Advertisement

Recurrent Genetic Algorithms: Sustaining Evolvability

  • Adnan Fakeih
  • Ahmed Kattan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7245)

Abstract

This paper proposes a new paradigm, referred to as Recurrent Genetic Algorithms (RGA), to sustain Genetic Algorithm (GA) evolvability and effectively improves its ability to find superior solutions. RGA attempts to continually recover evolvability loss caused by the canonical GA iteration process. It borrows the term Recurrent from the taxonomy of Neural Networks (NN), in which a Recurrent NN (RNN) is a special type of network that uses a feedback loop, usually to account for temporal information embedded in the sequence of data points presented to the network. Unlike RNN, the temporal dimension in our algorithm pertains to the sequential nature of the evolution process itself; and not to the data sampled from the problem solution space. Empirical evidence shows that the new algorithm better preserves the population’s diversity, higher number of constructive crossovers and mutations. Furthermore, evidence shows that the RGA outperforms the standard GA on two NP problems and does the same on three continuous optimisation problems when aided by problem encoding information.

Keywords

Genetic Algorithm Recurrent Neural Network Continuous Optimisation Problem Standard Genetic Algorithm Intermediate Population 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Altenberg, L.: The evolution of evolvability in genetic programming. In: Kinnear Jr., K.E. (ed.) Advances in Genetic Programming, ch.3, pp. 47–74. MIT Press (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bassett, J.K., Coletti, M., De Jong, K.A.: The relationship between evolvability and bloat. In: Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO 2009, pp. 1899–1900. ACM, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frances, M., Litman, A.: On covering problems of codes. Theory of Computing Systems 30, 113–119 (1997), doi:10.1007/BF02679443MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goldberg, D.E.: Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (1989)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haykin, S.: Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1999)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hu, T., Banzhaf, W.: Evolvability and speed of evolutionary algorithms in light of recent developments in biology. J. Artif. Evol. App. 2010, 1:1–1:28 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jones, T., Forrest, S.: Fitness distance correlation as a measure of problem difficulty for genetic algorithms. In: Eshelman, L.J. (ed.) ICGA, pp. 184–192. Morgan Kaufmann (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kauffman, S., Levin, S.: Towards a general theory of adaptive walks on rugged landscapes. J. Theoret. Biol. 128(1), 11–45 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Molga, M., Smutnick, C.: Test functions for optimization needs. Test functions for optimization needs (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vanneschi, L., Clergue, M., Collard, P., Tomassini, M., Vérel, S.: Fitness Clouds and Problem Hardness in Genetic Programming. In: Deb, K., et al. (eds.) GECCO 2004, Part II. LNCS, vol. 3103, pp. 690–701. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang, Y., Wineberg, M.: The estimation of evolvability genetic algorithm. In: The 2005 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 3, pp. 2302–2309 (September 2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adnan Fakeih
    • 1
  • Ahmed Kattan
    • 2
  1. 1.Futures Business Development Ltd.Saudi Arabia
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUm Al-Qura UniversitySaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations