Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A modification to classical evolutionary programming by shifting strategy parameters

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many methods have been recently suggested for promoting the performance of Evolutionary Programming (EP) in finding the optimum point of functions or applications. EP has some shortcomings that slow down its convergence to the global minimum, especially for multimodal functions. As it is known, mutation is one of the most important operators in EP, which produces new attributes in variables. Mutation must be kept under control; otherwise, it destroys heritage information. In EP, mutation is implemented by adding strategy parameters to variable vectors of parents to produce offspring. When one of the strategy parameters is a large value, adding it to the related variable causes abrupt changes in that variable. Thus, the variable grows with large steps and deviates far from the optimum point, whereas some of the other variables do not sense considerable changes. If this event continues for more iterations, the variable will go further. This event slows down EP in some iterations. To avoid such an occurrence, this paper introduces a new method that can overcome these disadvantages and enhance the performance of classical evolutionary programming. This paper describes a modification of evolutionary programming by using a rotational method to prevent large and small changes to the strategy parameters. This method adds one function to the mutation operator. This function operates on strategy parameters and changes the sequence of these parameters. Because this method does not directly operate on variables, it will not destroy the heritage information of the parents. This method was tested on fifty well-known test functions used in the literature and was compared with nine well-known EP variants. The results are robust and demonstrate the efficiency of the technique.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sivanandam SN, Deepa SN (2008) Introduction to genetic algorithms. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Holland JH (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. University of Michigan Press, Ann Harbor

    Google Scholar 

  3. Koza J (1992) Genetic programming: on the programming of computers by means of natural selection. MIT Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Rechenberg I (1973) Evolutionsstrategie: optimierung technischer systeme nach PrinzISien der biologischen evolution. Frommann-Holzboog, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fogel LJ (1966) Artificial intelligence through simulated evolution. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Bäck T, Schwefel HP (1993) An overview of evolutionary algorithms for parameter optimization. Evol Comput 1(1):1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ghosh A, Dehuri S (2004) Evolutionary algorithms for multi-criterion optimization: a survey. Int J Comput Inf Sci 2(1)

  8. Narihisa H, Kohmoto K, Taniguchi T, Ohta M, Katayama K (2006) Evolutionary programming with only using exponential mutation. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computations, Sheraton Vancouver Wall Centre Hote, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 16–21

    Google Scholar 

  9. Yao X, Liu Y, Lin G (1999) Evolutionary programming made faster. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 3(2)

  10. Lee CY, Song Y (1999) Evolutionary programming using the levy probability distribution. In: Proc of genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO’99). Morgan Kaufman, San Mateo, pp 886–893

    Google Scholar 

  11. Narihisa H, Kohmoto K, Katayama K (2002) Evolutionary programming with double exponential probability distribution. In: Proc of the second international association of science and technology for development (IASTED) international conference on artificial intelligence and applications (AIA2002), pp 358–363

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kohmoto K, Narihisa H, Katayama K (2002) Evolutionary programming using exponential mutation. In: Proc of the 6th world multiconference on systematics, cybernetics and informatics, USA. July 14–18. Computer science 2, vol 11, pp 405–410

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chellapilla K (1998) Combining mutation operators in evolutionary programming. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 2(3)

  14. Fogel D, Fogel L, Atmar J (1991) Meta-evolutionary programming. In: Chen R (ed) Proc of the 25th conference on signals, systems and computers. Maple Press, San Jose, pp 540–545

    Google Scholar 

  15. Yang S, Jiao L (2003) The quantum evolutionary programming. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on computational intelligence and multimedia applications (ICCIMA’03)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Weibull JW (1995) Evolutionary game theory. MIT Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Yao X, Liu Y (1998) “Scaling up evolutionary programming algorithms, evolutionary programming” VII. In: Proc of the seventh annual conference on evolutionary programming (EP98). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1447. Springer, Berlin, pp 103–112

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Dong H, He J, Huang H, Hou W (2007) Evolutionary programming using mixed mutation strategy. Inf Sci 177(1):312–327

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee CY, Yao X (2004) Evolutionary programming using mutations based on the levy probability distribution. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 8(1)

  20. Wu H, He J, Yao X (2005) A online demo of evolutionary programming using mixed mutation strategy for solving function optimization. UKCI, 264–271

  21. Chellapilla K, Fogel DB Two new mutation operators for enhanced search and optimization in evolutionary programming. In: Proc SPIE int symp on optical science and engineering instrument. SPIE Press, Bellingham, pp 260–269

  22. Alipouri Yo, Poshtan J, Alipouri Ya, Alipour MR (2012) Momentum coefficient for promoting accuracy and convergence speed of evolutionary programming. Appl Soft Comput 12:1765–1786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mallipeddi R, Suganthan PN (2008) Evaluation of novel adaptive evolutionary programming on four constraint handling techniques. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, pp 4045–4052

    Google Scholar 

  24. Liang KH, Yao X, Newton CS (2001) Adapting self-adaptive parameters in evolutionary algorithms. Appl Intell 15:171–180

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Liang KH, Yao X, Liu Y, Newton C, Hoffman D (1999) An experimental investigation of self-adaptation in evolutionary programming. In: Evolutionary programming VII: proc of the seventh annual conference on evolutionary programming

    Google Scholar 

  26. Vologodskii AV (1999) Biophysical chemistry textbook, 5th edn. Online book, Bloomfield

  27. Schwefel HP (1981) Numerical optimization of computer models. Wiley, Chichester

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Montaz MA, Khompatraporn C, Zabinsky ZB (2005) A numerical evaluation of several stochastic algorithms on selected continuous global optimization test problems. J Glob Optim

  29. Chellapilla K, Rao S (1998) Optimization of bilinear time series models using fast evolutionary programming. IEEE Signal Process Lett 5(2)

  30. Derrac J, García S, Molina D, Herrera F (2011) A practical tutorial on the use of on parametric statistical tests as a methodology for comparing evolutionary and swarm intelligence algorithms. Swarm Evol Comput 1:3–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Doksum K (1967) Robust procedures for some linear models with one observation per cell. Ann Math Stat 38:878–883

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. García S, Fernández A, Luengo J, Herrera F (2010) Advanced nonparametric tests for multiple comparisons in the design of experiments in computational intelligence and data mining: experimental analysis of power. Inf Sci 180:2044–2064

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Electrical Engineering Department, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

    Yousef Alipouri & Javad Poshtan

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

    Yagub Alipouri

Authors
  1. Yousef Alipouri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Javad Poshtan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yagub Alipouri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Javad Poshtan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alipouri, Y., Poshtan, J. & Alipouri, Y. A modification to classical evolutionary programming by shifting strategy parameters. Appl Intell 38, 175–192 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-012-0364-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-012-0364-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation