Qualities, challenges and future of genetic algorithms - arXiv

Qualities, challenges and future of genetic

algorithms: a literature review

Early draft, feedback is welcome

Aymeric Vie1,2,3, Alissa M. Kleinnijenhuis1,2,4, and Doyne J.Farmer1,2

1Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, UK2Institute of New Economic Thinking, University of Oxford, UK

3Cross Labs, Cross Compass Ltd., Tokyo, Japan4Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, Stanford University

September 14, 2021

Abstract

Genetic algorithms, computer programs that simulate natural evolu-tion, are increasingly applied across many disciplines. They have beenused to solve various optimisation problems from neural network archi-tecture search to strategic games, and to model phenomena of adaptationand learning. Expertise on the qualities and drawbacks of this techniqueis largely scattered across the literature or former, motivating an compila-tion of this knowledge at the light of the most recent developments of thefield. In this review, we present genetic algorithms, their qualities, limi-tations and challenges, as well as some future development perspectives.Genetic algorithms are capable of exploring large and complex spaces ofpossible solutions, to quickly locate promising elements, and provide anadequate modelling tool to describe evolutionary systems, from games toeconomies. They however suffer from high computation costs, difficult pa-rameter configuration, and crucial representation of the solutions. Recentdevelopments such as GPU computing, parallel and quantum computing,conception of powerful parameter control methods, and novel approachesin representation strategies, may be keys to overcome those limitations.This compiling review aims at informing practitioners and newcomers inthe field alike in their genetic algorithm research, and at outlining promis-ing avenues for future research. It highlights the potential for interdisci-plinary research associating genetic algorithms to pulse original discoveriesin social sciences, open ended evolution, artificial life and AI.

1

arX

iv:2

011.

0527

7v3

[cs

.NE

] 1

3 Se

p 20

21

Qualities, challenges and future of genetic algorithms A. Vie et al.

Contents

1 Introduction 3

2 Genetic Algorithms 52.1 Core concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.1.1 Population and individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.1.2 Genetic representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.1.3 Fitness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.2 Algorithm steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.2.1 Creation of the initial population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.2.2 Fitness evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.2.3 Selection of parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.2.4 Reproduction and recombination of parents’ genotypes . . 122.2.5 Mutation of children’ genotypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.2.6 Iteration and evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3 Evolving good solutions in complex environments 153.1 Genetic Algorithms as powerful complex landscapes explorers . . 15

3.1.1 Exploring large search spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.1.2 Exploring rugged search spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.2 Solving complex problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183.2.1 A robust method for optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183.2.2 Evolving neural networks by exploring learning architectures 203.2.3 Multi-objective optimisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203.2.4 Genetic programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.3 Emergence, novelty and open-endedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223.3.1 GAs are more than optimizers: they create novelty . . . . 223.3.2 Artificial life and emergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4 Limitations, challenges and perspectives 254.1 Computational efficiency and cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.1.1 Selection methods for computational efficiency . . . . . . 254.1.2 Implicit and explicit parallelism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264.1.3 Co-evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4.2 Parameter configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284.2.1 Parameter tuning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284.2.2 Parameter control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.3 Realism and robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324.3.1 Initial population sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324.3.2 Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334.3.3 Fitness evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5 Conclusion 36


1 Introduction

Inspired from Darwin’s theory of evolution, the Genetic Algorithm (GA) is anadaptive search algorithm that simulates some of the evolution processes: selec-tion, fitness, reproduction, crossover (also denoted recombination), mutation.A population of individuals (organisms, strategies, individuals, objects...) char-acterized by a genetic sequence inducing physical characteristics, evolves underselection pressure in an artificial environment. The fittest individuals reproduceand transmit their genes, while mutations and exchanges of genetic materialexplore new individual characteristics.

While originally designed for the study of adaptation in natural systems(J. Holland, 1975), most GAs have been developed for optimization purposes(Whitley, 1994). They have been applied in a large variety of research domains:biology (Street and Mayo, 1999), economics (Chatterjee et al., 2018, Waheeband Ghazali, 2019), finance (Lwin et al., 2014, Han et al., 2019), operationalresearch (Della Croce et al., 1995, Baker and Ayechew, 2003), game theory(Axelrod et al., 1987, Vie, 2020b), deep learning and neural networks (Stan-ley et al., 2019, Chung and Shin, 2020), forecasting (Packard, 1988, C. Ahnand Ramakrishna, 2003), optimisation (Wiransky, 2020, Dhunny et al., 2020),computer science and algorithms (Koza, 1992), healthcare (Tao et al., 2019,Devarriya et al., 2020) or data science (Yang and Honavar, 1998, Maulik andBandyopadhyay, 2000, Raymer et al., 2000).

Knowledge on the qualities and drawbacks of this technique is largely scat-tered across the literature, dispersed over different fields, or former. Since thepioneering works of J. Holland, 1975 or Mitchell and Forrest, 1994, applicationsof GAs have expanded and diversified. While several recent articles put an em-phasis on the presentation of the GA technique, such as the operators being used(Mirjalili, 2019) or its applications (Kramer, 2017), an up to date compilationfocused on the qualities and challenges is to the best of our knowledge, lackingand potentially of great interest to the field.

In this review, we introduce genetic algorithms, their key concepts and algo-rithm steps. We first discuss their qualities as a search method to understandthe reasons behind their wide-ranging successfully applications, in both opti-misation and modelling purposes. This discussion will then focus on the mainlimitations faced by GAs: their high computational cost, the difficulty of settingthe GA parameters, and of adopting a proper representation of the solutions,have often been hurdles to their use. After highlighting these challenges, recentpromising ways to overcome these constraints will be reviewed.

Describing their key qualities, we will first present the exploration proper-ties of genetic algorithms (GAs). Their combination of parallel population-basedsearch, with the support of the evolution operators, give to this search method astrong advantage in handling spaces of potential solutions that are large (Axel-


rod et al., 1987), have local optima (Maulik and Bandyopadhyay, 2000), admitseveral solutions (Wiransky, 2020), or have a complex structure challengingtraditional optimisation tools. GAs achieve balance between exploration andexploitation, using previous evaluations to decide what to evaluate next. Theyquickly identify promising regions of that space with regards to an objective(K. A. De Jong, 1993), and eventually locate the global optima (Bhandari etal., 1996, Del Moral and Miclo, 2001), making them relevant to solve difficultproblems. GAs thrive in contexts where information and solution structure arescarce, and offer high flexibility. As robust, ”weak” methods, GAs work wellto approach phenomena or problems with unknown structure (Whitley, 1994).They have solved high dimensional problems unsolvable by traditional reward-maximizing algorithms (Such et al., 2017). The diversity of their exploration,and its capacity to generate novel solutions from few human assumptions orinformation, have been relevant to model systems that show autonomous adap-tation (J. Holland, 1992, Palmer et al., 1994, J. H. Holland, 1999, Lehman etal., 2020), coevolution (Garcia et al., 2017) or learning (Axelrod et al., 1987,LeBaron et al., 1995, Vie, 2020b).

These qualities are counterbalanced by severe constraints. First, geneticalgorithms are often computationally costly to run. Their convergence speedoften increases with higher population sizes, but this increase in the numberof elements to evaluate may cause the computation cost in time and hardwareto spike (Deb, Pratap, Agarwal, and Meyarivan, 2002, Deb, Pratap, Agarwal,Meyarivan, and Fast, 2002). Several parameters, from population size to occur-rence probabilities for the GA operators such as mutation and recombinationrates, have decisive, non-trivial effects on the convergence properties and speedof the algorithm (Grefenstette, 1986). Identifying proper sets of configurationsacross several parameters is a difficult task (de Lacerda et al., 2020). Finally,the choice of the representation of solutions (Ronald, 1997), of the objectivefunction (Lehman et al., 2020), and of the method of creation of initial solu-tions (Yakovlev et al., 2019) may cause biases on search, or be detrimental tocomputation efficiency, making these choices crucial and challenging steps.

While these have been long standing issues in genetic algorithms from theirintroduction (J. Holland, 1975), recent research sheds new light on these chal-lenges. The recent technological progress in computer hardware, with GPU(Cheng and Gen, 2019), Cloud (Liu et al., 2017), quantum (Malossini et al.,2008) and parallel (Tang et al., 2017) computing, may allow to mitigate com-putational cost issues. Much progress has been done in parameter tuning andcontrol, to determine respectively fixed and dynamic parameter configuration(C. Huang et al., 2019), allowing to more easily setup genetic algorithms. Ex-amples include self-adaptation, in which parameters are themselves subject toevolution (Dang and Lehre, 2016, Case and Lehre, 2020), or covariance matrixadaptation (Hansen, 2016). New representation strategies have been proposed(Vie et al., 2021) and carry promising development, expanding the complexityof the objects GAs can evolve, and the difficulty of the tasks they may be ableto perform.


By compiling these elements, qualities and challenges, with the addition ofrecent perspectives, this reviews attempts to inform newcomers and practition-ers alike on genetic algorithms properties, and to highlight promising avenues forfuture research. Large potential discoveries may arise from ”hybrid methods”associating GAs with more specialised optimisation algorithms, for example indeep neural networks (Stanley et al., 2019) or reinforcement learning (Drugan,2019). Such interdisciplinary endeavors may spark new discoveries in social sci-ences (S.-H. Chen and Yeh, 2001, Martinez-Jaramillo and Tsang, 2009), openended evolution (Stanley et al., 2017, Lehman et al., 2020), artificial life and AI(Clune, 2019, Stanley et al., 2019).

This review is structured as follows. We first introduce the genetic algorithmtechnique and its functioning in section 2. Their qualities for exploring large,complex search spaces, their optimisation qualities, and their close connectionwith emergence and novelty, are described in section 3. Key issues and challengesfaced by GAs, in particular computation efficiency, parameter configuration androbustness, are presented in section 4, that also presents recent perspectives onthese issues. Final section 5 concludes on the qualities and challenges of geneticalgorithms, and introduces promising perspectives related to renewed inspirationfrom biology and genetics, self-adaptation of GAs, open-ended evolution and AI.

2 Genetic Algorithms

Before exposing the qualities, limitations and perspective of GAs, we presentin this section their core concepts, and their main steps. This section aims atpresenting a reachable description of how genetic algorithms function, what themain concepts they rely on are. We first define key notions such as population,genetic representation, the relation between the genotype and the phenotype,and fitness, that acts as the driving force of evolution in GAs. We then describethe main algorithm steps, the main techniques used for each step, and theparameters involved.

2.1 Core concepts

2.1.1 Population and individuals

A genetic algorithm (GA) is a member of the family of evolutionary algorithms(EAs), that are computational search methods inspired from natural selection.They simulate Darwinian evolution on individual entities, gathered in a popu-lation. In the same ways giraffes evolved towards longer necks, or humans withbigger brains, evolution synthesised in a computer program strives to improvethese entities. These individual entities can be anything: digital (i.e. artificial)organisms, bit strings, computer programs, financial strategies... As evolutionaffects the entities, subsequent versions of the population, also denoted genera-tions, evolve to maximise their fitness, i.e. ability to survive in an environmentor to perform a given task, or to maximise a measure of performance. In the


same way unicellular organisms evolved towards homo sapiens, EAs turn unso-phisticated bodies into complex, adaptive entities. As a computer program, allthis evolution process starts from with a way to represent those entities: thegenetic representation.

2.1.2 Genetic representation

GAs form a distinct sub-category of EAs by explicitly using a genetic represen-tation of those entities. That is, rather than mathematical functions or abstractobjects, entities are formalised in the computer program in a way close to ge-netics, to a DNA sequence. The representation of the entities is a sequenceof characters, that encode characteristics. How the entities characteristics orbehaviors are formulated in the computer program is denoted a representation(or encoding). In GAs, these entities are represented with a genotype, and aphenotype, concepts from genetics. The representation using a genotype canbe seen as encoding genetic information on their characteristics, in a simplifiedform of DNA. While several GAs do not make this distinction and confound ge-netic information and entity characteristics, it is inspiring and useful to brieflyhighlight these concepts.

Genotype The genotype of an entity consists in its genetic information. Itcan be expressed in various ways. A popular representation technique in GAsis a bit-sequence with binary encoding, i.e. composed of 0s and 1s. Similarlyto the human DNA, genetic information can also be stored with an alphabetencoding, e.g. A,C,T,G as in DNA. The field of genetic programming evenconsiders genotypes constituted of sequences or trees or computer instructions,or mathematical operators. Notwithstanding this diversity of representations,genotypes are mostly encoded as a string, or sequence. These strings are oftencalled chromosomes, a sequence of elements denoted genes, in analogy with theway genetic information is stored in living organisms. J. Holland, 1992 usedthe term schema or building block to describe some specific groups of genes,that are building blocks of the entity genotype. The location of genes in thechromosome is denoted as their locus, and it is usually assumed that each genehas its own locus on the chromosome: in a sequence [1 2 3], each element is aunique gene present at its own separate locus. The different values each genecan take are denoted alleles. For example, in the binary encoding, each genecan have either allele 0 or 1. The binary chromosome becomes a bit string,i.e. a sequence of zeros and ones. In the above ”DNA” alphabet encoding,each gene could take alleles A C T or G. Even though most living organismshave several chromosomes present in multiple copies, let us note that GAs oftenrestrict to entities: that are haploid : their genotype is characterized by onlyone chromosome; and monoploid : these entities only have one copy of eachchromosome. Figure 1 presents some examples of commonly used genotypes.

Phenotype The phenotype corresponds to to the entity characteristics: shape,size, color, abilities... that are encoded in the genetic information (genotype).


(0 1 0 1 1 . . .

)Binary genotype

(A T A G C . . .

)Alphabet genotype

x 1

−

Tree genotype (geneticprogramming)

Figure 1: Instances of genotype representations. Each element of the chromo-some (or sequence) is a gene at a specific locus. The number of genes is oftendefined as the length of the chromosome.

The phenotype maps this information to specific behaviors, the traits of theentities. For instance, genes OCA2 and HERC2 located on chromosome 15 inhumans are considered as the main genes responsible for the eye color trait. Inthis example, the genetic information contained in genes OCA2 and HERC2 isthe genotype. The resulting eye color, and the way the alleles of OCA2 andHERC2 correspond to a specific color outcome, belong to the phenotype.

Genotype and phenotype differ: while the phenotype can be observed, thegenotype cannot. But one crucial point to add here is the role of the environ-ment. It is usually considered that the genotype and the entity environmenttogether determine its phenotype, rather than genetic information alone. Thisaspect is often not present in past and current GAs. They usually considerthe correspondence between genotype and phenotype to be fixed regardless ofenvironmental contexts. We will return in more detail to this consideration. Wehave now introduced the way entities are represented in our evolution program.As in nature, the driving force of their evolution is the fitness.

2.1.3 Fitness

In natural systems, evolution favors entities that are more capable of reproduc-ing, due to some advantages they have: they could be stronger, they could bemore attractive, they could be more adapted to their environment. In GAs,fitness measures the performance of the entities in the population, in adaptingto a given environment or performing a given task. In natural evolution, fitnesscriteria are implicit. Entities struggle to reproduce and to survive, by all meansavailable, which can be described with a simulation. In most GAs however,the fitness criterion is made explicit by the introduction of a fitness function,that allows to rigorously associate phenotypes to fitness. This is closely relatedto similar concepts of rewards in reinforcement learning, payoffs/loss functionin general machine learning, or value function in optimisation. These fitnessfunctions may be simple, such as counting the number of ones in a bit string(known as the Counting Ones problem). Other may be much more compli-cated, such as optimising the returns of a complex trading strategy, or solving amulti-objective optimisation problem. These fitness functions define implicitlyor explicitly a fitness landscape (Wright, 1931). Fitness landscapes are a phys-


ical representation of the relationship between phenotypes and fitness. Somephenotypes may enjoy a very high fitness, corresponding to peaks, or moun-tains in the fitness landscape. Some behaviors may have low fitness, and wouldappear in the landscape as valleys or caves. One important distinction betweenGAs and their machine learning cousins is that by evolving the genotypes ofthe entities in the population, the GA maintains a population of phenotypesexploring the fitness landscape guided by evolution-inspired operators, ratherthan a unique gradient-descending individual (that moves in the direction ofthe largest improvement, as measured by the derivatives of the fitness func-tion). The evolution of the population strives to identify phenotypes with goodfitness: escaping valleys and climbing mountains. By so doing, the GA exploresthe search space: the space of possible solutions or entities. How large, smoothor rugged this fitness landscape is, and how difficult this exploration processcan be, will depend on the specific problem being considered, and the geneticrepresentation being used. By smooth, we will speak of a fitness landscapethat is single-peaked, or uni-modal. Otherwise, it may have multiple mountains(multi-modal), or ”hide” a mountain in a low valley, or present some irregularstructures: this characterises a rugged fitness landscape. The next Figure 2shows graphical examples of such simple and rugged fitness landscapes to makethese concepts clear.

One could see the GA as a population of hikers that try to find the highestmountain of the country. At first, they are randomly placed in the fitnesslandscape, and only see the very small territory in which they are placed. Eachhas its own strategy for hiking: some will go north, others will go south, somedecide to move randomly, others want to run... These hikers communicatewith each other, combine their information on their positions, and move acrossthe landscape trying to find a higher mountain to climb. Even though eachevolves in its own interest, they develop collective intelligence by using theother hikers’ information and strategies to improve their own. If an agent findsa huge mountain walking north, some others agents are more susceptible toinclude a north direction to their movement. By so doing, this decentralisedpopulation of hikers achieves a strong ability to explore large, rugged landscapes,and to quickly identify good regions, that is, good points in this landscape. Thisexploration is intuitively harder when there are multiple mountains of differentsize, and valleys in between. But the collective nature of the search make GAcapable of reaching the highest mountain nevertheless.

2.2 Algorithm steps

Genetic algorithms essentially proceed with five main steps, that are presentin all GAs, though with various implementations. First, an initial populationof entities is generated: the first generation. Then, the following steps arerepeated for a number of iterations. The entities in the current generation areevaluated in terms of fitness. Some parents are selected in this generation toreproduce. By reproducing, they create offspring that share some of their geneticinformation. The resulting children genotypes are affected by mutations that


Figure 2: Examples of a simple, smooth (top) and rugged (bottom) fitnesslandscape (Østman and Adami, 2014; “Smooth and rugged fitness landscapes”,n.d.). Peaks and mountains that correspond to high fitness are colored in red,valleys of low fitness in blue. The fitness landscape ruggedness is associatedwith the irregularity of the landscape, its number of different peaks. Ruggedfitness landscapes are thus more difficult to explore.

increase population genetic diversity. Iterating this procedure until we have acomplete new generation constitutes a step of the GA. Once that new generationis created, we iterate the program steps until this evolution has reached someobjective, or until a maximum number of iterations has been reached.

2.2.1 Creation of the initial population

The GA usually starts from a random population of chromosomes entities, whosenumber is the population size. The objective of this initial sampling is to spreaduniformly the initial solutions in the search space. Covering the space of pos-sible entities as uniformly as possible aims at being more likely to quickly findpromising regions of the fitness landscape (Mirjalili, 2019), and to minimise biasin search. For example, under the binary encoding, we will typically generaterandom sequences of 0s and 1s as our initial population.


0 1 01 0 10 0 0

︸︷︷︸

population size of 3

Figure 3: An example of random initial sampling for a population of 3 individ-uals, in the space {0, 1}3.

This requirement of unbiasedness is key to utilisation of GAs as optimisers.For the evolved solution to be robust and global, maximising the diversity ofcandidates in the first generations is a priority. Maintaining this diversity ofentities points in the search space allows to prevent convergence to local optima.However, other uses of GAs may relax this condition. Studying how specific biasin initial populations affect their evolution may be a valid research question onits own, and an interesting experiment to understand the functioning of GAs.

Population size an important parameter. A higher population size allowsto maintain more diversity, and improves natural selection in the population.It however makes the search slower, and computationally more costly. In mostGAs, the population size is fixed, and restricted to a few tenths or hundreds ofindividuals. Yet, in living systems, population sizes are very large, and theirsizes are the product of complex ecological interactions.

2.2.2 Fitness evaluation

Evaluating the fitness of all entities in the current generation consists in applyingour fitness criterion to them. As we described, this could take the form of asimulation, or of a function, depending on how fitness was defined. Regardless ofthis choice, the fitness evaluation procedure assigns to each entity a fitness score.This procedure allows to discriminate between entities with low and highly fitphenotypes (as an indication of low or highly fit genotypes), which becomesessential in the selection of parents to build the next generation of entities. Asgenetic information will be inherited by children entities, we aim at selectinggood, diverse genetic material in the parents organisms.

Four measures of fitness are usually distinguished. Koza, 1992 notably setsa clear difference between the raw fitness and other adjusted measures. Rawfitness r is the exact measure of the fitness function, that is natural to theproblem terminology, i.e. error rate, or number of ones... Standardised fitness scan be used to restate a fitness maximisation problem in a minimisation problem,by setting s = rmax − r where rmax is the largest possible raw fitness value.Adjusted fitness a = 1

1+s creates a measure in (0, 1) of fitness between individualsthat allows to discriminate entities with only small differences in fitness. Finally,normalised fitness n = a∑

a allows to measure the relative fitness of an entity

with respect to the fitness of the whole population. These different measuresallow different selection methods that we present below.


0 1 01 0 10 0 0

gives

120

.

Figure 4: An example of raw fitness evaluation. The fitness criterion measureshow close the individuals are to (1 1 1).

2.2.3 Selection of parents

Once we have identified the fitness of each entity, we now select some as par-ents. Two parents will mate, exchange genetic information, and generate twooffspring that share some genetic information from their parents. The processof selection of parents continues until we have enough offspring to constitutethe next generation. A competitive selection of parents allows transmissionof fit phenotypes and genotypes in the next population. A large variety of se-lection methods do exist to reproduce this reproductive advantage phenomenon.

Several selection methods are based on one of the four measures of fitness.The fitness proportionate ”roulette-wheel” selection method is very frequent(Mirjalili, 2019). Each entity has a probability to be selected as parent, andthis probability depends on the ratio of its fitness to the cumulative fitness inthe population, that is, the normalised fitness. The more an entity stands outin the population for its fitness, the more likely it is to be selected as parent.Draws are made without replacement, so a highly fit individual could reproduceseveral times, and transmit its genotype more. Elitist selection often comple-ments other selection methods, as an additional layer. It consists in savingwithout modification the current best entity in the next generation (C. Ahnand Ramakrishna, 2003), in order to save the current best individual duringsearch. Others selection methods are based on rank, and select a given numberof entities ranked by their fitness values.

Rank selection (Razali, Geraghty, et al., 2011) proceeds likewise. With a pa-rameter that specifies the number of individuals to select, rank selection selectsas parents this number of best entities indexed usually by adjusted or standard-ised fitness. Different methods attempt to measure Pareto dominance betweenentities, i.e. establish ordinal comparisons. This is the essence of tournamentselection (Miller, Goldberg, et al., 1995). In this approach to parents’ selection,a subset of the population is selected, each each entity in this subset is comparedwith the others members of the subset to determine the best individuals. Thewinners of these tournaments become parents.

The success of GAs as explorers and engines of successful evolution relieson a delicate balance between selection pressure and diversity. We desire toselect the best entities to improve the next generation, without looking onlyat short term rewards and narrowing our search. Both can be adjusted by theselection of the selection method, or some related parameters such as the size


of the tournament in tournament selection. A tournament against all the otherentities of the population puts a strong selection pressure, and unfit entitieshave no chance of passing through the selection step. If the tournament is onlyorganised against a few other entities, a lucky draw may allow a weaker entityto be selected as parent. But to guarantee that this process does not fall short,and only admits short term rewards or local optima, some diversity must bekept in the population. What is the optimal selection pressure, and diversitylevel, depend on the phenomenon or problem being considered.

Alternative selection methods such as truncation selection, sigma scaling,local selection proportional selection, are reviewed by Mirjalili, 2019, and fol-low this attempt to finely tune selection pressure to the specific problem beingconsidered. In their Niched Pareto GA, Horn et al., 1994 introduced Pareto tour-naments, selecting two individuals and n others in a comparison set on whichto evaluate dominance. Concerns on maintaining balance and exploration haveencouraged the development of selection methods rewarding diversity, such ascrowding sharing rules (Horn et al., 1994), the ”1/4+” selection method, explicitfitness-sharing in genetic clusters (Goldberg, Richardson, et al., 1987), noveltysearch (Lehman and Stanley, 2011), or quality-diversity algorithms (Pugh et al.,2016). The latter uses rank rather than fitness score to operate selection, andoperates a random selection in the top 20% of the population. This is used toprevent stronger individuals from quickly dominating the population, drivingthe genetic diversity down too early (Packard, 1988).

2.2.4 Reproduction and recombination of parents’ genotypes

After selecting promising parents based on fitness or rank, recombination stepcombines their genetic material to create two new entities in the population.This is an essential step of the GA, in which self-replicating entities trans-mit their genotype to the next generation, ideally saving good characteristics,and discarding bad characteristics. These offspring share a combination of thegenetic information of their two parents, which allows them to explore new re-gions of the search space -that is, new phenotypes-, taking advantage of previousevaluations. With the idea that two performant parents have been selected, re-combination allows to mix their genotypes together to evolve a potentially moreperformant child.

Most of the literature in GAs is inspired from the single-point, or double-point crossover, even though several variants and alternatives do exist (Mirjalili,2019). Considering again monoploid entities, with parent Black and White,their chromosome cross at a given point: the crossover point. This point isunique in single-point crossover, and could be at any locus. Its locus is typicallychosen at random, according to a uniform distribution. Each locus is as likelyas the others to be the crossover point. This is denoted by the terminologysingle-point uniform crossover, illustrated in Figure 5a. A frequent alternativeis double-point uniform crossover, that simply adds a second crossover point tomake the recombination finer, as illustrated in Figure 5b. Figure 6 providesan instance of single-point uniform crossover in a binary encoding environment.


These methods are very natural in GAs, as they represent entities with a se-quence of genes.

(a) Single-point crossover (b) Double-point crossover

Figure 5: Two crossover mechanisms. Illustrations from Thomas Hunt Morgan(1916).

(0 1 01 0 1

)−→

(0 0 11 1 0

)

Figure 6: An instance of a random uniform single-point crossover illustrated bythe bar. Genes are exchanged after the crossover point, returning the genotypeof their 2 offspring.

This crossover mechanism is the most frequent implementation of the re-combination step. It borrows from biology in genetic recombination, and corre-sponds to the process called synapsis during meiosis, the cell division of germ(reproductive) cells. The swapping of genetic information creates genetic varia-tion and diversity. In GAs, this diversity is controlled by a probability that thecrossover occurs. This is denoted the crossover probability or crossover rate. Ifthis rate is equal to 0.9 for instance, this is the probability that the two offspringare generated by the above process. In 10% of the cases, children genotypes arethe exact copies of the parents, without recombination. This allows to controlthe stability or diversity of the population during search, to make the algo-rithm faster or more robust during search, depending on the constraints of theproblem.

2.2.5 Mutation of children’ genotypes

An additional way to maintain this diversity is the mutation step. Maintainingdiversity over generations is essential to GA performance (Horn et al., 1994).GAs allow some random perturbations of the genotypes, leading to beneficial,


neutral or detrimental phenotype variations. They are considered as an im-portant source of genetic diversity, and can transmit to the next offspring of amutated entity. They are then part of the exploration and evolution strategy.An individual with a beneficial mutation enjoy a fitness advantage, making itmore likely to reproduce and to transmit this beneficial trait to the next gen-erations. Conversely, an entity receiving a detrimental mutation tends to bediscarded, and the trait may disappear in the next generations. Mutations alsoprovide an insurance against the development of uniform populations incapableof further evolution (J. Holland, 1992).

Mutations correspond to perturbations in the genotype sequence. One com-mon example in GAs is the flipping mutation, or point mutation. In the humanDNA, an A can turn into a C, changing the encoded basis, protein activation,with possibly consequences on the phenotype. In a binary string, a zero mightchange into a one or a one to a zero, along the genotype sequence. Figure 7presents an example of such mutation. Mutations occur independently for eachgene regardless of position or previous mutations. Any locus has an indepen-dent and identical probability of mutation, usually assumed to happen with auniform probability: the mutation probability. All loci of all entities in the popu-lation can be potentially affected, as all mutation draws are usually independentbetween loci, and between individuals. The determination of the mutation rateis important, as a null mutation probability harms search by reducing diversity,but a too large mutation rate may disrupt good genotypes being evolved. Innature, these exact mutation probabilities are difficult to estimate, but range inthe order of 10−8. (

0 0 11 1 0

)−→

(0 0 11 1 1

)

Figure 7: An example of a uniform flip mutation on the third gene of the secondchild.

A wide diversity of implementations of mutation mechanisms exist in GAs(Mirjalili, 2019), but not as much as in nature. These mutations operatorsvary with the problem being tackled. To handle dynamic fitness landscapes inwhich the optima change over time, Grefenstette et al., 1992 introduced a partialhyper-mutation operator, which essentially replaces a given percentage of thepopulation with random entries. This allows the GA to maintain a continuouslevel of exploration of the search space. Natural systems are rich with otherinstances of mutations. Lindgren, 1992 introduced a duplication mutation thatextends the genotype length. Genes may be shuffled or inverted. Some sectionsmay be subject to deletion. Some genes may be subject to translocation, andbe interchanged with in another locus by substitution.


2.2.6 Iteration and evolution

From the creation of the initial population, the repetition of these four steps:evaluation, selection, recombination and mutation, allow the population of en-tities to explore the search space, identifying promising genotype sequences andphenotypes with respect to the fitness criterion. Recombination and mutationof the best entities allow an ”intelligent” search, that uses previous evaluationsto decide what points of the search space to exploit next, while maintainingdiversity and continuous exploration. The question of the terminal condition ofthe GAs is often discarded. Most of the GAs are run for a predefined number ofiterations (repetitions), after which the outcome and the population trajectoryare observed. When we are solving a problem with a known answer, we canterminate the iteration of the above steps once the known solution has beenidentified. But as we would typically use GAs to learn something we do notalready know, it is not trivial to guess how many iterations will be necessary, orto anticipate how different number of iterations would yield different outcomes.

The other parameters involved in these steps allow to tune selection pressure,stability of the populations, diversity, in order to generate a robust processthat identifies and converges to the global optimum in the fitness landscape.These operators and steps may seem basic. They are indeed simplifications ofthe real biological processes at play. However, they have nurtured significantachievements from such simple approximations that we will now describe. Nowthat we presented an overview of the definition, concepts and steps of the geneticalgorithm, from initial sampling to terminal conditions, let us now move toenumerating the merits and drawbacks of this approach.

3 Evolving good solutions in complex environ-ments

First, GAs achieve an optimal balance between exploration and exploitationthat places them as powerful explorers of complex landscapes, large and rugged.Second, this exploration quality places GAs as a powerful, robust optimisationtool for solving difficult problems: either admitting a large number of possiblesolutions, facing difficult constraints, or being too complex to be solved in rea-sonable time with traditional methods. Finally, the diversity of entities evolvedby GAs place them as adequate techniques to model emergence, simulate thebehavior of evolutionary systems, and generate novelty.

3.1 Genetic Algorithms as powerful complex landscapesexplorers

3.1.1 Exploring large search spaces

In a stark contrast with exhaustive, enumeration or random search-based meth-ods, GAs are suitable to solving sparse problems. That is, problems for which


the number of good solutions is very small with respect to the search spacesize (Whitley, 1994, Maulik and Bandyopadhyay, 2000). GAs evolve a multi-tude of genotype sequences over many regions simultaneously. By their abilityof combining sequences containing good partial solutions, GAs quickly focustheir attention on the most promising locations of the search space (J. Holland,1992). Recall our analogy on the population of hikers acting collaboratively.The GA places a population of points in the fitness landscape, and simulates acollective, decentralised search in this landscape. Having collaboration betweenhikers contributes to improve efficiency, mutations bring diversity, and the pop-ulation features allow to simultaneously explore different high fitness regionsof the fitness landscape, that correspond to good solution points in the searchspace.

GAs in such very large, high-dimensional spaces, have reached significantperformance in pattern recognition and clustering in artificial and empiricaldata sets, in various dimensions and number of cluster ranges (Maulik andBandyopadhyay, 2000). GA-clustering algorithms notably outperformed thanthe traditional K-means algorithm. Similar performance was achieved in compu-tational protein design (Street and Mayo, 1999) molecular geometry optimiza-tion by Deaven and Ho, 1995. Determining the lowest energy configurationsof a collection of atoms is NP-hard (a class of problems that notably requirea long -polynomial- time for solving) and covers a very large space of possiblesolutions, as the number of candidates scales exponentially with the number ofatoms. Nevertheless, the GA quickly found the best structure, in spite of strongdirectional bonds between different structure. By so doing, the GA outper-formed simulated annealing (SA). In large flow-shop sequencing problems, GAsreached near-optimal solutions more quickly than SA (Reeves, 1995), or thanlocal discriminant analysis (Varetto, 1998), showing its relevance for large anddifficult combinatorial problems. Packard, 1990 evolved prediction models infinancial markets. Searching through the -huge- space of sets of conditions andpredictions, the algorithm identified regions of predictability in stock marketdata, and obtained robust results in out of sample forecasting.

These large spaces of possible solutions appear frequently in strategic games.Axelrod et al., 1987’s GA application to the Prisoner’s dilemma efficientlyscanned over 264 (16 quadrillion)) strategies, exploited some weaknesses in sam-ple strategies to perform best than the optimal tit for tat rule (cooperate unlessthe opponent has defected, then defect), and developed tit for that on its own.Recently, Vie, 2020b used a GA to identify optimal strategies in completely openenvironments that admitted countably many alternatives, and Mirjalili et al.,2020 reconstructed images based on random samples. Whether they explore theset of prediction rules (Waheeb and Ghazali, 2019, Han et al., 2019), of com-puter programs (Devarriya et al., 2020), of deep neural network architectures(Chung and Shin, 2020), strategies in games (Axelrod et al., 1987, Vie, 2020b),the space of different combinations of portfolios (Lwin et al., 2014), economicbehaviors (Chatterjee et al., 2018), the search spaces involved are often verylarge. Most of them also exhibit rugged structure as in Figure 2: the path tothe global optimum may not be smooth, several (local) optima may exist. GA


are nevertheless performing well in such complex fitness landscapes.

3.1.2 Exploring rugged search spaces

A traditional technique to explore and optimize in landscapes is hill-climbing,or variants of gradient descent : start at some point, and follow the path tothe greater improvement to the quality of the solution. However, as the land-scape becomes more rugged, complex, irregular, with many high points, tunnels,bridges or even some more convoluted topological features, finding the right hilland which way to go becomes increasingly hard (J. Holland, 1992), or may notconverge to the global optimum, getting stuck in local optima. GAs do not re-quire the optimisation landscape to be differentiable (a necessary condition forusing gradient descent), uni-modal or single-peaked (Maulik and Bandyopad-hyay, 2000) or to not exhibit particular topologies. Maintaining a populationof solutions rather than a single solution, GAs are less vulnerable to prematureconvergence to local optima, as long as a sufficient level of population diver-sity is maintained (Maulik and Bandyopadhyay, 2000, Wiransky, 2020). Someexamples illustrated below (from Wiransky, 2020) are the optimization of theEggholder function, known for its large number of local extrema, and for whichwe can analytically derive the global minimum, and of the Himmelblau’s func-tion that admits four global minima. In these cases, maintaining diversity in thepopulation allows to find the global optimum (or optima) without being stuckin local optima, illustrating nice properties of GA search, but also configurationrequirements to guarantee these search qualities.

Figure 8: The Eggholder function Figure 9: The Himmelblau function

When dealing with multi-modal fitness landscapes in which several globalextrema coexist, GAs have often been criticised for converging to an arbitraryinstance of global extrema due to genetic drift, and sampling bias during search,rather than maintaining a stable distribution of the population around the dif-ferent optima. Genetic drift describes a situation in which the population con-verges to one of equally good traits arbitrarily, because of noise or chance. GA


sampling describes the process of generating an initial distribution. This is-sue is solved by introducing randomness and different GA sampling, to obtainasymptotic unbiasedness and the adequate distribution of solutions as the num-ber of GA runs increases: see notably such an application for the optimizationof the Himmelblau’s function (Wiransky, 2020). This means that as we rundifferent instances of GAs with different initial populations, we can converge tothe true result, being confident that this result is not the outcome of a specificstarting condition. Alternatively, the introduction of niching sharing rules thatpenalise similar solutions to avoid clustering of solutions in only one of the ex-trema is an adequate means to prevents genetic drift. This essentially is analogto increasing diversity during search. For a single-peaked problem, the resolu-tion is still possible but may take longer, but this makes the program capableof handling multi-peaked problems. These rules allow convergence to the fourminima of the Himmelblau’s function in a single run (Wiransky, 2020). So far,we have presented two important areas in which GA thrive: problems with largesearch spaces, and for which the fitness landscape associated with the problemis rugged. This naturally places GAs as robust solvers of complex problems.

3.2 Solving complex problems

In the continuity of their exploration and optimisation qualities, GAs provide arobust approach for complex problems, because of their flexibility and of theirvery low requirements for information on the problem.. Some major develop-ments of GAs as problem solvers have taken place in the evolution of deep neuralnetworks, multi-objective optimization, and more generally problems that arenot fully understood by their decision maker.

3.2.1 A robust method for optimization

GAs are recognized as a ”weak” or ”robust” method (Whitley, 1994) for theirapplicability to a high diversity of problems, and their ability to identify goodcandidates with very few assumptions made on the solutions of these problems.In problem solving, the entities evolved by the GA are solutions to this problem:some values to maximise a function, some classifier system, some sequence forscheduling, some list of parameters that encodes a function or an algorithm.When we describe the GA as a weak or robust method, we mean that the GAis relevant to tackle all these problems: it is a generalist method that is widelyapplicable.

In matters of optimisation, previous mathematical research has establishedguarantees of convergence. Viewing a GA as a finite-state Markov chain, Bhan-dari et al., 1996 showed that that the canonical GA delivers the optimal stringas the number of iterations goes to infinity, with a nonzero mutation probability.In a related fashion, Del Moral and Miclo, 2001 modelled GAs as a system ofinteraction particles with competitive selection and mutation, showing that thepopulation asymptotically converges to a constant distribution correspondingto the global optimum of the fitness function. In well behaved landscapes, ge-


netic algorithms results matched gradient type methods outcomes, in particularfor nonlinear constrained optimization (Homaifar et al., 1994). This demon-strates that matters of speed put aside, GAs evolve the same solutions as moretraditional methods, while being operational at a broader scope.

This convergence result was initiated by Holland’s schema theorem. J. Hol-land, 1992 states that good solutions -genotypes- to a given problem tend to becomposed of good schemas, i.e. building blocks: individual or groups of genesalleles. As the GA is evaluating some number n of genotypes, it is by so doingevaluating the fitness of a much larger number of schemas. By evaluating thefitness of the string (111), we are evaluating several axis of the search space: weare measuring the value of the building block 1 in each element. Both (111) and(110) are useful measures to evaluate if the schema (11∗) is a good strategy (inwhich ∗ can be either 0 or 1). This is the implicit parallelism of the GA. Eval-uating one genotype corresponds to evaluating all the building blocks presentin the genotype, and by so doing, identifying the best schemas. Holland arguesthat what the GA optimizes generation after generation, are not genotypes, butthose schemas. The Schema Theorem states that short, low order schemas (i.e.small sequences such as (1 ∗ ∗)) whose fitness is higher than average will occupyan exponentially increasing share of the population over time. In this perspec-tive, crossover operations aim at combining good schemas together to createeven better higher order schemas. By so doing, the GA is capable of extractingmeaning from noisy or imprecise information, or to detect trends that are toocomplex to be noticed by humans or standard techniques (Metawa et al., 2017).

GAs can develop good solutions to problems we do not fully understand.For very sparse problems -recall: problems that have a small number of goodsolutions with respect to the number of possible solutions-, the efficiency of theGA algorithm was improved when the class, or ”shape” of desired solution wasassumed (Deaven and Ho, 1995). GAs are however also relevant in problems forwhich we typically have little information on what optimal solutions would looklike, and in which exploration of diverse candidates is desirable. In analysinginsolvency risk with a GA, for which many different factors may be relevant,Varetto, 1998 showed that the GA obtained results faster than local discriminantwith more limited contributions from the financial analyst. More recently, thislow-information requirement has been useful for heart disease diagnosis (Reddyet al., 2020), design of neural network architectures (Suganuma et al., 2017),production scheduling (Nguyen et al., 2017), classification tasks such as detec-tion of video change (Bianco et al., 2017), or determination of new functionsto detect breast cancer (Devarriya et al., 2020). Those are typical examples ofproblems for which we do not know precisely how the optimal solution lookslike for designing a neural network for a specific classification problem, or whatfactors should be taken into account to best identify heart disease. GAs offera competitive alternative to identify good solutions to such problems that wedo not fully understand. We specifically describe some of the domains in whichGAs have flourished.


3.2.2 Evolving neural networks by exploring learning architectures

GAs have been successfully involved in hybrid methods that combine GAs withother approaches (Whitley, 1994), such as k nearest neighbor classification indimensionality reduction (Raymer et al., 2000). Quite early on, GAs have beensuccessfully applied to feature subset selection (Yang and Honavar, 1998) anddimensionality reduction (Raymer et al., 2000). This preceded further com-binations with neural networks, with very recent successes. The 1990s sawthe first works on evolving network architecture, weights, or even the learningrules used by neural networks (Kitano, 1990, Kitano, 1994). Years later, GA-assisted neural networks have shown superior performance compared to fixedgeometry neural nets and traditional nonlinear time series techniques in mod-elling daily foreign exchange rates (Waheeb and Ghazali, 2019), daily bitcoinprices (Han et al., 2019). Chung and Shin, 2020 used an hybrid GA with aconvolutional neural network (CNN) that outperformed other models. Theyused GAs to identify optimal CNN architecture, an important determinant ofthe performance of these programs. A large number of recent works have ap-plied GA methods in combination with machine learning techniques: traditionalneural networks also named Evolutionary artificial neural networks (bank per-formance prediction: Ravi et al., 2008, cotton yarn quality Amin, 2013, timeseries forecasting: Donate et al., 2013, machine productivity: Azadeh et al.,2015, modelling of cogeneration processes: Braun et al., 2016, air-blast predic-tion: Armaghani et al., 2018, controller design: Abd-Elazim and Ali, 2018),support vector machines (parameter selection Zhao et al., 2012, intrusion de-tection: Ahmad et al., 2014 and Raman et al., 2017, hospitalisation expensemodelling: Tao et al., 2019) and case-based reasoning (corporate bond rating:Shin and Han, 1999, bankruptcy prediction: H. Ahn and Kim, 2009). Somerecent breakthrough in reinforcement learning research have included some keyingredients of evolutionary algorithms. The pioneering AlphaStar algorithm ofDeepmind (Vinyals et al., 2019) used the AlphaStar league, that can be de-scribed as a population of versions of AlphaStar fighting against other versionsto improve and find new niche strategies. These achievements can thus be re-lated to key concepts of evolutionary computation (Arulkumaran et al., 2019):Larmarckian evolution (driven by inheritance of acquired characteristics), com-petitive coevolution quality-diversity, that GAs naturally incorporate. Recently,the AutoML-zero algorithm evolved multilayer machine learning programs fromscratch, only driven by evolution operators (Real et al., 2020). Computer simu-lations of evolution as done in these programs, and also by GAs that naturallyinclude these mechanisms, hence constitute an already successful, but yet stillfurther promising, area of research.

3.2.3 Multi-objective optimisation

Multi-objective optimization (or multi-criteria) is a branch of optimisation thattakes care of decision problems with several objective functions, and typicallyseveral constraints or decision variables. For instance, the problems analysed by


Vie et al., 2019, Colapinto et al., 2020 and Liuzzi et al., 2020 are multi-objectiveproblems, because they involved a maximisation of workers allocations in var-ious economic sectors in order to simultaneously maximise economic growth,employment, minimising electric consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.This is an instance of a problem that can quickly become very complex to anal-yse, as small variations in the solution can have mixed effects on the differentobjectives. While the above works have notably constrained the problem to lin-ear constraints to be solvable, GA can handle more realistic settings and copewith uncertainty.

For this reason, this domain of multi-objective optimisation has been an im-portant area of applications of GA as optimizers (Horn et al., 1994). Notably,Lwin et al., 2014 obtained an algorithm capable of designing high quality port-folios in spite of numerous constraints, handling more than a thousand differentassets, and outperforming state of the art programs. It is not surprising otherapplications moved to multi-criteria decision making with environmental fac-tors: optimal energy storage units placement (Ghofrani et al., 2013), wind farmdevelopment (Dhunny et al., 2020), dynamic greenhouse environment control(Jin et al., 2020), car engine design (Tayarani-N et al., 2014). Multi modalmulti-objective optimisation has been an area of intense research in evolution-ary computation more generally (Tanabe and Ishibuchi, 2020). Designing supplychain networks facing multiple constraints, such as multi stages, multi products,multi plants with maximum capacities, has also been an area of success of GAapplications (Altiparmak et al., 2009). In this case, their steady state GA wasshown capable of handling dynamic environment, and stochastic demands. TheNP-hard problem of bank lending decisions was solved by Metawa et al., 2017who obtained with a GA a substantial reduction in screening time, and increasein bank profit.

3.2.4 Genetic programming

The evolutionary approach of the GA inspired a field known as Genetic Pro-gramming (GP): evolution-guided design of computer programs to solve a giventask, starting from basic operators. How can computers learn to solve prob-lems without being explicitly programmed, how can computers be designed fora given task without being told exactly how to do it? Genetic programmingapproaches these questions to evolve populations of computer programs, andthose have succeeded to evolve correct programs to solve diverse problems, suchas optimal control, discovering game strategies, planning, sequence induction,symbolic regression, image compression, robotics... (Koza, 1992,Koza, 1995).One of the early applications of this perspective was the use of GAs to engineercellular automata to perform computations (Das et al., 1994). Recently, relatedapplications have conducted to improve the performance of robots behaviorexposed to situations or damage not encountered before (Cully et al., 2015), en-abling more robust, autonomous robots that evolve similarly to animals. Muchprogress has been done on the design of real-time adaptive trading systems(Dempster and Jones, 2001, Dempster and Leemans, 2006, Martinez-Jaramillo


and Tsang, 2009). A very recent review of the genetic programming literaturehas been presented by Langdon, 2020. More recent applications have focused onthe design of neural network architectures (Suganuma et al., 2017), productionscheduling (Nguyen et al., 2017), classification tasks such as detection of videochange (Bianco et al., 2017), and the determination of new functions to detectbreast cancer (Devarriya et al., 2020). In these diverse applications, the GPapproach was used for its encoding openness in creating computer programs,and effectiveness in evolving efficient ones. It extends the interest of geneticmethods in evolving not only individuals or organisms, but more complex ob-jects such as computer programs. Genetic programming is a research field onits own, but shares so many traits with GAs that we wished to evoke them here.An important feature in this problem solving ability in genetic methods, fromGAs to GP, is the ability to generate novelty, and explore new regions in thesearch space. This has fueled various recent developments, from novelty searchto open-endedness and the study of evolutionary systems such as ecosystems,or economic environments.

