Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Bipolar Mating Tendency: Harmony Between the Best and the Worst Individuals

  • Research Article-Computer Engineering and Computer Science
  • Published:
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) are successfully employed to solve complex optimization problems such as network design problems, path finding problems, scheduling problems and social and economic planning. By using intelligent strategies, EAs iteratively improve the initial solution to produce new solutions. Particularly in genetic algorithms (GAs), one of the most known EAs, selection mechanism, has crucial importance due to its effect on the diversity of a population and convergence ability to optimal solution. As most of the selection methods of GAs favor the good solutions for reproductions, average or poor solutions are overlooked. Recently, we proposed a new selection method, called Bipolar Mating Tendency (BMT), that is based on Standard Tournament (ST) selection. Unlike the state-of-the-art selection methods of GAs, BMT diversifies the mating process with the inclusion of less favorable solutions. In this paper, the performance of BMT was compared with the performance of ST and prevalent selection methods that are also based on ST: restricted tournament selection, unbiased tournament selection, fine-grained tournament selection and cooperative selection. For the comparison, twenty-one well-known benchmark optimization functions and sixteen IEEE CEC 2018 test functions were utilized. Also, nonparametric statistical tests were performed to demonstrate the significance of the results. In order to test the effectiveness of GA-BMT (GA that uses BMT as a selection method), three real-world engineering problems were used. In addition to showing predominant results comparing to the other methods in test functions, BMT has also provided successful results in the problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Holland, J.H.: Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Baker, J. E.: Reducing bias and inefficiency in the selection algorithm. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, vol. 206, pp. 14–21 (1987)

  3. Greffenstette, J. J.; Baker, J. E.: How genetic algorithms work: a critical look at implicit parallelism. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Genetic algorithms, pp. 20–27 (1989)

  4. Whitley, D.; Kauth, J.: GENITOR : A Different Genetic Algorithm. Colorado State University, Dept. of Computer Science, Fort Collins, Colo. (1988)

  5. Siddiqi, U.F.; Sait, S.M.; Kaynak, O.: Genetic algorithm for the mutual information-based feature selection in univariate time series data. IEEE Access 8, 9597–9609 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Goldberg, D.E.; et al.: A note on Boltzmann tournament selection for genetic algorithms and population-oriented simulated annealing. Complex Syst. 4(4), 445–460 (1990)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Harik, G.R.: Finding multimodal solutions using restricted tournament selection. In: ICGA 24–31 (1995)

  8. Roy, R.; Parmee, I.C.: Adaptive restricted tournament selection for the identification of multiple sub-optima in a multi-modal function. In. AISB Workshop on Evolutionary Computing, Springer, pp. 236–256 (1996)

  9. Lobo, F. G.; Bazargani, M.: When hillclimbers beat genetic algorithms in multimodal optimization. In: Proceedings of the Companion Publication of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pp. 1421–1422 (2015)

  10. Farias, R.G.G.; De Magalhães, C.S.: Parent selection strategies in niching genetic algorithms. In: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC). IEEE 2018, 1–8 (2018)

  11. Matsui, K.: New selection method to improve the population diversity in genetic algorithms. In: IEEE SMC’99 Conference Proceedings. 1999 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (Cat. No. 99CH37028), Vol. 1, IEEE, pp. 625–630 (1999)

  12. Sokolov, A.; Collins, F.; Whitley, D.: Unbiased tournament selection. In: GECCO 2005 Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, Vol. 5, pp. 1131–1138 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1145/1068009.1068198.

  13. Filipović, V.: Fine-grained tournament selection operator in genetic algorithms. Comput. Inf. 22(2), 143–161 (2012)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Laredo, J.L.J.; Nielsen, S.S.; Danoy, G.; Bouvry, P.: Cooperative selection: improving tournament selection via altruism. In: European Conference on Evolutionary Computation in Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, pp. 85–96 (2014)

  15. Pereira, R.L.; Souza, D.L.; Mollinetti, M.A.F.; Neto, M.T.S.; Yasojima, E.K.K.; Teixeira, O.N.; De Oliveira, R.C.L.: Game theory and social interaction for selection and crossover pressure control in genetic algorithms: an empirical analysis to real-valued constrained optimization. IEEE Access 8, 144839–144865 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhang, X.; Geng, J.; Ma, J.; Liu, H.; Niu, S.; Mao, W.: A hybrid service selection optimization algorithm in internet of things. EURASIP J. Wirel. Commun. Netw. 2021(1), 1–13 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Oral, M.; Gençal, M.C.: Harmony Between the Best and the Worst Individuals in Tournament Selection. Majlesi J. Mechatron. Syst. 6(3), 25–28 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Albunian, N.: An investigation of search behaviour in search-based unit test generation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Sheffield (2020)

  19. Mouret, J.-B.; Doncieux, S.: Encouraging behavioral diversity in evolutionary robotics: an empirical study. Comput. Evolut. (2012). https://doi.org/10.1162/EVCO_a_00048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Liu, Q.; Du, S.; van Wyk, B.J.; Sun, Y.: Niching particle swarm optimization based on Euclidean distance and hierarchical clustering for multimodal optimization. Nonlinear Dyn. 99(3), 2459–2477 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Molga, M.; Smutnicki, C.: Test functions for optimization needs, test functions for optimization needs.

  22. Surjanovic, S.; Bingham, D.: Virtual library of simulation experiments: test functions and datasets (2013). http://www.sfu.ca/~ssurjano

  23. Rueda, J.L.; Erlich, I.: Hybrid single parent-offspring MVMO for solving CEC2018 computationally expensive problems. In: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC). IEEE 2018, pp. 1–8 (2018)

  24. Lobo, F.G.; Goldberg, D.E.: The parameter-less genetic algorithm in practice. Inf. Sci. 167(1–4), 217–232 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Eftimov, T.; Korošec, P.: Deep statistical comparison for multi-objective stochastic optimization algorithms. Swarm Evolut. Comput. 61, 100837 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Friedman, M.: The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 10(1080/01621459), 10503522 (1937)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Friedman, M.: A comparison of alternative tests of significance for the problem of m rankings. Ann. Math. Stat. 11(1), 86–92 (1940)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Sheskin, D.J.: Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2003)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Wilcoxon, F.: Individual comparisons of grouped data by ranking methods. J. Econ. Entomol. (1946). https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/39.2.269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sandgren, E.: Nonlinear integer and discrete programming in mechanical design optimization. J. Mech. Des. 112(2), 223–229 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wu, S.-J.; Chow, P.-T.: Genetic algorithms for nonlinear mixed discrete-integer optimization problems via meta-genetic parameter optimization. Eng. Optim.+ A35 24(2), 137–159 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lee, K.S.; Geem, Z.W.: A new meta-heuristic algorithm for continuous engineering optimization: harmony search theory and practice. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 194(36–38), 3902–3933 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kaveh, A.; Mahdavi, V.R.: Colliding bodies optimization: a novel meta-heuristic method. Comput. Struct. 139, 18–27 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mirjalili, S.: Moth-flame optimization algorithm: a novel nature-inspired heuristic paradigm. Knowl.-Based Syst. 89, 228–249 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mortazavi, A.; Toğan, V.; Nuhoğlu, A.: Interactive search algorithm: a new hybrid metaheuristic optimization algorithm. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 71, 275–292 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lim, W.H.; Isa, N.A.M.: Particle swarm optimization with increasing topology connectivity. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 27, 80–102 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Belegundu, A. D.: Study of mathematical programming methods for structural optimization.

  38. Coello, C.A.C.: Use of a self-adaptive penalty approach for engineering optimization problems. Comput. Ind. 41(2), 113–127 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors thank reviewers for their valuable contribution to the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ardahan University Computer Engineering Department, Ardahan, Turkey

    Mashar Cenk Gençal

  2. Çukurova University Computer Engineering Department, Adana, Turkey

    Mustafa Oral

Authors
  1. Mashar Cenk Gençal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mustafa Oral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mashar Cenk Gençal.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gençal, M.C., Oral, M. Bipolar Mating Tendency: Harmony Between the Best and the Worst Individuals. Arab J Sci Eng 47, 1849–1871 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-021-06105-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-021-06105-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation