Adapting Crossover in Evolutionary Algorithms

One of the issues in evolutionary algorithms (EAs) is the relative importance of two search operators: mutation and crossover. Genetic algorithms (GAs) and genetic programming (GP) stress the role of crossover, while evolutionary programming (EP) and evolution strategies (ESs) stress the role of mutation. The existence of many different forms of crossover further complicates the issue. Despite theoretical analysis, it appears difficult to decide a priori which form of crossover to use, or even if crossover should be used at all. One possible solution to this difficulty is to have the EA be self-adaptive, i.e., to have the EA dynamically modify which forms of crossover to use and how often to use them, as it solves a problem. This paper describes an adaptive mechanism for controlling the use of crossover in an EA and explores the behavior of this mechanism in a number of different situations. An improvement to the adaptive mechanism is then presented. Surprisingly this improvement can also be used to enhance performance in a non-adaptive EA.

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

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

[3]  William M. Spears,et al.  A Study of Crossover Operators in Genetic Programming , 1991, ISMIS.

[4]  William M. Spears,et al.  Crossover or Mutation? , 1992, FOGA.

[5]  Tony White,et al.  Adaptive Crossover Using Automata , 1994, PPSN.

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

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

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

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

[10]  Lashon B. Booker,et al.  Recombination Distributions for Genetic Algorithms , 1992, FOGA.

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

[12]  Gilbert Syswerda,et al.  Simulated Crossover in Genetic Algorithms , 1992, FOGA.

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

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

[15]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  An Overview of Evolutionary Algorithms for Parameter Optimization , 1993, Evolutionary Computation.

[16]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  A Survey of Evolution Strategies , 1991, ICGA.

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

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

[19]  Kenneth A. De Jong,et al.  Using Markov Chains to Analyze GAFOs , 1994, FOGA.

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

[21]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  An Overview of Evolutionary Computation , 1993, ECML.

[22]  Lawrence J. Fogel,et al.  Artificial Intelligence through Simulated Evolution , 1966 .

[23]  Gunar E. Liepins,et al.  Schema Disruption , 1991, ICGA.

[24]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .