Structural bias in population-based algorithms
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Challenging optimisation problems are abundant in all areas of science. Since the 1950s, scientists have developed ever-diversifying families of black box optimisation algorithms designed to address any optimisation problem, requiring only that quality of a candidate solution is calculated via a fitness function specific to the problem. For such algorithms to be successful, at least three properties are required: an effective informed sampling strategy, that guides generation of new candidates on the basis of fitnesses and locations of previously visited candidates; mechanisms to ensure efficiency, so that same candidates are not repeatedly visited; absence of structural bias, which, if present, would predispose the algorithm towards limiting its search to some regions of solution space. The first two of these properties have been extensively investigated, however the third is little understood. In this article we provide theoretical and empirical analyses that contribute to the understanding of structural bias. We prove a theorem concerning dynamics of population variance in the case of real-valued search spaces. This reveals how structural bias can manifest as non-uniform clustering of population over time. Theory predicts that structural bias is exacerbated with increasing population size and problem difficulty. These predictions reveal two previously unrecognised aspects of structural bias. Respectively, increasing population size, though ostensibly promoting diversity, will magnify any inherent structural bias, and effects of structural bias are more apparent when faced with difficult problems. Our theoretical result also suggests that two commonly used approaches to enhancing exploration, increasing population size and increasing disruptiveness of search operators, have quite distinct implications in terms of structural bias.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 22 Aug 2014.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 2; 2023: 1; 2024: 3; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.
9 papers.
- 2024Explainable Benchmarking for Iterative Optimization Heuristicscited by 10
- 2022Towards Fairness-Aware Multi-Objective Optimizationcited by 4
- 2023Deep-BIAS: Detecting Structural Bias using Explainable AIcited by 4
- 2024Evolutionary Computation and Explainable AI: A Roadmap to Understandable Intelligent Systemscited by 2
- 2022The importance of being constrained: dealing with infeasible solutions in Differential Evolution and beyondcited by 1
- 2021A Framework for Knowledge Integrated Evolutionary Algorithmscited by 0
- 2021Addressing the Multiplicity of Solutions in Optical Lens Design as a Niching Evolutionary Algorithms Computational Challengecited by 0
- 2024A Deep Dive into Effects of Structural Bias on CMA-ES Performance along Affine Trajectoriescited by 0
- 2026Benefits of Low-Cost Bio-Inspiration in the Age of Overparametrizationcited by 0
- 2026Benefits of Low-Cost Bio-Inspiration in the Age of Overparametrization22 Apr 2026
- 2024Evolutionary Computation and Explainable AI: A Roadmap to Understandable Intelligent Systems12 Jun 2024
- 2024A Deep Dive into Effects of Structural Bias on CMA-ES Performance along Affine Trajectories26 Apr 2024
- 2024Explainable Benchmarking for Iterative Optimization Heuristics31 Jan 2024
- 2023Deep-BIAS: Detecting Structural Bias using Explainable AI4 Apr 2023
- 2022Towards Fairness-Aware Multi-Objective Optimization22 Jul 2022
- 2022The importance of being constrained: dealing with infeasible solutions in Differential Evolution and beyond7 Mar 2022
- 2021Addressing the Multiplicity of Solutions in Optical Lens Design as a Niching Evolutionary Algorithms Computational Challenge21 May 2021
- 2021A Framework for Knowledge Integrated Evolutionary Algorithms31 Mar 2021