Natural Computing

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 97–117 | Cite as

The Endocrine Control Evolutionary Algorithm: an extensible technique for optimization

Article
First Online:

Abstract

This paper proposes an optimization technique inspired by the endocrine system, in particular by the intrinsic mechanism of hormonal regulation. The approach is applicable for many optimization problems, such as multimodal optimization in a static environment, multimodal optimization in a dynamic environment and multi-objective optimization. The advantage of this technique is that it is intuitive and there is no need for a supplementary mechanism to deal with dynamic environments, nor for major revisions in a multi-objective context. The Endocrine Control Evolutionary Algorithm (ECEA) is described. The ECEA is able to estimate and track the multiple optima in a dynamic environment. For multi-objective optimization problems, the issue of finding a good definition of optimality is solved naturally without using Pareto non-dominated in performance evaluation. Instead, the overall preference of the solution is used for fitness assignment. Without any adjustments, just by using a suitable fitness assignment, the ECEA algorithm performs well for the multi-objective optimization problems.

Keywords

Endocrine paradigm Multimodal optimization Multi-objective optimization 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bessaou M, Petrowski A, Siarry P (2000) Island model combining with speciation for multimodal optimization. Parallel Problem Solving from Nature PPSN VI. Lect Notes Comput Sci 1917:437–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Branke J (2001) Evolutionary approach to dynamic optimization problems—updated survey. In: GECCO workshop on evolutionary algorithms for dynamic optimization problems, pp 27–30Google Scholar
  3. Branke J (2002) Evolutionary optimization in dynamic environments. Kluver Academic Publishers, DordrechtCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Branke J (2007) Nature inspired optimization in dynamic environment. In: GECCO workshop EvoDOP, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. De Jong KA (1975) An analysis of the behaviour of a class of genetic adaptive systems. PhD thesis, University of Michigan, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  6. Deb K, Jain S (2002) Running performance metrics for evolutionary multi-objective optimization. Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, Tech. Rep. KanGAL Report Number 2002004, May 2002Google Scholar
  7. Deb K, Agrawal S, Pratap A, Meyarian T (2000) A fast elitist nondominated sorting genetic algorithm for multiobjective optimization NSGA II. In: Proceedings of the parallel solving from nature VI conferenceGoogle Scholar
  8. Deb K, Thiele L, Laumanns M, Zitzler E (2005) Scalable test problems for evolutionary multi-objective optimization. In: Abraham A, Jain L, Goldberg R (eds) Evolutionary multiobjective optimization. Springer-Verlag, London, pp 105–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. EMOO (2012) The evolutionary multi-objective optimization (EMOO) repository. http://www.lania.mx/~ccoello/EMOO/. Cited 6 June 2012
  10. Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., ReadingMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldberg DE, Richardson J (1987) Genetic algorithms with sharing for multimodal function optimization. In: Grefensette JJ (ed) Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on genetic algorithms. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 41–49Google Scholar
  12. Griffin JE, Ojeda SR (eds) (2004) Textbook of endocrine physiology, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Guyton AC, Hall JE (2006) Textbook of medical physiology, 11th edn. Elsevier Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  14. Hamann H, Stradner J, Schmickl T, Crailsheim K (2010) A hormone-based controller for evolutionary multi-modular robotics: from single modules to gait learning. In: Proceedings of IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  15. Hamann H, Schmickl T, Crailsheim K (2012) A hormone-based controller for evaluation-minimal evolution in decentrally controlled systems. Artif Life 18(2):165–198CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Li J-P, Balazs ME, Parks GT, Clarkson PJ (2002) A species conserving genetic algorithm for multimodal function optimization. Evol Comput 10(3):207–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mahfoud SW (1992) Crowding and preselection revisited. In: Manner R, Manderick B (eds) Parallel problem solving from nature, vol 2. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 27–36Google Scholar
  18. Mahfoud S (1995) Niching methods for genetic algorithms. Doctoral dissertation, Illigal report no. 95001Google Scholar
  19. Neal M, Timmis J (2003) Timidity: a useful emotional mechanism for robot control? Informatica 27(2):197–204MATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Petrowski A (1996) A clearing procedure as a niching method for genetic algorithms. In: International conference on evolutionary computation, pp 798–803Google Scholar
  21. Petrowski A (1997) A new selection operator dedicated to speciation. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on genetic algorithms, pp 144–151Google Scholar
  22. Rotar C (2010) Endocrine control evolutionary algorithm. In: Synasc-2010 12th international symposium on symbolic and numeric algorithms for scientific computing, pp 174–181Google Scholar
  23. Schmickl T, Hamann H, Crailsheim K (2011) Modelling a hormone-inspired controller for individual- and multi-modular robotic systems. Math Comput Model Dyn Syst 17(3):221–242CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Schott JR (1995) Fault tolerant design using single and multicriteria genetic algorithm optimization. Master’s thesis, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Sierra M, Coello C (2005) Improving PSO-based multi-objective optimization using crowding, Mutation and epsilon-dominance. In: Third international conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization, pp 505–519Google Scholar
  26. Srinivas N, Deb K (1995) Multi-objective function optimization using non-dominated sorting genetic algorithms. Evol Comput 2(3):221–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Storn R, Price K (1995) Differential evolution—a simple and efficient adaptive scheme for global optimization over continuous spaces, technical report TR-95-012, ICSIGoogle Scholar
  28. Thomsen R (2004) Multimodal optimization using crowding-based differential evolution. In: Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, IEEE PressGoogle Scholar
  29. Timmis J, Murray L, Neal M (2010) A neural-endocrine architecture for foraging in swarm robotic systems. Stud Comput Intell 284:319–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ursem RK (2002) Diversity-guided evolutionary algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on parallel problem solving from nature (PPSN VII), Springer-Verlag, pp 462–474Google Scholar
  31. Zitzler E, Thiele L (1998) Multiobjective optimization using evolutionary algorithms a comparative case study. In: Eiben AE, Back T, Schoenauer M, Schwefel HP (eds) Fifth international conference on parallel problem solving from nature (PPSN-V), Berlin, pp 292–301Google Scholar
  32. Zitzler E, Deb K, Thiele L (2000a) Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: empirical results. Evol Comput 8(2):173–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zitzler E, Laumanns M, Thiele L (2000b) SPEA 2: improving the strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.“1 Decembrie 1918” University of Alba IuliaAlba IuliaRomania

Personalised recommendations