Combining Distributed Populations and Periodic Centralized Selections in Coarse-Grain Parallel Genetic Algorithms
In this paper we demonstrate that parallel genetic algorithms can profit from performing periodic centralized selections of distributed populations. With this combination, implementations can benefit from the variety of environments provided by distributed approaches, while periodically being able to consider the population as a whole and disregard very unfit individuals. We study four different parallel genetic algorithm implementation strategies; each of them striking a different balance between centralization and distribution. These strategies are applied to several well-known benchmark problems. Our results show that the implementations using periodic centralized selections exhibit remarkable robustness in terms of their search quality, while keeping running time overheads under control. Our main conclusion is that performing centralized selections represents an improvement to the traditional population distribution approaches, which are susceptible to somewhat inefficient search.
KeywordsGenetic Algorithm Travel Salesman Problem Centralize Selection Integer Linear Programming Problem Parallel Genetic Algorithm
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- S. Baluja. Structure and performance of fine-grain parallelism in genetic search. In Proc. of the 5th Int. Conf. on Genetic Algorithms and their Applications, pages 155–162, 1993.Google Scholar
- R. Bianchini and C. Brown. Parallel genetic algorithms on distributed-memory architectures. In Transputer: Research and Applications, May 1993.Google Scholar
- J. P. Cohoon, W. N. Martin, and D. S. Richards. A multi-population genetic algorithm for solving the k-partition problem on hyper-cubes. In Proc. of the 3rd Int. Conf. on Genetic Algorithms and their Applications, 1989.Google Scholar
- R. J. Collins and D. R. Jefferson. Selection in massively parallel genetic algorithms. In Proc. of the 4th Int. Conf. on Genetic Algorithms and their Applications, pages 249–256, 1991.Google Scholar
- R. J. Fowler and L. I. Kontothanassis. Mercury: Object-affinity scheduling and continuation passing on multiprocessors. In Parallel Architectures and Languages Europe (PARLE)’94, June 1994.Google Scholar
- J. J. Grefenstette. Parallel adaptive algorithms for function optimization. Technical Report CS-81-19, Nashville: Vanderbilt University. Computer Science Dept., 1981.Google Scholar
- K. A. De Jong. Analysis of the Behavior of a Class of Genetic Algorithms. PhD thesis, University of Michigan, 1975.Google Scholar
- V. Kommu and I. Pomeranz. Effect of communication in a parallel genetic algorithm. In Proc. of the 1992 Int. Conf. on Parallel Processing, pages III:310–317, 1992.Google Scholar
- R. Tanese. Distributed genetic algorithms. In Proc. of the 3rd Int. Conf. on Genetic Algorithms and their Applications, 1989.Google Scholar