Soft Computing

, Volume 21, Issue 20, pp 6133–6142 | Cite as

K-Bit-Swap: a new operator for real-coded evolutionary algorithms

Methodologies and Application

Abstract

There have been a variety of crossover operators proposed for real-coded genetic algorithms (RCGAs). Such operators recombine values from pairs of strings to generate new solutions. In this article, we present a recombination operator for RCGAs that selects the string locations for change separately randomly in the parent and offspring, enabling solution parts to move within a string, and compare it to mainstream crossover operators in a set of experiments on a range of standard multidimensional optimization problems and a real-world clustering problem. We present two variants of the operator, either selecting bits uniformly at random in both strings or sampling the second bit from a normal distribution centered at the selected location in the first string. While the operator is biased toward exploitation of fitness space, the random selection of the second bit for swapping reduces this bias slightly. Statistical analysis of the experimental results using a nonparametric test shows the advantage of the new recombination operators on our test optimization functions.

References

  1. Blanco A, Delgado M, Pegalajar M (2001) lA real-coded genetic algorithm for training recurrent neural networks. Neural Netw 14(1):93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Črepinšek M, Liu SH, Mernik M (2013) Exploration and exploitation in evolutionary algorithms: a survey. ACM Comput Surv 45(3):35MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Deb K, Agrawal RB (1995) Simulated binary crossover for continuous search space. Complex Syst 9(2):115–148Google Scholar
  4. Deb K, Anand A, Joshi D (2002) A computationally efficient evolutionary algorithm for real-parameter optimization. Evol Comput 10(4):371–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deb K, Beyer H-G (2001) Self-adaptive genetic algorithms with simulated binary crossover. Evol Comput 9(2):197–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doerr B, Happ E, Klein C (2008) Crossover can provably be useful in evolutionary computation. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, pp 539–546. ACMGoogle Scholar
  7. Elsayed SM, Sarker R, Essam DL, et al (2011) Ga with a new multi-parent crossover for solving ieee-cec2011 competition problems. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC), pp 1034–1040. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  8. Eshelman LJ (1993) Real-coded genetic algorithms and interval-schemata. Found genet algorithms 2:187–202Google Scholar
  9. Finck S, Hansen N, Ros R, Auger A (2010) Real-parameter black-box optimization benchmarking 2010: presentation of the noisless functions. Technical Report 7215, INRIAGoogle Scholar
  10. García S, Molina D, Lozano M, Herrera F (2009) A study on the use of non-parametric tests for analyzing the evolutionary algorithms behaviour: a case study on the cec2005 special session on real parameter optimization. J Heuristics 15(6):617–644CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, BostonMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Hartigan JA, Wong MA (1979) Algorithm AS 136: a k-means clustering algorithm. J Royal Stat Soc, Series C (Appl Stat) 28:100–108Google Scholar
  13. Herrera F, Lozano M, Pérez E, Sánchez AM, Villar P (2002) Multiple crossover per couple with selection of the two best offspring: an experimental study with the blx-\(\alpha \) crossover operator for real-coded genetic algorithms. In: Garijo FJ, Riquelme JC, Toro M (eds) Advances in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 392–401Google Scholar
  14. Herrera F, Lozano M, Sánchez AM (2003) A taxonomy for the crossover operator for real-coded genetic algorithms: an experimental study. Int J Intell Syst 18(3):309–338CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Herrera F, Lozano M, Sánchez AM (2005) Hybrid crossover operators for real-coded genetic algorithms: an experimental study. Soft Comput 9(4):280–298CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Holland JH (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an introductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence. U Michigan Press, Ann ArborMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Kanungo T, Mount DM, Netanyahu NS, Piatko CD, Silverman R, Wu AY (2002) An efficient k-means clustering algorithm: analysis and implementation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 24(7):881–892CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Krishna K, Murty MN (1999) Genetic k-means algorithm. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B Cybern 29(3):433–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ling S-H, Leung FF (2007) An improved genetic algorithm with average-bound crossover and wavelet mutation operations. Soft Comput 11(1):7–31CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Michalewicz Z (2013) Genetic algorithms+ data structures= evolution programs. Springer Science and Business Media, BerlinMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Michalewicz Z, Janikow CZ (1991) Handling constraints in genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on genetic algorithms, ICGA, pp 151–157Google Scholar
  22. Mitchell M (1996) An introduction to genetic algorithms. The MIT Press, CambridgeMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Mitchell M, Forrest S, Holland JH (1992) The royal road for genetic algorithms: fitness landscapes and GA performance. In: Proceedings of the first European conference on artificial life, pp 245–254Google Scholar
  24. Pencheva T, Angelova M, Atanassov K, Vasant P (2013) Genetic algorithms quality assessment implementing intuitionistic fuzzy logic. In: Vasant PM (ed) Handbook of research on novel soft computing intelligent algorithms: theory and practical applications. IGI Global, Pennsylvania, p 327Google Scholar
  25. Roeva O, Slavov T, Fidanova S (2013) Population-based vs. single point search meta-heuristics for a pid controller tuning. In: Vasant P (ed) Handbook of research on novel soft computing intelligent algorithms: theory and practical applications. IGI Global, Pennsylvania, pp 200–233Google Scholar
  26. Spears WM et al (1992) Crossover or mutation. Found Genet Algorithms 2:221–237Google Scholar
  27. Srinivas M, Patnaik LM (1994) Adaptive probabilities of crossover and mutation in genetic algorithms. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 24(4):656–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ter-Sarkisov A (2012) Computational complexity of elitist population-based evolutionary algorithms. Ph.D. thesis, Massey UniversityGoogle Scholar
  29. Ter-Sarkisov A, Marsland S, Holland B (2010) The k-bit-swap: a new genetic algorithm operator. In: Genetic and evolutionary computing conference (GECCO), pp 815–816Google Scholar
  30. Thakur M (2013) A new genetic algorithm for global optimization of multimodal continuous functions. J Comput Sci 5(2):298–311MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wagstaff K, Cardie C, Rogers S, Schrödl S et al (2001) Constrained k-means clustering with background knowledge. ICML 1:577–584Google Scholar
  32. Wright AH et al (1990) Genetic algorithms for real parameter optimization. In: Foundations of genetic algorithms, pp 205–218Google Scholar
  33. Yoon Y, Kim YH (2012) The roles of crossover and mutation in real-coded genetic algorithms. In: Gao S (ed) Bio-inspired computational algorithms and their applications, chapter 4, InTech, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  34. Yoon Y, Kim Y-H (2013) Geometricity of genetic operators for real-coded representation. Appl Math Comput 219(23):10915–10927MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ComputingDublin Institute of TechnologyDublinIreland
  2. 2.School of Engineering and Advanced TechnologyMassey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations