A comparison of dominance mechanisms and simple mutation on non-stationary problems
It is sometimes claimed that genetic algorithms using diploid representations will be more suitable for problems in which the environment changes from time to time, as the additional information stored in the double chromosome will ensure diversity, which in turn allows the system to respond more quickly and robustly to a change in the fitness function. We have tested various diploid algorithms, with and without mechanisms for dominance change, on non-stationary problems, and conclude that some form of dominance change is essential, as a diploid encoding is not enough in itself to allow flexible response to change. Moreover, a haploid method which randomly mutates chromosomes whose fitness has fallen sharply also performs well on these problems.
KeywordsKnapsack Problem Target Change Genotypic Allele Dominance Mechanism Simple Mutation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Emma Collingwood, David Corne, and Peter Ross. Useful diversity via multiploidy. In Proceedings of International Conference on Evolutionary Computing, 1996.Google Scholar
- 2.David Corne, Emma Collingwood, and Peter Ross. Investigating multiploidy's niche. In Proceedings of AISB Workshop on Evolutionary Computing, 1996.Google Scholar
- 3.Jonathan Lewis. A comparative study of diploid and haploid binary genetic algorithms. Master's thesis, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1997.Google Scholar
- 4.Khim Peow Ng and Kok Cheong Wong. A new diploid sceme and dominance change mechanism for non-stationary function optimisation. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, 1995.Google Scholar
- 5.Conor Ryan. The degree of oneness. In Proceedings of the ECAI workshop on Genetic Algorithms. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
- 6.Kukiko Yoshida and Nobue Adachi. A diploid genetic algorithm for preserving population diversity. In Parallel Problem Solving from Nature: PPSN III, pages 36–45. Springer Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar