Effects of Adding Perturbations to Phenotypic Parameters in Genetic Algorithms for Searching Robust Solutions

  • Shigeyoshi Tsutsui
  • Ashish Ghosh
Part of the Natural Computing Series book series (NCS)


We have proposed a scheme that extends the application of GAs to domains that require detection of robust solutions. We called this technique GAs/RS3 — GAs with a robust solution searching scheme. In the GAs/RS3, a perturbation is added to the phenotypic feature once for evaluation of an individual, thereby reducing the chance of selecting sharp peaks. We refer to this method as a single-evaluation model (SEM). In this chapter, we introduce a natural variant of this method, a multi-evaluation-model (MEM), where perturbations are given more than once for evaluation of the individual, and we offer comparative studies on their convergence property. The results showed that for the GAs/RS with SEM the population converges to robust solutions faster than with the MEM, and as the number of evaluations increases, the convergence speed decreases. We may conclude that the GAs/RS3 with the SEM is more efficient than with the MEM. We also introduced a variation of the MEM, i.e., multievaluation model keeping the worst value (MEM-W), and provided a mathematical analysis.


Genetic Algorithm Reduction Factor Robust Solution Convergence Process Phenotypic Parameter 
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]
    Eshelman, L.J., “The CHC Adaptive Search Algorithm: How to Have Safe Search When Engaging in Nontraditional Genetic Recombination,” Foundations of Genetic Algorithms, edited by G. J. E. Rawlins, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, pp. 265–283, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Goldberg, D.E., Deb, K. and Korb, B., “Messy Genetic Algorithms Revisited: Studies in Mixed Size and Scale,” Complex Systems, no. 4, pp. 415–444, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Mathias, K. and Whitley, L. D., “Changing Representations During Search: A Comparative Study of Delta Coding,” Evolutionary Computation, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 249–278, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Tsutsui, S., Fujimoto, Y. and Ghosh, A., “Forking GAs: GAs with Search Space Division Schemes,” Evolutionary Computation, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 61–80, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    De Jong, K. A., “An Analysis of the Behavior of a Class of Genetic Adaptive Systems, A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Computer and Communication Sciences) in the University of Michigan, 1975.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Goldberg, D.E. and Richardson, J., “Genetic Algorithms with Sharing for Multimodal Function Optimization,” Proc. of the 2nd Int. Confi on Genetic Algorithms, J. J. Grefenstette (Ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 41–49, 1987.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Horn, J. and Nafpliotis, N. “Multiobjective Optimization Using the Niched Pareto,” IlliGAL Report no. 93005, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1993.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Mahfoud, S. W., “Crowding and preselection revisited,” Proc. of the 2nd Conf. on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, R. Mnner and B. Manderick (Eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 27–34, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Beasley, D., Bull, D.R. and Martin, R. R., “A Sequential Niche Technique for Multimodal Function Optimization,” Evolutionary Computation, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 101–125, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Tsutsui, S., Ghosh, A. and Fujimoto, Y., “A Robust Solution Searching Scheme in Genetic Search,” Proc. of the the Fourth Int. Conf. on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (PPSN IV), Springer, Berlin, pp. 543–552, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Tsutsui, S. and Ghosh, A., “Genetic Algorithms with a Robust Solution Searching Scheme”, IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 201–208, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Tsutsui, S., “On Properties of the Genetic Algorithms with a Robust Solution Searching Scheme in Multidimensional Search Spaces”, Journal of Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 142–147, 1998.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Fitzpatrick, J.M. and Grefenstette, J. J., “Genetic Algorithms in Noisy Environments,” Machine Learning, vol. 3, pp. 101–120, 1988.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Hammel, U. and Baeck, T., “Evolution Strategies on Noisy Functions: How to Improve Convergence Properties,” Proc. of the Third Int. Conf. on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (PPSN III), Springer, Berlin, pp. 159–168, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Miller, B.L. and Goldberg, D.E., “Genetic Algorithms, Selection Scheme, and the Varying Effect of Noise,” Evolutionary Computation, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 113–131, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Wiesmann, D., Hammel, U. and Baeck, T., “Robust Design of Multilayer Optical Coatings by Means of Evolutionary Algorithms”, IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 162–167, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Goldberg, D. E., Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, pp. 28–33, 1989.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Tsutsui, S., “A Comparative Study on the Effects of Adding Perturbations to Phenotypic Parameters in Genetic Algorithms with a Robust Solution Searching Scheme,” Proc. of the 1999 IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Conf. (SMC’99 Tokyo), pp. III-585–591, 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shigeyoshi Tsutsui
    • 1
  • Ashish Ghosh
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Management and Information ScienceHannan UniversityMatsubaraJapan
  2. 2.Machine Intelligence UnitIndian Statistical InstituteKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations