Applied Intelligence

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 292–310 | Cite as

Multi-population co-genetic algorithm with double chain-like agents structure for parallel global numerical optimization

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

For the low optimization precision and long optimization time of genetic algorithm, this paper proposed a multi-population agent co-genetic algorithm with chain-like agent structure (MPAGA). This algorithm adopted multi-population parallel searching mode, close chain-like agent structure, cycle chain-like agent structure, dynamic neighborhood competition and orthogonal crossover strategy to realize parallel optimization, and has the characteristics of high optimization precision and short optimization time. In order to verify the optimization precision of this algorithm, some popular benchmark test functions were used for comparing this algorithm and a popular agent genetic algorithm (MAGA). The experimental results show that MPAGA has higher optimization precision and shorter optimization time than MAGA.

Keywords

Genetic algorithm Multi-population Agent Chain-like agent structure 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search optimization & machine learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holland JH (1992) Adaptation in nature and artificial system. MIT Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Michalewicz Z, Fogel DB (2000) How to solve it: modern heuristics. Springer, Berlin, pp. 83–234 MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Potvin J, Dube D, Robillard C (1966) Hybrid approach to vehicle routing using neural networks and genetic algorithm. Appl Intell 6(3), 241–252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Srinivas M, Patnaik LM (1994) Adaptive probabilities of crossover and mutation in genetic algorithms. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B 24(4), 656–667 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gong D-W, Sun X-Y, Guo X-J (2002) Novel survival of the fittest genetic algorithm. Control Decis 17(6), 908–911 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhong W, Liu J, Xue M, Jiao L (2004) A multi-agent genetic algorithm for global numerical optimization. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B 34(2), 1128–1141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zeng X-P, Li Y-M, Qin J A dynamic chain-like agent genetic algorithm for global numerical optimization and feature selection, Neurocomputing. Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
  9. 9.
    Olsson B (2001) Co-evolutionary search in asymmetric spaces. Inf Sci 133(3–4), 103–125 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Potter MA, De Jong KA (2000) Cooperative coevolution: an architecture for evolving coadapted subcomponents. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 8(1), 1–29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gao Y, Xie S-L, Xu R-N, Li Z-H (2006) A multi sub-population particle swarm optimizer based on clustering. Appl Res Comput 23(4), 40–41 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Su C-H, Hou T-H (2008) Using multi-population intelligent genetic algorithm to find the Pareto-optimal parameters for a nano-particle milling process. Expert Syst Appl 34(4), 2502–2510 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leung YW, Wang Y (2001) An orthogonal genetic algorithm with quantization for global numerical optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 5(2), 41–53 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pan ZJ, Kang LS (1997) An adaptive evolutionary algorithms for numerical optimization. In: X Yao, JH Kim, T Furuhashi (eds.) Simulated evolution and learning. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 27–34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yao X, Liu Y, Lin G (1999) Evolutionary programming made faster. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 3(7), 82–102 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wolpert DH, Macready WG (1997) No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 1(1), 67–82 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Whitley D (1999) A Free Lunch proof for gray versus binary encodings. In: W Banzhaf, J Daida, AE Eiben, MH Garzon, V Honavar, M Jakiela, RE Smith (eds.), Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO’99), Orlando, FL, vol 1. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 726–733 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kimbrough SO, Koehler GJ, Lu M, Wood DH On a Feasible–Infeasible Two-Population (FI-2Pop) genetic algorithm for constrained optimization: Distance tracing and no free lunch. European J Oper Res. Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
  19. 19.
    Schumacher C, Vose MD, Whitley LD (2001) The No Free Lunch and description length. In: L Spector, E Goodman, A Wu, W Langdon, H-M Voigt, M Gen, S Sen, M Dorigo, S Pezeshk, M Garzon, E Burke (eds.), Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO 2001), San Francisco, CA. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 565–570 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tu ZG, Lu Y (2004) A robust stochastic genetic algorithms (StGA) for global numerical optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 8(5), 456–470 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Koehler GJ (2007) Conditions that obviate the no free lunch theorems for optimization. Inf J Comput 19(2), 273–279 CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Igel C, Toussaint M (2003) On classes of functions for which no free lunch results hold. Inf Process Lett 86(6), 317–321 MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan TA (2002) A fast and elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2), 182–197 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mitchell M (1996) An introduction to genetic algorithms. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 155–181 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Communication EngineeringChongqing UniversityChongqingChina

Personalised recommendations