Design and Management of Complex Technical Processes and Systems by Means of Computational Intelligence Methods on the Choice of the Offspring Population Size in Evolutionary Algorithms on the Choice of the Offspring Population Size in Evolutionary Algorithms

Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) generally come with a large number of parameters that have to be set before the algorithm can be used. Finding appropriate settings is a diffi- cult task. The influence of these parameters on the efficiency of the search performed by an evolutionary algorithm can be very high. But there is still a lack of theoretically justified guidelines to help the practitioner find good values for these parameters. One such parameter is the offspring population size. Using a simplified but still realistic evolutionary algorithm, a thorough analysis of the effects of the offspring population size is presented. The result is a much better understanding of the role of offspring population size in an EA and suggests a simple way to dynamically adapt this parameter when necessary.

[1]  Hans-Paul Schwefel,et al.  Evolution and Optimum Seeking: The Sixth Generation , 1993 .

[2]  Carsten Witt,et al.  Runtime Analysis of the ( μ +1) EA on Simple Pseudo-Boolean Functions , 2006 .

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

[4]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Evolutionary algorithms in theory and practice - evolution strategies, evolutionary programming, genetic algorithms , 1996 .

[5]  D. Fogel.  Evolutionary algorithms in theory and practice , 1997, Complex..

[6]  Hans-Paul Schwefel,et al.  Evolution and optimum seeking , 1995, Sixth-generation computer technology series.

[7]  Elena Marchiori,et al.  Evolutionary Algorithms with On-the-Fly Population Size Adjustment , 2004, PPSN.

[8]  Thomas Jansen,et al.  On the analysis of the (1+1) evolutionary algorithm , 2002, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[9]  Rajeev Motwani,et al.  Randomized Algorithms , 1995, SIGA.

[10]  Ingo Wegener,et al.  Methods for the Analysis of Evolutionary Algorithms on Pseudo-Boolean Functions , 2003 .

[11]  N. Hansen,et al.  Sizing the population with respect to the local progress in (1,/spl lambda/)-evolution strategies-a theoretical analysis , 1995, Proceedings of 1995 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

[12]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Evolutionary computation: Toward a new philosophy of machine intelligence , 1997, Complex..

[13]  David B. Fogel,et al.  Evolutionary Computation: Towards a New Philosophy of Machine Intelligence , 1995 .

[14]  Clifford Stein,et al.  Introduction to Algorithms, 2nd edition. , 2001 .

[15]  Ingo Wegener,et al.  Evolutionary Algorithms and the Maximum Matching Problem , 2003, STACS.

[16]  Thomas Jansen,et al.  Design and Management of Complex Technical Processes and Systems by means of Computational Intelligence Methods Evolutionary Algorithms-How to Cope With Plateaus of Constant Fitness and When to Reject Strings of the Same Fitness , 2001 .

[17]  Hans-Georg Beyer,et al.  The Theory of Evolution Strategies , 2001, Natural Computing Series.

[18]  Thomas Jansen,et al.  On the Optimization of Unimodal Functions with the (1 + 1) Evolutionary Algorithm , 1998, PPSN.

[19]  Thomas Jansen,et al.  An Analysis Of The Role Of Offspring Population Size In EAs , 2002, GECCO.

[20]  Ingo Wegener,et al.  The one-dimensional Ising model: Mutation versus recombination , 2005, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[21]  D. Ackley.  A connectionist machine for genetic hillclimbing , 1987 .

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

[23]  Thomas Jansen,et al.  Design and Management of Complex Technical Processes and Systems by means of Computational Intelligence Methods On the Choice of the Mutation Probability for the ( 1 + 1 ) EA , 2006 .