Spatially-Structured Evolutionary Algorithms and Sharing: Do They Mix?
Spatially-structured populations are one approach to increasing genetic diversity in an evolutionary algorithm (EA). However, they are susceptible to convergence to a single peak in a multimodal fitness landscape. Niching methods, such as fitness sharing, allow an EA to maintain multiple solutions in a single population, however they have rarely been used in conjunction with spatially-structured populations. This paper introduces local sharing, a method that applies sharing to the overlapping demes of a spatially-structured population. The combination of these two methods succeeds in maintaining multiple solutions in problems that have previously proved difficult for sharing alone (and vice-versa).
KeywordsGenetic Algorithm Elitism Strategy Local Sharing Fitness Sharing Niching Method
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Mahfoud, S.W.: Niching methods for genetic algorithms. PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA, IlliGAL Report 95001 (1995)Google Scholar
- 2.Goldberg, D.E., Richardson, J.: Genetic algorithms with sharing for multi-modal function optimisation. In: Proc of the 2nd Int. Conf. on Genetic Algorithms and Their Applications, pp. 41–49 (1987)Google Scholar
- 3.Spears, W.M.: Simple subpopulation schemes. In: Sebald, A.V., Fogel, L.J. (eds.) Evolutionary Programming: Proc. of the Third Annual Conf., pp. 296–307. World Scientific Press, Singapore (1994)Google Scholar
- 4.Holland, J.H.: Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, 2nd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
- 6.Wright, S.: Isolation by distance. Genetics 28(2), 114–138 (1943)Google Scholar
- 7.Mayr, E.: Populations, species and evolution; an abridgment of Animal species and evolution. Harvard University Press (1970)Google Scholar
- 8.De Jong, K.A.: An Analysis of the Behavior of a Class of Genetic Adaptive Systems. PhD thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (1975), Dissertation Abstracts International 36(10), 5140B, University Microfilms Number 76-9381Google Scholar
- 9.Mahfoud, S.W.: A comparison of parallel and sequential niching methods. In: Eshelman, L. (ed.) Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pp. 136–143. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1995)Google Scholar
- 10.Goldberg, D.E., Deb, K., Horn, J.: Massive multimodality, deception, and genetic algorithms. In: Männer, R., Manderick, B. (eds.) Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, vol. 2, pp. 37–46. Elsevier Science Publishers, BV, Amsterdam (1992)Google Scholar
- 11.Mahfoud, S.W.: Population size and genetic drift in fitness sharing. In: Whitley, L.D., Vose, M.D. (eds.) Foundations of genetic algorithms, vol. 3, pp. 185–224. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1995)Google Scholar
- 12.Baker, J.E.: Reducing bias and inefficiency in the selection algorithm. In: Grefenstette, J.J. (ed.) Genetic Algorithms and their Applications (ICGA 1987), pp. 14–21. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey (1987)Google Scholar
- 13.Sarma, J.: An Analysis of Decentralized and Spatially Distributed Genetic Algorithms. PhD thesis, George Mason University, Fairfax VA, USA, double sided (1998)Google Scholar
- 14.Deb, K., Goldberg, D.E.: An investigation of niche and species formation in genetic function optimization. In: Schaffer, J.D. (ed.) Proc. of the Third Int. Conf. on Genetic Algorithms, pp. 42–50. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1989)Google Scholar