Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Performance evaluation of evolutionary heuristics in dynamic environments

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in applying genetic algorithms to dynamic optimization problems. In this study, we present an extensive performance evaluation and comparison of 13 leading evolutionary algorithms with different characteristics on a common platform by using the moving peaks benchmark and by varying a set of problem parameters including shift length, change frequency, correlation value and number of peaks in the landscape. In order to compare solution quality or the efficiency of algorithms, the results are reported in terms of both offline error metric and dissimilarity factor, our novel comparison metric presented in this paper, which is based on signal similarity. Computational effort of each algorithm is reported in terms of average number of fitness evaluations and the average execution time. Our experimental evaluation indicates that the hybrid methods outperform the related work with respect to quality of solutions for various parameters of the given benchmark problem. Specifically, hybrid methods provide up to 24% improvement with respect to offline error and up to 30% improvement with respect to dissimilarity factor by requiring more computational effort than other methods.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Morrison RW, DeJong KA (1999) A test problem generator for non-stationary environments. In: Congress on evolutionary computation, vol 3. IEEE Press, New York, pp 2047–2053

    Google Scholar 

  2. Younes A, Calamai P, Basir O (2005) Generalized benchmark generation for dynamic combinatorial problems. In: GECCO workshop on evolutionary algorithms for dynamic optimization, pp 25–31

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lin SC, Goodman ED, Punch WF (1997) A genetic algorithm approach to dynamic job shop scheduling problems. In: Seventh international conference on genetic algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, pp 481–488

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bierwirth C, Mattfeld DC (1999) Production scheduling and rescheduling with genetic algorithms. Evol Comput 7(1):1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Branke J, Mattfeld D (2000) Anticipation in dynamic optimization: the scheduling case. In: Parallel problem solving from nature (PPSN VI). LNCS, vol 1917. Springer, Berlin, pp 253–262

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Stanhope SA, Daida JM (1998) Optimal mutation and crossover rates for a genetic algorithm operating in a dynamic environment. In: Evolutionary programming VII. LNCS, vol 1447. Springer, Berlin, pp 693–702

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Collard P, Escazut C, Gaspar A (1997) An evolutionary approach for time dependent optimization. Int J Artif Intell Tools 6(4):665–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Angeline PJ (1997) Tracking extrema in dynamic environments. In: Sixth international conference on evolutionary programming. LNCS, vol 1213. Springer, Berlin, pp 335–345

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Bäck T (1998) On the behavior of evolutionary algorithms in dynamic environments. In: IEEE international conference on evolutionary computation. IEEE Press, New York, pp 446–451

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ryan C (1997) Diploidy without dominance. In: Third Nordic workshop on genetic algorithms, pp 45–52

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mori N, Imanishi S, Kita H, Nishikawa Y (1997) Adaptation to changing environments by means of the memory based thermodynamical genetic algorithms. In: International conference on genetic algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, pp 299–306

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lewis J, Hart E, Ritchie G (1998) A comparison of dominance mechanisms and simple mutation on non-stationary problems. In: Parallel problem solving from nature. LNCS, vol 1498. Springer, Berlin, pp 139–148

    Google Scholar 

  13. Branke J (2011) The moving peaks benchmark. http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/~jbr/MovPeaks

  14. Hanshar FT, Ombuki-Berman B (2007) Dynamic vehicle routing using genetic algorithm. Appl Intell 27(1):89–99

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Favuzza S, Graditi G, Sanseverino E (2006) Adaptive and dynamic ant colony search algorithm for optimal distribution systems reinforcement strategy. Appl Intell 24(1):34–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Branke J (2001) Evolutionary optimization in dynamic environments. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  17. Branke J (1999) Memory enhanced evolutionary algorithms for changing optimization problems. In: Congress on evolutionary computation CEC99, vol 3. IEEE Press, New York, pp 1875–1882

    Google Scholar 

  18. Simoes A, Costa E (2002) Using genetic algorithms to deal with dynamic environments: a comparative study of several approaches based on promoting diversity. In: Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference—GECCO 2002, New York

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cobb HG, Gerfenstette JJ (1993) Genetic algorithms for tracking changing environments. In: 5th international conference on genetic algorithms. Morgan Kauffman, San Mateo, pp 523–530

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ayvaz D, Topcuoglu H, Gurgen F (2006) Hybrid techniques for dynamic optimization problems. In: International symp on computer and information science. LNCS. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  21. Branke J, Kaussler T, Schmidt C, Schmeck H (2000) A multi-population approach to dynamic optimization problems. In: Adaptive computing in design and manufacturing. Springer, Berlin, pp 299–308

