On Modelling Evolutionary Algorithm Implementations through Co-operating Populations

  • Panagiotis Adamidis
  • Vasilios Petridis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2439)


In this paper we present a framework for modelling Simple and Parallel Evolutionary Algorithm implementations as Co-operating Populations. Using this framework, a method called Co-operating Populations with Different Evolution Behaviours (CoPDEB), for generalizing and improving the performance of Parallel Evolutionary Algorithms (PEAs) is also presented. The main idea of CoPDEB is to maintain a number of populations exhibiting different evolution behaviours. CoPDEB was tested on three problems (the optimization of a real function, the TSP problem and the problem of training a Recurrent Artificial Neural Network), and appears to significantly increase the problemsolving capabilities over PEAs with the same evolution behaviour on each population. This paper also studies the effect of the migration rate (Epoch) and the population size on the performance of both PEAs and CoPDEB.


Search Space Evolution Behaviour Parallel Genetic Algorithm Recombination Probability Recombination Operator 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    P. Adamidis and V. Petridis, On the Parallelization of Artificial Neural Networks and Genetic Algorithms, .Intern. J. Computer Math. 67 (1998), 105–125.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. Alba, J. M. Troya, A Survey of Parallel Distributed Genetic Algorithms, Complexity 4(4) (1999), 31–52.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. Blickle and L. Thiele, A comparison of selection schemes used in evolutionary algorithms, Evolutionary Computation (Winter 96), 4 (4) (1996), 361–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Cantú-Paz, A survey of parallel genetic algorithms. Calculateurs Paralleles, Reseaux et Systems Repartis 10, No. 2 (1998) pp. 141–171Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    U. K. Chakraborty, K. Deb, and M. Chakraborty, Analysis of selection algorithms: A Markov chain approach, Evolutionary Computation 4 (2) (Summer 1996), 133–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. E. Goldberg, H. Kargupta, J. Horn, and E. Cantu-Paz, “Critical Deme Size for Serial and Parallel Genetic Algorithms”, IlliGAL Report No. 95002, Illinois Genetic Algorithms Lab., Univ of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1995Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    V. Petridis and S. Kazarlis, Varying quality function in genetic algorithms and the cutting problem, in “Proc First IEEE CEC”, vol I, pp. 166–169, IEEE, 1994Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    V. Petridis and A. Papaikonomou, Recurrent Neural Networks as Pattern Generators, in “Proc IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks”, pp. 872–875, 1994Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Srinivas and L. M. Patnaik, Adaptive Probabilities of Crossover and Mutation in Genetic Algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 24 (4).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Törn, A., & Zilinskas, A. (1989). Global Optimization. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 350, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Panagiotis Adamidis
    • 1
  • Vasilios Petridis
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept of InformaticsTechnological Educational Institute of ThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Dept of Electrical & Computer Eng.Aristotle University of ThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations