Testing the Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis: Effect of Asynchronous Population Incorporation on Multi-Deme Evolutionary Algorithms

In P2P and volunteer computing environments, resources are not always available from the beginning to the end, getting incorporated into the experiment at any moment. Determining the best way of using these resources so that the exploration/exploitation balance is kept and used to its best effect is an important issue. The Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis states that a moderate population disturbance (in any sense that could affect the population fitness) results in the maximum ecological diversity. In the line of this hypothesis, we will test the effect of incorporation of a second population in a two-population experiment. Experiments performed on two combinatorial optimization problems, MMDP and P-Peaks , show that the highest algorithmic effect is produced if it is done in the middle of the evolution of the first population; starting them at the same time or towards the end yields no improvement or an increase in the number of evaluations needed to reach a solution. This effect is explained in the paper, and ascribed to the intermediate disturbanceproduced by first-population immigrants in the second population.

[1]  Juan Julián Merelo Guervós,et al.  Exploring population structures for locally concurrent and massively parallel Evolutionary Algorithms , 2008, 2008 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence).

[2]  Enrique Alba,et al.  Influence of the Migration Policy in Parallel Distributed GAs with Structured and Panmictic Populations , 2000, Applied Intelligence.

[3]  Gilbert Syswerda,et al.  A Study of Reproduction in Generational and Steady State Genetic Algorithms , 1990, FOGA.

[4]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Massive Multimodality, Deception, and Genetic Algorithms , 1992, PPSN.

[5]  Marco Tomassini,et al.  Effects of Scale-Free and Small-World Topologies on Binary Coded Self-adaptive CEA , 2006, EvoCOP.

[6]  Erick Cantú-Paz,et al.  Migration Policies, Selection Pressure, and Parallel Evolutionary Algorithms , 2001, J. Heuristics.

[7]  R.W. Morrison,et al.  Triggered hypermutation revisited , 2000, Proceedings of the 2000 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC00 (Cat. No.00TH8512).

[8]  Juan Antonio Gómez Pulido,et al.  Comparing Synchronous and Asynchronous Parallel and Distributed Genetic Programming Models , 2002, EuroGP.

[9]  Enrique Alba,et al.  Selection Intensity in Asynchronous Cellular Evolutionary Algorithms , 2003, GECCO.

[10]  Juan Julián Merelo Guervós,et al.  Asynchronous distributed genetic algorithms with Javascript and JSON , 2008, 2008 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence).

[11]  Terry Jones,et al.  Crossover, Macromutationand, and Population-Based Search , 1995, ICGA.

[12]  Juan Julián Merelo Guervós,et al.  Browser-based distributed evolutionary computation: performance and scaling behavior , 2007, GECCO '07.

[13]  Enrique Alba,et al.  Analyzing synchronous and asynchronous parallel distributed genetic algorithms , 2001, Future Gener. Comput. Syst..

[14]  Jens Gottlieb,et al.  Evolutionary Computation in Combinatorial Optimization , 2006, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[15]  Kenneth A. De Jong,et al.  Using Problem Generators to Explore the Effects of Epistasis , 1997, ICGA.