Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

AISB Workshop on Evolutionary Computing

AISB EC 1994: Evolutionary Computing pp 80–94Cite as

An empirical comparison of selection methods in evolutionary algorithms

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 865))

Abstract

Selection methods in Evolutionary Algorithms, including Genetic Algorithms, Evolution Strategies (ES) and Evolutionary Programming, (EP) are compared by observing the rate of convergence on three idealised problems. The first considers selection only, the second introduces mutation as a source of variation, the third also adds in evaluation noise. Fitness proportionate selection suffers from scaling problems: a number of techniques to reduce these are illustrated. The sampling errors caused by roulette wheel and tournament selection are demonstrated. The EP selection model is shown to be equivalent to an ES model in one form, and surprisingly similar to fitness proportionate selection in another. Generational models are shown to be remarkably immune to evaluation noise, models that retain parents much less so.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. J.E Baker. Adaptive selection methods for genetic algorithms. In J.J. Grefenstette, editor, Proceedings of an international conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 101–111. Lawrence Earlbaum, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  2. J.E Baker. Reducing bias and inefficiency in the selection algorithm. In J.J. Grefenstette, editor, Proceedings of the second international conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 14–21. Lawrence Earlbaum, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  3. L. Davis, editor. Handbook of genetic algorithms. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  4. K. Deb and D.E. Goldberg. An investigation of niche and species formation in genetic function optimization. In J.D. Schaffer, editor, Proceedings of the third international conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 42–50. Morgan Kaufmann, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  5. K.A. DeJong. An analysis of the behavior of a class of genetic adaptive systems. PhD thesis, University of Michigan, Dissertation Abstracts International 36(10), 5140B, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  6. K.A. DeJong and J. Sarma. Generation gaps revisited. In D. Whitley, editor, Foundations of Genetic Algorithms 2, pages 19–28. Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  7. L.J. Eshelman. The CHC adaptive search algorithm: how to have safe search when engaging in nontraditional genetic recombination. In G.J.E. Rawlins, editor, Foundations of Genetic Algorithms, pages 265–283. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  8. D.B. Fogel. An evolutionary approach to the travelling salesman problem. Biological Cybernetics, 60:139–144, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  9. S. Forrest. Documentation for prisoner's dilemma and norms programs that use the genetic algorithm. Technical report, Univ. of Michigan, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  10. D.E Goldberg and K. Deb. A comparative analysis of selection schemes used in genetic algorithms. In G.J.E. Rawlins, editor, Foundations of Genetic Algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  11. F. Hoffmeister and T. BÄck. Genetic algorithms and evolution strategies: similarities and differences. Technical Report SYS-1/92, University of Dortmund, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J.H. Holland. Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  13. S. Nolfi, J.L. Elman, and D. Parisi. Learning and evolution in neural networks. Technical Report CRL TR 9019, UCSD, July 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  14. G. Syswerda. Uniform crossover in genetic algorithms. In J.D. Schaffer, editor, Proceedings of the third international conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 2–9. Morgan Kaufmann, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  15. G. Syswerda. A study of reproduction in generational and steady-state genetic algorithms. In G.J.E. Rawlins, editor, Foundations of Genetic Algorithms, pages 94–101. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  16. D. Whitley. The genitor algorithm and selection pressure: why rank-based allocation of trials is best. In J.D. Schaffer, editor, Proceedings of the third international conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 116–121. Morgan Kaufmann, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  17. D. Whitley and J. Knuth. Genitor: a different genetic algorithm. In Proceedings of the Rocky Mountain Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 118–130. Denver Colorado, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Stirling, FK9 4LA, Scotland

    Peter J. B. Hancock

Authors
  1. Peter J. B. Hancock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Terence C. Fogarty

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1994 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Hancock, P.J.B. (1994). An empirical comparison of selection methods in evolutionary algorithms. In: Fogarty, T.C. (eds) Evolutionary Computing. AISB EC 1994. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 865. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58483-8_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58483-8_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-58483-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48999-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation