Binary Representations of Integers and the Performance of Selectorecombinative Genetic Algorithms
When using representations for genetic algorithms (GAs) every optimization problem can be separated into a genotype-phenotype and a phenotype-fitness mapping. The genotype-phenotype mapping is the used representation and the phenotype-fitness mapping is the problem that should be solved.
This paper investigates how the use of different binary representations of integers infiuences the performance of selectorecombinative GAs using only crossover and no mutation. It is illustrated that the used representation strongly influences the performance of GAs. The binary and Gray encoding are two examples for assigning bitstring genotypes to integer phenotypes. Focusing the investigation on these two encodings reveals that for the easy integer one-max problem selectorecombinative GAs perform better using binary encoding than using Gray encoding. This is surprising as binary encoding is afiected with problems due to the Hamming cliff and because there are proofs that show the superiority of Gray encoding. However, the performance of selectorecombinative GAs using binary representations of integers is determined by the resulting building blocks and not by the structure of the search space resulting from the Hamming distances between the individuals. Therefore, the performance difference between the encodings can be explained by analyzing the fitness of the resulting schemata.
KeywordsGenetic Algorithm Binary String Binary Representation Uniform Crossover Increase Population Size
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Caruana & Schaffer, 1988.Caruana, R. A., & Schaffer, J. D. (1988). Representation and hidden bias: Gray vs. binary coding for genetic algorithms. In Laird, L. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Machine Learning (pp. 153–161). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
- Goldberg, 1989.
- Gray, 1953.Gray, F. (1953, March). Pulse code communications. U.S. Patent 2632058.Google Scholar
- Holland, 1975.Holland, J. H. (1975). Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
- Liepins & Vose, 1990.
- Rana & Whitley, 1997.Rana, S. B., & Whitley, L. D. (1997). Bit representations with a twist. In Bäck, T. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Genetic Algorithms (pp. 188–195). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
- Rothlauf, 2001.Rothlauf, F. (2001). Towards a theory of representations for genetic and evolutionary algorithms: Development of basic concepts and their application to binary and tree representations. Doctoral dissertation, University of Bayreuth/Germany.Google Scholar
- Schaffer, Caruana, Eshelman, & Das, 1989.Schaffer, J. D., Caruana, R. A., Eshelman, L. J., & Das, R. (1989). A study of control parameters affecting online performance of genetic algorithms for function optimization. In Schaffer, J. D. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Genetic Algorithms (pp. 51–60). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
- Whitley, 1999.Whitley, D. (1999). A free lunch proof for gray versus binary encodings. In Banzhaf, W., Daida, J., Eiben, A. E., Garzon, M. H., Honavar, V., Jakiela, M., & Smith, R. E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference: Volume 1 (pp. 726–733). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
- Whitley & Rana, 1997.Whitley, D., & Rana, S. (1997). Representation, search, and genetic algorithms. In Proceedings of the 14th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-97) (pp. 497–502). AAAI Press/MIT Press.Google Scholar