d Rosenbrock
and a 10-d Rastrigin
Pn
2
function. The Sphere function is given
by
f
(p)
=
p
,
−5.12 < pi < 5.12.
i
i=1
Pn
The Rosenbrock function is f (p) = i=1 100(pi+1 − p2i )2 + (1 + pi )2 , −2.048 ≤
p
i ≤ 2.048. And finally the Rastrigin function is defined as f (p) = 10.n +
P
n
2
i=1 pi − 10. cos(2πpi ) , −5.12 ≤ pi ≤ 5.12.
We also investigate whether DAGA can be used for transfer learning, i.e. to
achieve faster convergence on new tasks, that are similar to tasks that it has
1

Online supplementary material: http://www.robozoo.co.uk/research/ppsn2014

A Denoising Autoencoder that Guides Stochastic Search

5

already learnt to solve. In order to test the validity of this claim, a new task
was devised that was influenced by Watson et al [20]. DAGA is applied to solve
three problem instances in sequence, without reinitialising the weights of the DA
between instances. The problems consist of minimising the Hamming distance to
a target string, which represents an 81-pixel image. The algorithm is evaluated
on the speed up created by solving the third problem, where speed up is defined
as the difference in the number of iterations needed to solve the third problem
after solving the first two, compared to solving the third problem ab initio. The
first and second solutions are a Cross and Box pattern respectively. The third
problem is a pattern similar to the original patterns. DAGA is trained on the
Cross and the Box (XB) and then on one of the 16 similar patterns, as well as
the Box and the Cross (BX) and then on one of the other combined patterns,
resulting in 32 transfer learning experiments.

4

Results

On the discrete and continuous problems, DAGA is compared to a canonical generational Genetic Algorithm (GA). On the continuous problems it is additionally
compared to a (1+1)-ES with the 1/5 rule [21]. The GA employs tournament
selection, two point crossover (with probability pc ) and on the discrete problems
there is a probability, pm , of a bit flip mutation at each allele, while on the
continuous problems there is probability, pm , of adding Gaussian noise to each
component of the vector from N (0, δ 2 ). Programming code is available in the
online supplementary material, as well as fitness graphs for each experiment.
For each problem a large parameter sweep was performed on both DAGA and
the GA and the best configurations (averaged over 10 samples per parameter
set) were chosen for comparison.
Table 1 presents details of the best solution returned at the end of a run and
the number of evaluations required for DAGA and the GA on the 6 problems
described above in Section 3. The table shows that DAGA finds either significantly better solutions, or optimal solutions significantly faster than the GA, on
all of the problems apart from the Royal Road where they are not significantly
different. On four of the six experiments (both knapsacks, MAXSAT and 256-bit
HIFF), DAGA finds significantly better solutions than the GA, within the given
evaluation limits. On the Weing8 knapsack instance DAGA reaches the optimum
solution in 8 out of 10 attempts, and on the 500-item knapsack in 7 out of 10
attempts. On the MAXSAT problem, DAGA reaches the optimum 70% of the
time. On all three of these problems the GA is unable to find each optimal solution once. On the 128-bit HIFF, DAGA locates the optimal solution every time,
while the GA locates it on half of the trials, and on the 256-bit HIFF DAGA
again has a 100% success rate while the GA achieves only 30%. On the Royal
Road, DAGA locates the global optima on every trial, while the GA finds it on
9 out of 10. These results show that on a wide range of discrete problems DAGA
is able to find higher quality solutions and more consistently locate the optimum
compared to a GA. As well as frequently obtaining better quality solutions at

6

Alexander W. Churchill, Siddharth Sigtia, and Chrisantha Fernando

Experiment Algorithm Min
MAXSAT
GA
424
AE
429
128 HIFF
GA
832
AE
1024
256 HIFF
GA
1664
AE
2304
Knapsack
GA
619568
Weing8
AE
621086
Knapsack
GA
10047
500
AE
10096
Royal Road GA
120
AE
128

Max
429
430
1024
1024
2304
2304
621086

Mean
426.5 ±1.4
429.8 ±0.4∗
940.8 ±86.1
1024 ±0.0
1984 ±225.4
2304 ±0.0∗
620099.2 ±529.8

Mean Evals
500000 ±0.0
291944.4 ±134968∗
416000 ±87430
231000 ±23537.2∗
1590500 ±626719.4
1355500 ±190793.7
100000 ±0.0

624319 623124.3 ±1416.6∗ 96600 ±34414.2
10093 10074.2 ±14.0
200000 ±0.0
10104 10102.7 ±2.5∗
128
127.2 ±2.4
128
128 ±0.0

