The Underlying Similarity of Diversity Measures Used in Evolutionary Computation

  • Mark Wineberg
  • Franz Oppacher
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2724)

Abstract

In this paper we compare and analyze the various diversity measures used in the Evolutionary Computation field. While each measure looks quite different from the others in form, we surprisingly found that the same basic method underlies all of them: the distance between all possible pairs of chromosomes/organisms in the population. This is true even of the Shannon entropy of gene frequencies. We then associate the different varieties of EC diversity measures to different diversity measures used in Biology. Finally we give an O(n) implementation for each of the diversity measures (where n is the population size), despite their basis in an O(n2) number of comparisons.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hutter M.: Fitness Uniform Selection to Preserve Genetic Diversity. In: Fogel D.B. (ed.): CEC’02. IEEE Press (2002) 783–788Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Motoki, T.: Calculating the Expected Loss of Diversity of Selection Schemes. In Evolutionary Computation 10-4. MIT Press, Cambridge MA (2002) 397–423Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ang, K.H., Chong, G. and Li, Y.: Preliminary Statement on the Current Progress of Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm Performance Measurement. In: Fogel D.B. (ed.): CEC’ 02. IEEE Press (2002) 1139–1144Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oppacher F. and M. Wineberg (1999). The Shifting Balance Genetic Algorithm: Improving the GA in a Dynamic Environment. In Banzhaf W. et al. (Eds.): GECCO’99. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1999) 504–510Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garrett, S.M., Walker, J.H.: Genetic Algorithms: Combining Evolutionary and ‘Non’-Evolutionary Methods in Tracking Dynamic Global Optima. In Langdon W. B. et. al. (Eds.): GECCO-2002. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2002) 359–366Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Louis, S.J. and Rawlins, G.J.E.: Syntactic Analysis of Convergence in Genetic Algorithms. In Whitley, L.D. (ed.); Foundations of Genetic Algorithms 2. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California. (1993) 141–151Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duran, B.S. and Odell, P.L.: Cluster Analysis: A Survey. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1974)MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cover, T.M. and Thomas J.A.: Elements of Information Theory. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1991)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li, W.-H.: Molecular Evolution. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland MA (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Collins, R.J., and Jefferson, D.R.: Selection in Massively Parallel Genetic Algorithms. In: Belew, R.K., and Booker L.B. (eds.): 4th ICGA. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, California (1991) 249–256Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pielou, E.C.: Ecological Diversity. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rosca, J.: Entropy-driven adaptive representation. In: J. Rosca (ed.): Proceedings of the Workshop on Genetic Programming: From Theory to Real-World Applications. Tahoe City, California (1995) 23–32Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Wineberg
    • 1
  • Franz Oppacher
    • 2
  1. 1.Computing and Information ScienceUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations