Cláudio F. Lima
Fernando G. Lobo
ABSTRACT
This paper presents an approach to combine competent crossover and mutation operators via probabilistic model building. Both operators are based on the probabilistic model building procedure of the extended compact genetic algorithm (eCGA). The model sampling procedure of eCGA, which mimics the behavior of an idealized recombination---where the building blocks (BBs) are exchanged without disruption---is used as the competent crossover operator. On the other hand, a recently proposed BB-wise mutation operator---which uses the BB partition information to perform local search in the BB space---is used as the competent mutation operator. The resulting algorithm, called hybrid extended compact genetic algorithm (heCGA), makes use of the problem decomposition information for (1) effective recombination of BBs and (2) effective local search in the BB neighborhood. The proposed approach is tested on different problems that combine the core of three well known problem difficulty dimensions: deception, scaling, and noise. The results show that, in the absence of domain knowledge, the hybrid approach is more robust than either single-operator-based approach.
- T. Bäck. Evolutionary Algorithms in Theory and Practice. Oxford University Press, New York, 1996. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- H.-G. Beyer. Toward a theory of evolution strategies: Self-adaptation. Evolutionary Computation, 3(3):311--347, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Deb and D. E. Goldberg. Analyzing deception in trap functions. Foundations of Genetic Algorithms 2, pages 93--108, 1993.Google Scholar
- D. E. Goldberg. The Design of Innovation - Lessons from and for Competent Genetic Algorithms. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. E. Goldberg, B. Korb, and K. Deb. Messy genetic algorithms: Motivation, analysis, and first results. Complex Systems, 3(5):493--530, 1989.Google Scholar
- N. Hansen and A. Ostermeier. Completely derandomized self-adaptation in evolution strategies. Evolutionary Computation, 9(2):159--195, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. R. Harik. Linkage learning via probabilistic modeling in the ECGA. IlliGAL Report No. 99010, Illinois Genetic Algorithms Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 1999.Google Scholar
- W. E. Hart. Adaptive global optimization with local search. PhD thesis, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, 1994. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Moscato. On evolution, search, optimization, genetic algorithms and martial arts: Towards memetic algorithms. Technical Report C3P 826, Caltech Concurrent Computation Program, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, 1989.Google Scholar
- H. Mühlenbein. How genetic algorithms really work: I.Mutation and Hillclimbing. In R. Männer and et al., editors, Parallel Problem Solving from Nature 2, pages 15--25. Elsevier Science, 1992.Google Scholar
- M. Pelikan, D. E. Goldberg, and E. Cantú-Paz. Bayesian optimization algorithm, population sizing, and time to convergence. In D. Whitley and et al., editors, Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO-2000), pages 275--282. Morgan Kaufmann, 2000.Google Scholar
- M. Pelikan, D. E. Goldberg, and E. Cantú-Paz. BOA: The Bayesian Optimization Algorithm. In W. Banzhaf and et al., editors, Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference GECCO-99, pages 525--532. Morgan Kaufmann, 1999.Google Scholar
- M. Pelikan, K. Sastry, and D. E. Goldberg. Scalability of the bayesian optimization algorithm. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 31(3):221--258, 2003.Google ScholarCross Ref
- I. Rechenberg. Evolutionsstrategie Optimierung technischer systeme nach prinzipien der biologischen evolution. Friedrich Frommann Verlag, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, 1973.Google Scholar
- K. Sastry and D. E. Goldberg. Designing competent mutation operators via probabilistic model building of neighborhoods. In K. Deb and et al., editors, Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO-2004), Part II, LNCS 3103, pages 114--125. Springer, 2004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. Sastry and D. E. Goldberg. Let's get ready to rumble: Crossover versus mutation head to head. In K. Deb and et al., editors, Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO-2004), Part II, LNCS 3103, pages 126--137. Springer, 2004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- H.-P. Schwefel. Numerische optimierung von computer-modellen mittels der evolutionsstrategie. In Interdisziplinäre Systemforschung, chapter 1, pages 5--8. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel and Stuttgart, 1977.Google Scholar
- A. Sinha. A survey of hybrid genetic and evolutionary algorithms. IlliGAL Report No. 2003004, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois Genetic Algorithms Laboratory, Urbana, IL, 2003.Google Scholar
- W. M. Spears. Crossover or mutation? In D. Whitley, editor, Foundations of Genetic Algorithms 2, pages 221--237. Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.Google Scholar
- T.-L. Yu, D. E. Goldberg, A. Yassine, and Y.-P. Chen. A genetic algorithm design inspired by organizational theory: Pilot study of a dependency structure matrix driven genetic algorithm. In Proceedings of the Artificial Neural Networks in Engineering 2003 (ANNIE 2003), pages 327--332, 2003.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Combining competent crossover and mutation operators: a probabilistic model building approach
Recommendations
A parameter-less genetic algorithm with customized crossover and mutation operators
GECCO '11: Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computationGenetic algorithm is one of the well-known population based meta-heuristics. The reasonable performance of the algorithm on a wide variety of problems as well as its simplicity made this algorithm a first choice in lots of cases. However, the algorithm ...
Evolution of Appropriate Crossover and Mutation Operators in a Genetic Process
Traditional genetic algorithms use only one crossover and one mutation operator to generate the next generation. The chosen crossover and mutation operators are critical to the success of genetic algorithms. Different crossover or mutation operators, ...
Crossover and mutation operators for grammar-guided genetic programming
AbstractThis paper proposes a new grammar-guided genetic programming (GGGP) system by introducing two original genetic operators: crossover and mutation, which most influence the evolution process. The first, the so-called grammar-based crossover operator,...
Comments