Distance-Based Tournament Selection

  • Christian Oesch
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10199)


In this paper we analyze the performance of a novel genetic selection mechanism based on the classic tournament selection. This method tries to utilize the information present in the solution space of individuals, before mapping their solutions to a fitness measure. This allows to favour individuals dependent on what state the evolutionary search is in. If a population is caught up in several local optima, the correlation of the distance between the individuals and their performance tends to be lower than when the population converges to a single global optimum. We utilize this information by structuring the tournaments in a way favorable to each situation. The results of the experiments suggest that this new selection method is beneficial.


Genetic algorithms Tournament selection Search space 


  1. 1.
    Ackley, D.: A Connectionist Machine for Genetic Hillclimbing, vol. 28. Springer Science & Business Media (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dixon, L.C.W., Szegö, G.P.: The global optimization problem: an introduction. Towards Global Optim. 2, 1–15 (1978)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Golberg, D.E.: Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning, p. 102. Addion wesley, Reading (1989)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Griewank, A.O.: Generalized descent for global optimization. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 34(1), 11–39 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Homaifar, A., Qi, C.X., Lai, S.H.: Constrained optimization via genetic algorithms. Simulation 62(4), 242–253 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lance, G.N., Williams, W.T.: Computer programs for hierarchical polythetic classification (similarity analyses). Comput. J. 9(1), 60–64 (1966)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee, C.-G., Cho, D.-H., Jung, H.-K.: Niching genetic algorithm with restricted competition selection for multimodal function optimization. IEEE Trans. Magn. 35(3), 1722–1725 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mahfoud, S.W.: Niching methods for genetic algorithms. Urbana 51(95001), 62–94 (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Molga, M., Smutnicki, C.: Test functions for optimization needs (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mühlenbein, H., Schomisch, M., Born, J.: The parallel genetic algorithm as function optimizer. Parallel Comput. 17(6–7), 619–632 (1991)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosenbrock, H.H.: An automatic method for finding the greatest or least value of a function. Comput. J. 3(3), 175–184 (1960)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sareni, B., Krahenbuhl, L.: Fitness sharing and niching methods revisited. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 2(3), 97–106 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwefel, H.-P.P.: Evolution, Optimum Seeking: The Sixth Generation. Wiley, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yao, X., Liu, Y., Lin, G.: Evolutionary programming made faster. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 3(2), 82–102 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business and EconomicsUniversity of BaselBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations