PPSN 2004: Parallel Problem Solving from Nature - PPSN VIII pp 253-262 | Cite as
Comparison of Steady-State and Generational Evolution Strategies for Parallel Architectures
Abstract
Steady-state and generational selection methods with evolution strategies were compared on several test functions with respect to their performance and efficiency. The evaluation was carried out for a parallel computing environment with a particular focus on heterogeneous calculation times for the assessment of the individual fitness. This set-up was motivated by typical tasks in design optimization. Our results show that steady-state methods outperform classical generational selection for highly variable evaluation time or for small degrees of parallelism. The 2D turbine blade optimization results did not allow a clear conclusion about the advantage of steady-state selection, however this is coherent with the above findings.
Keywords
Evolution Strategy Evaluation Time Generational Selection Parent Population Continuous SelectionPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Beyer, H.-G., Schwefel, H.-P.: Evolution strategies. Natural Computing 1, 3–52 (2002)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 2.Hansen, N., Ostermeier, A.: Completely derandomized self-adapatation in evolution strategies. Evolutionary Computation 9(2), 159–195 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Jin, Y., Olhofer, M., Sendhoff, B.: A framework for evolutionary optimization with approximate fitness functions. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6(5), 481–494 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Olhofer, M., Arima, T., Sonoda, T., Fischer, M., Sendhoff, B.: Aerodynamic shape optimisation using evolution strategies. In: Optimisation in Industry III, pp. 83–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
- 5.Rechenberg, I.: Evolutionstrategie 1994. Frommann-Holzboog, Stuttgart (1994)Google Scholar
- 6.Runarsson, T., Yao, X.: Continuous selection and self-adaptive evolution strategies. In: Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), pp. 279–284. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Sonoda, T., Yamaguchi, Y., Arima, T., Olhofer, M., Sendhoff, B., Schreiber, H.A.: Advanced high turning compressor airfoils for low reynolds number condition, Part 1: Design and optimization. Journal of Turbomachinery (2004) (in press)Google Scholar
- 8.Wakunda, J., Zell, A.: Median-selection for parallel steady-state evolution strategies. In: Deb, K., Rudolph, G., Lutton, E., Merelo, J.J., Schoenauer, M., Schwefel, H.-P., Yao, X. (eds.) PPSN 2000. LNCS, vol. 1917, pp. 405–414. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Wakunda, J., Zell, A.: A new selection scheme for steady-state evolution strategies. In: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO), pp. 794–801. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2000)Google Scholar