    Google Scholar 

  22. Branke J, Schmeck H (2002) Designing evolutionary algorithms for dynamic optimization problems. In: Theory and application of evolutionary computation: recent trends. Springer, Berlin, pp 239–262

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lozano M, Herrera F, Krasnogor N, Molina D (2004) Real-coded memetic algorithms with crossover hill-climbing. Evol Comput 12(3):273–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ursem RK (2000) Multinational GA multimodal optimization techniques in dynamic environments. In: Genetic and evolutionary computation conference GECCO-2000. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, pp 19–26

    Google Scholar 

  25. Grefenstette JJ (1992) Genetic algorithms for changing environments. In: Parallel problem solving from nature, vol 2, Berlin. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 137–144

    Google Scholar 

  26. Angus D, Hendtlass T (2005) Dynamic ant colony optimization. Appl Intell 23(1):33–38

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Blackwell T, Branke J (2006) Multiswarms, exclusion, and anti-convergence in dynamic environments. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 10(4):459–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Weicker K (2002) Performance measures for dynamic environments. In: Parallel problem solving from nature. LNCS, vol 2439. Springer, Berlin, pp 64–73

    Google Scholar 

  29. Morrison R (2003) Performance measurement in dynamic environments. In: GECCO workshop on evolutionary algorithms for dynamic optimization problems, pp 5–8

    Google Scholar 

  30. De Jong K (1975) An analysis of the behavior of a class of genetic adaptive systems. PhD thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI

  31. Branke J (1999) Evolutionary algorithms for dynamic optimization problems—a survey. Technical Report 387, Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe

  32. Jin Y, Branke J (2005) Evolutionary optimization in uncertain environments—a survey. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 9(3):303–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Cobb HG (1990) An investigation into the use of hypermutation as an adaptive operator in genetic algorithms having continuous, time-dependent nonstationary environments. Technical Report AIC-90-001. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, USA

  34. Vavak F, Fogarty TC, Jukes K (1996) A genetic algorithm with variable range of local search for tracking changing environments. In: Parallel problem solving from nature. LNCS, vol 1141. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cedeno W, Vemuri VR (1997) On the use of niching for dynamic landscapes. In: International conference on evolutionary computation. IEEE Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  36. Mori N, Kita H, Nishikawa Y (1996) Adaptation to a changing environment by means of the thermodynamical genetic algorithm. In: Parallel problem solving from nature. LNCS, vol 1141. Springer, Berlin, pp 513–522

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ramsey CL, Grefenstette JJ (1993) Case-based initialization of genetic algorithms. In: International conference on genetic algorithms. LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 84–91

    Google Scholar 

  38. Bendtsen CN, Krink T (2002) Dynamic memory model for non-stationary optimization. In: Congress on evolutionary computation. IEEE Press, New York, pp 145–150

    Google Scholar 

  39. Oppacher F, Wineberg M (1999) The shifting balance genetic algorithm: improving the ga in a dynamic environment. In: Genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO), vol 1. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 504–510

    Google Scholar 

  40. Tsutsi S, Fujimoto Y, Ghosh A (1997) Forking genetic algorithms: gas with search space division schemes. Evol Comput 5(1):61–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Weicker K, Weicker N (1999) On evolution strategy optimization in dynamic environments. In: Congress on evolutionary computation, vol 3, pp 2039–2046

    Google Scholar 

  42. Trojanowski K, Michalewicz Z (1999) Searching for optima in non-stationary environments. In: Congress on evolutionary computation, vol 3. IEEE Press, New York, pp 1843–1850

    Google Scholar 

  43. Gaspar A, Collard P (1999) From gas to artificial immune systems: improving adaptation in time dependent optimization. In: Congress on evolutionary computation, vol 3. IEEE Press, New York, pp 1859–1866

    Google Scholar 

  44. Eiben AE, Smith JE (2003) Introduction to evolutionary computing. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Engineering Department, Bogazici University, Bebek, Istanbul, Turkey

    Demet Ayvaz & Fikret Gurgen

  2. Computer Engineering Department, Marmara University, Goztepe, Istanbul, Turkey

    Haluk Rahmi Topcuoglu

Authors
  1. Demet Ayvaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haluk Rahmi Topcuoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fikret Gurgen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Haluk Rahmi Topcuoglu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ayvaz, D., Topcuoglu, H.R. & Gurgen, F. Performance evaluation of evolutionary heuristics in dynamic environments. Appl Intell 37, 130–144 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-011-0317-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-011-0317-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation