Article View: comp.ai.genetic
Article #63Re: GA versus Simulated Annealing
From: Peter J Angeline
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:46
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:46
48 lines
3250 bytes
3250 bytes
In article <2624@blue.cis.pitt.edu> genetic+@pitt.edu (David M. Tate) writes: chang@pecan.cns.udel.edu (Liang-Wen Chang) said: >I haven't figured >out the statistic nature of such variable radius w.r.t. particular >encoding. The recent 'uniform crossover' method is more of multi-bit >mutation than crossover. Not at all. Mutation is disruptive, replacing alleles from the parents with alleles that do *not* occur in either parent. Uniform crossover is perfectly conservative, recombining alleles from the parents. Just because it doesn't use *contiguous* alleles from one parent doesn't make it "multi-bit mutation". There's not necessarily anything sacred about the particular sequence the genes are encoded in. As I see it, the role of breeding (be it crossover or some other operator) is to rearrange alleles you've got hanging around already, and the role of mutation is to introduce (or re-introduce) alleles you'd *like* to have around, but don't. Viewed this way, uniform crossover is clearly unlike mutation, and clearly like crossover. I think you're pretty close here. Its more a matter of _conservation_ of genetic material in crossover. Crossovers _preserve_ all of the genetic material that came into the operator so that you can find all of the material represented somewhere in the offspring after the operator. However, mutation does not preserve this criterion of conservation. Heuristic: if you've got an operator that doesn't conserve the genetic material, its not crossover but a form of mutation, regardless of what else it does. Notice that this doesn't go the other direction, i.e. just because all genetic material is preserved doesn't mean its crossover, it could be inversion. But uniform crossover is clearly NOT mutation. -pete angeline ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter J. Angeline ! Laboratory for AI Research (LAIR) Graduate Research Assistant ! THE Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210 ARPA: pja@cis.ohio-state.edu ! "Nature is more ingenious than we are." -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter J. Angeline ! Laboratory for AI Research (LAIR) Graduate Research Assistant ! THE Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210 ARPA: pja@cis.ohio-state.edu ! "Nature is more ingenious than we are."
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<PJA.93Jan27144603@neuron.cis.ohio-state.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!neuron.cis.ohio-state.edu!pjaReferences:
<1993Jan19.155159.16736@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> <2360@blue.cis.pitt.edu> <1993Jan27.082732.15090@udel.edu> <2624@blue.cis.pitt.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!neuron.cis.ohio-state.edu!pja From: pja@neuron.cis.ohio-state.edu (Peter J Angeline) Newsgroups: comp.ai.genetic Subject: Re: GA versus Simulated Annealing Date: 27 Jan 1993 14:46:14 -0500 Organization: Ohio State Computer Science Lines: 48 Sender: pja@cis.ohio-state.edu Message-ID: <PJA.93Jan27144603@neuron.cis.ohio-state.edu> References: <1993Jan19.155159.16736@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> <2360@blue.cis.pitt.edu> <1993Jan27.082732.15090@udel.edu> <2624@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Reply-To: pja@cis.ohio-state.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: neuron.cis.ohio-state.edu In-reply-to: genetic+@pitt.edu's message of 27 Jan 93 14:36:37 GMT