Analysis of Locality in Hybrid Evolutionary Cluster Optimization

State of the art algorithms for cluster geometry optimization rely on hybrid approaches that combine the global exploration performed by evolutionary methods with local search procedures. These methods use derivative information to discover the nearest local optimum. In this paper we analyze the locality properties of this approach to gain insight on the algorithm's strengths and weaknesses and to determine the role played by each of its components. Results show that there are important differences in what concerns the locality of different mutation operators commonly used in this problem.

[1]  Ho,et al.  Molecular geometry optimization with a genetic algorithm. , 1995, Physical review letters.

[2]  Bernd Hartke.  Global geometry optimization of atomic and molecular clusters by genetic algorithms , 2001 .

[3]  Günther R. Raidl,et al.  Empirical Analysis of Locality, Heritability and Heuristic Bias in Evolutionary Algorithms: A Case Study for the Multidimensional Knapsack Problem , 2005, Evolutionary Computation.

[4]  Jorge Nocedal,et al.  On the limited memory BFGS method for large scale optimization , 1989, Math. Program..

[5]  Franz Rothlauf,et al.  On the Locality of Representations , 2003, GECCO.

[6]  Zeiri.  Prediction of the lowest energy structure of clusters using a genetic algorithm. , 1995, Physical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics.

[7]  Frederick R. Manby,et al.  Predatory genetic algorithms , 1998 .

[8]  Bernd Hartke,et al.  Application of Evolutionary Algorithms to Global Cluster Geometry Optimization , 2004 .

[9]  J. Doye,et al.  Structural consequences of the range of the interatomic potential A menagerie of clusters , 1997, cond-mat/9709201.

[10]  Günther R. Raidl,et al.  Characterizing Locality in Decoder-Based EAs for the Multidimensional Knapsack Problem , 1999, Artificial Evolution.

[11]  M. J. D. Powell,et al.  on The state of the art in numerical analysis , 1987 .

[12]  R. Johnston.  Evolving better nanoparticles: Genetic algorithms for optimising cluster geometries , 2003 .

[13]  Fabio Schoen,et al.  Global Optimization of Morse Clusters by Potential Energy Transformations , 2004, INFORMS J. Comput..

[14]  Bernhard Sendhoff,et al.  A Condition for the Genotype-Phenotype Mapping: Causality , 1997, ICGA.

[15]  Jorge Nocedal,et al.  Large Scale Unconstrained Optimization , 1997 .

[16]  P. Morse.  Diatomic Molecules According to the Wave Mechanics. II. Vibrational Levels , 1929 .

[17]  Terry Jones,et al.  Fitness Distance Correlation as a Measure of Problem Difficulty for Genetic Algorithms , 1995, ICGA.

[18]  Jens Gottlieb,et al.  A Comparison of Two Representations for the Fixed Charge Transportation Problem , 2000, PPSN.

[19]  E. Weinberger,et al.  Correlated and uncorrelated fitness landscapes and how to tell the difference , 1990, Biological Cybernetics.

[20]  Franz Rothlauf,et al.  Pruefer Numbers and Genetic Algorithms: A Lesson on How the Low Locality of an Encoding Can Harm the Performance of GAs , 2000, PPSN.

[21]  R. Johnston,et al.  A genetic algorithm for the structural optimization of Morse clusters , 2000 .

[22]  Peter Merz,et al.  Memetic algorithms for combinatorial optimization problems : fitness landscapes and effective search strategies , 2006 .