4.7 Article

Improvements of real coded genetic algorithms based on differential operators preventing premature convergence

期刊

ADVANCES IN ENGINEERING SOFTWARE
卷 35, 期 3-4, 页码 237-246

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0965-9978(03)00113-3

关键词

genetic algorithm; binary algorithm; reliability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents several types of evolutionary algorithms used for global optimization on real domains. The interest has been focused, on multimodal problems, where the difficulties of a premature convergence usually occur. First the standard genetic algorithm using binary encoding of real values and its unsatisfactory behavior with multimodal problems is briefly reviewed together with some improvements of fighting premature convergence. Two types of real encoded methods based on differential operators are examined in detail: the differential evolution (DE), a very modem and effective method first published by Storn and Price [NAPFHIS, 1996], and the simplified real-coded differential genetic algorithm SADE proposed by the authors [Contributions to mechanics of materials and structures, 2000]. In addition, an improvement of the SADE method, called CERAF technology, enabling the population of solutions to escape from local extremes, is examined. All methods are tested on an identical set of objective functions and a systematic comparison based on a reliable methodology [Adv. Engng Software 32 (2000) 49] is presented. It is confirmed that real coded methods generally exhibit better behavior on real, domains than the binary algorithms, even when extended by several improvements. Furthermore, the positive influence of the differential operators due to their possibility of self-adaptation is demonstrated. From the reliability point of view, it seems that the real encoded differential algorithm, improved by the technology described in this paper, is a universal-and reliable method capable of solving all proposed test problems. (C) 2003 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据