Sparse experimental design: an effective an efficient way discovering better genetic algorithm structures

The focus of this paper is the demonstration that sparse experimental design is a useful strategy for developing Genetic Algorithms. It is increasingly apparent from a number of reports and papers within a variety of different problem domains that the 'best' structure for a GA may be dependent upon the application. The GA structure is defined as both the types of operators and the parameters settings used during operation. The differences observed may be linked to the nature of the problem, the type of fitness function, or the depth or breadth of the problem under investigation. This paper demonstrates that advanced experimental design may be adopted to increase the understanding of the relationships between the GA structure and the problem domain, facilitating the selection of improved structures with a minimum of effort.

[1]  Hisao Ishibuchi,et al.  Performance evaluation of genetic algorithms for flowshop scheduling problems , 1994, Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence.

[2]  Pratyush Sen,et al.  A Multiple Criteria Genetic Algorithm for Containership Loading , 1997, ICGA.

[3]  Emanuel Falkenauer,et al.  A genetic algorithm for job shop , 1991, Proceedings. 1991 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[4]  Pupong Pongcharoen,et al.  Using Genetic Algorithms for scheduling the production of capital goods , 2000 .

[5]  Lawrence Davis,et al.  Job Shop Scheduling with Genetic Algorithms , 1985, ICGA.

[6]  George E. P. Box,et al.  Statistics as a Catalyst to Learning by Scientific Method Part I—An Example , 1999 .

[7]  L. Darrell Whitley,et al.  A Comparison of Genetic Sequencing Operators , 1991, ICGA.

[8]  G. Syswerda,et al.  Schedule Optimization Using Genetic Algorithms , 1991 .

[9]  George E. P. Box,et al.  Statistics as a catalyst to learning by scientific method , 1999 .

[10]  A.E. Eiben,et al.  Competing crossovers in an adaptive GA framework , 1998, 1998 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation Proceedings. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence (Cat. No.98TH8360).

[11]  D. J. Smith,et al.  A Study of Permutation Crossover Operators on the Traveling Salesman Problem , 1987, ICGA.

[12]  David S. Todd,et al.  MULTIPLE CRITERIA GENETIC ALGORITHMS IN ENGINEERING DESIGN AND OPERATION , 1997 .

[13]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[14]  Heinz Mühlenbein,et al.  Evolution algorithms in combinatorial optimization , 1988, Parallel Comput..

[15]  李幼升,et al.  Ph , 1989 .

[16]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  AllelesLociand the Traveling Salesman Problem , 1985, ICGA.

[17]  Christian Hicks,et al.  Applying designed experiments to optimize the performance of genetic algorithms used for scheduling complex products in the capital goods industry , 2001 .

[18]  Susan M. Lewis,et al.  Semi-controlled experiment plans for improved mechanical engineering designs , 2000 .

[19]  N. Draper,et al.  Applied Regression Analysis , 1966 .