On Restricting Real-Valued Genotypes in Evolutionary Algorithms

Real-valued genotypes together with the variation operators, mutation and crossover, constitute some of the fundamental building blocks of Evolutionary Algorithms. Real-valued genotypes are utilized in a broad range of contexts, from weights in Artificial Neural Networks to parameters in robot control systems. Shared between most uses of real-valued genomes is the need for limiting the range of individual parameters to allowable bounds. In this paper we will illustrate the challenge of limiting the parameters of real-valued genomes and analyse the most promising method to properly limit these values. We utilize both empirical as well as benchmark examples to demonstrate the utility of the proposed method and through a literature review show how the insight of this paper could impact other research within the field. The proposed method requires minimal intervention from Evolutionary Algorithm practitioners and behaves well under repeated application of variation operators, leading to better theoretical properties as well as significant differences in well-known benchmarks.

[1]  Dario Floreano,et al.  Bio-Inspired Artificial Intelligence: Theories, Methods, and Technologies , 2008 .

[2]  Marc Parizeau,et al.  DEAP: evolutionary algorithms made easy , 2012, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[3]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A Fast Elitist Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm for Multi-objective Optimisation: NSGA-II , 2000, PPSN.

[4]  Tobias Glasmachers Challenges of convex quadratic bi-objective benchmark problems , 2019, GECCO.

[5]  Franz Rothlauf,et al.  Representations for genetic and evolutionary algorithms , 2002, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing.

[6]  Simon Wessing Repair Methods for Box Constraints Revisited , 2013, EvoApplications.

[7]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  Particle swarm optimization , 1995, Swarm Intelligence.

[8]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  Variants of Evolutionary Algorithms for Real-World Applications , 2011, Variants of Evolutionary Algorithms for Real-World Applications.

[9]  Kyrre Glette,et al.  Evolving Robots on Easy Mode: Towards a Variable Complexity Controller for Quadrupeds , 2019, EvoApplications.

[10]  Stéphane Doncieux,et al.  Sferesv2: Evolvin' in the multi-core world , 2010, IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[11]  F. Massey The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Goodness of Fit , 1951 .

[12]  Ryoji Tanabe,et al.  Review and analysis of three components of the differential evolution mutation operator in MOEA/D-DE , 2019, Soft Comput..

[13]  Robert Schaefer,et al.  Foundations of Global Genetic Optimization , 2007, Studies in Computational Intelligence.

[14]  Jaroslaw Arabas,et al.  Experimental Comparison of Methods to Handle Boundary Constraints in Differential Evolution , 2010, PPSN.

[15]  S. Holm A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure , 1979 .

[16]  Franz Rothlauf,et al.  Representations for genetic and evolutionary algorithms (2. ed.) , 2006 .

[17]  Janez Brest,et al.  Self-Adapting Control Parameters in Differential Evolution: A Comparative Study on Numerical Benchmark Problems , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[18]  Giovanni Iacca,et al.  Compact Optimization Algorithms with Re-sampled Inheritance , 2018, EvoApplications.

[19]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Tackling Real-Coded Genetic Algorithms: Operators and Tools for Behavioural Analysis , 1998, Artificial Intelligence Review.

[20]  Xin Yao,et al.  Evolutionary programming made faster , 1999, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[21]  Anis Yazidi,et al.  EvoDynamic: A Framework for the Evolution of Generally Represented Dynamical Systems and Its Application to Criticality , 2020, EvoApplications.

[22]  Kyrre Glette,et al.  Evolved embodied phase coordination enables robust quadruped robot locomotion , 2019, GECCO.