Mutation-Crossover Isomorphisms and the Construction of Discriminating Functions

We compare the search power of crossover and mutation in genetic algorithms. Our discussion is framed within a model of computation using search space structures induced by these operators. Isomorphisms between the search spaces generated by these operators on small populations are identified and explored. These are closely related to the binary reflected Gray code. Using these we generate discriminating functions that are hard for one operator but easy for the other and show how to transform from one case to the other. We use these functions to provide theoretical evidence that traditional GAs use mutation more effectively than crossover, but dispute claims that mutation is a better search mechanism than crossover. To the contrary, we show that methods that exploit crossover more effectively can be designed and give evidence that these are powerful search mechanisms. Experimental results using GIGA, the Gene Invariant Genetic Algorithm, and the well-known GENESIS program support these theoretical claims. Finally, this paper provides the initial approach to a different method of analysis of GAs that does not depend on schema analysis or the notions of increased allocations of trials to hyperplanes of above-average fitness. Instead it focuses on the search space structure induced by the operators and the effect of a population search using them.

[1]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Analyzing Deception in Trap Functions , 1992, FOGA.

[2]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Long Path Problems , 1994, PPSN.

[3]  Michael D. Vose,et al.  Isomorphisms algorithms of genetic , 2002 .

[4]  Kenneth A. De Jong,et al.  Genetic Algorithms are NOT Function Optimizers , 1992, FOGA.

[5]  Tim Jones Evolutionary Algorithms, Fitness Landscapes and Search , 1995 .

[6]  Joseph Culberson,et al.  Genetic Invariance: A New Paradigm for Genetic Algorithm Design , 1992 .

[7]  L. Darrell Whitley,et al.  The GENITOR Algorithm and Selection Pressure: Why Rank-Based Allocation of Reproductive Trials is Best , 1989, ICGA.

[8]  Michael D. Vose,et al.  Modeling Simple Genetic Algorithms , 1992, FOGA.

[9]  Nicholas J. Radcliffe,et al.  Non-Linear Genetic Representations , 1992, PPSN.

[10]  Sushil J. Louis,et al.  Designer Genetic Algorithms: Genetic Algorithms in Structure Design , 1991, ICGA.

[11]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[12]  Joseph Culberson,et al.  GIGA Program Description and Operation , 1992 .

[13]  E. Reingold,et al.  Combinatorial Algorithms: Theory and Practice , 1977 .

[14]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Optimal Mutation Rates in Genetic Search , 1993, ICGA.

[15]  Walter Alden Tackett,et al.  The unique implications of brood selection for genetic programming , 1994, Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence.

[16]  Michael Lewchuk Genetic Invariance: A New Approach to Genetic Algorithm , 1992 .

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

[18]  William M. Spears,et al.  Crossover or Mutation? , 1992, FOGA.

[19]  F. Harary,et al.  A survey of the theory of hypercube graphs , 1988 .

[20]  Kennetb A. De Genetic Algorithms Are NOT Function Optimizers , 1992 .

[21]  B. Harshbarger An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications, Volume I , 1958 .

[22]  Kenneth A. De Jong,et al.  An Analysis of Multi-Point Crossover , 1990, FOGA.

[23]  William Feller,et al.  An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications , 1951 .

[24]  Schloss Birlinghoven,et al.  How Genetic Algorithms Really Work I.mutation and Hillclimbing , 2022 .

[25]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[26]  L. Altenberg The evolution of evolvability in genetic programming , 1994 .

[27]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Messy Genetic Algorithms: Motivation, Analysis, and First Results , 1989, Complex Syst..

[28]  Rajarshi Das,et al.  A Study of Control Parameters Affecting Online Performance of Genetic Algorithms for Function Optimization , 1989, ICGA.

[29]  John J. Grefenstette,et al.  Deception Considered Harmful , 1992, FOGA.

[30]  Heinz Mühlenbein,et al.  Evolution in Time and Space - The Parallel Genetic Algorithm , 1990, FOGA.

[31]  Larry J. Eshelman,et al.  On Crossover as an Evolutionarily Viable Strategy , 1991, ICGA.