Increasing Diversity in Genetic Algorithms

  • Tim Watson
  • Peter Messer
Part of the Advances in Soft Computing book series (AINSC, volume 9)


Providing a genetic algorithm (GA) with the ability to control population diversity has been shown to be advantageous in both static and dynamic environments. Previous work has demonstrated that if the mutation rate of individuals is under genetic control then the optimal mutation rate rises in proportion to the speed of environmental change. This paper attempts to show that such an ‘automute’ GA outperforms a standard GA at keeping track of the fitness optimum in a simple, fast-changing environment. The paper also introduces an apparently equally effective method of controlling population diversity, based on the Hamming distance between pairs of individuals. It is argued that this ‘autoham’ GA is more suited to co-operative evolutionary systems since it does not rely on an increase in mutational ‘noise’ to provide an increase in diversity.


Genetic Algorithm Mutation Rate Dynamic Environment Fitness Landscape Optimum Fitness 
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.
    T. Bäck. Self-adaptation in genetic algorithms. In F. J. Varela and P. Bourgine, editors, Proc. First European Conference on Artificial Life, pages 263–271, Cambridge MA, 1992. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Richard Dawkins. The Selfish Gene. Oxford, 1976. New edition, 1989.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    John J. Grefenstette. Evolvability in dynamic fitness landscapes: A genetic algorithm approach. In Proc. 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC99),pages 2031–2038, Washington, DC, 1999. IEEE Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    W. D. Hamilton. The genetical evolution of social behaviour (I and II). Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7: 1–16; 17–52, 1964.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    John H. Holland. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. University of Michigan Press, 1975. MIT Press edition, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Maynard Smith. The evolution of social behaviour—a classification of models. In King’s College Sociobiology Group, editor, Current Problems in Sociobiology, pages 29–44. Cambridge University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Erik van Nimwegen and James P. Crutchfield. Metastable evolutionary dynamics: Crossing fitness barriers or escaping via neutral paths? Technical Report 99–06–041, Santa Fe Institute, 1999. Santa Fe Institute Working Paper, submitted to Bull. Math. Biol.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tim Watson and Peter Messer. Mutation genes in dynamic environments. In Robert John and Ralph Birkenhead, editors, Soft Computing Techniques and Applications, Advances in Soft Computing, pages 152–157, Heidelberg, 1999. Physica-Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tim Watson
    • 1
  • Peter Messer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceDe Montfort UniversityLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations