Advertisement

Diversity and Diversification in Genetic Algorithms: Some Connections with Tabu Search

  • Colin Reeves

Abstract

Genetic Algorithms (GAs) have been used very successfully to solve a variety of optimisation problems, but despite their successes, there are a number of outstanding problems in their implementation. One of the most pervasive problems is that of premature convergence of the process, usually associated with a loss of diversity in the population of chromosomes.

In this paper, we will first review some of the existing solutions to the problem of preserving diversity. These all use the basic GA framework; there are also extreme solutions such as the invariant GA which dispenses with the fundamental selection process altogether.

We argue that an underlying (and largely unaddressed) problem is the GA’s lack of memory: it is here that some connections with the concept of Tabu Search (TS) may prove fruitful. In TS the search is characterised in terms of the twin concepts of intensification and diversification. Intensification relates to the ability of the search strategy to focus on a particular area (or particular areas) of the search space in order to find improved solutions. In this sense, a GA as customarily conceived is clearly an intensifying process. Diversification is achieved by the incorporation of memory into its basic structures — that is, structures are devised which can record the history of the search.

We will describe these mechanisms in more detail, with particular reference in the context of this paper to their diversifying effects. From this standpoint we will then suggest some ways in which these mechanisms can be adapted so as to offer a systematic and coherent framework for diversification within the Genetic Algorithm paradigm.

Keywords

Genetic Algorithm Tabu Search Crossover Operator Crossover Point Premature Convergence 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    J.H. Holland (1975) Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    D.E. Goldberg (1989) Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    L. Davis (Ed.) (1991) Handbook of Genetic Algorithms. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    C.R. Reeves (Ed.) (1993) Modern Heuristic Techniques for Combinatorial Problems. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    F. Glover and M. Laguna (1993). Tabu Search. In [4].Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J.J. Grefenstette (1986) Optimization of control parameters for genetic algorithms. IEEE-SMC, SMC-16, 122–128.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    J.D. Schaffer, R.A. Caruana, L.J. Eshelman and R. Das (1989) A study of control parameters affecting online performance of genetic algorithms for function optimization. In [29], 51–60.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    D.E. Goldberg (1985) Optimal initial population size for binary-coded genetic algorithms. TCGA Report 85001, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    D.E. Goldberg (1989) Sizing populations for serial and parallel genetic algorithms. In [29], 70–79.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    J.T. Alander (1992) On optimal population size of genetic algorithms. Proc. CompEuro 92, 65–70. IEEE Computer Society Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    D.E. Goldberg and M. Rudnick (1991) Genetic algorithms and the variance of fitness. Complex Systems, 5, 265–278.MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    C.R. Reeves (1993) Using genetic algorithms with small populations. (Submitted to ICGA5).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    D. Whitley (1989) The GENITOR algorithm and selection pressure: why rank-based allocation of reproductive trials is best. In [29], 116–121.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    K.A. De Jong (1975) An analysis of the behavior of a class of genetic adaptive systems. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    L.J. Eshelman and J.D. Schaffer (1991) Preventing premature convergence in genetic algorithms by preventing incest. In [32], 115–122.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    D.E. Goldberg and J. Richardson (1987) Genetic algorithms with sharing for multimodal function optimization. In [30], 41–49.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    C.G. Shaefer (1987) The ARGOT strategy: adaptive representation genetic optimizer technique. In [30], 50–58.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    N. Schraudolph and R. Belew (1990) Dynamic parameter encoding for genetic algorithms. CSE Technical Report No. CS90-175.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    D. Whitley, K. Mathias and P. Fitzhorn (1991) Delta coding: an iterative search strategy for genetic algorithms. In [32], 77–84.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    L.J. Eshelman, R.A. Caruana and J.D. Schaffer (1989) Biases in the crossover landscape. In [29], 10–19.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    L.B. Booker (1987) Improving search in genetic algorithms. In [31], 61–73.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    A. Fairley (1991) Comparison of methods of choosing the crossover point in the genetic crossover operation. Dept. of Computer Science, University of Liverpool.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    G. Syswerda (1989) Uniform crossover in genetic algorithms. In [29], 2–9.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    D.J. Sirag and P.T. Weisser (1987) Towards a unified thermodynamic genetic operator. In [30], 116–122.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    K.A. De Jong and W.M. Spears (1992) A formal analysis of the role of multi-point crossover in genetic algorithms. Annals of Maths, and AI, 5, 1–26.MATHGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    M. Lewchuk (1992) Genetic invariance: a new type of genetic algorithm. Technical report TR 92-05, Dept. of Computing Science, University of Alberta.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    F. Glover (1992) Tabu search for nonlinear and parametric optimization (with links to genetic algorithms). Discrete Applied Mathematics.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    F. Glover (1992) Optimization by ghost image processes in neural networks. Computers & Ops.Res., (to appear).Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    J.D. Schaffer (Ed.) (1989) Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Genetic Algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    J.J. Grefenstette (Ed.) (1987) Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Genetic Algorithms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    L. Davis (Ed.) (1987) Genetic Algorithms and Simulated Annealing. Morgan Kauffmann, Los Altos, CA.MATHGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    R.K. Belew and L.B. Booker (Eds.) (1991) Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colin Reeves
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Mathematical and Information SciencesCoventry UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations