AMGA: An Adaptive and Modular Genetic Algorithm for the Traveling Salesman Problem

  • Ryoma OhiraEmail author
  • Md. Saiful Islam
  • Jun Jo
  • Bela Stantic
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 941)


The choice in selection, crossover and mutation operators can significantly impact the performance of a genetic algorithm (GA). It is found that the optimal combination of these operators are dependent on the problem characteristics and the size of the problem space. However, existing works disregard the above and focus only on introducing adaptiveness in one operator while having other operators static. With adaptive operator selection (AOS), this paper presents a novel framework for an adaptive and modular genetic algorithm (AMGA) to discover the optimal combination of the operators in each stage of the GA’s life in order to avoid premature convergence. In AMGA, the selection operator changes in an online manner to adapt the selective pressure, while the best performing crossover and mutation operators are inherited by the offspring of each generation. Experimental results demonstrate that our AMGA framework is able to find the optimal combinations of the GA operators for each generation for different instances of the traveling salesman problem (TSP) and outperforms the existing AOS models.


Adaptive genetic algorithm Modular genetic algorithm Adaptive operator selection Traveling salesman problem 


  1. 1.
    Oliver, I., Smith, D., Holland, J.R.: Study of permutation crossover operators on the traveling salesman problem. In: ICGA (1987)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Murata, T., Ishibuchi, H.: Performance evaluation of genetic algorithms for flowshop scheduling problems. In: CEC, pp. 812–817 (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abdoun, O., Abouchabaka, J., Tajani, C.: Analyzing the performance of mutation operators to solve the travelling salesman problem. Int. J. Emerg. Sci. 2, 61–77 (2012)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abdoun, O., Abouchabaka, J.: A comparative study of adaptive crossover operators for genetic algorithms to resolve the traveling salesman problem. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 31(11), 49–57 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Razali, N.M., Geraghty, J., et al.: Genetic algorithm performance with different selection strategies in solving TSP. In: WCE, vol. 2, pp. 1134–1139 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldberg, D.E., Deb, K.: A comparative analysis of selection schemes used in genetic algorithms. In: Foundations of Genetic Algorithms, vol. 1, pp. 69–93 (1991)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Črepinšek, M., Liu, S.H., Mernik, M.: Exploration and exploitation in evolutionary algorithms: a survey. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 45(3), 35 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karafotias, G., Hoogendoorn, M., Eiben, Á.E.: Parameter control in evolutionary algorithms: trends and challenges. CEC 19(2), 167–187 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Spears, W.M.: Adapting crossover in evolutionary algorithms. In: Evolutionary Programming, pp. 367–384 (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Riff, M.C., Bonnaire, X.: Inheriting parents operators: a new dynamic strategy for improving evolutionary algorithms. In: International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, pp. 333–341. Springer (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gomez, J.: Self adaptation of operator rates in evolutionary algorithms. In: Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, pp. 1162–1173. Springer (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cruz-Salinas, A.F., Perdomo, J.G.: Self-adaptation of genetic operators through genetic programming techniques. In: GECCO, pp. 913–920. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Montero, E., Riff, M.C.: Self-calibrating strategies for evolutionary approaches that solve constrained combinatorial problems. In: International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, pp. 262–267. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Montero, E., Riff, M.C.: On-the-fly calibrating strategies for evolutionary algorithms. Inf. Sci. 181(3), 552–566 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Osaba, E., Diaz, F., Onieva, E., Carballedo, R., Perallos, A.: AMCPA: a population metaheuristic with adaptive crossover probability and multi-crossover mechanism for solving combinatorial optimization problems. Int. J. Artif. Intell. 12(2), 1–23 (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Osaba, E., Onieva, E., Carballedo, R., Diaz, F., Perallos, A.: An adaptive multi-crossover population algorithm for solving routing problems. In: Nature Inspired Cooperative Strategies for Optimization, pp. 113–124 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holland, J.H.: Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Whitley, L.D., et al.: The genitor algorithm and selection pressure: Why rank-based allocation of reproductive trials is best. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, vol. 89, pp. 116–123 (1989)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baker, J.E.: Reducing bias and inefficiency in the selection algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Genetic Algorithms and their Application, pp. 14–21 (1987)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Davis, L.: Applying adaptive algorithms to epistatic domains. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 85, pp. 162–164 (1985)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Whitley, D., Starkweather, T., Shaner, D.: The traveling salesman and sequence scheduling: quality solutions using genetic edge recombination (1991)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryoma Ohira
    • 1
    Email author
  • Md. Saiful Islam
    • 1
  • Jun Jo
    • 1
  • Bela Stantic
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Information and Communication TechnologyGriffith UniversitySouthportAustralia

Personalised recommendations