## Abstract

Classic evolutionary algorithms (EAs) use a single population (panmixia) of individuals and apply operators on them as a whole. To prevent EAs from concentrating on a small search space area, structured EAs have been proposed to as a means for improving the search properties, which started from the parallel implementation of EAs [1, 2, 3, 4]. This kind of EAs uses spatially structured populations in which any given individual has its own neighborhood. Usually, the size of the neighborhood is much smaller than the size of the population. In this way, instead of all the other individuals in the population being considered as potential mates as in panmictic populations, only those that are in the same neighborhood can interact.

## Keywords

Selection Pressure Selection Scheme Random Network Neighborhood Size Pair Approximation
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.

## References

- 1.J.P. Cohoon, S.U. Hegde, W.N. Martin, D.S. Richards, Punctuated equilibria: a parallel genetic algorithm, in
*Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Genetic Algorithms*, ed. by J.J. Grefenstette (Pittsburgh, PA, 1987), pp. 148–154Google Scholar - 2.V.S. Gordon, D. Whitely, A. Böhn, Dataflow parallelism in genetic algorithms, in
*Parallel Problem Solving from Nature*, eds. by R. Männer, B. Manderick (Brussels, 1992), pp. 533–542Google Scholar - 3.M. Gorges-Schleuter, Asparagos an asynchronous parallel genetic optimization strategy, in
*Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Genetic Algorithms*, ed. by J.D. Schaffer (1989), pp. 422–427Google Scholar - 4.B. Manderick, P. Spiessens, Fine-grained parallel genetic algorithms, in
*Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Genetic Algorithms*, ed. by D. Schaffer (1989), pp. 428–433Google Scholar - 5.M. Giacobini, M. Tomassini, A. Tettamanzi, Takeover time curves in random and small-world structured populations, in
*Proceedings of Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO’05)*, New York (ACM, 2005), pp. 1333–1340Google Scholar - 6.M. Giacobini, M. Tomassini, A. Tettamanzi, E. Alba, Selection intensity in cellular evolutionary algorithms for regular lattices. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput.
**9**(5), 489–505 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 7.J.L. Payne, M.J. Eppstein, Evolutionary dynamics on scale-free interaction networks. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput.
**13**(4), 895–912 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 8.D.E. Goldberg, K. Deb, A comparative analysis of selection schemes used in genetic algorithms, in
*Foundations of Genetic Algorithms*, ed. by G.J.E. Rawlins (Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1991), pp. 69–93Google Scholar - 9.J. Sarma, K.A. De Jong, An analysis of the effect of the neighborhood size and shape on local selection algorithms, in
*Proceedings of Parallel Problem Solving From Nature—PPSN IV, Lecture Notes in Computer Science*, ed. by H.M. Voigt, W. Ebeling, I. Rechenberg, H.P. Schwefel (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1996), pp. 236–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 10.J. Sarma, K.A.D. Jong, An analysis of local selection algorithms in a spatially structured evolutionary algorithm, in
*Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms*, ed. by T. Bäck (Morgan Kaufmann, San Manteo, 1997), pp. 181–186Google Scholar - 11.M. Gorges-Schleuter, An analysis of local selection in evolution strategies, in
*Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Conference, GECCO’99*, San Francisco, CA, (Morgan Kaufmann, San Manteo, 1999), pp. 847–854Google Scholar - 12.G. Rudolph, On takeover times in spatially structured populations: Array and ring, in
*Proceedings of the 2nd Asia-Pacific conference on Genetic algorithms Applications*, eds. by K.K. Lai, et al. (Global Link Publishing Company, Hong Kong, China, 2000), pp. 144–151Google Scholar - 13.M. Giacobini, M. Tomassini, A. Tettamanzi, Modelling selection intensity for linear cellular evolutionary algorithms, in
*Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Artificial Evolution*, ed. by P. L., et al. (Spring, Berlin, 2004), pp. 345–356Google Scholar - 14.M. Giacobini, E. Alba, A. Tettamanzi, M. Tomassini, Modeling selection intensity for toroidal cellular evolutionary algorithms, in
*Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference*, ed. by K. D., et al. (Springer, Berlin, 2004), pp. 1138–1149Google Scholar - 15.J.L. Payne, M.J. Eppstein, Pair approximations of takeover dynamics in regular population structures. Evol. Comput.
**17**(2), 203–229 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 16.J.L. Payne, M.J. Eppstein, Takeover times on scale-free topologies, in
*Proceedings of the Genetic Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO’07*, New York (ACM, 2007), pp. 308–315Google Scholar - 17.J.L. Payne, M.J. Eppstein, The influence of scaling and assortativity on takeover times in scale-free topologies, in
*Proceedings of the Genetic Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO’08*, New York (ACM, 2008), pp. 241–248Google Scholar - 18.U.K. Chakraborty, K. Deb, M. Chakraborty, Analysis of selection algorithms: A markov chain approach. Evol. Comput.
**4**(2), 133–167 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 19.R. Durrett, lectures on probability theory, in
*Ten Lectures on Particle Systems*, ed. by P. Biane, R. Durrett (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1995), pp. 97–201Google Scholar - 20.E. Alba, B. Dorronsoro, The exploration/exploitation tradeoff in dynamic cellular genetic algorithms. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput.
**9**(2), 126–142 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 21.J.M. Whitacre, R.A. Sarker, Q.T. Pham, The self-organization of interaction networks of nature-inspired optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput.
**12**(2), 220–230 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 22.A.L. Barabási, R. Albert, Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science
**286**(5439), 509–512 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

## Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014