Advertisement

Memetic Computing

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 3–24 | Cite as

Empirical analysis of evolutionary algorithms with immigrants schemes for dynamic optimization

Regular Research Paper

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in studying evolutionary algorithms (EAs) for dynamic optimization problems (DOPs). Among approaches developed for EAs to deal with DOPs, immigrants schemes have been proven to be beneficial. Immigrants schemes for EAs on DOPs aim at maintaining the diversity of the population throughout the run via introducing new individuals into the current population. In this paper, we carefully examine the mechanism of generating immigrants, which is the most important issue among immigrants schemes for EAs in dynamic environments. We divide existing immigrants schemes into two types, namely the direct immigrants scheme and the indirect immigrants scheme, according to the way in which immigrants are generated. Then experiments are conducted to understand the difference in the behaviors of different types of immigrants schemes and to compare their performance in dynamic environments. Furthermore, a new immigrants scheme is proposed to combine the merits of two types of immigrants schemes. The experimental results show that the interactions between the two types of schemes reveal positive effect in improving the performance of EAs in dynamic environments.

Keywords

Evolutionary Algorithm Dynamic Optimization Problem Immigrants scheme 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Yu JX, Yao X, Choi C-H, Gou G (2003) Materialized view selection as constrained evolutionary optimization. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet Part C 33(4): 458–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tang M, Yao X (2007) A memetic algorithm for VLSI floorplanning. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet Part B 37(1): 62–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jin Y, Branke J (2005) Evolutionary optimization in uncertain environments: a survey. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 9(3): 303–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Branke J, Middendorf M, Noeth G, Dessouky M (2005) Waiting strategies for dynamic vehicle routing. Transp Sci 39: 298–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Raman N, Talbot FB (1993) The job shop tardiness problem: a decomposition approach. Eur J Oper Res 69: 187–199MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cobb HG (1990) An investigation into the use of hypermutation as an adative operator in genetic algorithms having continuous, time-dependent nonstationary environments, Naval Res. Lab., Washington, DC, Tech. Rep. AIC-90-001Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vavak F, Fogarty TC, Jukes K (1996) A genetic algorithm with variable range of local search for tracking changing environments. In: Proceedings of the 4th International conference on parallel problem solving from nature, LNCS, vol 1141, pp 376–385Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grefenstette JJ (1992) Genetic algorithms for changing environments. Parallel problem solving from nature. Elsevier Science Publishers, The Netherlands, vol 2, pp 137–144Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cedeno W, Vemuri VR (1997) On the use of niching for dynamic landscapes. In: Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE international conference on evolutionary computation, pp 361–366Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mori N, Kita H, Nishikawa Y (1996) Adaptation to a changing environment by means of the thermodynamical genetic algorithm. Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, ser. LNCS, 1141, pp 513–522Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ghosh A, Tsutsui S, Tanaka H (1998) Function optimization in nonstationary environment using steady state genetic algorithms with aging of individuals. In: Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE international conference on evolutionary computation, pp 666–671Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ramsey CL, Grefenstette JJ (1993) Case-based initialization of genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on genetic algorithms, Morgan Kaufmann PublishersGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Branke J (1999) Memory enhanced evolutionary algorithms for changing optimization problems. In: Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, vol 3, pp 1875–1882Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bendtsen CN, Krink T (2002) Dynamic memory model for non-stationary optimization. In: Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, pp 145–150Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldberg DE, Smith RE (1987) Nonstationary function optimization using genetic algorithms with dominance and diploidy. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on genetic algorithms, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA, pp 59–68Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dasgupta D, McGregor D (1992) Nonstationary function optimization using the structured genetic algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on parallel problem solving from nature, pp 145–154Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yang S (2003) Non-stationary problem optimization using the primal-dual genetic algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, vol 3, pp 2246–2253Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Simões A, Costa E (2007) Improving memory’s usage in evolutionary algorithms for changing environments. In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, pp 276–283Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yang S, Yao X (2007) Population-based incremental learning with associative memory for dynamic environments. IEEE Trans Evol Comput (accepted in August 2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Branke J, Kaußler T, Schmidth C, Schmeck H (2000) A multi-population approach to dynamic optimization problems. In: Proceedings of the adaptive computing in design and manufacturing, pp 299–308Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ursem RK (2000) Multinational GAs: multimodal optimization techniques in dynamic environments. In: Proceedings of the 2000 genetic and evolutionary computation conference, pp 19–26Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wineberg M, Oppacher F (2000) Enhancing the GA’s ability to cope with dynamic environments. In: Proceedings of the 2000 genetic and evolutionary computaion conference, pp 3–10Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Simõs A, Costa E (2003) An immune system-based genetic algorithm to deal with dynamic environments: diversity and memory. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on neural networks and genetic algorithms, pp 168–174Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yang S (2005) Memory-based immigrants for genetic algorithms in dynamic environments. In: Proceedings of the 2005 genetic and evolutionary computation conference, vol 2, pp 1115–1122Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Branke J (2001) Evolutionary optimization in dynamic environments. Kluwer, Norwell, MAGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Morrison RW (2004) Designing evolutionary algorithms for dynamic environments. Springer, BerlinMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weicker K (2003) Evolutionary algorithms and dynamic optimization problems. Der Andere Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Internet Repository on evolutionary algorithms for dynamic optimization problems (Online). Available: http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/~jbr/EvoDOP
  29. 29.
    Cobb HG, Grefenstette JJ (1993) Genetic algorithms for tracking changing environments. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on genetic algorithms, pp 523–530Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yang S (2007) Genetic algorithms with elitism-based immigrants for changing optimization problems. Applications of Evolutionary Computing, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, vol 4448, pp 627–636Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yang S, Tinós R (2007) A hybrid immigrants scheme for genetic algorithms in dynamic environments. Int J Autom Comput 4(3): 243–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yu X, Tang K, Yao X (2008) An immigrants scheme based on environmental information for genetic algorithms in changing environments. In: Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, pp 1141–1147Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tinós R, Yang S (2005) Genetic algorithms with self-organized criticality for dynamic optimization problems. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, vol 3, pp 2816–2823Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Morrison RW (2003) Performance measurement in dynamic environments. In: GECCO workshop on evolutionary algorithms for dynamic optimization problems, pp 5–8Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Weicker K (2002) Performance measures for dynamic environments. In: Parallel problem solving from nature-PPSN VII, pp 64–73Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Trojanowski K, Michalewicz Z (1999) Evolutionary algorithms for non-stationary environments. In: Proceedings of 8th workshop: intelligent information systems, pp 229–240Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rand W, Riolo R (2005) Measurements for understanding the behavior of the genetic algorithm in dynamic environemnts: a case study using the shaky ladder hyperplane-defined functions. In: Proceedings of the 2005 genetic and evolutionary computation conference. ACM Press, New York, pp 32–38Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jen E (2003) Stable or robust? What’s the difference?. Complexity 8 3: 12–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bosman PAN (2005) Learning, anticipation and time-deception in evolutionary online dynamic optimization. In: Evolutionary algorithms for dynamic optimization problems EvoDOP workshop at the 2005 genetic and evolutionary computation conference, pp 39–47Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Doyle JC, Wall JE, Stein G (1982) Performance and robustness analysis for structured uncertainty. In: Proceedings of the 21st IEEE conference on decision and control, vol 21, pp 629–636Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Balas GJ, Doyle JC (1990) Robustness and performance tradeoffs in control design for flexible structures. In: Proceedings of the 29th IEEE conference on decision and control, vol 6, pp 2999–3010Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hashtrudi-Zaad K, Salcudean SE (2000) Analysis and evaluation of stability and performance robustness for teleoperation control architectures. In: Proceedings of 2000 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, vol 4, pp 3107–3113Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Adivikolanu S, Zafiriou E (2000) Extensions and performance/robustness tradeoffs of the EWMA run-to-run controller by using the internal model control structure. IEEE Trans Electron Packaging Manuf 23(1): 56–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zhou K, Ren Z (2001) A new controller architecture for high performance, robust, and fault-tolerant control. IEEE Trans Autom Control 46(10): 1613–1618MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Grefenstette JJ (1999) Evolvability in dynamic fitness landscapes: a gentic algorithm approach. In: Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, vol 3, pp 2031–2038Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Morrison RW, De Jong KA (1999) A test problem generator for nonstationary environments. In: Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, vol 3, pp 2047–2053Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yang S, Yao X (2005) Experimental study on population-based incremental learning algorithms for dynamic optimization problems. Soft Comput 9(11): 815–834MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Mitchell M, Forrest S, Holland JH (1991) The royal road for genetic algorithms: fitness landscapes and GA performance. In: Proceedings of the 1st European conference on artifical life. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp 245–254Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Whitley LD (1991) Fundamental principles of deception in genetic search. Foundations of Genetic Algorithms 1. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, pp 221–241Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Garnier J, Kallel L, Schoenauer M (1999) Rigorous hitting times for binary mutations. Evol Comput 7(2): 173–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Jansen T, Wegener I (2001) Evolutionary algorithms—how to cope with plateaus of constant fitness and when to reject strings of the same fitness. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 5(6): 589–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ong YS, Lim MH, Zhu N, Wong KW (2006) Classification of adaptive memetic algorithms: a comparative study. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet Part B 36(1): 141–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nature Inspired Computation and Applications Laboratory, Department of Computer Science and TechnologyUniversity of Science and Technology of ChinaHefei, AnhuiChina
  2. 2.CERCIA, The School of Computer ScienceUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations