Implementation of cellular genetic algorithms with two neighborhood structures for single-objective and multi-objective optimization

In cellular algorithms, a single neighborhood structure for local selection is usually assumed to specify a set of neighbors for each cell. There exist, however, a number of examples with two neighborhood structures in nature. One is for local selection for mating, and the other is for local competition such as the fight for water and sunlight among neighboring plants. The aim of this paper is to show several implementations of cellular algorithms with two neighborhood structures for single-objective and multi-objective optimization problems. Since local selection has already been utilized in cellular algorithms in the literature, the main issue of this paper is how to implement the concept of local competition. We show three ideas about its utilization: Local elitism, local ranking, and local replacement. Local elitism and local ranking are used for single-objective optimization to increase the diversity of solutions. On the other hand, local replacement is used for multi-objective optimization to improve the convergence of solutions to the Pareto frontier. The main characteristic feature of our approach is that the two neighborhood structures can be specified independently of each other. Thus, we can separately examine the effect of each neighborhood structure on the behavior of cellular algorithms.

[1]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Examining the Effect of Elitism in Cellular Genetic Algorithms Using Two Neighborhood Structures , 2008, PPSN.

[2]  Gary B. Lamont,et al.  Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems , 2002, Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation.

[3]  R. K. Ursem Multi-objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms , 2009 .

[4]  Martina Gorges-Schleuter,et al.  ASPARAGOS An Asynchronous Parallel Genetic Optimization Strategy , 1989, ICGA.

[5]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Multiobjective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms - A Comparative Case Study , 1998, PPSN.

[6]  Bernard Manderick,et al.  A Massively Parallel Genetic Algorithm: Implementation and First Analysis , 1991, ICGA.

[7]  Margarita Ifti,et al.  Effects of neighbourhood size and connectivity on the spatial Continuous Prisoner's Dilemma. , 2004, Journal of theoretical biology.

[8]  David Sloan Wilson,et al.  Structured Demes and Trait-Group Variation , 1979, The American Naturalist.

[9]  M Slatkin,et al.  Coevolution in structured demes. , 1979, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[10]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach , 1999, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[11]  L. Darrell Whitley,et al.  Cellular Genetic Algorithms , 1993, ICGA.

[12]  Mitsuo Gen,et al.  Specification of Genetic Search Directions in Cellular Multi-objective Genetic Algorithms , 2001, EMO.

[13]  D. Wilson Structured Demes and the Evolution of Group-Advantageous Traits , 1977, The American Naturalist.

[14]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Evolutionary many-objective optimization , 2008, 2008 3rd International Workshop on Genetic and Evolving Systems.

[15]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Evolution of iterated prisoner's dilemma game strategies in structured demes under random pairing in game playing , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[16]  Qingfu Zhang,et al.  MOEA/D: A Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm Based on Decomposition , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[17]  Enrique Alba,et al.  Selection intensity in cellular evolutionary algorithms for regular lattices , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[18]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A Comparative Analysis of Selection Schemes Used in Genetic Algorithms , 1990, FOGA.

[19]  Bernard Manderick,et al.  Fine-Grained Parallel Genetic Algorithms , 1989, ICGA.

[20]  David J. Sheskin,et al.  Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures , 1997 .

[21]  Inman Harvey,et al.  Optimal Mutation Rates and Selection Pressure in Genetic Algorithms , 2000, GECCO.

[22]  G. Rudolph On Takeover Times in Spatially Structured Populations : Array and Ring , 2001 .

[23]  Mitsuo Gen,et al.  Modification of Local Search Directions for Non-dominated Solutions in CellularMultiobjective Genetic Algorithms forPattern Classification Problems , 2003, EMO.

[24]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Use of Local Ranking in Cellular Genetic Algorithms with Two Neighborhood Structures , 2008, SEAL.

[25]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II , 2002, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[26]  Enrique Alba,et al.  The exploration/exploitation tradeoff in dynamic cellular genetic algorithms , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[27]  Enrique Alba,et al.  Solving Three-Objective Optimization Problems Using a New Hybrid Cellular Genetic Algorithm , 2008, PPSN.

[28]  Gary B. Lamont,et al.  Applications Of Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms , 2004 .

[29]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Effects of Using Two Neighborhood Structures in Cellular Genetic Algorithms for Function Optimization , 2006, PPSN.

[30]  M. Friedman The Use of Ranks to Avoid the Assumption of Normality Implicit in the Analysis of Variance , 1937 .

[31]  M. Friedman A Comparison of Alternative Tests of Significance for the Problem of $m$ Rankings , 1940 .

[32]  Tong Heng Lee,et al.  Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms and Applications , 2005, Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing.

[33]  Enrique Alba,et al.  A cellular multi-objective genetic algorithm for optimal broadcasting strategy in metropolitan MANETs , 2005, 19th IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium.

[34]  Erick Cantú-Paz,et al.  Efficient and Accurate Parallel Genetic Algorithms , 2000, Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation.

[35]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Behavior of Evolutionary Many-Objective Optimization , 2008, Tenth International Conference on Computer Modeling and Simulation (uksim 2008).