Use of Local Ranking in Cellular Genetic Algorithms with Two Neighborhood Structures

  • Hisao Ishibuchi
  • Noritaka Tsukamoto
  • Yusuke Nojima
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5361)


In our former study (Ishibuchi et al. 2006), we proposed the use of two neighborhood structures in a cellular genetic algorithm. One is for local selection where a pair of parents is selected from neighboring cells for mating. This neighborhood structure has been usually used in standard cellular algorithms. The other is for local competition, which is used to define local elitism and local ranking. We have already examined the effect of local elitism on the performance of our cellular genetic algorithm (Ishibuchi et al. 2008). In this paper, we examine the effect of using local ranking as the fitness of each individual. First we explain our cellular genetic algorithm with the two neighborhood structures. Then we examine its two variants with/without local ranking. In one variant, the local ranking of an individual among its neighbors is used as its fitness. Such a fitness redefinition scheme can be viewed as a kind of noise in parent selection. The other variant uses the original fitness value (instead of its local ranking). Through computational experiments, we demonstrate that the use of the local ranking improves the ability to escape from local optima.


Knapsack Problem Neighborhood Structure Local Selection Local Competition Local Elitism 
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.
    Gorges-Schleuter, M.: ASPARAGOS: An Asynchronous Parallel Genetic Optimization Strategy. In: Proc. of 3rd International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pp. 422–427 (1989)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Manderick, B., Spiessens, P.: Fine-Grained Parallel Genetic Algorithms. In: Proc. of 3rd International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pp. 428–433 (1989)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Spiessens, P., Manderick, B.: A Massively Parallel Genetic Algorithm: Implementation and First Analysis. In: Proc. of 4th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pp. 279–286 (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Whitley, D.: Cellular Genetic Algorithms. In: Proc. of 5th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, p. 658 (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alba, E., Dorronsoro, B.: The Exploration/Exploitation Tradeoff in Dynamic Cellular Genetic Algorithms. IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation 9, 126–142 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alba, E., Tomassini, M.: Parallelism and Evolutionary Algorithms. IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation 6, 443–462 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cantu-Paz, E.: Efficient and Accurate Parallel Genetic Algorithms. Springer, Berlin (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giacobini, M., Tomassini, M., Tettamanzi, A.G.B., Alba, E.: Selection Intensity in Cellular Evolutionary Algorithms for Regular Lattices. IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation 9, 489–505 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Slatkin, M., Wilson, D.S.: Coevolution in Structured Demes. Proc. of National Academy of Sciences 76, 2084–2087 (1979)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wilson, D.S.: Structured Demes and the Evolution of Group-Advantageous Traits. The American Naturalist 111, 157–185 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wilson, D.S.: Structured Demes and Trait-Group Variation. The American Naturalist 113, 606–610 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ifti, M., Killingback, T., Doebelic, M.: Effects of Neighborhood Size and Connectivity on the Spatial Continuous Prisoner’s Dilemma. Journal of Theoretical Biology 231, 97–106 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ishibuchi, H., Namikawa, N.: Evolution of Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma Game Strategies in Structured Demes under Random Pairing in Game Playing. IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation 9, 552–561 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ishibuchi, H., Doi, T., Nojima, Y.: Effects of Using Two Neighborhood Structures in Cellular Genetic Algorithms for Function Optimization. In: Runarsson, T.P., Beyer, H.-G., Burke, E.K., Merelo-Guervós, J.J., Whitley, L.D., Yao, X. (eds.) PPSN 2006. LNCS, vol. 4193, pp. 949–958. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ishibuchi, H., Tsukamoto, N., Nojima, Y.: Examining the Effect of Elitism in Cellular Genetic Algorithms using Two Neighborhood Structures. In: Rudolph, G., Jansen, T., Lucas, S., Poloni, C., Beume, N. (eds.) PPSN 2008. LNCS, vol. 5199. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zitzler, E., Thiele, L.: Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: A Comparative Case Study and the Strength Pareto Approach. IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation 3, 257–271 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hisao Ishibuchi
    • 1
  • Noritaka Tsukamoto
    • 1
  • Yusuke Nojima
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Intelligent Systems, Graduate School of EngineeringOsaka Prefecture UniversityOsakaJapan

Personalised recommendations