Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of diversity control in single-objective and multi-objective genetic algorithms

  • Published:
Journal of Heuristics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper covers an investigation on the effects of diversity control in the search performances of single-objective and multi-objective genetic algorithms. The diversity control is achieved by means of eliminating duplicated individuals in the population and dictating the survival of non-elite individuals via either a deterministic or a stochastic selection scheme. In the case of single-objective genetic algorithm, onemax and royal road R 1 functions are used during benchmarking. In contrast, various multi-objective benchmark problems with specific characteristics are utilised in the case of multi-objective genetic algorithm. The results indicate that the use of diversity control with a correct parameter setting helps to prevent premature convergence in single-objective optimisation. Furthermore, the use of diversity control also promotes the emergence of multi-objective solutions that are close to the true Pareto optimal solutions while maintaining a uniform solution distribution along the Pareto front.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbass, H.A. and K. Deb. (2003). “Searching under Multi-Evolutionary Pressures.” Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2632, 391–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackley, D.H. (1987). A Connectionist Machine for Genetic Hillclimbing. Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, J.E. (1989). An Analysis of the Effects of Selection in Genetic Algorithms, Ph.D. thesis, Computer Science Department, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.

  • Boonlong, K., N. Chaiyaratana, and S. Kuntanapreeda. (2002). “Time Optimal and Time-Energy Optimal Control of a Satellite Attitude Using Genetic Algorithms.” In The 2002 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition. New Orleans, LA, pp. DSC-33436/1-8.

  • Boonlong, K., N. Chaiyaratana, and S. Kuntanapreeda. (2004). “Optimal Control of a Hysteresis System by Means of Co-Operative Co-Evolution.” International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Applications 4(4), 321–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deb, K. (2001). Multi-objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms. Wiley, Chichester, UK.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Deb, K., A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan. (2002a). “A Fast and Elitist Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA-II.” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6(2), 182–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deb, K., L. Thiele, M. Laumanns, and E. Zitzler. (2002b). “Scalable Multi-Objective Optimization Test Problems.” In Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Honolulu, HI, pp. 825–830.

  • Deb, K., L. Thiele, M. Laumanns, and E. Zitzler. (2005). “Scalable Test Problems for Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimization.” In A. Abraham, L.C. Jain, and R. Goldberg (eds.), Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization: Theoretical Advances and Applications, Springer, London, UK, pp. 105–145.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eshelman, L.J. (1991). “The CHC Adaptive Search Algorithm: How to Have Safe Search When Engaging in Nontraditional Genetic Recombination.” In G.J.E. Rawlins (ed.), Foundations of Genetic Algorithms, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, vol. 1, pp. 265–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca, C.M. and P.J. Fleming. (1993). “Genetic Algorithms for Multiobjective Optimization: Formulation, Discussion and Generalization.” In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, Urbana-Champaign, IL, pp. 416–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca, C.M. and P.J. Fleming. (1995). “Multiobjective Genetic Algorithms Made Easy: Selection, Sharing and Mating Restriction.” In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Genetic Algorithms in Engineering Systems: Innovations and Applications, Sheffield, UK, pp. 45–52.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca, C.M. and P.J. Fleming. (1998). “Multiobjective Optimization and Multiple Constraint Handling with Evolutionary Algorithms—Part 1: A Unified Formulation.” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part A: Systems and Humans 28(1), 26–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, D.E. (1989). Genetic Algorithms: In Search, Optimization and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M.T. (2003). “Guiding Single-Objective Optimization Using Multi-Objective Methods.” Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2611, 268–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. and S. Forrest. (1995). “Fitness Distance Correlation as a Measure of Problem Difficulty for Genetic Algorithms.” In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 184–192.

  • Maneeratana, K., K. Boonlong, and N. Chaiyaratana. (2004). “Multi-Objective Optimisation by Co-Operative Co-Evolution.” Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3242, 772–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mauldin, M.L. (1984). “Maintaining Diversity in Genetic Search.” In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Austin, TX, pp. 247–250.

  • Mitchell, M., S. Forrest, and J.H. Holland. (1992). “The Royal Road for Genetic Algorithms: Fitness Landscapes and GA Performance.” In Proceedings of the First European Conference on Artificial Life. Toward a Practice of Autonomous Systems, Paris, France, pp. 245–254.

  • Mori, N., J. Yoshida, H. Tamaki, H. Kita, and Y. Nishikawa. (1995). “A Thermodynamical Selection Rule for the Genetic Algorithm.” In Proceedings of the Second IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, Perth, Australia, pp. 188–192.

  • Pimpawat, C. and N. Chaiyaratana. (2004). “Three-Dimensional Container Loading Using a Cooperative Co-Evolutionary Genetic Algorithm.” Applied Artificial Intelligence 18(7), 581–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, M.A. and K.A. De Jong. (2000). “Cooperative Coevolution: An Architecture for Evolving Coadapted Subcomponents.” Evolutionary Computation 8(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sangkawelert, N. and N. Chaiyaratana. (2003). “Diversity Control in a Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm.” In Proceedings of the 2003 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Canberra, Australia, pp. 2704–2711.

  • Shimodaira, H. (1996). “A new Genetic Algorithm using Large Mutation Rates and Population-Elitist Selection (GALME).” In Proceedings of the Eighth IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, Toulouse, France, pp. 25–32.

  • Shimodaira, H. (1997). “DCGA: A Diversity Control Oriented Genetic Algorithm.” In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Genetic Algorithms in Engineering Systems: Innovations and Applications, Glasgow, UK, pp. 444–449.

  • Shimodaira, H. (2001). “A Diversity-Control-Oriented Genetic Algorithm (DCGA): Performance in Function Optimization.” In Proceedings of the 2001 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Seoul, Korea, pp. 44–51.

  • Weerayuth, N. and N. Chaiyaratana. (2002). “Closed-Loop Time-Optimal Path Planning Using a Multi-Objective Diversity Control Oriented Genetic Algorithm.” In Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Hammamet, Tunisia, pp. WA2G4/1-7.

  • Whitley, D. (1989). “The GENITOR Algorithm and Selection Pressure: Why Rank-Based Allocation of Reproduction Trials is Best.” In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, Fairfax, VA, pp. 116–121.

  • Zitzler, E., K. Deb, and L. Thiele. (2000). “Comparison of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Empirical Results.” Evolutionary Computation 8(2), 173–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitzler, E., M. Laumanns, and L. Thiele. (2002). “SPEA2: Improving the Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm for Multiobjective Optimization.” In K. Giannakoglou, D. Tsahalis, J. Periaux, K. Papailiou, and T. Fogarty (eds.), Evolutionary Methods for Design, Optimisation and Control, International Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering (CIMNE), Barcelona, Spain, pp. 95–100.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research and Development Center for Intelligent Systems, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology North Bangkok, 1518 Piboolsongkram Road, Bangsue, Bangkok, 10800, Thailand

    Nachol Chaiyaratana

  2. Department of Production Engineering, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology North Bangkok, 1518 Piboolsongkram Road, Bangsue, Bangkok, 10800, Thailand

    Theera Piroonratana & Nuntapon Sangkawelert

Authors
  1. Nachol Chaiyaratana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Theera Piroonratana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nuntapon Sangkawelert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nachol Chaiyaratana.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chaiyaratana, N., Piroonratana, T. & Sangkawelert, N. Effects of diversity control in single-objective and multi-objective genetic algorithms. J Heuristics 13, 1–34 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10732-006-9003-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10732-006-9003-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation