Operator and parameter adaptation in genetic algorithms

Abstract Genetic Algorithms are a class of powerful, robust search techniques based on genetic inheritance and the Darwinian metaphor of “Natural Selection”. These algorithms maintain a finite memory of individual points on the search landscape known as the “population”. Members of the population are usually represented as strings written over some fixed alphabet, each of which has a scalar value attached to it reflecting its quality or “fitness”. The search may be seen as the iterative application of a number of operators, such as selection, recombination and mutation, to the population with the aim of producing progressively fitter individuals.These operators are usually static, that is to say that their mechanisms, parameters, and probability of application are fixed at the beginning and constant throughout the run of the algorithm. However, there is an increasing body of evidence that not only is there no single choice of operators which is optimal for all problems, but that in fact the optimal choice of operators for a given problem will be time-variant i.e. it will depend on such factors as the degree of convergence of the population. Based on theoretical and practical approaches, a number of authors have proposed methods of adaptively controlling one or more of the operators, usually invoking some kind of “meta-learning” algorithm, in order to try and improve the performance of the Genetic Algorithm as a function optimiser.In this paper we describe the background to these approaches, and suggest a framework for their classification, based on the learning strategy used to control them, and what facets of the algorithm are susceptible to adaptation. We then review a number of significant pieces of work within the context of this setting, and draw some conclusions about the relative merits of various approaches and promising directions for future work.

[1]  Ingo Rechenberg,et al.  Evolutionsstrategie : Optimierung technischer Systeme nach Prinzipien der biologischen Evolution , 1973 .

[2]  W. Vent,et al.  Rechenberg, Ingo, Evolutionsstrategie — Optimierung technischer Systeme nach Prinzipien der biologischen Evolution. 170 S. mit 36 Abb. Frommann‐Holzboog‐Verlag. Stuttgart 1973. Broschiert , 1975 .

[3]  K. Dejong,et al.  An analysis of the behavior of a class of genetic adaptive systems , 1975 .

[4]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[5]  Kenneth Alan De Jong,et al.  An analysis of the behavior of a class of genetic adaptive systems. , 1975 .

[6]  H. P. Schwefel,et al.  Numerische Optimierung von Computermodellen mittels der Evo-lutionsstrategie , 1977 .

[7]  John J. Grefenstette,et al.  Optimization of Control Parameters for Genetic Algorithms , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[8]  J. David Schaffer,et al.  An Adaptive Crossover Distribution Mechanism for Genetic Algorithms , 1987, ICGA.

[9]  Darrell Whitley,et al.  Genitor: a different genetic algorithm , 1988 .

[10]  Rajarshi Das,et al.  A Study of Control Parameters Affecting Online Performance of Genetic Algorithms for Function Optimization , 1989, ICGA.

[11]  Terence C. Fogarty,et al.  Varying the Probability of Mutation in the Genetic Algorithm , 1989, ICGA.

[12]  Lawrence Davis,et al.  Adapting Operator Probabilities in Genetic Algorithms , 1989, ICGA.

[13]  Gilbert Syswerda,et al.  Uniform Crossover in Genetic Algorithms , 1989, ICGA.

[14]  Larry J. Eshelman,et al.  Biases in the Crossover Landscape , 1989, ICGA.

[15]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Messy Genetic Algorithms: Motivation, Analysis, and First Results , 1989, Complex Syst..

[16]  Kenneth A. De Jong,et al.  An Analysis of the Interacting Roles of Population Size and Crossover in Genetic Algorithms , 1990, PPSN.

[17]  Reinhard Männer,et al.  Towards an Optimal Mutation Probability for Genetic Algorithms , 1990, PPSN.

[18]  Larry J. Eshelman,et al.  Preventing Premature Convergence in Genetic Algorithms by Preventing Incest , 1991, ICGA.

[19]  Larry J. Eshelman,et al.  On Crossover as an Evolutionarily Viable Strategy , 1991, ICGA.

[20]  Thomas Bck,et al.  Self-adaptation in genetic algorithms , 1991 .

[21]  Yukinori Kakazu,et al.  Adaptive Search Strategy for Genetic Algorithms with Additional Genetic Algorithms , 1992, PPSN.

[22]  Robert E. Smith,et al.  Adaptively Resizing Populations: An Algorithm and Analysis , 1993, ICGA.

[23]  B. Freisleben,et al.  Optimization of Genetic Algorithms by Genetic Algorithms , 1993 .

[24]  John J. Grefenstette,et al.  Genetic Algorithms for Tracking Changing Environments , 1993, ICGA.

[25]  Hideyuki Takagi,et al.  Dynamic Control of Genetic Algorithms Using Fuzzy Logic Techniques , 1993, ICGA.

[26]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  GAVaPS-a genetic algorithm with varying population size , 1994, Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence.

[27]  Michèle Sebag,et al.  Controlling Crossover through Inductive Learning , 1994, PPSN.

[28]  Dirk Schlierkamp Voosen Strategy Adaptation by Competing Subpopulations , 1994 .

[29]  Peter Ross,et al.  Fast Practical Evolutionary Timetabling , 1994, Evolutionary Computing, AISB Workshop.

[30]  Heinz Mühlenbein,et al.  Strategy Adaption by Competing Subpopulations , 1994, PPSN.

[31]  Christian Bierwirth,et al.  Control of Parallel Population Dynamics by Social-Like Behavior of GA-Individuals , 1994, PPSN.

[32]  Lalit M. Patnaik,et al.  Adaptive probabilities of crossover and mutation in genetic algorithms , 1994, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[33]  Peter J. Angeline,et al.  Adaptive and Self-adaptive Evolutionary Computations , 1995 .

[34]  William M. Spears,et al.  Adapting Crossover in Evolutionary Algorithms , 1995, Evolutionary Programming.

[35]  Bryant A. Julstrom,et al.  What Have You Done for Me Lately? Adapting Operator Probabilities in a Steady-State Genetic Algorithm , 1995, ICGA.

[36]  W. Spears,et al.  On the Virtues of Parameterized Uniform Crossover , 1995 .

[37]  Günter Rudolph,et al.  A cellular genetic algorithm with self-adjusting acceptance threshold , 1995 .

[38]  Robert E. Smith,et al.  Adaptively Resizing Populations: Algorithm, Analysis, and First Results , 1993, Complex Syst..

[39]  Jan Paredis,et al.  The Symbiotic Evolution of Solutions and Their Representations , 1995, International Conference on Genetic Algorithms.

[40]  Jim Smith,et al.  An Adaptive Poly-Parental Recombination Strategy , 1995, Evolutionary Computing, AISB Workshop.

[41]  James R. Levenick Metabits: Generic Endogenous Crossover Control , 1995, ICGA.

[42]  Jim Smith,et al.  Recombination strategy adaptation via evolution of gene linkage , 1996, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

[43]  Joanna Lis,et al.  Parallel genetic algorithm with the dynamic control parameter , 1996, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

[44]  Jim Smith,et al.  Adaptively Parameterised Evolutionary Systems: Self-Adaptive Recombination and Mutation in a Genetic Algorithm , 1996, PPSN.

[45]  Jim Smith,et al.  Self adaptation of mutation rates in a steady state genetic algorithm , 1996, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

[46]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  Self-Adaptive Genetic Algorithm for Numeric Functions , 1996, PPSN.

[47]  Schloss Birlinghoven,et al.  How Genetic Algorithms Really Work I.mutation and Hillclimbing , 2022 .