Natural Computing

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 335–354 | Cite as

On the model updating operators in univariate estimation of distribution algorithms

  • Andrey G. Bronevich
  • José Valente de Oliveira


The role of the selection operation—that stochastically discriminate between individuals based on their merit—on the updating of the probability model in univariate estimation of distribution algorithms is investigated. Necessary conditions for an operator to model selection in such a way that it can be used directly for updating the probability model are postulated. A family of such operators that generalize current model updating mechanisms is proposed. A thorough theoretical analysis of these operators is presented, including a study on operator equivalence. A comprehensive set of examples is provided aiming at illustrating key concepts, main results, and their relevance.


Compact genetic algorithm Estimation of distribution algorithms Selection operator Theoretical analysis 



Andrey Bronevich is grateful to the Erasmus Mundus Triple I Consortium that supported a 10-months academic visit to the University of Algarve in 2010. This work is an outcome of a research cooperation between the authors that began with this visit. Andrey Bronevich also thanks the National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia for providing him with 1 month research grant for visiting University of Algarve in July 2014 facilitating the conclusion of the work. José Valente de Oliveira also thanks the National Research University Higher School of Economics, for inviting him for one week visit in November 2014.


  1. Baluja S (1994) Population-based incremental learning: a method for integrating genetic search based function optimization and competitive learning. Technical report CMU-CS-94-13. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. Baluja S, Davies S (1997) Using optimal dependency-trees for combinatorial optimization: learning the structure of the search space. In: Proceedings of the 14-th International Conference on Machine Learning. San Francisco, California, USA, pp 30–38Google Scholar
  3. Bengoetxea E, Larrañaga P, Bloch I, Perchant A, Boeres C (2002) Inexact graph matching by means of estimation of distribution algorithms. Pattern Recognit 35(12):2867–2880CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Ceberio J, Irurozki E, Mendiburu A, Lozano JA (2012) A review on estimation of distribution algorithms in permutation-based combinatorial optimization problems. Prog AI 1(1):103–117MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. De Bonet JS, Isbell CL, Viola P (1997) MIMIC: finding optima by estimating probability densities. In: Petsche T, Mozer MC, Jordan MI (eds) Advances in neural information processing systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 424–430Google Scholar
  6. Droste S (2006) A rigorous analysis of the compact genetic algorithm for linear functions. Nat Comput 5:257–283MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Echegoyen C, Mendiburu A, Santana R, Lozano JA (2013) On the taxonomy of optimization problems under estimation of distribution algorithms. Evolut Comput 21(3):471–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Emmendorfer LR, Pozo AT (2009) Effective linkage learning using low-order statistics and clustering. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 13(6):1233–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. González C, Lozano JA, Larrañaga P (2001) Analyzing the PBIL algorithm by means of discrete dynamical systems. Complex Syst 12(4):465–479MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Harik GR (1999) Linkage learning via probabilistic modeling in the ECGA. Technical report 99010. Illinois Genetic Algorithms Laboratory, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. Harik GR, Lobo FG, Goldberg DE (1999) The compact genetic algorithm. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 3(4):287–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hauschild M, Pelikan M (2011) An introduction and survey of estimation of distribution algorithms. Swarm Evolut Comput 1:111–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson A, Shapiro JL (2002) The importance of selection mechanisms in distribution estimation algorithms. In: Collet P, Fonlupt C, Hao JK, Lutton E, Schoenauer M (ed) Evolution artificial, vol 2310. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, pp 91–103Google Scholar
  14. Larrañaga P, Lozano JA (2001) Estimation of distribution algorithms: a new tool for evolutionary computation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, NorwellMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Lozada-Chang L, Santana R (2011) Univariate marginal distribution algorithm dynamics for a class of parametric functions with unitation constraints. Inf Sci 181(11):2340–2355MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Mühlenbein H (1997) The equation for response to selection and its use for prediction. Evolut Comput 5:303–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mühlenbein H, Mahnig T (1998) Convergence theory and applications of the factorized distribution algorithm. J Comput Inf Technol 7:19–32Google Scholar
  18. Mühlenbein H, Mahnig T (2002) Evolutionary algorithms and the Boltzmann distribution. In: DeJong KA, Poli R, Rowe J (eds) Foundation of genetic algorithms 7. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington, pp 133–150Google Scholar
  19. Mühlenbein H, Mahnig T, Rodriguez AO (1999) Schemata, distributions and graphical models in evolutionary optimization. J Heuristics 5:215–247CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Pelikan M, Goldberg DE (2000) Genetic algorithms, clustering, and the breaking of symmetry. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1917, pp 385–394Google Scholar
  21. Pelikan M, Goldberg DE (2001) Escaping hierarchical traps with competent genetic algorithms. In: Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, pp 511–518Google Scholar
  22. Pelikan M, Goldberg DE, Cantu-Paz E (2000) Linkage problem, distribution estimation, and Bayesian networks. Evolut Comput 8:311–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pelikan M, Mühlenbein H (1999) The bivariate marginal distribution algorithm. In: Chawdhry PK, Roy R, Furuhashi T (eds) Advances in soft computing—engineering design and manufacturing. Springer, Berlin, pp 521–535Google Scholar
  24. Peña J, Lozano J, Larrañaga P (2005) Globally multimodal problem optimization via an estimation of distribution algorithm based on unsupervised learning of Bayesian networks. Evolut Comput 13(1):43–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sastry K, Goldberg DE (2001) Modeling tournament selection with replacement using apparent added noise. In: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO-2001). San Francisco, California, USA, p 781Google Scholar
  26. Zhang Q (2004a) On stability of fixed points of limit models of univariate marginal distribution algorithm and factorized distribution algorithm. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 8(1):80–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zhang Q (2004b) On the convergence of a factorized distribution algorithm with truncation selection. Complexity 9(4):17–23MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zhang Q, Mühlenbein H (2004) On the convergence of a class of estimation of distribution algorithms. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 8(2):127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia
  2. 2.CEOT and FCTUniversidade do AlgarveFaroPortugal

Personalised recommendations