Soft Computing

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 1327–1345 | Cite as

Attraction basin sphere estimation approach for niching CMA-ES

Methodologies and Application

Abstract

Many real-world problems are multimodal, which means algorithms should have the ability to find all or most of the multiple solutions as opposed to a single best solution. Niching is the technique that can help evolutionary algorithms to find multiple solutions. Attraction basin sphere estimation (ABSE) is a newly proposed niching method which has the power of inferring the shape of fitness landscapes by spending some extra evaluations. However, when we apply ABSE to genetic algorithms, those extra evaluations lead to an efficiency problem. However, we notice that the combination of ABSE and covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy will not cause the efficiency problem and have a good performance. This paper implements this idea and performs experiments on a benchmark set provided by CEC 2013 niching methods competition. The algorithm is compared with the best 5 algorithms in the competition. The results show that the proposed algorithm obtains a good result. The features of the proposed algorithm are also discussed in detail.

Keywords

CMA-ES Niching method Evolutionary computation Multimodal optimization 

References

  1. Cioppa AD, Stefano CD, Marcelli A (2007) Where are the niches? Dynamic fitness sharing. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 11(4):453–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Derrac J, García S, Molina D, Herrera F (2011) A practical tutorial on the use of nonparametric statistical tests as a methodology for comparing evolutionary and swarm intelligence algorithms. Swarm Evol Comput 1(1):3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Epitropakis MG, Plagianakos VP, Vrahatis MN (2011) Finding multiple global optima exploiting differential evolution’s niching capability. In: IEEE symposium on differential evolution. IEEE Press, New York, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  4. Epitropakis MG, Li X, Burke EK (2013) A dynamic archive niching differential evolution algorithm for multimodal optimization. In: Proceedings of congress of evolutionary computation. IEEE Press, New York, pp 79–86Google Scholar
  5. Hansen N, Ostermeier A (2001) Completely derandomized self-adaptation in evolution strategies. Evol Comput 9(2):159–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Li JP, Balazs ME, Parks GT, Clarkson PJ (2002) A species conserving genetic algorithm for multimodal function optimization. Evol Comput 10(3):207–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Li X, Engelbrecht A, Epitropakis MG (2013) Benchmark functions for CEC’ 2013 special session and competition on niching methods for multimodal function optimization. Tech. rep., Evolutionary Computation and Machine Learning Group, RMIT University, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  8. Miller BL, Shaw MJ (1996) Genetic algorithms with dynamic niche sharing for multimodal function optimization. In: Proceedings of congress of evolutionary computation. IEEE Press, New York, pp 786–791Google Scholar
  9. Molina D, Puris A, Bello R, Herrera F (2013) Variable mesh optimization for the 2013 CEC special session niching methods for multimodal optimization. In: Proceedings of congress of evolutionary computation. IEEE Press, New York, pp 87–94Google Scholar
  10. Preuss M (2012) Improved topological niching for real-valued global optimization. In: EvoApplications. Springer, Berlin, pp 386–395Google Scholar
  11. Preuss M, Schönemann L, Emmerich M (2005) Counteracting genetic drift and disruptive recombination in (\(\mu ^+,\lambda \))-EA on multimodal fitness landscapes. In: Proceedings of genetic and evolutionary computation conference. ACM Press, New York, pp 865–872Google Scholar
  12. Puris A, Bello R, Molina D, Herrera F (2012) Variable mesh optimization for continuous optimization problems. Soft Comput 16(3):511–525Google Scholar
  13. Sareni B, Krähenbühl L (1998) Fitness sharing and niching methods revisited. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 2(3):97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Shir OM, Bäck T (2005) Dynamic niching in evolution strategies with covariance matrix adaptation. In: Proceedings of congress of evolutionary computation. IEEE Press, New York, pp 2584–2591Google Scholar
  15. Shir OM, Emmerich M, Bäck T (2010) Adaptive niche radii and niche shapes approaches for niching with the CMA-ES. Evol Comput 18(1):97–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stoean C, Preuss M, Stoean R, Dumitrescu D (2010) Multimodal optimization by means of a topological species conservation algorithm. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 14(6):842–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stoean CL, Preuss M, Stoean R, Dumitrescu D (2007) Disburdening the species conservation evolutionary algorithm of arguing with radii. In: Genetic and evolutionary computation conference. ACM Press, New York, pp 1420–1427Google Scholar
  18. Ursem RK (1999) Multinational evolutionary algorithms. In: Congress of evolutionary computation. IEEE Press, New York, pp 1633–1640Google Scholar
  19. Ursem RK (2000) Multinational GAs: multimodal optimization techniques in dynamic environments. In: Genetic and evolutionary computation conference, pp 19–26Google Scholar
  20. Xu Z, Polojärvi M, Yamamoto M, Furukawa M (2013a) Attraction basin estimating GA: an adaptive and efcient technique for multimodal optimization. In: Proceedings of congress of evolutionary computation. IEEE Press, New York, pp 333–340Google Scholar
  21. Xu Z, Polojärvi M, Yamamoto M, Furukawa M (2013b) An attraction basin estimating genetic algorithm for multimodal optimization. In: Proceedings of genetic and evolutionary computation conference. ACM Press, New York, pp 131–132Google Scholar
  22. Xu Z, Iizuka H, Yamamot M (2014) Attraction basin sphere estimating genetic algorithm for neuroevolution problems. Artif Life Robot 19(4):317–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Information Science and TechnologyHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan

Personalised recommendations