1:
2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3: %% Fitness Uniform Selection to Preserve Genetic Diversity %%
4: %% %%
5: %% Marcus Hutter: Start: 16.12.00 LastEdit: 17.01.00 %%
6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
7:
8: %-------------------------------%
9: % Document-Style %
10: %-------------------------------%
11: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
12: \usepackage{epsf}
13: \parskip=1.5ex plus 1ex minus 1ex \parindent=0ex
14: \topmargin=0cm \oddsidemargin=0cm \evensidemargin=0cm
15: \textwidth=15.7cm \textheight=22cm \unitlength=1mm \sloppy
16: %\makeindex
17:
18: %-------------------------------%
19: % Macro-Definitions %
20: %-------------------------------%
21: \def\paragraph#1{{\bf #1}}
22: \newenvironment{keywords}{\centerline{\bf
23: Keywords}\vspace{0.5ex}\begin{quote}\small}{\par\end{quote}\vskip
24: 1ex}
25: \def\eqd{\stackrel{\bullet}{=}}
26: \def\ff{\Longrightarrow}
27: \def\gdw{\Longleftrightarrow}
28: \def\toinfty#1{\stackrel{#1\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}}
29: \def\gtapprox{\buildrel{\lower.7ex\hbox{$>$}}\over
30: {\lower.7ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
31: \def\nq{\hspace{-1em}}
32: \def\look{\(\uparrow\)}
33: \def\ignore#1{}
34: \def\deltabar{{\delta\!\!\!^{-}}}
35: \def\qed{\sqcap\!\!\!\!\sqcup}
36: \def\odt{{\textstyle{1\over 2}}}
37: \def\odf{{\textstyle{1\over 4}}}
38: \def\odA{{\textstyle{1\over A}}}
39: \def\hbar{h\!\!\!\!^{-}\,}
40: \def\dbar{d\!\!^{-}\!}
41: \def\eps{\varepsilon}
42: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
43: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
44: \def\beqn{\begin{displaymath}}
45: \def\eeqn{\end{displaymath}}
46: \def\bqa{\begin{equation}\begin{array}{c}}
47: \def\eqa{\end{array}\end{equation}}
48: \def\bqan{\begin{displaymath}\begin{array}{c}}
49: \def\eqan{\end{array}\end{displaymath}}
50: \def\pb{\underline} % probability notation
51: \def\pb#1{\underline{#1}} % probability notation
52: \def\blank{{\,_\sqcup\,}} % blank position
53: \def\maxarg{\mathop{\rm maxarg}} % maxarg
54: \def\minarg{\mathop{\rm minarg}} % minarg
55: \def\hh#1{{\dot{#1}}} % historic I/O
56: \def\best{*} % or {best}
57: \def\vec#1{{\bf #1}}
58: \def\approxleq{\mbox{\raisebox{-0.8ex}{$\stackrel{\displaystyle<}\sim$}}} %% make nicer
59: \def\approxgeq{\mbox{\raisebox{-0.8ex}{$\stackrel{\displaystyle>}\sim$}}} %% make nicer
60:
61: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
62: % T i t l e - P a g e %
63: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
64:
65: \begin{document}
66:
67: \begin{titlepage}
68:
69: \begin{center}%\vspace*{1cm}
70: {\small Technical Report IDSIA-01-01, 17 January 2001 \\
71: {ftp://ftp.idsia.ch/pub/techrep/IDSIA-01-01.ps.gz}
72: }\\[2cm]
73: {\Huge\sc\sc\hrule height1pt \vskip 2mm
74: Fitness Uniform Selection to \\ Preserve Genetic Diversity
75: \vskip 5mm \hrule height1pt} \vspace{1.5cm}
76: {\bf Marcus Hutter} \\[1cm]
77: {\rm IDSIA, Galleria 2, CH-6928 Manno-Lugano, Switzerland} \\
78: {\rm\footnotesize marcus@idsia.ch \qquad
79: http://www.idsia.ch/$^{_{_\sim}}\!$marcus} \\[1cm]
80: \end{center}
81:
82: \begin{keywords}
83: Evolutionary algorithms, fitness uniform selection strategy,
84: preserve diversity, local optima, evolution,
85: correlated recombination, crossover.
86: \end{keywords}
87:
88: \begin{abstract}
89: In evolutionary algorithms, the fitness of a population increases
90: with time by mutating and recombining individuals and by a biased
91: selection of more fit individuals. The right selection pressure is
92: critical in ensuring sufficient optimization progress on the one
93: hand and in preserving genetic diversity to be able to escape from
94: local optima on the other. We propose a new selection scheme,
95: which is uniform in the fitness values. It generates selection
96: pressure towards sparsely populated fitness regions, not
97: necessarily towards higher fitness, as is the case for all other
98: selection schemes. We show that the new selection scheme can be
99: much more effective than standard selection schemes.
100: \end{abstract}
101:
102: \end{titlepage}
103:
104: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
105: \section{Introduction}\label{secInt}
106: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
107:
108: %------------------------------%
109: \paragraph{Evolutionary algorithms (EA):}
110: %------------------------------%
111: Evolutionary algorithms are capable of solving complicated
112: optimization tasks in which an objective function
113: $f\!:\!I\!\to\!I\!\!R$ shall be maximized. $i\!\in\!I$ is an
114: individual from the set $I$ of feasible solutions. Infeasible
115: solutions due to constraints my also be considered by reducing
116: $f$ for each violated constraint. A population $P\!\subseteq\!I$
117: of individuals is maintained and updated as follows: one or more
118: individuals are selected according to some selection strategy.
119: %
120: In generation based EAs, the selected individuals are recombined
121: (e.g.\ crossover) and mutated, and constitute the new population.
122: We prefer the more incremental, steady-state population update,
123: which selects (and possibly delets) only one or two individuals from
124: the current population and adds the newly recombined and mutated
125: individuals to it.
126: %
127: We are interested in finding a single individual of maximal objective value
128: $f$ for difficult multimodal and deceptive problems.
129:
130: %------------------------------%
131: \paragraph{Standard selection schemes (STD):}
132: %------------------------------%
133: The standard selection schemes (abbreviated by STD in the
134: following), proportionate, truncation, ranking and tournament
135: selection all favor individuals of higher fitness
136: \cite{Goldberg:89,Goldberg:91,Blickle:95a,Blickle:97}. This is
137: also true for less common schemes, like Boltzmann selection
138: \cite{Maza:93}. The
139: fitness function is identified with the objective
140: function (possibly after a monotone transformation).
141: In linear proportionate selection the probability
142: of selecting an individual depends linearly on its fitness
143: \cite{Holland:75}. In truncation selection the $\alpha\%$ fittest
144: individuals are selected, usually with multiplicity
145: ${1\over\alpha\%}$ in order to keep the population size fixed
146: \cite{Muehlenbein:94}. (Linear) ranking selection orders the
147: individuals according to their fitness. The selection probability
148: is, then, a (linear) function of the rank \cite{Whitley:89}.
149: Tournament selection \cite{Baker:85}, which selects the best $l$
150: out of $k$ individuals has primarily developed for steady-state
151: EAs, but can be adapted to generation based EAs. All these
152: selection schemes have the property (and goal!) to increase the
153: average fitness of a population, i.e.\ to evolve the population
154: towards higher fitness. For a population with a Gaussian fitness
155: distribution, the probability of selecting an individual and the
156: effect of selection is shown in Figure \ref{figsel}.
157:
158: %------------------------------%
159: \paragraph{The problem of the right selection pressure:}
160: %------------------------------%
161: The standard selection schemes STD, together with mutation and
162: recombination, evolve the population towards higher fitness. If
163: the selection pressure is too high, the EA gets stuck in a local
164: optimum, since the genetic diversity rapidly decreases. The
165: suboptimal genetic material which might help in finding the global
166: optimum is deleted too rapidly (premature convergence). On the other hand, the selection
167: pressure cannot be chosen arbitrarily low if we want EA to be
168: effective. In difficult optimization problems, suitable population
169: sizes, mutation and recombination rates, and selection parameters,
170: which influence the selection intensity, are usually not known
171: beforehand. Often, constant values are not sufficient at all.
172: There are various suggestions to dynamically determine and adapt
173: the parameters
174: \cite{Eshelman:91,Baeck:91,Herdy:92,Schlierkamp:94}.
175: Other approaches to preserve genetic diversity are fitness sharing
176: \cite{Goldberg:87}, crowding \cite{DeJong:75} and local mating
177: \cite{Collins:91}. They depend on the proper design of a
178: neighborhood function based on the specific problem structure
179: and/or coding.
180:
181: %------------------------------%
182: \paragraph{The main idea:}
183: %------------------------------%
184: Here, we propose a new selection scheme, based on the insight that
185: we are not primarily interested in a population converging to
186: maximal fitness, but only in a single individual of maximal fitness.
187: The scheme automatically
188: creates a suitable selection pressure and preserves genetic
189: diversity better than STD. The proposed fitness uniform selection
190: scheme FUSS (see also Figure \ref{figsel}) is defined as follows:
191: {\em if the lowest/highest fitness values in the current
192: population $P$ are $f_{min/max}$, we select a fitness value $f$
193: uniformly in the interval $[f_{min},f_{max}]$. Then, the
194: individual $i\!\in\!P$ with fitness nearest to $f$ is selected and
195: a copy is added to $P$, possibly after mutation and
196: recombination.} We will see that FUSS maintains genetic diversity
197: much better than STD, since a distribution over the fitness values
198: is used, unlike STD, which all use a distribution over
199: individuals. Premature convergence is avoided in FUSS by
200: abandoning convergence at all. Nevertheless there is a selection
201: pressure in FUSS towards higher fitness.
202: %
203: The probability of selecting a specific individual is proportional
204: to the distance to its nearest fitness neighbor. In a
205: population with a high density of unfit and low density of fit
206: individuals, the fitter ones are effectively favored.
207:
208: %------------------------------%
209: \paragraph{Contents:}
210: %------------------------------%
211: In {\em Section \ref{secFuss}} we discuss the problems of local
212: optima and exponential takeover \cite{Goldberg:91} in STD.
213: Motivated by the need to preserve genetic diversity, we define the
214: fitness uniform selection scheme FUSS. We discuss under which
215: circumstances FUSS leads to an (approximate) fitness uniform
216: population.
217:
218: Further properties of FUSS are discussed in {\em Section
219: \ref{secProp}}, especially, how FUSS creates selection pressure
220: towards higher fitness and how it preserves diversity better than
221: STD. Further topics are the equilibrium distribution and the
222: transformation properties of FUSS under linear and non-linear
223: transformations.
224:
225: In {\em Section \ref{secEx}} we demonstrate by way of a simple
226: optimization example that an EA with FUSS can optimize much faster
227: than with STD. We show that crossover can be effective
228: in FUSS, even when ineffective in STD. Furthermore, FUSS and STD are
229: compared to random search with and without crossover.
230:
231: There is a possible slowdown when including recombination, as
232: discussed in {\em Section \ref{secCross}}, which can be
233: avoided by using a scale independent pair selection. It is a
234: ``best'' compromise between unrestricted recombination and
235: recombination of individuals with similar fitness only.
236:
237: To simplify the discussion we have concentrated on the case of
238: discrete, equi-spaced fitness values. In many practical problems,
239: the fitness function is continuously valued. FUSS and some of the
240: discussion of the previous sections is generalized to the
241: continuous case in {\em Section \ref{secCont}}.
242:
243: A summary, conclusions and further discussions can be found in
244: {\em Section \ref{secConc}}.
245:
246: The focus of this work is on a theoretical analysis of FUSS.
247: Implementation details and numerical results for various
248: test-functions and for real-world problems will be presented
249: elsewhere.
250:
251: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
252: \section{Fitness Uniform Selection Strategy (FUSS)}\label{secFuss}
253: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
254:
255: %------------------------------%
256: \paragraph{The problem of local optima:}
257: %------------------------------%
258: Proportionate, truncation, ranking and tournament are the standard
259: (STD) selection algorithms used in evolutionary optimization. They
260: have the following property: if a local optimum $i^{lopt}$ has
261: been found, the number of individuals with fitness
262: $f^{lopt}=f(i^{lopt})$ increases exponentially. Assume a low
263: mutation and recombination rate, or, for instance, truncation
264: selection {\em after} mutation and recombination. Further, assume
265: that it is very difficult to find an individual more fit than
266: $i^{lopt}$. The population will then degenerate and will consist
267: mostly of $i^{lopt}$ after a few rounds. This decreased diversity
268: makes it even more unlikely that $f^{lopt}$ gets improved. The
269: suboptimal genetic material which might help in finding the global
270: optimum has been deleted too rapidly. On the other hand, too high
271: mutation and recombination rates convert the EA into an
272: inefficient random search. In the following we suggest a new
273: a new selection scheme, which automatically
274: generates a suitably adapting selection pressure.
275:
276: %------------------------------%
277: \paragraph{The fitness uniform selection scheme (FUSS):}
278: %------------------------------%
279: For simplicity we start with a fitness function $f\!:\!I\!\to\!F$
280: with discrete equi-spaced values
281: $F\!=\!\{f_{min},f_{min}\!+\!\eps,f_{min}\!+\!2\eps,...,
282: f_{max}\!-\!\eps,f_{max}\}$. The continuous valued case
283: $F\!=\![f_{min},f_{max}]$ is considered later.
284: %
285: The fitness uniform selection scheme (FUSS) is defined as follows:
286: randomly select a fitness value $f$ uniformly from the fitness
287: values $F$. Randomly (uniformly) select an individual $i$ from
288: population $P$ with fitness $f$. Add another copy of $i$ to $P$.
289:
290: %\paragraph{Two stage selection process:}
291: Note the two stage uniform selection process which is very
292: different from a one step uniform selection of an individual of
293: $P$ (see Figure \ref{figsel}).
294: \begin{figure}[tb]\epsfxsize=9cm
295: \centerline{\epsfbox{select.eps}} % [0 0 148 205]
296: \caption{\label{figsel}\it Effects of proportionate, truncation,
297: ranking \& tournament, uniform, and fitness uniform (FUSS)
298: selection on the fitness distribution in a generation based EA.
299: The left/right diagrams depict fitness distributions before/after
300: applying the selection schemes depicted in the middle diagrams.}
301: \end{figure}
302: %
303: %\paragraph{Population size: Individuals are not deleted:}
304: In STD, inertia increases with population size. A large mass of
305: unfit individuals reduces the probability of selecting fit
306: individuals. This is not the case for FUSS. Hence, without loss of
307: performance, we can define a {\em pure model}, in which no
308: individual is ever deleted; the population size increases with
309: time. No genetic material is ever discarded and no fine-tuning in
310: population size is necessary. What may prevent the pure model from
311: being applied to practical problems are not computation time
312: issues, but memory problems. If space gets a problem we delete
313: individuals from the most occupied fitness levels. Most of the
314: following statements remain valid with this modification.
315:
316: %------------------------------%
317: \paragraph{Asymptotically fitness uniform population:}
318: %------------------------------%
319: The expected number of
320: individuals per fitness level $f$ after $t$ selections is
321: $n_t(f)=n_0(f)+t/|F|$, where $n_0(f)$ is the initial distribution.
322: Hence, asymptotically the fitness levels get uniformly occupied
323: by a population fraction
324: $$
325: {n_t(f)\over |P_t(f)|} \;=\;
326: {n_0(f)+t/|F|\over |P_0(f)|+t} \;\to\; {1\over |F|}
327: \quad\mbox{for}\quad t\to\infty,
328: $$
329: where $P_t(f)$ is the set of individuals at time $t$ with fitness
330: $f$.
331:
332: %------------------------------%
333: \paragraph{Fitness gaps and continuous fitness:}
334: %------------------------------%
335: We made two unrealistic assumptions. First, we assumed that each
336: fitness level is initially occupied. If the smallest/largest
337: fitness values in $P_t$ are $f_{min/max}^t$ we extend the
338: definition of FUSS by selecting a fitness value $f$ uniformly in
339: the interval $[f_{min}^t-\odt\eps,f_{max}^t+\odt\eps]$ and an
340: individual $i\!\in\!P_t$ with fitness nearest to $f$. This also
341: covers the case when there are missing intermediate fitness
342: values, and also works for continuous valued fitness functions
343: ($\eps\to 0$).
344:
345: %------------------------------%
346: \paragraph{Mutation and recombination:}
347: %------------------------------%
348: The second assumption was that there is no mutation and
349: recombination. In the presence of small mutation and/or
350: recombination rates eventually each fitness level will become
351: occupied and the occupation fraction is still asymptotically
352: approximately uniform. For larger rates the distribution will be no
353: longer uniform, but the important point is that the occupation
354: fraction of {\em no} fitness level decreases to zero for
355: $t\!\to\!\infty$, unlike for STD. Furthermore, FUSS selects by
356: construction uniformly in the fitness levels, even if the levels
357: are not uniformly occupied. We will see that this is the more
358: important property.
359:
360: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
361: \section{Properties of Fuss}\label{secProp}
362: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
363: %------------------------------%
364: \paragraph{FUSS effectively favors fit individuals:}
365: %------------------------------%
366: FUSS preserves diversity better than STD, but the latter have a
367: (higher) selection pressure towards higher fitness, which is
368: necessary for optimization. At first glance it seems that there is
369: no such pressure at all in FUSS, but this is deceiving. As FUSS selects
370: uniformly in the fitness levels, individuals of low populated
371: fitness levels are effectively favored. The probability of
372: selecting a specific individual with fitness $f$ is inverse
373: proportional to $n_t(f)$ (see Figure \ref{figsel}). In a typical
374: (FUSS) population there are many unfit and only a few fit
375: individuals. Hence, fit individuals are effectively favored until
376: the population becomes fitness uniform. Occasionally, a new higher
377: fitness level is discovered and occupied by a new individual,
378: which then, again, is favored.
379:
380: %------------------------------%
381: \paragraph{No takeover in FUSS:}
382: %------------------------------%
383: With FUSS, takeover of the highest fitness level never happens.
384: The concept of takeover time \cite{Goldberg:91} is meaningless for
385: FUSS. The fraction of fittest individuals in a population is
386: always small. This implies that the average population fitness is
387: always much lower than the best fitness. Actually, a large number
388: of fit individuals is usually not the true optimization goal. A
389: single fittest individual usually suffices to having solved the
390: optimization task.
391:
392: %------------------------------%
393: \paragraph{FUSS may also favor unfit individuals:}
394: %------------------------------%
395: Note, if it is also difficult to find individuals of low fitness,
396: i.e.\ if there are only few individuals of low fitness, FUSS will
397: also favor these individuals. Half of the time is ``wasted'' in
398: searching on the wrong end of the fitness scale. This possible
399: slowdown by a factor of 2 is usually acceptable. In Section
400: \ref{secEx} we will see that in certain circumstances this
401: behaviour can actually speedup the search. In general, fitness
402: levels which are difficult to reach, are favored.
403:
404: %------------------------------%
405: \paragraph{Distribution within a fitness level:}
406: %------------------------------%
407: Within a fitness level there is no selection pressure which could
408: further exponentially decrease the population in certain regions
409: of the individual space. This (exponential) reduction is the major
410: enemy of diversity, which is suppressed by FUSS. Within a fitness
411: level, the individuals freely drift around (by mutation).
412: Furthermore, there is a steady stream of individuals into and out
413: of a level by (d)evolution from (higher)lower levels.
414: Consequently, FUSS develops an equilibrium distribution which is
415: nowhere zero. We expect FUSS to somewhat lower (but not to solve)
416: the problems associated with genetic drift. The above does also
417: not mean that the distribution within a level is uniform. For
418: instance, if there are two (local) maxima of same height, a very
419: broad one and a very narrow one, the broad one may be populated
420: much more than the narrow one, since it is much easier to
421: ``find''.
422:
423: %------------------------------%
424: \paragraph{Steady creation of individuals from every fitness level:}
425: %------------------------------%
426: In STD, a wrong step (mutation) at some point in evolution might
427: cause further evolution in the wrong direction. Once a local
428: optimum has been found and all unfit individuals were eliminated
429: it is very difficult to undo the wrong step. In FUSS, all fitness
430: levels remain occupied from which new mutants are steadily
431: created, occasionally one leading to further evolution in a more
432: promising direction.
433:
434: %------------------------------%
435: \paragraph{Transformation properties of FUSS:}
436: %------------------------------%
437: FUSS (with continuous fitness) is independent of a scaling and a
438: shift of the fitness function, i.e.\ FUSS($\tilde f$) with $\tilde
439: f(i):=a\!\cdot\!f(i)+b$ is identical to FUSS($f$). This is true
440: even for $a\!<\!0$, since FUSS searches for maxima {\em and}
441: minima, as we have seen. It is not independent of a non-linear
442: (monotone) transformation unlike tournament, ranking and
443: truncation selection. The non-linear transformation properties are
444: more like the ones of proportionate selection.
445:
446: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
447: \section{A Simple Example}\label{secEx}
448: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
449:
450: In the following we compare the performance of fitness uniform
451: selection (FUSS), random search (RAND) and standard selection
452: (STD) with and without recombination on a simple test example. We
453: regard it as a prototype for deceptive multimodal functions. The
454: example should demonstrate why FUSS can be superior to RAND and
455: STD. Numerical results are briefly discussed at the end of the
456: section.
457:
458: %------------------------------%
459: \paragraph{Simple 2D example:}
460: %------------------------------%
461: Consider individuals $(x,y)\!\in\!I\!:=\![0,1]\!\times\![0,1]$,
462: which are tupels of real numbers, each coordinate in the interval $[0,1]$.
463: The example models individuals possessing up to 2 ``features''.
464: Individual $i$ possesses feature $I_1$ if
465: $i\!\in\!I_1:=[a,a\!+\!\Delta]\!\times\![0,1]$, and feature $I_2$
466: if $i\!\in\! I_2:=[0,1]\!\times\![b,b\!+\!\Delta]$.
467: The fitness function $f:I\!\to\!\{1,2,3\}$ is defined as
468: $$
469: f(x,y) = \left\{
470: \begin{array}{l}
471: 1 \quad\mbox{if}\quad (x,y)\in I_1\backslash I_2, \\
472: 2 \quad\mbox{if}\quad (x,y)\in I_2\backslash I_1, \\
473: 3 \quad\mbox{if}\quad (x,y)\not\in I_1\cup I_2, \\
474: 4 \quad\mbox{if}\quad (x,y)\in I_1\cap I_2. \\
475: \end{array}\right.
476: \parbox{4cm}{\hfill \unitlength=0.7mm
477: \unitlength=0.7mm
478: \begin{picture}(45,45)
479: \footnotesize
480: \put(5,5){\vector(0,1){40}}
481: \put(5,5){\vector(1,0){40}}
482: \put(20,5){\line(0,1){35}}
483: \put(25,5){\line(0,1){35}}
484: \put(40,5){\line(0,1){35}}
485: \put(5,15){\line(1,0){35}}
486: \put(5,20){\line(1,0){35}}
487: \put(5,40){\line(1,0){35}}
488: \put(22.5,17.5){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{4}}
489: \put(12.5,30){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{3}}
490: \put(22.5,30){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{1}}
491: \put(32.5,30){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{3}}
492: \put(32.5,10){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{3}}
493: \put(12.5,10){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{3}}
494: \put(12.5,17.5){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{2}}
495: \put(32.5,17.5){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{2}}
496: \put(22.5,10){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{1}}
497: \put(44,2.5){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$x$}}
498: \put(22.5,2.5){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\Delta$}}
499: \put(20,3.5){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$a$}}
500: \put(2.5,17.5){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$\Delta$}}
501: \put(4,14.5){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$b$}}
502: \put(40,3){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{1}}
503: \put(3.5,40){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{1}}
504: \put(2.5,44){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$y$}}
505: \put(22.5,42.5){\makebox(0,0)[cc]{$f(x,y)$}}
506: \end{picture} }
507: $$
508: We assume $\Delta\!\ll\!1$.
509: Individuals
510: with none of the two features
511: ($i\!\in\!I\backslash(I_1\!\cup\!I_2)$) have fitness $f\!=\!3$.
512: These ``local $f\!=\!3$ optima'' occupy most of the individual
513: space $I$, namely a fraction $(1\!-\!\Delta)^2$. It is
514: disadvantageous for an individual to possess only one of the two
515: features ($i\!\in\!(I_1\backslash\!I_2)\cup
516: (I_2\backslash\!I_1)$), since $f\!=\!1/f\!=\!2$ in this case. In
517: combination ($i\!\in\!I_1\!\cap\!I_2)$), the two features lead to
518: the highest fitness, but the global maximum $f\!=\!4$ occupies the
519: smallest fraction $\Delta^2$ of the individual space $I$. With a
520: fraction $\Delta(1\!-\!\Delta)$, the $f\!=\!1/f\!=\!2$ minima are
521: in between.
522:
523: %------------------------------%
524: \paragraph{Random search:}
525: %------------------------------%
526: Individuals are created uniformly in the unit square. The ``local
527: optimum'' $f\!=\!3$ is easy to ``find'', since it occupies nearly
528: the whole space. The global optimum $f\!=\!4$ is difficult to
529: find, since it occupies only $\Delta^2\!\ll\!1$ of the space. The
530: expected time, i.e.\ the expected number of individuals created
531: and tested until one with $f\!=\!4$ is found, is
532: $T_{RAND}={1\over\Delta^2}$. Here and in the following, the
533: ``time'' $T$ is defined as the number of created individuals
534: until the {\it first} optimal individual (with
535: $f\!=\!4$) is found. $T$ is neither a takeover time nor the number
536: of generations (we consider steady-state EAs).
537:
538: %------------------------------%
539: \paragraph{Random search with crossover:}
540: %------------------------------%
541: Let us occasionally perform a recombination of individuals in the
542: current population. We combine the $x$-coordinate of one uniformly
543: selected individual $i_1$ with the $y$ coordinate of another
544: individual $i_2$. This crossover operation maintains a uniform
545: distribution of individuals in $[0,1]^2$. It leads to the global
546: optimum if $i_1\!\in\!I_1$ and $i_2\!\in\!I_2$. The probability of
547: selecting an individual in $I_i$ is
548: $\Delta(1-\Delta)\approx\Delta$ (we assumed that the global
549: optimum has not yet been found). Hence, the probability that $I_1$
550: crosses with $I_2$ is $\Delta^2$. The time to find the global
551: optimum by random search including crossover is still
552: $\sim{1\over\Delta^2}$.
553:
554: %------------------------------%
555: \paragraph{Mutation:}
556: %------------------------------%
557: The result remains valid (to leading order in ${1\over\Delta}$)
558: if, instead of a random search, we uniformly select an individual
559: and mutate it according to some probabilistic, sufficiently mixing
560: rule, which preserves uniformity in $[0,1]$. One popular such
561: mutation operator is to use a sufficiently long binary
562: representation of each coordinate, like in genetic algorithms, and
563: flip a single bit. In the following, we assume a mutation operator
564: which mutates with probability $\odt/\odt$ the first/second
565: coordinate, preserves uniformity, is sufficiently mixing, and
566: leaves the other coordinate unchanged, like the single-bit-flip
567: operator.
568:
569: %------------------------------%
570: \paragraph{Standard selection with crossover:}
571: %------------------------------%
572: The $f\!=\!1$ and $f\!=\!2$ individuals contain useful building
573: blocks, which could speedup the search by a suitable selection and
574: crossover scheme. Unfortunately, the standard selection schemes
575: favor individuals of higher fitness and will diminish the
576: $f\!=\!1/f\!=\!2$ population fraction. The probability of
577: selecting $f\!=\!1/f\!=\!2$ individuals is even smaller than in
578: random search. Hence $T_{STD}\sim{1\over\Delta^2}$. Standard
579: selection does not improve performance, even not in combination
580: with crossover, although crossover is well suited to produce the
581: needed recombination.
582:
583: %------------------------------%
584: \paragraph{FUSS:}
585: %------------------------------%
586: At the beginning, only the $f\!=\!3$ level is occupied and
587: individuals are uniformly selected and mutated. The expected time
588: till an $f\!=\!1/f\!=\!2$ individual in $I_1\cup I_2$ is created is
589: $T_1\approx{1\over \Delta}$ (not ${1\over 2\Delta}$, since only
590: one coordinate is mutated). From this time on FUSS will select one
591: half(!) of the time the $f\!=\!1/f\!=\!2$ individual(s) and only the
592: remaining half the abundant $f\!=\!3$ individuals. When level
593: $f\!=\!1$ {\em and} level $f\!=\!2$ are occupied, the selection
594: probability is ${1\over 3}\!+\!{1\over 3}$ for these levels.
595: With probability $\odt$ the
596: mutation operator will mutate the $y$ coordinate of an individual
597: in $I_1$ or the $x$ coordinate of an individual in $I_2$ and
598: produces a new $f\!=\!1/2/4$ individual. The relative probability
599: of creating an $f\!=\!4$ individual is $\Delta$. The expected time
600: to find this global optimum from the $f\!=\!1/f\!=\!2$ individuals, hence,
601: is $T_2=[({1\over 2}...{2\over 3})\!\times\!{1\over
602: 2}\!\times\!\Delta]^{-1}$. The total expected time is
603: $T_{FUSS}\approx T_1\!+\!T_2\!=\! {4\over\Delta}...{5\over\Delta}\ll
604: {1\over\Delta^2}\sim T_{STD}$. FUSS is much faster by exploiting
605: unfit $f\!=\!1/f\!=\!2$ individuals. This is an example where (local)
606: minima can help the search. Examples where a low local maxima
607: can help in finding the global maximum, but where standard
608: selection sweeps over too quickly to higher but useless local
609: maxima, can also be constructed.
610:
611: %------------------------------%
612: \paragraph{FUSS with crossover:}
613: %------------------------------%
614: The expected time till an $f\!=\!1$ individual in $I_1$ and an
615: $f\!=\!2$ individual in $I_2$ is found is $T_1\approx{1\over
616: \Delta}$, even with crossover. The probability of selecting an
617: $f=1/f\!=\!2$ individual is ${1\over 3}/{1\over 3}$. Thus, the
618: probability that a crossing operation crosses $I_1$ with $I_2$ is
619: $({1\over 3})^2$. The expected time to find the global optimum
620: from the $f\!=\!1/f\!=\!2$ individuals, hence, is $T_2=9\cdot O(1)$,
621: where the $O(1)$ factor depends on the frequency of crossover
622: operations. This is far faster than by STD, even if the
623: $f\!=\!1/f\!=\!2$ levels were local maxima, since to get a high standard
624: selection probability, the level has first to be taken over, which
625: itself needs some time depending on the population size. In FUSS a
626: single $f\!=\!1$ and a single $f\!=\!2$ individual suffice to
627: guarantee a high selection probability and an effective crossover.
628: Crossover does not significantly decrease the {\em total} time
629: $T_{FUSSX}\approx T_1\!+\!T_2={1\over \Delta}+O(9)$, but for a
630: suitable 3D generalization we get a large speedup by a factor of
631: ${1\over\Delta}$.
632:
633: %------------------------------%
634: \paragraph{Simple 3D example:}
635: %------------------------------%
636: We generalize the 2D example to D-dimensional individuals
637: $\vec x\!\in\![0,1]^D$ and a
638: fitness function
639: $$
640: f(\vec x) \;:=\; (D\!+\!1)\!\cdot\!\prod_{d=1}^D\chi_d(\vec x)\;
641: - \max_{1\leq d\leq D} d\!\cdot\!\chi_d(\vec x)\; +d+1,
642: $$
643: where $\chi_d(\vec x)$ is the characteristic function of feature
644: $I_d$
645: $$
646: \chi_d(\vec x) \;:=\; \left\{
647: \begin{array}{l}
648: 1 \quad\mbox{if}\quad a_i\leq x_i\leq a_i+\Delta, \\
649: 0 \quad\mbox{else.} \\
650: \end{array}\right.
651: $$
652: For $D\!=\!2$, $f$ coincides with the 2D example. For $D\!=\!3$,
653: the fractions of $[0,1]^3$ where $f=1/2/3/4/5$ are approximately
654: $\Delta^2/\Delta^2/\Delta^2/1/\Delta^3$.
655: With the same line of reasoning we get the following expected
656: search times for the global optimum:
657: $$
658: T_{RAND}\sim T_{STD}\sim {1\over\Delta^3},
659: $$ $$
660: T_{FUSS}\sim {1\over\Delta^2},\quad
661: T_{FUSSX}\sim {1\over\Delta}.
662: $$
663: This demonstrates the existence of problems, where FUSS is much
664: faster than RAND and STD, and that
665: crossover can give a further boost in FUSS, even when ineffective
666: in combination with STD.