Success %
0%
70%
50%
100%
30%
100%
0%
80%
0%

121620 ±52114.9∗ 70%
42600 ±27034.9
90%
26500 ±3721.6
100%

Table 1: Results for DAGA and the GA on 6 discrete problems. Showing the
value of the minimum and maximum solution returned at the end of search, the
mean best solution in the population after the end of search, the mean number
of evaluations required to reach the optimum solution (or until the maximum
number of evaluations) and the success rate for reaching the optimum, averaged
across 10 trials. Stars indicate that the mean result for the specified algorithm
is significantly different from the GA according to a Wilcoxan Rank Sum test
(p < 0.05).
the end of the optimisation process, DAGA also finds optimal solutions with
fewer evaluations than the GA. On all problems, Table 1 shows that DAGA
has a lower number of average evaluations needed to find the optimum, with
statistical significance on MAXSAT, 128-HIFF and Knapsack 500.
Results for DAGA, (1+1)-ES and the GA are presented in Table 2 for the
Sphere, Rosenbrock and Rastrigin functions. On all three of these problems
DAGA outperforms the GA, and is able to reach significantly better solutions
with fewer evaluations. However, the (1+1)-ES is considerably better on the
Sphere and Rosenbrock functions, achieving significantly better solutions than
DAGA over the whole run and in far fewer evaluations. On the Rosenbrock
it is almost three times as fast, and on the Sphere can reach the 0.1 target
after only 235 evaluations, more than 100 times faster than DAGA. This implies
that the (1+1)-ES is a much more efficient continuous optimiser on these search
spaces. However, the (1+1)-ES performs extremely badly on the Rastrigin, which
consists of many local optima. Here, the population-based GA and DAGA excel,
getting much closer to the optimal solution of 0. DAGA is significantly better
than the GA and the only algorithm to find solutions under 1.0.
Results for DAGA on the image generation task described in Section 3 are
presented in Fig 2. This shows the difference in the average number of iterations taken to solve the third problem when solving the third problem directly
compared to when solving it using a DA that has been trained on solving the
first two problems without reinitialisation. We see that in every case, there is a
significant speed up when DAGA solves the first two problems in the sequence.
Fig. 3(a) shows the outputs of the DA generated without training, Fig. 3(b)

A Denoising Autoencoder that Guides Stochastic Search
Experiment
Sphere 50D

Algorithm
GA
(1+1)-ES
dAGA
Rosenbrock 10D GA
(1+1)-ES
dAGA
Rastrigin 10D GA
(1+1)-ES
dAGA

Target
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.0
1.0
1.0

Min
0.065
0.000
0.026
0.547
0.000
0.018
1.395
37.808
0.601

Max
0.101
0.000
0.033
0.800
0.000
0.082
4.347
160.187
1.277

Mean
0.088 ±0.016
0.00 ±0.000
0.029 ±0.003
0.659 ±0.106
0.000 ±0.000
0.042 ±0.018
3.058 ±1.234
89.844 ±33.520
0.888 ±0.203

7

Mean evals
49300±4368.829
235±23.240
36150±502.494
300000±0
27192.2±1186.672
81950±17329.815
300000±0
300000±0
167800±123007.154

Table 2: Results for DAGA, (1+1)-ES and the GA on 3 continuous problems.
Showing the value of the minimum and maximum solution returned at the end
of search, the mean best solution in the population after the end of search, the
mean number of evaluations required to reach the target value (or until the
maximum number of evaluations). On each function results were found to have
significant differences on a one way ANOVA (p < 0.05), post-hoc analysis with a
t-test and the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons showed significant
differences between all pairs (p < 0.05).
shows the population created by sampling random inputs after solving the Box
and Cross patterns in sequence (this set will be referred to as BX), and Fig. 3(c)
shows the same after solving the Cross and Box patterns (XB). There is a clear
difference in the solutions created, with Fig. 3(a) showing much noisier solutions
without much structure, Fig. 3(b) showing cross-like patterns mixed with block
elements and Fig. 3(c) showing box patterns with diagonal elements. We can
see that by training on two solutions, the DA has learned from both training
patterns, and this is exploited to solve the third problem considerably faster, as
seen in Fig. 2.
Unsurprisingly, the largest speedups occur when the third problem is identical
to the second. For both initial training patterns, this speedup is considerably
greater than the mean, although it is markedly greater on the BX set. Also
notable on BX is that the speed up is much lower on the Box pattern, even
though it was already solved in the first run of the algorithm. By training on
the Cross pattern second, some information learnt from the first run appears to
have been lost. On BX, apart from the Cross, the largest speed up is seen in the
solutions which inherit 1/4 from the Box and 3/4 from the Cross. The reverse is
not true, and for XB there are large savings on the Cross, which it was trained
on initially, as well as the 1/4 Box, 3/4 Cross solution that BX performs well
on. Fig. 3 (b) and (c) shows that while BX and XB both share features of the
two root patterns, they are dominated by the second trained pattern. The Cross
patterns are more sparse, which could explain why it takes longer to produce a
Box, as more pixels must be filled in. In order to reduce the memory effect, it
may help to use a lower learning rate. However, this simple example illustrates
that DAGA is able to transfer learned structure between tasks.

5

Discussion

The results from Section 4 show that the DA can be applied to both discrete and
continuous problems and regularly outperforms a GA, either in the quality of

8

Alexander W. Churchill, Siddharth Sigtia, and Chrisantha Fernando

GA Parameters
Pop CrossO Mut
MAXSAT
100 0.4
0.01
1
128 HIFF
10000 0.9
10000
1
256 HIFF
15000 0.9
15000
1
Knapsack 105
300 0.5
300
1
Knapsack 500
200 0.9
200
1
Royal Road
400 0.9
400
1
Sphere
100 0.3
100
Rosenbrock
100 0.2
1
2
Rastrigin
1000 0.2
100
Transfer Learning -

σ2
0.1
0.01
0.01
-

Pop
2500
5000
5000
500
600
1000
500
500
1000
1000

%
20
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
20
20

DAGA Parameters
Epochs Learning Rate Corruption
50
0.1
0.05
25
0.1
0.05
50
0.01
0.05
100
0.1
0.25
50
0.1
0.9
50
0.1
0.9
100
0.1
0.1
100
0.1
0.1
200
0.1
0.1
10
0.0001
0.1

Hiddens
100
128
500
80
200
100
100
30
25
70

Niching%
2500/20
N/A
N/A
500/2
600/20
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

σ2
10−5
10−5
10−5
-

Table 3: Parameters for the GA and DAGA for all experiments.

Fig. 2: Showing the average speed up on the transfer learning task, the difference
between mean number of iterations taken to solve the image pictured on the top
row without pre-learning and the mean number of iterations taken with prelearning on the two solutions pictured in the first column, averaged over 10
trials. All mean iterations are significantly different, Wilcoxan Rank Sum test
(p < 0.05)

Fig. 3: Showing the output of 18 random inputs passed through the autoencoder
(a) without training at the start of the optimisation process, (b) after solving
the box and then the cross patterns (c) after solving the cross and then the box.

the final solution or in the number of evaluations used. The advantages over the
GA are most clear on difficult combinatorial problems such as the 256-bit HIFF
and MAXSAT, where the GA struggles to locate optimal solutions. On these
problems, the best DAGA parameters found through a grid search displayed a
very low corruption level (0.05 for MAXSAT and 256-HIFF) and large population
sizes (2,500 and 5,000). As seen in Fig. 1 the low corruption level maintains

A Denoising Autoencoder that Guides Stochastic Search

9

variance in the population, maximising the amount of information in the data
pool and preventing premature convergence. Conversely, on problems such as
the single constraint Knapsack and Royal Road, a large corruption level is used.
This implies that on problems where there is more independence between input
components, a high corruption level can more quickly direct search towards
desired regions.
While DAGA outperformed the GA on all three parameter optimisation problems, it was outperformed by a (1+1)-ES on two. There are several improvements
that could be made, one of which is the sampling method, which uses a fixed
σ 2 . Using an adaptive step-size, such as Cumulative path-length control [21] used
in population-based Evolutionary Strategies could have a positive effect on convergence. To solve the continuous problems, DAGA was found to need a large
hidden layer, a factor of 2.5 or greater than the input size. Continuous search
spaces are much larger than discrete ones and the DA will need a high capacity
in order to effectively capture solution structure. This was also found on the 256bit HIFF, which used 500 hidden neurons. While this could lead to overfitting
on the solution set, this can be offset by the corruption applied to the inputs,
which acts as a strong regulariser. There is the potential that results could be
improved through deeper architectures for the DA, which could capture a hierarchical composition of features, which a shallow architecture cannot.
The transfer learning task poses an interesting question that has not been
answered by the EDA community, although recent work has made a start (e.g.
[9]) - can building a model to solve one task help improve performance on another? The results showed that using a DA, information learned in one task can
be retained and recombined with that learnt in a second task to produce an
across the board speed up on the third task in the sequence. This shows the potential for using a DA, but also potentially other modelling techniques from the
optimisation community, such as Restricted Boltzmann Machines or Deep Belief Networks, for transfer learning between problems of the same class. Careful
experimentation is needed to discover which types of problem can use machine
learning techniques to transfer knowledge between unique instances and speed
up optimisation as more examples are encountered.

6

Conclusion

We have presented a novel stochastic algorithm based on a denoising autoencoder. Training online, using the best found genotypes, the algorithm is able
adaptively learn an exploration distribution, which guides it towards optimal
solutions on difficult problems such as the 256-bit HIFF, regularly outperforming a genetic algorithm. In a simple experiment, we have shown that in addition
to standard optimisation problems, the DA can learn to generalise across instances in the same problem class, displaying speed ups on unseen instances.

Acknowledgments. The work is funded by the FQEB Templeton grant “Bayes,
Darwin and Hebb”, and the FP-7 FET OPEN Grant INSIGHT.

10

Alexander W. Churchill, Siddharth Sigtia, and Chrisantha Fernando

References
1. Holland, J.H.: Adaption in Natural and Artificial Systems. The University of
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor (1975)
2. Fernando, C., Goldstein, R., Szathmáry, E.: The neuronal replicator hypothesis.
Neural Computation 22(11) (2010) 2809–2857
3. Pelikan, M., Sastry, K., Cantú-Paz, E.: Scalable optimization via probabilistic
modeling. Springer (2006)
4. Harik, G.R., Lobo, F.G., Goldberg, D.E.: The compact genetic algorithm. Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on 3(4) (1999) 287–297
5. Baluja, S.: Population-based incremental learning. a method for integrating genetic
search based function optimization and competitive learning. Technical report,
DTIC Document (1994)
6. Pelikan, M., Goldberg, D.E., Lobo, F.G.: A survey of optimization by building and
using probabilistic models. Computational optimization and applications 21(1)
(2002) 5–20
7. Harik, G.: Linkage learning via probabilistic modeling in the ecga. Urbana 51(61)
(1999) 801
8. Pelikan, M.: Hierarchical Bayesian optimization algorithm. Springer (2005)
9. Hauschild, M.W., Pelikan, M., Sastry, K., Goldberg, D.E.: Using previous models
to bias structural learning in the hierarchical boa. Evolutionary Computation
20(1) (2012) 135–160
10. Caruana, R.: Multitask learning. Machine learning 28(1) (1997) 41–75
11. Hinton, G.E., Salakhutdinov, R.R.: Reducing the dimensionality of data with
neural networks. Science 313(5786) (2006) 504–507
12. Martı́, L., Garcı́a, J., Berlanga, A., Molina, J.M.: Introducing moneda: Scalable
multiobjective optimization with a neural estimation of distribution algorithm. In:
Proceedings of the 10th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, ACM (2008) 689–696
13. Tang, H., Shim, V.A., Tan, K.C., Chia, J.Y.: Restricted boltzmann machine based
algorithm for multi-objective optimization. In: Evolutionary Computation (CEC),
2010 IEEE Congress on, IEEE (2010) 1–8
14. Zhang, B.T., Shin, S.Y.: Bayesian evolutionary optimization using helmholtz machines. In: Parallel Problem Solving from Nature PPSN VI, Springer (2000) 827–
836
15. Vincent, P., Larochelle, H., Bengio, Y., Manzagol, P.A.: Extracting and composing
robust features with denoising autoencoders. In: Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning, ACM (2008) 1096–1103
16. Weingartner, H.M., Ness, D.N.: Methods for the solution of the multidimensional
0/1 knapsack problem. Operations Research 15(1) (1967) 83–103
17. Watson, R.A., Pollack, J.B.: Hierarchically consistent test problems for genetic
algorithms. In: Evolutionary Computation, 1999. CEC 99. Proceedings of the
1999 Congress on. Volume 2., IEEE (1999)
18. Mitchell, M., Forrest, S., Holland, J.H.: The royal road for genetic algorithms:
Fitness landscapes and ga performance. In: Proceedings of the first european
conference on artificial life, Cambridge: The MIT Press (1992) 245–254
19. Hoos, H., Stiitzle, T.: Satllb: An online resource for research on sat. Sat (2000)
283
20. Watson, R.A., Wagner, G.P., Pavlicev, M., Weinreich, D.M., Mills, R.: The evolution of phenotypic correlations and developmental memory. Evolution (2014)
21. Beyer, H.G., Schwefel, H.P.: Evolution strategies–a comprehensive introduction.
Natural computing 1(1) (2002) 3–52

