ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Initial-population bias in the univariate estimation of distribution algorithm
Full text PdfPdf (444 KB)
Source
Genetic And Evolutionary Computation Conference archive
Proceedings of the 11th Annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation table of contents
Montreal, Québec, Canada
SESSION: Track 5: estimation of distribution algorithms table of contents
Pages 429-436  
Year of Publication: 2009
ISBN:978-1-60558-325-9
Authors
Martin Pelikan  University of Missouri in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA
Kumara Sastry  Intel Corp., Hillsboro, OR, USA
Sponsors
SIGEVO: ACM Special Interest Group on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 3,   Downloads (12 Months): 21,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1569901.1569961
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

This paper analyzes the effects of an initial-population bias on the performance of the univariate marginal distribution algorithm (UMDA). The analysis considers two test problems: (1) onemax and (2) noisy onemax. Theoretical models are provided and verified with experiments. Intuitively, biasing the initial population toward the global optimum should improve performance of UMDA, whereas biasing the initial population away from the global optimum should have the opposite effect. Both theoretical and experimental results confirm this intuition. Effects of mutation on performance of UMDA with initial-population bias are also investigated.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
2
 
3
W. Feller. An introduction to probability theory and its applications. Wiley, New York, NY, 1970.
 
4
 
5
D. E. Goldberg, K. Deb, and J. H. Clark. Genetic algorithms, noise, and the sizing of populations. Complex Systems, 6:333--362, 1992.
 
6
D. E. Goldberg and M. Rudnick. Genetic algorithms and the variance of fitness. Complex Systems, 5(3):265--278, 1991. Also IlliGAL Report No. 91001.
 
7
D. E. Goldberg, K. Sastry, and T. Latoza. On the supply of building blocks. Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO-2001), pages 336--342, 2001. Also IlliGAL Report No. 2001015.
 
8
 
9
A. Juels, S. Baluja, and A. Sinclair. The equilibrium genetic algorithm and the role of crossover. Unpublished manuscript, 1993.
 
10
B. L. Miller and D. E. Goldberg. Genetic algorithms, tournament selection, and the effects of noise. Complex Systems, 9(3):193--212, 1995.
 
11
 
12
H. Mühlenbein. How genetic algorithms really work: I.Mutation and Hillclimbing. In R. Manner and B. Manderick, editors, Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, pages 15--25, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1992. Elsevier Science.
 
13
 
14
M. Pelikan. Hierarchical Bayesian optimization algorithm: Toward a new generation of evolutionary algorithms. Springer, 2005.
 
15
K. Sastry. Evaluation-relaxation schemes for genetic and evolutionary algorithms. Master's thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of General Engineering, Urbana, IL, 2001.
 
16
D. Thierens and D. Goldberg. Convergence models of genetic algorithm selection schemes. Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, pages 116--121, 1994.

Collaborative Colleagues:
Martin Pelikan: colleagues
Kumara Sastry: colleagues