667:
668: %------------------------------%
669: \paragraph{Numerical results:}
670: %------------------------------%
671: An EA with FUSS and STD has been implemented. First experiments
672: confirm the superiority of FUSS also for other complicated multimodal
673: and deceptive fitness functions.
674: %
675: The asymptotic behavior of the convergence times $T$ for
676: $\Delta\!\to 0$ for the previous example has been verified.
677: %
678: We got similar results for the function $f(x\!+\!a,y\!+\!b)=
679: 2{x^2\over x^2+\Delta^2}+
680: {y^2\over y^2+\Delta^2}+
681: 4e^{-(x^2+y^2)/\Delta^2}$,
682: which is a continuous version of the 2D example.
683: %
684: We further applied FUSS to the Traveling Salesman Problem. We
685: considered $10^{1..3}$ cities with random matrix distances, random
686: initial paths, random 1-Opt and 2.5-Opt mutation operators, inverse
687: length as fitness, but no crossover yet. The solutions found by FUSS are
688: consistently and significantly better than those found by STD. The
689: current implementation can in no way compete with up-to-date
690: TSP-solvers \cite{Johnson:97,Applegate:00}, but this was not the
691: intention of the comparison.
692: %
693: The results are very preliminary yet. Implementation details and
694: detailed simulation results will be presented in a
695: forthcoming publication.
696:
697: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
698: \section{Recombination}\label{secCross}
699: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
700:
701: %------------------------------%
702: \paragraph{Worst case analysis without recombination:}
703: %------------------------------%
704: We now want to estimate the maximal possible slowdown of FUSS
705: compared to STD.
706: %\paragraph{Best case for STD:}
707: Let us assume that all individuals in STD have fitness $f$, and
708: once one individual with fitness $f\!+\!\eps$ has been found,
709: takeover of level $f\!+\!\eps$ is quick. Let us assume that this
710: quick takeover is actually good (e.g.\ if there are no local maxima).
711: The selection probability of individuals of same fitness is equal.
712: %\paragraph{Worst case for FUSS:}
713: For FUSS we assume individuals in the range of $f_{min}$ and $f$.
714: Uniformity is {\em not} necessary. In the worst case, a selection of
715: an individual of fitness $<\!f$ never leads to an individual of
716: fitness $\geq\!f$, i.e.\ is always useless. The probability of selecting
717: an individual with fitness $f$ is $\geq{1\over|F|}$.
718: %\paragraph{Comparison:}
719: At least every $|F|th$ FUSS selection corresponds to a STD
720: selection. Hence, we expect a maximal slowdown by a factor of
721: $|F|$, since FUSS ``simulates'' STD statistically every $|F|th$
722: selection.
723: %
724: It is possible to artificially construct problems where this
725: slowdown occurs (unimodal function, local mutation
726: $x\!\to\!x\!\pm\!\eps$, no crossover). We have never observed this
727: large slowdown in our experiments. For the more complicated
728: multimodal and deceptive objective functions we were interested
729: in, FUSS often outperformed STD in solution quality {\em and}
730: time.
731:
732: %------------------------------%
733: \paragraph{Quadratic slowdown due to recombination:}
734: %------------------------------%
735: We have seen that $T_{FUSS}\!\leq\!|F|\!\cdot\!T_{STD}$. In the
736: presence of recombination, a {\em pair} of individuals has to be
737: selected. The probability that FUSS selects {\em two} individuals
738: with fitness $f$ is $\geq\!{1\over|F|^2}$. Hence, in the worst case,
739: there could be a slowdown by a factor of $|F|^2$ --- for {\em
740: independent} selection we expect
741: $T_{FUSS}\!\leq\!|F|^2\!\cdot\!T_{STD}$. This potential quadratic
742: slowdown can be avoided by selecting one fitness value at random,
743: and then two individuals of this single fitness value. For this
744: {\em dependent} selection, we expect
745: $T_{FUSS}\!\leq\!|F|\!\cdot\!T_{STD}$. One the other hand,
746: crossing two individuals of different fitness can also be
747: advantageous, like the crossing of $f\!=\!1$ with $f\!=\!2$
748: individuals in the 2D example of Section \ref{secEx}.
749:
750: %------------------------------%
751: \paragraph{Scale independent pair selection:}
752: %------------------------------%
753: It is possible to (nearly) have the best of independent and
754: dependent selection: a high selection probability $p(f,f')\sim
755: {1\over|F|}$ if $f\!\approx\!f'$ and $p(f,f')\sim {1\over|F|^2}$
756: otherwise, with uniform marginal $p(f)\!=\!{1\over|F|}$. The idea
757: is to use a strongly correlated joint distribution for selecting a
758: fitness pair. A ``scale independent'' probability distribution
759: $p(f,f')\sim{1\over|f-f'|}$ is appropriate. We define the joint
760: probability $\tilde p(f,f')$ of selecting two individuals of
761: fitness $f$ and $f'$ and the marginal $\tilde p(f)$ as
762: \beq\label{ptjoint}
763: \tilde p(f,f') \;:=\; {1\over 2|F|\ln|F|}\cdot
764: {1\over {1\over\eps}|f\!-\!f'|+1},
765: \eeq
766: $$
767: \tilde p(f) \;:=\; \sum_{f'\in F}\tilde p(f,f')
768: = \sum_{f'\in F}\tilde p(f',f).
769: $$
770: We assume $|F|\geq 3$ in the following. The $+1$ in the
771: denominator has been added to regularize the expression for
772: $f\!=\!f'$. The factor $(2|F|\ln|F|)^{-1}$ ensures correct
773: normalization for $|F|\!\to\!\infty$. More precisely, using
774: $\ln{b+1\over a}\leq\sum_{i=a}^b{1\over i}\leq\ln{b\over a-1}$,
775: one can show that
776: $$
777: 1-{\textstyle{1\over\ln|F|}} \;\leq
778: \sum_{f,f'\in F}\tilde p(f,f') \;\leq\; 1
779: ,\quad
780: \odt \;\leq\; |F|\!\cdot\!\tilde p(f) \;\leq\; 1
781: $$
782: i.e.\ $\tilde p$ is not strictly normalized to $1$ and the
783: marginal $\tilde p(f)$ is only approximately (within a factor of 2)
784: uniform. The first defect can be corrected by appropriately
785: increasing the diagonal probabilities $\tilde p(f,f)$. This also
786: solves the second problem.
787: \beq\label{pjoint}
788: p(f,f') \;:=\; \left\{
789: \begin{array}{ll}
790: \tilde p(f,f') & \mbox{for}\quad f\neq f' \\
791: \tilde p(f,f')+[{1\over|F|}-\tilde p(f)] &
792: \mbox{for}\quad f=f' \
793: \end{array}
794: \right.
795: \eeq
796:
797: %------------------------------%
798: \paragraph{Properties of $p(f,f')$:}
799: %------------------------------%
800: $p$ is normalized to $1$ with uniform marginal
801: $$
802: p(f):= \sum_{f'\in F} p(f,f') = {1\over|F|},\quad
803: p(f,f')\geq \tilde p(f,f'),
804: $$ $$
805: \sum_{f,f'\in F} p(f,f') =
806: \sum_{f\in F} p(f) = 1,
807: $$
808: Apart from a minor additional logarithmic suppression of order
809: $\ln|F|$ we have the desired behaviour $p(f,f')\sim {1\over|F|}$
810: for $f\approx f'$ and $p(f,f')\sim {1\over|F|^2}$ otherwise:
811: $$
812: p(f,f\pm m\eps) \geq {1\over 2\ln|F|} \cdot
813: {1\over m+1} \cdot {1\over|F|},
814: $$ $$
815: p(f,f') \geq {1\over 2\ln|F|} \cdot
816: {1\over |F|^2}.
817: $$
818: During optimization, the minimal/maximal fitness of an
819: individual in population $P_t$ is $f_{min/max}^t$. In the
820: definition of $p$ one has to use
821: $F_t\!:=\!\{f_{min}^t,f_{min}^t\!+\!\eps,...,f_{max}^t\}$ instead
822: of $F$, i.e.\ $|F|\hookrightarrow
823: |F_t|={1\over\eps}(f_{max}^t\!-\!f_{min}^t)+1\leq|F|$.
824:
825: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
826: \section{Continuous Fitness Functions}\label{secCont}
827: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
828: %------------------------------%
829: \paragraph{Effective discretization scale:}
830: %------------------------------%
831: Up to now we have considered a discrete valued fitness function
832: with values in $F\!=\!\{f_{min},f_{min}\!+\!\eps,...,f_{max}\}$.
833: In many practical problems, the fitness function is continuous
834: valued with $F=[f_{min},f_{max}]$. We generalize FUSS, and some of
835: the discussion of the previous sections to the continuous case by
836: replacing the discretization scale $\eps$ by an effective
837: (time-dependent) discretization scale $\hat\eps$. By construction,
838: FUSS shifts the population towards a more uniform one. Although
839: the fitness values are no longer equi-spaced, they still form a
840: discrete set for finite population $P$. For a fitness uniform
841: distribution, the average distance between (fitness) neighboring
842: individuals is
843: ${1\over|P_t|-1}(f^t_{max}\!-\!f^t_{min})\!=:\!\hat\eps$. We
844: define $\hat
845: F_t\!:=\!\{f^t_{min},f^t_{min}\!+\!\hat\eps,...,f^t_{max}\}$.
846: $|\hat F_t| = {1\over\hat\eps}(f^t_{max}\!-\!f^t_{min})+1 =
847: |P_t|$.
848:
849: %------------------------------%
850: \paragraph{FUSS:}
851: %------------------------------%
852: Fitness uniform selection for a continuous valued function has
853: already been mentioned in Section \ref{secFuss}. We just take a
854: uniform random fitness $f$ in the interval
855: $[f_{min}^t-\odt\hat\eps,f_{max}^t+\odt\hat\eps]$. One may even
856: take the limit $\hat\eps\!\to\!0$ in this case probably without
857: harming FUSS.
858: Independent and dependent fitness pair selection as
859: described in the last section works analogously. An
860: $\hat\eps\!=\!0$ version of correlated selection does not exist; a
861: non-zero $\hat\eps$ is important. A discrete pair $(f,f')$ is
862: drawn with probability $p(f,f')$ as defined in
863: (\ref{ptjoint}) and (\ref{pjoint}) with $\eps$ and $F$ replaced by
864: $\hat\eps$ and $\hat F_t$. The additional suppression $\ln|\hat
865: F_t|\!=\!\ln|P_t|$ is small for all practical population sizes.
866:
867: In all cases an individual with fitness nearest to $f$ ($f'$) is
868: selected from the population $P$ (randomly if there is
869: more than one nearest individual).
870:
871: %------------------------------%
872: \paragraph{Discussion:}
873: %------------------------------%
874: If we assume a fitness uniform distribution, a worst case bound
875: $T_{FUSS}\approxleq\sum_{t=1}^{T_{STD}}|P_t|$ seems plausible,
876: since the probability of selecting the best individual is
877: approximately $|P_t|$. For constant population size we get a bound
878: $T_{FUSS}\approxleq|P|\!\cdot\!T_{STD}$. For the preferred
879: non-deletion case with population size $|P_t|\!=\!t$ the bound
880: gets much worse $T_{FUSS}\approxleq\odt T_{STD}^2$.
881: %\paragraph{Problems of proportionate selection:}
882: This possible (but not necessary!) slowdown has similarities to
883: the slowdown problems of proportionate selection in later
884: optimization stages.
885: %\paragraph{Larger $\hat\eps$:}
886: Larger choices of $\hat\eps$ may be favorable if the standard
887: choice causes problems.
888:
889: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
890: \section{Summary \& Conclusions}\label{secConc}
891: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
892: We have addressed the problem of balancing the selection intensity
893: in EAs, which determines speed versus quality of a solution. We
894: invented a new fitness uniform selection scheme FUSS. It generates
895: a selection pressure towards sparsely populated fitness levels.
896: This property is unique to FUSS as compared to other selection
897: schemes (STD).
898: %
899: It results in the desired high selection pressure towards higher
900: fitness if there are only a few fit individuals. The selection
901: pressure is automatically reduced when the number of fit
902: individuals increases.
903: %
904: A joint pair selection scheme for recombination has been
905: defined, but not yet implemented.
906: %
907: A heuristic worst case analysis of FUSS compared to STD has been
908: given.
909: %
910: FUSS solves the problem of exponential takeover and the resulting
911: loss of genetic diversity of STD, while still generating enough
912: selection pressure. It does not help in getting a more uniform
913: distribution within a fitness level. We showed analytically by way
914: of a simple example that FUSS can be much more effective than STD.
915: FUSS should be compared to STD on other problems to further
916: explore its efficacy and limitations. First results look
917: encouraging.
918: %
919: Of special interest is whether FUSS could improve up-to-date
920: EAs that solve difficult combinatoric optimization problems, like
921: TSPs. We expect FUSS to be superior to STD in cases where an EA
922: with STD effectively gets trapped into local optima.
923:
924: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
925: % Bibliography %
926: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
927: \addcontentsline{toc}{section}{References}
928: \begin{thebibliography}{SVM94}
929:
930: \bibitem[ACR00]{Applegate:00}
931: D.~Applegate, W.~Cook, and A.~Rohe.
932: \newblock Chained {L}in-{K}ernighan for large traveling salesman problems.
933: \newblock Technical report, 2000.
934: \newblock http://www.keck.caam.rice.edu/reports/ chained\_lk.ps.
935:
936: \bibitem[Bak85]{Baker:85}
937: J.~E. Baker.
938: \newblock Adaptive selection methods for genetic algorithms.
939: \newblock In J.~J. Grefenstette, editor, {\em Proceedings of the 1st
940: International Conference on Genetic Algorithms and their Applications}, pages
941: 101--111, Pittsburgh, PA, 1985. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
942:
943: \bibitem[BHS91]{Baeck:91}
944: T.~B{\"a}ck, F.~Hoffmeister, and H.~P. Schwefel.
945: \newblock A survey of evolution strategies.
946: \newblock In R.~K. Belew and L.~B. Booker, editors, {\em Proceedings of the 4th
947: International Conference on Genetic Algorithms}, pages 2--9, San Diego, CA,
948: July 1991. Morgan Kaufmann.
949:
950: \bibitem[BT95]{Blickle:95a}
951: T.~Blickle and L.~Thiele.
952: \newblock A mathematical analysis of tournament selection.
953: \newblock In L.~J. Eshelman, editor, {\em Proceedings of the Sixth
954: International Conference on Genetic Algorithms ({ICGA}'95)}, pages 9--16, San
955: Francisco, California, 1995. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
956:
957: \bibitem[BT97]{Blickle:97}
958: T.~Blickle and L.~Thiele.
959: \newblock A comparison of selection schemes used in evolutionary algorithms.
960: \newblock {\em Evolutionary {C}omputation}, 4(4):361--394, 1997.
961:
962: \bibitem[CJ91]{Collins:91}
963: R.~J. Collins and D.~R. Jefferson.
964: \newblock Selection in massively parallel genetic algorithms.
965: \newblock In R.~K. Belew and L.~B. Booker, editors, {\em Proceedings of the
966: Fourth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms}, San Mateo, CA, 1991.
967: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
968:
969: \bibitem[Esh91]{Eshelman:91}
970: L.~J. Eshelman.
971: \newblock The {CHC} adaptive search algorithm: How to safe search when engaging
972: in nontraditional genetic recombination.
973: \newblock In G.~J.~E. Rawlings, editor, {\em Foundations of genetic
974: algorithms}, pages 265--283. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1991.
975:
976: \bibitem[GD91]{Goldberg:91}
977: D.~E. Goldberg and K.~Deb.
978: \newblock A comparative analysis of selection schemes used in genetic
979: algorithms.
980: \newblock In G.~J.~E. Rawlings, editor, {\em Foundations of genetic
981: algorithms}, pages 69--93. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1991.
982:
983: \bibitem[Gol89]{Goldberg:89}
984: D.~E. Goldberg.
985: \newblock {\em Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine
986: Learning}.
987: \newblock Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1989.
988:
989: \bibitem[GR87]{Goldberg:87}
990: D.~E. Goldberg and J.~Richardson.
991: \newblock Genetic algorithms with sharing for multimodalfunction optimization.
992: \newblock In J.~J. Grefenstette, editor, {\em Proceedings of the 2nd
993: International Conference on Genetic Algorithms and their Applications}, pages
994: 41--49, Cambridge, MA, July 1987. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
995:
996: \bibitem[Her92]{Herdy:92}
997: M.~Herdy.
998: \newblock Reproductive isolation as strategy parameter in hierarchically
999: organized evolution strategies.
1000: \newblock In R.~M{\"{a}}nner and B.~Manderick, editors, {\em Parallel problem
1001: solving from nature 2}, pages 207--217, Amsterdam, 1992. North-Holland.
1002:
1003: \bibitem[Hol75]{Holland:75}
1004: John~H. Holland.
1005: \newblock {\em Adpatation in Natural and Artificial Systems}.
1006: \newblock University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, 1975.
1007:
1008: \bibitem[JM97]{Johnson:97}
1009: D.~S. Johnson and A.~McGeoch.
1010: \newblock The traveling salesman problem: {A} case study.
1011: \newblock In E.~H.~L. Aarts and J.~K. Lenstra, editors, {\em Local Search in
1012: Combinatorial Optimization}, Discrete Mathematics and Optimization,
1013: chapter~8, pages 215--310. Wiley-Interscience, Chichester, England, 1997.
1014:
1015: \bibitem[Jon75]{DeJong:75}
1016: {K. de} Jong.
1017: \newblock An analysis of the behavior of a class of genetic adaptive systems.
1018: \newblock {\em Dissertation Abstracts International}, 36(10), 5140B, 1975.
1019:
1020: \bibitem[MSV94]{Muehlenbein:94}
1021: Heinz M{\"u}hlenbein and Dirk Schlierkamp-Voosen.
1022: \newblock The science of breeding and its application to the breeder genetic
1023: algorithm ({BGA}).
1024: \newblock {\em Evolutionary {C}omputation}, 1(4):335--360, 1994.
1025:
1026: \bibitem[MT93]{Maza:93}
1027: {M. de la} Maza and B.~Tidor.
1028: \newblock An analysis of selection procedures with particular attention paid to
1029: proportional and {B}oltzmann selection.
1030: \newblock In S.~Forrest, editor, {\em Proceedings of the 5th International
1031: Conference on Genetic Algorithms}, pages 124--131, San Mateo, CA, USA, 1993.
1032: Morgan Kaufmann.
1033:
1034: \bibitem[SVM94]{Schlierkamp:94}
1035: D.~Schlierkamp-Voosen and H.~M{\"u}hlenbein.
1036: \newblock Strategy adaptation by competing subpopulations.
1037: \newblock In Y.~Davidor, H.-P. Schwefel, and R.~M{\"a}nner, editors, {\em
1038: {P}arallel {P}roblem {S}olving from {N}ature -- {PPSN III}}, pages 199--208,
1039: Berlin, 1994. Springer.
1040: \newblock {L}ecture {N}otes in {C}omputer {S}cience 866.
1041:
1042: \bibitem[Whi89]{Whitley:89}
1043: D.~Whitley.
1044: \newblock The {G}{E}{N}{I}{T}{O}{R} algorithm and selection pressure: Why
1045: rank-based allocation of reproductive trials is best.
1046: \newblock In J.~D. Schaffer, editor, {\em Proceedings of the Third
1047: International Conference on Genetic Algorithms ({ICGA}'89)}, pages 116--123,
1048: San Mateo, California, 1989. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
1049:
1050: \end{thebibliography}
1051:
1052: \end{document}
1053:
1054: %---------------------------------------------------------------
1055: