Improving the Performance of Genetic Algorithms through Derandomization

Genetic algorithms are believed by some to be very eecient optimization and adaptation tools. So far, the eecacy of genetic algorithms has been described by empirical results, and yet theoretical approaches are far behind. This paper aims at raising fundamental theoretical questions about the utility and performance of genetic algorithms from an algorithmic point of view, i.e., space requirements and computational complexity. These questions originate from various existing theories and the no-free-lunch theorem, which compares all possible optimization procedures with respect to an equal distribution of all possible objective functions. While these questions are open at least in part, they all strongly indicate that genetic algorithms are less eecient than other (determinis-tic) optimization algorithms. From an algorithmic point of view, the no-free-lunch theorem suggests that the random application of variation operators signiicantly degrades the performance of genetic algorithms , since resampling of already visited points is not avoided. Consequently, this paper proposes a simple transformation that is strictly more eecient than the equivalent genetic algorithm.

[1]  Ingo Rechenberg,et al.  Evolutionsstrategie '94 , 1994, Werkstatt Bionik und Evolutionstechnik.

[2]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  An Overview of Evolutionary Algorithms for Parameter Optimization , 1993, Evolutionary Computation.

[3]  Stefano Nolfi,et al.  Learning to Adapt to Changing Environments in Evolving Neural Networks , 1996, Adapt. Behav..

[4]  Inman Harvey,et al.  Evolving visually guided robots , 1993 .

[5]  Lalit M. Patnaik,et al.  Genetic algorithms: a survey , 1994, Computer.

[6]  Hans-Paul Schwefel,et al.  Evolution and optimum seeking , 1995, Sixth-generation computer technology series.

[7]  Heinz Mühlenbein,et al.  Predictive Models for the Breeder Genetic Algorithm I. Continuous Parameter Optimization , 1993, Evolutionary Computation.

[8]  Lee Altenberg,et al.  The Schema Theorem and Price's Theorem , 1994, FOGA.

[9]  David B. Fogel,et al.  A Note on the Empirical Evaluation of Intermediate Recombination , 1995, Evolutionary Computation.

[10]  K. Dejong,et al.  An analysis of the behavior of a class of genetic adaptive systems , 1975 .

[11]  Industrial Research , 1934, Nature.

[12]  David B. Fogel,et al.  Evolutionary computation - toward a new philosophy of machine intelligence (3. ed.) , 1995 .

[13]  Heinz Mühlenbein,et al.  The Science of Breeding and Its Application to the Breeder Genetic Algorithm (BGA) , 1993, Evolutionary Computation.

[14]  Michael D. Vose,et al.  Generalizing the Notion of Schema in Genetic Algorithms , 1991, Artif. Intell..

[15]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  Evolution of the Sensorimotor Control in an Autonomous Agent , 1996 .

[16]  Francesco Mondada,et al.  Evolution of homing navigation in a real mobile robot , 1996, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B.

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

[18]  John J. Grefenstette,et al.  How Genetic Algorithms Work: A Critical Look at Implicit Parallelism , 1989, ICGA.

[19]  Ralf Salomon,et al.  Increasing Adaptivity through Evolution Strategies , 1996 .