See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/221418906

Self-adaptive parameters in genetic algorithms

Conference Paper in Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering · April 2004
DOI: 10.1117/12.542156 · Source: DBLP

CITATIONS READS
21 1,350

3 authors, including:

Sylvain Delisle
Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières
83 PUBLICATIONS 585 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Natural languages View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sylvain Delisle on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Self-Adaptive Parameters in Genetic Algorithms
Eric Pellerin*a, Luc Pigeona, Sylvain Delisleb
a: Defence R&D Canada (DRDC Valcartier), Information and Knowledge Management Section,
Val-Bélair (Québec), Canada, G3J 1X5;
b: Département de mathématiques et d’informatique,
Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Québec, Canada, G9A 5H7;
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Genetic algorithms are powerful search algorithms that can be applied to a wide range of problems. Generally,
parameter setting is accomplished prior to running a Genetic Algorithm (GA) and this setting remains unchanged
during execution. The problem of interest to us here is the self-adaptive parameters adjustment of a GA. In this
research, we propose an approach in which the control of a genetic algorithm’s parameters can be encoded within the
chromosome of each individual. The parameters’ values are entirely dependent on the evolution mechanism and on the
problem context. Our preliminary results show that a GA is able to learn and evaluate the quality of self-set parameters
according to their degree of contribution to the resolution of the problem. These results are indicative of a promising
approach to the development of GAs with self-adaptive parameter settings that do not require the user to pre-adjust
parameters at the outset.
Keywords: Genetic algorithms, self-adaptive parameters, learning system, parameter settings, adaptation, evolution
mechanism.

1. INTRODUCTION

Based on Charles Darwin’s evolution theory of the species [1], genetic algorithms (GAs) are powerful search
algorithms often used to solve optimization problems [2, 3, 4]. John Holland’s initial work goes up to the 1960’s
although his best-known contribution was made in 1975 with the publication of Adaptation In Natural And Artificial
Systems [5]. However, it is Goldberg’s seminal work that largely contributed to the development of genetic algorithms
[6] as we know them nowadays. The GA’s basic mechanism depends on the choice of several key parameters such as
crossover operators, mutation operators, crossover probability, mutation probability, mechanism of selection, and
population size. All these parameters have a great impact on the GA’s performance [7 ,8 ,9, 10].

However, the parameters settings must be adapted to each type of problem, which constitutes a significant burden on
the user’s part. To facilitate the task of finding the most appropriate parameters settings, some studies have shown that
the parameters of genetic algorithms can be determined and optimized by another genetic algorithm [3, 11, 12, 13, 14].
In practice, the setting of GA parameters is set to standard values frequently used to test algorithms’ optimization
performance. Indeed, the work of [15] led to the development of parameters standards for GAs. One can thus define the
parameters quickly and, thereafter, adjust the parameters in a more precise way, according to the particular problem at
hand. These standard parameters are general and not adapted to any specific problems.

What are the best parameters settings? What are the best genetic operators and what are their associated rates? A high
rate of crossover and low rate of mutation might be very good in the exploration of new solutions for the first
generations produced by the algorithm. On the other hand, the same rate is unfavourable when the algorithm is close to
the optimal solution. One of the potential solutions to determine the best set of parameters resides in the use of learning.
This is the problem we consider here: the learning-based self-adjustment of a GA’s parameters.

In recent years, Pigeon proposed a GA-based learning approach for the optimization of a multi-agent information
fusion system [16]. This work is precursor to the present research and to the design of an artificial intelligent
component intended for urban operations command and control [17, 18]. For this purpose, robustness is required,
involving an enhancement of the GA’s performance. We suggest that this enhancement should be based on self-
adaptive parameters in GA. In this study, this hypothesis was demonstrated by introducing the self-adaptive parameters
concept in GA, with dependence on the problem context. A comparison with simple genetic algorithms established a
clear advantage in using the adaptive parameters version.

In this paper, we present a self-adaptive approach to GA parameter settings which takes into account the particulars of
the problem being solved. Subsequent sections are organized as follows. Section 2 presents the parameter adaptation in
genetic algorithms and some adaptive methods. Section 3 describes the proposed self-adaptive parameter approach.
Section 4 exhibits some experimental results and the analysis of the results. Finally, section 5 presents some
conclusions.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1. Self-adaptive parameter in genetic algorithms

In this section, we briefly review the classification of different self-adaptive methods proposed in the literature.
Although some works offer a different standpoint, the most frequently used classification is based on two major
approaches: empirical and adaptive [10, 19, 20]. The empirical approaches are based on experimentation and
observation only [10, 21]. They measure the performance of GAs by test and error, while varying the algorithm’s
parameters. It is thus necessary to find good values for the parameters before executing the algorithm, and these values
remain constant during execution. On the other hand, the approaches by adaptation use an initial parameter setting that
is modified during execution of the algorithm. This initial “parameterization” does not require user participation.

Within the adaptive approach, there are two sub-categories: limited adaptive parameter and self-adaptive parameter.
The limited adaptive approaches analyze the isolated effects of one or two parameters without taking into account the
others [3, 22, 23, 24]. Parameters self-adaptation refers to techniques that allow evolution or adaptation of the various
GA parameters throughout its execution. We next review some studies in more detail.

Grefenstette, 1986 [13]

This work shows how to select the parameters’ values by using meta-learning based on genetic algorithms. The
meta-learning is characterized by two levels of genetic algorithms. The meta-level evolves a population of sets of
parameters, while the basic level operates on the best set of parameters obtained by the meta-level. The best set of
parameters found with meta-learning is slightly better in performance than the sets of standard parameters found by
De Jong [15].

Pham, 1995 [25]

Pham used a competitive strategy to find the best choice of operators and parameter values. The competitive
evolution method is applied between several subpopulations that use various sets of parameters. Several independent
populations evolve in the same environment by using their own sets of parameters. These populations are in
competition for only one processor. Thus, the populations those have better parameter settings than others will
receive more time processor to further evolve.

Tongchim & Chulalongkorn, 2002 [11]

The authors proposed an adaptive algorithm for dynamically adjusting the parameters of GA during execution. Two
levels of GA are used. Large subpopulations evolve in parallel by using different parameter sets in the lower level
GA. The higher level GA is applied to the evolution of the parameter sets. Evolution of parameter sets occurs if the
fitness of another parameters settings is better than the current best parameters set. Their results show that reliability
and the lowest number of generations are crucial in finding the optimal solution.

These last three studies used meta-learning to adjust a GA’s parameters. The same concept of meta-learning is at the
center of our proposed approach here. However, we suggest using an autonomous individual to evolve parameters.
Compared to the work of Tongchim & Chulalongkorn [11] and Pham [25], this is different since they concentrate on
the evolution of parameters sets. In our approach, each parameter in individuals is independent and evolves in
interaction with the problem context. The strong dependence to the problem improves the meta-learning of the GA. The
next section describes our approach in more details.

3. PROPOSED APPROACH TO SELF-ADAPTIVE PARAMETERS

3.1. Proposed approach

We propose a self-adaptive approach as a solution to the problem of learning the adjustment of the parameters of a
GA—see Figure 1 below. We suggest that the control of the parameters of a genetic algorithm could be encoded within
the chromosome of each individual. The individual who is best adapted to the environment will transmit its genetic
parameters to the next generation. The values of the parameters are entirely dependent on the evolution mechanism.
Self-adaptation of the parameters is applied to the design of an autonomous individual. This individual is able to learn
and to make decisions according to the constraints of the environment and the fitness function.

Parameters
Performance
evaluator 1 set 1

Reinforcement
2
2
set 2
set 3 GA
Performance 4 set 4
effector 8 set 5

Population

Fitness GA Evaluation

Figure 1. Self-Adaptive Parameters of a Genetic Algorithm

The individual is based on two learning levels. On the first learning level, a genetic algorithm is applied to the learning
of new sets of parameters. This results in an increase of the individual’s adaptation to the problem to be solved. In the
second learning level, reinforcement learning is used to learn the best parameter settings. This learning occurs in
interaction with the problem context. Finally, the individual evaluates the quality of learned parameter settings
according to their degree of contribution to the solution of the problem at hand. An algorithm of the self-adaptive
parameter approach is defined in Figure 2 below; it is a modified version of the basic genetic algorithm structure [26].
1. [Start] Generate random population
2. [Fitness] Evaluate the fitness of each individual in the population
3. [New population] Create a new population by repeating the following steps until the end condition
A. [Reinforcement] Reinforcement learning is used to learn the best parameters settings in each individual with
the context of the problem
B. [Selection] Select two parents from a population according to their fitness
C. [Best crossover] Search in the space of genetic crossover to find the best parameter for individual according
to the fitness and the problem
D. [Crossover] Crossing of two individuals by using the parameter of the individual with best fitness to form new
offspring
E. [Best mutation] Search in the space of genetic mutation to find the best parameter for individual according to
the fitness and the problem
F. [Mutation] Mutation of new offspring at each position in chromosome by using the best parameter
G. [Accepting] Place new offspring in the new population
H. [Parameter evolution] Create a new set of parameters for each individual in population
i. [Selection] Select two parameters settings from a population according to their reinforcement position
ii. [Crossover] Crossing of two parameter sets by using the parameter of the individual
iii. [Mutation] Mutation of new offspring by using the parameter of the individual
iv. [Accepting] Place new offspring in the new sets parameters population
4. [Replace] Use newly generated population for a further run of the algorithm
5. [Test] If the end condition is satisfied, stop, and return the best solution in current population
6. [Loop] Go to step 2

Figure 2. Structure of the Self-Adaptive Parameters Algorithm

The proposed approach is motivated in part by the principle of autonomous individual. Several authors have suggested
that the control of GAs’ parameters could be encoded in the chromosome of each individual of the population [27, 28,
29, 30]. This suggests the inclusion of a mechanism that inserts the parameters in the individual’s chromosomes; the
value changes of the parameters are thus entirely dependent on the evolution mechanism.

Another part of the approach we propose here is the meta-learning or self-adaptation of the parameters. This differs
from work done by Grefenstette [13]. We focus on the learning of the GA whereas Grefenstette’s work tries to find the
best parameter settings. There are no best parameter settings for any problem in general. We suggest that the
introduction of a learning system concept into the GA will allow the algorithm to learn the best parameters settings
adapted to a specific problem.

3.2. Structure of individuals

In nature, the structure of eucaryotic genes is characterized by an alternating sequence of introns and exons. Exons
constitutes a section of the gene that encodes the protein sequence. Exons are separated by non-coding regions named
introns. In recent years, the concept of intron and gene expression was incorporated into several researches on genetic
algorithms [31, 32, 33]. We also use these concepts here: the structure of the individual is separated in two parts: the
intron and the exon. The exon is encoded with the solution part; the intron is the portion of the chromosome that
contains the parameters settings (see Figure 3). The parameters that are involved in the intron are crossover operators
(Oc), mutation operators (Om), crossover probability (Pc) and mutation probability (Pm).
 X = ( X1, X2, X3, ……….., Oc, Pc, Om, Pm )

EXON INTRON

Figure 3. The Structure of the Individual

3.3. Adaptive crossover

In the lower level GA (see Figure 1), the crossover evolution mechanism is performed in two steps:
1. Search in the space of genetic crossover to find the best parameter for an individual, relative to the fitness and
the problem.
2. Crossing of two individuals using the parameter of the individual with the best fitness.

The only set of parameters that survives is the one that gives good individuals. A good parameter setting of crossover
prevents the fastest convergence of the algorithm. If the convergence of the algorithm is too quick, all individuals tend
to have the same genetic code, a situation that must be avoided in general.

3.4. Adaptive mutation

The mutation operation in the lower level GA is performed as follows:

1. Search in the space of genetic mutation to find the best parameter for an individual, relative to the fitness and
the problem.
2. Mutation of new offsprings at each position in the chromosome using the best parameter.

The parameters that survive a long time result from many successful successive mutations. Only the intron with the
best parameters can survive. A good parameter setting of mutation increases the genetic diversity of the population.

3.5. Adaptive crossover and mutation probabilities

The adaptive crossover and mutation probabilities depend on the genetic diversity of the population. In a study on
improvements to genetic algorithms [9], a procedure to perform a dynamic adaptation of probabilities is based on the
notion of genetic diversity measure (gdm). The gdm is the ratio between the means and maximum values of the fitness
for each generation. The value of gdm is in the range [0,1]. The more the gdm tends toward 1, the more the individuals
in the population all tend to have the same genetic code and, consequently, the GA tends to converge too rapidly. In
this case, the learning rate prevents a too quick convergence in reducing the crossover probability and increasing the
rate of mutation.

3.6. Experimental model

To test the learning capabilities of our approach, we applied it the traveling salesman problem (TSP). It is the best-
known classical optimization problem in which a salesman must travel through many cities, using the shortest route
among successive choices in different roads. Several studies have successfully applied GAs to the TSP (see, for
instance, [3, 34]).

The following genetic parameters were employed in the TSP experiments, as shown in Table 1 below. In this
experiment, we chose five crossover operators and five mutation operators. The uniform crossover is an operator that
decides, based on probabilities, which parent will attribute each gene value in the offspring’s chromosome. Generally,
the probability is 0.5, half of the genes in the offspring will come from one parent and the other half will come from of
the other parent. The probability of the uniform crossover may be different than 0.5 [11]. The uniform mutation is a
basic operator, where each gene has a probability to be mutated. Some mutation operators have been modified
according to the notion of improvement. In this case, the mutation occurs only if the mutation improves the individual.
This notion of improvement is based on the difference between the fitness of an individual before mutation and the
fitness of the same individual after mutation.

Crossover operator (Oc) 1. One point crossover

2. Two points crossover
3. Uniform crossover with a probability of 0.5
4. Uniform crossover with a probability of 0.1
5. Uniform crossover with a probability of 0.2
Mutation operator (Om) 1. One mutation at a random position
2. Two mutations at a random position
3. Two mutations at a random position, only improving
4. Uniform mutation
5. Uniform mutation, only improving
Crossover probability (Pc) Random number in the range [0.0, 1.0]
Mutation probability (Pm) Random number in the range [0.0, 1.0]

Table 1. Genetic Parameters for GA with Self-Adaptive Parameters

The crossover and mutation probabilities are set randomly in the algorithm. The values of random numbers are in the
range [0.0, 1.0]. The adaptation of crossover and mutation probabilities depends on the gdm. The values of parameters
in the computation of gdm are the same as those of Vasconcelos [9]. In the traveling salesman problem, the population
size is set to 50 individuals and the number of cities is variable. To test the performance of our approach, the genetic
operators applied to simple GA are described in Table 2 below.

Crossover operator Two points crossover

Mutation operator One mutation at a random position
Crossover probability 0.75
Mutation probability 0.01
Table 2. Genetic Parameters for simple GA

4. RESULTS

Preliminary results were obtained from experimentation with the TSP and confirm that the GA, modified as explained
above, is able to learn the best set of parameters for this specific problem. The choice between various genetic
operators increases the performance of the GA, when compared to the simple genetic algorithm. Below, Table3 shows
the comparison for 10 runs between a simple genetic algorithm and a GA with self-adaptive parameters. The results
clearly indicate that the GA with self-adaptation outperforms the other when trying to find the best solution. Similar
results are reported in Mernik et al. [3] on the combination of operators that may outperform a single operator. They
suggest that different crossover operators preserve different proprieties, which could be very useful for search in
different directions in the problem space.
 Simple GA
Distance 32 32 32 33 29 31 31 33 32 35
Nbgen 367 274 273 225 401 229 224 236 202 211
GA with self-adaptive parameters
Distance 29 30 29 29 29 29 29 29 30 29
Nbgen 213 362 299 226 303 243 226 313 209 208

Table 3. Comparison Between Simple Genetic Algorithm and GA with Self-Adaptive Parameters
(note: ‘distance’ is the solution to the traveling salesman problem (TSP) and ‘Nbgen’ indicates the number of
generations required to obtain this solution.)

The next table, Table 4, shows the results obtained from the GA with self-adaptive parameters, after three executions
on the same problem. The results give different sets of parameters for each case, but all of them offering the very same
solution. This shows that there is not necessarily only one parameters settings to solve a given problem, at least not in
the case of the TSP. In most cases, we can see that the genetic algorithm can find one set of parameters with a low
variation in the population of parameters. However, in some cases (cas 3 in table 4), we can observe some fluctuation
in the evolution of parameters settings and at the end of the run, the GA does not converge to one set of parameters.
Further results on the evolution of genetic operators during execution are presented in the next subsections.

Adaptive crossover Adaptive mutation

Case One point crossover Uniform mutation, only improving
1 Rate = 0.99 Rate = 0.07
Case Uniform crossover with a probability of 0.5 One mutation at a random position
2 Rate = 0.95 Rate = 0.60
Case Two points crossover Uniform mutation
3 Uniform crossover with a probability of 0.5 Rate in [0.40, 0.50]
Rate in [0.60, 0.80]
Table 4. Three Different Executions of the GA with Self-Adaptive Parameters on the Same Problem

4.1. Adaptive crossover and mutation operators

Figure 4 shows the evolution of the crossover operator during the successive generations. Each point on the graph
illustrates one or more operators present in the parameters population and their corresponding generation. The selection
of only one operator by the GA appears after 20 generations. This convergence to one operator suggests that the GA, in
interaction with the problem-solving component, learns that this operator is beneficial. At any time during the
execution of the algorithm, the choice of other operators is possible and the evaluation of the operator takes place at
each generation.
 6

5. Uniform crossover with a

5
probability of 0.2

4. Uniform crossover with a

crossover operators

4
probability of 0.1

3 3. Uniform crossover with a

probability of 0.5

2 2. Two points crossover

1 1. One point crossover

0
0 5 10 15 20
Generations

Figure 4. Evolution of the Crossover Operator

In Figure 5 below we can see the evolution of different mutation operators at each generation. The results are similar to
Figure 3 and this evolution converges in the choice of a mutation operator that has more positive impact on the
resolution of the problem.

6
5. Uniform mutation, only
5 improving

4. Uniform mutation
Mutation operators

3 3. Two mutations at a random

position, only improving

2 2. Two mutations at a random

position
1
1. One mutation at a random
position
0
0 5 10 15 20
Generations

Figure 5. Evolution of the Mutation Operator

4.2. Adaptive crossover and mutation probabilities

The evolution of two operators probabilities is illustrated in Figure 6 below. Each point of this graph was obtained by
computing the means of probabilities at each generation. Clearly, we can see that parameters stabilization appears after
only 10 generations. The behaviour of the curves indicates that the evolution of the crossover rate (the “above” curve in
Figure 6) and mutation rate (the “under” curve in Figure 6) are both dependants on each other. This behaviour was
expected since these operators are defined to maintain the genetic diversity in the population. When the values of a
probability operator change, the values of the other operator must also change to obtain a good gdm ratio. Thus, the
learning of the crossover and mutation probabilities is dependant on the genetic diversity implied in the problem
considered.

0,9

0,8

0,7

0,6
Probability

Crossover
0,5
Mutation
0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Generations

Figure 6. Evolution of the Crossover and Mutation Probabilities

In this experimentation, the problem remains stable during execution and the GA finds the best set of parameters for
this situation. If the problem were to change, we suppose that the GA would be able to adapt itself and change the
parameters settings accordingly. Indeed, our results indicate that there is no specific parameter selected more often than
the others. The choice of a set of parameters is performed by the combination of parameters with other parameters and
in interaction with the problem and the evolution mechanism.

5. CONCLUSION

This paper shows that a GA can learn by itself the adjustment of it parameters. The proposed self-adaptive parameters
approach is based on individuals and on interaction with the problem context. Our preliminary results show that the GA
is able to learn and evaluate the quality of learned parameters settings according to their degree of contribution to the
solution of the problem. The results also indicate that the self-made choice between various genetic operators increases
the performance of the GA. This choice of parameters is performed by the combination of parameters with other
parameters and interaction with the problem and the evolution mechanism. The approach we put forward could be very
valuable in order to construct self-adaptive parameters-setting GAs that do not require the user to adjust parameters a
priori. Genetic algorithms could thus embed adaptation capacities to variable problems in the course of time. Our
experimentation was made only with the traveling salesman problem and on a relatively small scale. In this sense, we
consider our results preliminary and further work is required to reach more definitive conclusions. However, we think
these preliminary results are very encouraging.

REFERENCES

1. Darwin Charles, L’origine des espèces, petite collection maspero, Paris, 1980.

2. Zhu K.Q., “A Diversity-Controlling Adaptive Genetic Algorithm For The Vehicle Routing Problem With Time
Windows”, Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Conference on Tools for Artificial Intelligence, 176-183, 2003.

3. Ahn C. W. and Ramakrishna R.S., “A Genetic Algorithm For Shortest Path Routing Problems And Sizing Of
Populations”, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6(6): 566-579, 2002.

4. Mernik, M., Crepinsek, M.,Zumer, V., “A Metaevolutionnary Approach In Searching Of The Best Combination
Of Crossover Operators For TSP”, V: HAMZA, M. H. (ur.). Proceedings of the IASTE Iinternational Conference on
Neural Networks NN'2000, 32-36, 2000.

5. Holland J.H., Adaptation In Natural And Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis With Applications To
Biology, Control, And Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1992.

6. Goldberg, D.E., Genetic Algorithms In Search, Optimization, And Machine Learning, 412 p., Addison-Wesley,
1989.

7. Gao Y., “Population Size and Sampling Complexity in Genetic Algorithms”, Proceedings of the Bird of a Feather
Workshops (GECCO2003), Learning, Adaptation, and Approximation in Evolutionary Computation, 178-181, 2003.

8. Gomez J. and Dasgupta D., “Using Competitive Operators And A Local Selection Scheme In Genetic Search,” in
Late-breaking papers GECCO 2002, 2002.

9. Vasconcelos, J. A., Ramirez, J.A., Takahashi, R.H.C., Saldanha, R.R., “Improvements in Genetic Algorithms”,
IEEE Trans. on AP, 37(1):3414–3417, 2001.

10. Eiben, A.E., Hinterding, R., Michalewicz, Z., “Parameter Control In Evolutionary Algorithms”, IEEE Transactions
on Evolutionary Computation, 3(2):124-141, 1999.

11. Tongchim, S., Chongstitvatana, P., “Parrallel Genetic Algorithm With Parameter Adaptation”, Information
Processing Letters, 82(1):47-54, 2002.

12. Friesleben, B. and Hartfelder, M., “Optimisation Of Genetic Algorithms By Genetic Algorithms”, Albrecht, R.,
Reeves, C., and Steele, N. (eds), Artifical Neural Networks and Genetic Algorithms, 392–399, 1993. Springer Verlag.

13. Grefenstette, J. J., “Optimization Of Control Parameters For Genetic Algorithms”, IEEE Trans. Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, SMC-16(1):122-128, 1986.

14. Mercer, R. E.,Sampson, J. R., “Adaptive Search Using A Reproductive Meta-Plan”, Kybernetes, 7:215-228, 1978.

15. De Jong, K.A., An Analysis Of Behavior Of A Class Of Genetic Adaptative Systems, PhD thesis, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1975.

16. Pigeon L., Inglada J., Solaiman B., “Genetic Algorithms For Multi-Agent Fusion System Learning”, Proceedings
of SPIE, Sensor Fusion: Architectures, Algorithms, and Applications V, International Symposium on
Aerospace/Defense Sensing, Simulation, and Controls, Orlando, 4385:87-95, 2001.
17. Pigeon L., “An Advanced C2 Concept For Urban Operations”, Proceedings of the 7th International Command and
Control Research and Technology Symposium, Quebec City, September 2002.

18. Pigeon L., “A Conceptual Approach For Military Data Fusion”, Proceedings of the 7th International Command and
Control Research and Technology Symposium, Quebec City, September 2002.

19. Lobo, F.G., The Parameter-Less Genetic Algorithm : Rational And Automated Parameter Selection For Simplified
Genetic Algorithm Operation, PhD thesis, University of Lisbon, Portugal, 2000.

20. Smith, J.E. and Fogarty T.C., “Operator and Parameter Adaptation in Genetic Algorithms”, Soft Computing ,
1(2):81-87, 1997.

21. Schaffer, J.D., Caruana, R.A., Eshlman, L.J., Das, R., “A Study Of Control Parameters Affecting Online
Performance Of Genetic Algorithms For Function Optimization”, Proceeding of the Third International Conference on
Genetic Algorithms, 51-60, 198

22. Lis, J., “Parallel Genetic Algorithm With The Dynamic Control Parameter”, Proceedings of IEEE International
Conference on Evolutionary Computation, 72:324-329, 1996.

23. Bäck, T., “Self-Adaptation In Genetic Algorithms”, In Varela, F. J., & Bourgine, P. (Eds.), Toward a Practice of
Autonomous Systems: Proceedings of the First European Conference on Artificial Life, 263-271, Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press, 1992.

24. Mühlenbein, H., “How Genetic Algorithms Really Work: 1. Mutation And Hill Climbing”, Manner, R. and
Manderick, B. (eds), Proceedings Of The Second Conference On Parallel Problem Solving From Nature, 2:15–25.
Elsevier Science, 1992.

25. Pham, Q.T., “Competitive Evolution: A Natural Approach To Operator Selection”, Progress in Evolutionary
Computation, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, X. Yao(ed.), Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 956:49-60, 1995.

26. Obitko, M. and Slavik, P. “Visualization Of Genetic Algorithms In A Learning Environment”, Spring Conference
on Computer Graphics, SCCG'99. Bratislava: Comenius University, 101-106, 1999.

27. Gómez, J., Dasgupta, D.,. González, Fabio A., “Using Adaptive Operators In Genetic Search”, GECCO 2003,
1580-1581, 2003.

28. Hinterding, R., “Self-adaptation using Multi-chromosomes”, in Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International
Conference on Evolutionary Computation, 1997

29. Spears, W. M., “Adapting Crossover In Evolutionary Algorithms”, McDonnel J.R., Reynolds, R.G., and Fogel,
D.B.. (eds), Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Conference on Evolutionary Programming, 367–384, MIT Press, 1995.

30. Bagley, J. D., The Behavior Of Adaptive Systems Which Employ Genetic And Correlation Algorithms, Doctoral
dissertation, University of Michigan. (University Microfilms No. 68-7556), 1967.

31. Chen Y, Goldberg D.E., “Introducing Start Expression Genes To The Linkage Learning Genetic Algorithm”,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2002.

32. O’Neill M, Ryan C., “Incorporating Gene Expression Models Into Evolutionary Algorithms”, Proceedings Of The
Workshops Of GECCO 2000, 2nd Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference. With Conor Ryan, 2002
 33. Lobo, F.G., Deb K., Goldberg D.E., Harik G.R., “Compressed Introns In A Linkage Learning Genetic Algorithm”,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1998.

34. Freisleben B., Merz, P., “A Genetic Local Search Algorithm For Solving Symmetric And Asymmetric Traveling
Salesman Problems”, Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, IEEE
Press, 616-621, 1996.

View publication stats