Machine Learning Proceedings 1988 1988
DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-934613-64-4.50021-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Representation and Hidden Bias: Gray vs. Binary Coding for Genetic Algorithms

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
66
0
4

Year Published

1992
1992
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 138 publications
(70 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
66
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…In a large empirical study Schaffer et al have identified values for population size, crossover and mutation rate that produce good online performance on this test suite (Schaffer, et al, 1989); we are using their results (which are almost identical to earlier recommendations by John J. Grefenstette) here, and also follow their practice of Gray coding all genes (Caruana & Schaffer, 1988). To keep the experiment as straightforward as possible we did not follow the common practice of using an elitist strategy, 6 and kept the following parameters invariant unless noted otherwise: The search resolution was held constant at l = 3 for all experiments using DPE to facilitate comparison of results across the test suite; the control experiments used the values given in Table 1.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 68%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In a large empirical study Schaffer et al have identified values for population size, crossover and mutation rate that produce good online performance on this test suite (Schaffer, et al, 1989); we are using their results (which are almost identical to earlier recommendations by John J. Grefenstette) here, and also follow their practice of Gray coding all genes (Caruana & Schaffer, 1988). To keep the experiment as straightforward as possible we did not follow the common practice of using an elitist strategy, 6 and kept the following parameters invariant unless noted otherwise: The search resolution was held constant at l = 3 for all experiments using DPE to facilitate comparison of results across the test suite; the control experiments used the values given in Table 1.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 68%
“…This disruptive effect of crossover complicates the above analysis considerably and would necessitate the introduction of a separate DPE trigger threshold (dependent on both crossover and mutation rate) for the center target interval. To avoid such undesirable complications the use of Gray code for DPE-mapped genes is highly recommended; it is also generally preferable as it reduces Hamming cliffs that could mislead the GA search (Caruana & Schaffer, 1988).…”
Section: Expected Convergence Levelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, neither "binary" nor gray coding (Caruana & Schaffer, 1988) can be said to be superior, either to each other or to any other representation, without reference to a particular problem domain. One immediate practical consequence of this should be a change of methodology regarding test suites of problems and comparative studies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As mentioned in Section 4.1, we use the binary genotype. For this encode, from the phenotype to genotype, we do not use binary-coding but Gray-coding, since Gray-coding is generally more superior (33) . We choose uniform crossover, because of its many advantages (34) .…”
Section: Ga Settingsmentioning
confidence: 99%