Dynamics in Proportionate Selection.

  • Abhishek Agrawal
  • Ian Mitchell
  • Peter Passmore
  • Ivan Litovski
Conference paper


This paper proposes a new selection method for Genetic Algorithms. The motivation behind the proposed method is to investigate the effect of different selection methods on the rate of convergence. The new method Dynamic Selection Method (DSM) is based on proportionate selection. DSM functions by continuously changing the criteria for parent selection (dynamic) based on the number of generations in a run and the current generation. Results show that by using DSM to maintain diversity in a population gives slower convergence, but, their overall performance was an improvement. Relationship between slower convergences, in GA runs, leading to better solutions, has been identified.


Genetic Algorithm Travel Salesman Problem Slow Convergence Replacement Ratio Parent Selection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Holland, J. (1975). Adaptation In Search, Optimization & Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley, 1989 Natural and Artificial Systems. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    M. Mitchell. An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Back T. (1996). Evolutionary Algorithms in Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press, NY.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Goldberg, D. E. and Deb, K., "A Comparative Analysis of Selection Schemes Used in Genetic Algorithms," in FGA1, pp.69–93, 1991Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Baker, J. E.: Adaptive Selection Methods for Genetic Algorithms. Proceedings of an International Conference on Genetic Algorithms and their Application, pp. 101–111, Hillsdale, New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1985Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    E. Lawler, J. Lenstra, A. Rinnooy Kan, and D. Shmoys. The Traveling Salesman Problem. John Wiley, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    G. Reinelt. TSPLIB-a traveling salesman problem library. ORSA J. Computing, 3:376–384, 1991.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    I. Oliver, D. Smith, and J. Holland. A study of permutation crossover operators on the travelling salesman problem. In Grefenstette J.J.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Larrañaga, P, C. Kuijpers, R. Murga, I. Inza and S. Dizdarevich. "Evolutionary algorithms for the travelling salesman problem: A review of representations and operators", Artificial Intelligence Review, Vol. 13 (1999), pp. 129–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Whitley, D. (1989). The GENITOR Algorithm and Selective Pressure: Why Rank-Based Allocation of Reproductive Trials is Best. In Proc. 3th International Conf. on Genetic Algorithms. 116, D. Schaffer, ed., Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abhishek Agrawal
    • 1
  • Ian Mitchell
    • 1
  • Peter Passmore
    • 1
  • Ivan Litovski
    • 1
  1. 1.Middlesex UniversityHendon, LondonUK

Personalised recommendations