3.3 Emergence, novelty and open-endedness

3.3.1 GAs are more than optimizers: they create novelty

The successes of GAs in solving such complex problems have often led re-searchers to measure their progress with learning curves, fitness curves, andto emphasize the optimizing qualities of GAs. For instance, when training aGA to learn a classification task such as identifying a correct object on a pic-ture, the progress of the population of classifiers is easily measured as the errorrate, that decreases with the number of iterations. using a GA to develop agame strategy, an increase in performance factors such as win percentage ornumber of points scored would be observed. However, it would be restrictiveand misleading to only see them as function optimizers (K. A. De Jong, 1993).While their problem solving methods have been improved by elitism (C. Ahnand Ramakrishna, 2003), i.e. keeping the best chromosome alive from one gener-ation to the next, or faster implementations (Deb, Pratap, Agarwal, Meyarivan,and Fast, 2002) the canonical GAs remain deprived of a ”killer instinct”. Theyidentify quite rapidly promising regions of the search space, but do not locatethe exact optimum with a similar speed. Unless the problem is very specialised,in such a way that it is possible to adjust a specialised GA to take profit fromthis information, the canonical GA is likely to outperform over-exploiting GA-optimizers. Moreover, for such a specialised problem, other traditional methodssuch as hill climbing, neural networks are usually acknowledged as convergingfaster to the solution. Altering drastically the way crossover, selection or muta-tion function in an attempt to turn the GA into a function optimizer may alterits behavior. The resulting biases put on the search process may shrink theirdesirable robustness and exploration abilities, that are the reasons for which weused the GA as a problem solver in the first place. A key reason for seeing GAsas more than an optimiser is the generation of novelty, which marks a decisive


advantage of GAs among other search methods.One could interpret the schema theorem as a limitation: for successful evo-

lution to happen, intermediary rewards should exist in the fitness landscape(K. A. De Jong, 2008). In other words, the genetic algorithm would need tobe rewarded for standing up, if we desired it to learn how to walk and run.This has often led to seeing GAs as vulnerable to deception, by the capacityto create a landscape that deceives the GA by hiding a high-fitness region in alarger region of lower fitness (Forrest and Holland, 1991). A related issue hasbeen identified in multi-modal environments (Forrest and Holland, 1991), orfunctions with several peaks, leading the GA to prematurely converge to one ofthe optima due to generic drift induced by random fluctuations in the samplingprocess. The production of novel, diverse solutions is an essential element totackle these issues. It is a common pattern in GA runs to observe the apparitionof mutations that seem to harm fitness in the short term, but open to significantimprovements in the long run. GA adaptations with sharing or niching rulesto prevent crowding of solutions (Wiransky, 2020), emphasis placed on noveltythrough novelty search (Lehman and Stanley, 2011) or quality-diversity search(Cully and Demiris, 2017, Pugh et al., 2016), provide workarounds for theseissues, and draw new avenues for further research. They establish connectionswith the general problem of artificial intelligence (Clune, 2019, Stanley et al.,2019), open-endedness in evolution (Stanley et al., 2017, Stanley, 2019) andartificial life.

3.3.2 Artificial life and emergence

GAs have been originally seen as promising to model the natural systems thatinspired their design. Theories on the behavior and evolution of these systemscan be implemented and tested in a GA. They allow to explore variations indetails of the theories, simulate phenomena that would be difficult or even im-possible to capture and analyse in a set of equations (Mitchell, 1998). They alsoconnect evolution with information theory through that computational processlens. They provide by their ability of generate novelty, and to explore large-open..?- search spaces, a useful tool to model the evolution living systems,both natural and human. One of the first of these ecological model was Hol-land’s Echo (J. H. Holland, 1999), studying how simple interactions betweenbasic agents could foster the emergence of sophisticated higher-level phenom-ena, such as cooperation, competition, or the rise of communities. These firstmodels of artificial life using GAs were reviewed and commented by Mitchelland Forrest, 1994. Models of artificial, ”digital” evolution, are not just simula-tions of evolution, but mere instances, that are complex, creative and surprising(Lehman et al., 2020). GAs thus carry a great creative potential to model thesesystems, possibly generating patterns entities or ideas that we would not thinkabout.

The evolutionary approach carried by the GA has relevance in the mod-elling of evolutionary human systems. In economics and finance, the evolutionparadigm captures well the inductive theory of learning described by Arthur,


1994: agents generalise previous patterns for their future behavior, and adaptthrough trial and error to a changing environment. The adaptive market hy-pothesis (Lo, 2004, Lo, 2019) places individual agent evolution in a changingenvironment with simple heuristic as a driving force for economic and financialdynamics. Palmer et al., 1994 created the Santa Fe Institute artificial stockmarket as an emergent product of evolving agent behaviors. The resultingartificial economy exhibited generated trends, speculative bubbles and crashes.The ecology these evolving agents created exhibited symbiosis, parasitism, armsraces, mimicry, niche formation, speciation, all similar to natural ecosystems.Agents are co-evolving, and adapt their internal models of behavior rules togrow more sophisticated ones, by observing success and failure. The GA wasused to govern the evolution of those rules, and model the creation of new onesby exploration, or innovation, providing a plausible mechanism to match em-pirical patterns (LeBaron et al., 1995). Since then, most of the evolutionaryapproaches in economics and finance have been carried by agent-based models.Most of the uses of GAs in economics have been applied works: analysis ofinsolvency risk (Varetto, 1998), supply chain design (Altiparmak et al., 2009),design of automated trading systems (Dempster and Jones, 2001, (Dempsterand Leemans, 2006, Martinez-Jaramillo and Tsang, 2009)), prediction of dailyforeign exchange rates (Waheeb and Ghazali, 2019) or daily bitcoin prices (Hanet al., 2019)) and bank lending decisions (Metawa et al., 2017). There has beenvery limited theoretical follow up to the pioneering use of GAs by Palmer et al.,1994, as most of the evolutionary economics community shifted largely towardsemergent macroeconomics and financial dynamics in multi-agent models. Mostof these models including behavior rules encompass a limited form of evolutionof these rules, most often restricted to a small number, and with little varia-tion. We argue that in this context, GAs have a role to (re)play. Their abilityto generate novelty, explore new strategies, and account for economic learningand innovation, is relevant to domains such as market ecology, that study theseeconomic systems from the participants types or behaviors. Allowing these be-haviors to evolve in a larger space, and observing the resulting economic andfinancial patterns, is a promising and realistic direction for the application ofGAs as modelling tools.

By using a population-based search method that uses the information fromprevious evaluations to decide what to evaluate next, GAs achieve a balancebetween exploration and exploitation that allows them to successfully explorelarge, rugged search spaces. Their ability to identify global optima in suchcomplex settings has allowed numerous achievements in various fields, fromeconomics and operations research to deep learning and strategical games. GAshave a duality in the sense that they can be used to both optimise a system, andmodel its evolution towards efficiency. By maintaining diversity, and generatingnovelty during evolution, they are relevant to study evolutionary systems suchas financial markets. These qualities however come with significant challengesand limitations, that the next section presents.


4 Limitations, challenges and perspectives

Genetic algorithms face critical challenges that have limited their applications.This section attempts to identify and explain these main issues, as well as thesolutions identified by previous research. First, GAs are criticized for their highcomputation cost. They are usually computationally expensive to run, that is,they may have to run for a long time to give adequate results, and having alarger population or studying a more complex problem significantly slows them.A second related issue deals with parameter configuration. We exposed in theprevious sections the several parameters used by the GA, and how they impactits results. A poorly configured GA may converge very slowly, or even notconverge at all. The combined effects of parameters are not trivial, thus thetask of configuring a GA has been difficult. Finally, the relevance of the GA isconditional on the relevance of the representation strategy being used. The wayentities are represented, the choice of the fitness function, the sampling of theinitial population, are critical to having useful and meaningful and satisfyingresults.

4.1 Computational efficiency and cost

Computational efficiency rules the GA convergence speed, and its performance.While they have often been criticized for their computational speed and com-plexity, and for the constraints efficiency sets on their design, GAs greatly scalewith the use of parallelism and adjusted selection methods.

4.1.1 Selection methods for computational efficiency

Evolutionary algorithms have been criticized for the computational complexity,often identified to be of order O(MN3) where M is the number of objectives andN the population size. Indeed, comparing the respective fitness of N individ-uals with all others, and selecting up to N individuals for the next generation,contributes to a great computational cost that ought to be reduced as much aspossible. In an influential article, Deb, Pratap, Agarwal, and Meyarivan, 2002introduced a faster elitist, multi-objective GA: ”NSGA-II”. Elitism, i.e. keepingin the next generation the current best chromosome in the population, speedsup the convergence speed of the GA and allows to prevent the ”catastrophic for-getting” of good solutions (Rudolph, 2001, Zitzler et al., 2000). The NSGA-IIalgorithm (Deb, Pratap, Agarwal, Meyarivan, and Fast, 2002) limited compu-tational complexity to O(MN2) using domination count, and a sharing rule fordraws that gives preference to diversity. This gives us a fast non-dominatedsorting procedure and a fast crowded distance operator, while computation isfurther improved by elitism. This specification is an example of various attemptsto tweak evolutionary operators to generate more efficient procedures.

Innovations in computation efficiency have also impacted selection methods.In particular, the tournament selection method which operates a rank selection,but over a subset of the population, is computationally more efficient, and more


amenable to parallel implementation (Mitchell, 1998). Instead of comparingevery entity to all the other ones, tournament selection compares it to say, half,or ten, other individuals, to reduce the number of comparisons to operate. Thesize of the subset required to correctly evaluate dominance of solutions remainshowever to be determined, and enters in the larger challenge of parameter con-figuration in GAs, that we analyse in more detail below. Recently, some metricshave been introduced to quantify the complexity and cost of given tasks fora GA: partial evaluation (Rodriguez and Ortiz, 2020) and fitness landscapeanalysis (Merz and Freisleben, 2000, Pitzer and Affenzeller, 2012, Wang et al.,2017). While the early applications of GAs looked for improvements in compu-tation efficiency on the operators’ side, significant progress has been achievedby parallelisation. That is, using computer systems with several processingunits (CPUs) or graphical processing units (GPU) to divide the computationalwork, so that the program runs in parallel. This can allow to reach consider-able reductions in computation time. More recently, some attempts have beenmade to develop interplay between quantum and genetic algorithms, achievingan unprecedented level of parrallelisation. In the quantum approach to geneticalgorithms, not only the evaluation of points can be amenable to parrallelisa-tion, but each point itself, due to superposition, could take multiple values atthe same time. Malossini et al., 2008 showed that under this implementation,the computational complexity of a quantum genetic algorithm could be reducedto O(1). When and how quantum computers will become available remains un-known, but promising achievements could be made in this approach, that mightreach unprecedented search speed.

4.1.2 Implicit and explicit parallelism

Beyond the mostly static setting experimental GAs have focused on, high com-putational efficiency is necessary to consider more dynamic problems. By thetime the problem is solved, it may have changed (Reeves, 1995). Adaptation ina sufficiently random, or unstable environment, is very difficult (Mitchell, 1998).Natural evolution occurs in natural environments that are also changing overtime. However, species evolve relatively much faster than climate, geology orfundamental environment features. If the environment changes faster than theGA populations can adapt, the effectiveness of the search becomes null. GAshave quite rarely been applied in dynamic or unstable environments for thisreason. A great challenge for the development and improvement of new GAsresides in the ability to simulate an evolution that is fast enough to cope withthe changes in the environment, but diverse and open enough not to overfit oneparticular environment instance, and stay adaptive.

As for any optimization-based procedure, the evaluation function must befast to compute. However, as the evaluation is repeated a large number of timesdepending on population size, the number of constraints, and of iterations, it isa concerning issue for GAs (Whitley, 1994). Much theoretical effort has beendevoted to improve the information acquired from a finite set of evaluation.Alternative paradigms for the determination of the fitness evaluation function


have been proposed. In particular, J. Huang and Xie, 1998 have shown thatusing a fuzzy fitness evaluation function converged to results that were iden-tical to the ones obtained by a standard GA, while considerably reducing thecomputation time (Laribi et al., 2004).

We emphasized the great scaling of GAs with parallelism in the context oftheir exploration capacities. The great synergy of GAs with parallelism, denoted”implicit parallelism” (J. Holland, 1992) mimicking the massive parallelism atplay in natural systems composed of millions of individuals, provides substantialqualities in computation efficiency. GAs are able to test and exploit a largenumber of locations of the search space by manipulating only a few strings.The first explicit parallel implementations of GAs introduced multi-processorsystems, each running a GA on own sub populations, with periodical migrationsof the best solutions to other processors (Tanese, 1987). This distributed geneticalgorithm with migrations was shown to perform better than the traditionalone, even when each sub-population was running different parameter settings(Tanese, 1989).

Recently, approaches of parallelism related to data partitioning have beendemonstrated as being more efficient in accuracy, efficiency and scalability (Al-terkawi and Migliavacca, 2019). GAs enhanced with parallelism distributionshave performed better than existing algorithms (Tang et al., 2017). With de-composition approaches, both implicit and explicit parallelism are applied. Dif-ferent sub-populations are being evolved (L. Chen et al., 2018). Similarly todeep learning and machine learning, GAs have entered in the world of high per-formance computing, benefiting from the power of GPU architectures. Chengand Gen, 2019 provide a comprehensive review of parallelism approaches, andtheir principal challenges. In the same way GPU computing has transformeddeep learning and machine learning, it is yet to percolate in the GA community.When it will, it is likely that such highly parallelisable search technique willtake immense benefits from this additional computing power. A final point ofcomputational efficiency and speed, linked with search speed, is co-evolution.

4.1.3 Co-evolution

Competition between candidates inspired by the Darwinian survival of the fittestis the drive of the evolution of genotypes operated by the GA. Some authorshave extended this framework to not only have competition within a GA, butbetween GAs. Inspired from co-evolution in biology, various GA applicationshave designed adversarial GAs to improve optimization in a related fashion togenerative adversarial networks. A founding application was done by Hillis,1990, who found that developing parasite-GAs against a GA trying to performa classification task, significantly improved the optimization abilities of the lat-ter. Garcia et al., 2017 used an adversarial GA network to develop networkcyber-defence strategies against attacks. More recently, co-evolution has simi-larly contributed to applications of GAs in game theory. Recently, the black boxoptimisation of such adversarial attacks in neural networks has successfully usedgenetic algorithms (J. Chen et al., 2019). A new state of the art in black box ad-


versarial attacks was thus obtained, evolving more and more successful attacks.In a related fashion, Vie, 2020b developed two GAs competing to develop opti-mal strategies in asymmetrical Blotto games. These are simultaneous resourceallocation wargames in which two players allocate some resources over differentbattlefields, wining each battlefield if they have deployed more resources thantheir opponent. While solving versions of the game with asymmetric resourceendowments was not analytically doable, co-evolving GAs allowed to approxi-mate equilibrium strategies in this setting. They developed sophisticated andempirically consistent behaviors such as guerilla warfare, and concentration ofcompetition. Notably, the GA with less resources learned to focus its resourceson fewer battlegrounds. Co-evolving GAs achieved a significantly faster conver-gence than GAs on their own.

4.2 Parameter configuration

4.2.1 Parameter tuning

The parameter calibration of GAs -population size, mutation rate, choice ofoperators...- is a critical determinant of its convergence behavior, and com-putational efficiency (Maulik and Bandyopadhyay, 2000, K. De Jong, 2020).Parameters can be set at the start and fixed (parameter ”tuning”), or changedduring search (parameter ”control”). A poorly configured GA can prematurelyconverge to a sub-optimal solution, or not converge at all, or converge so slowlythat the entire process is essentially a waste of time. The performance of GAsis a nonlinear function of their parameters. Grefenstette, 1986 searched foroptimal GA parameters using another GA, showing the efficiency of GA asmeta-level optimisation techniques. The space of GAs was described as havingsix dimensions:

1. Population size: a large population favors diversity and mitigates pre-mature convergence, but is detrimental to computation efficiency

2. Crossover rate: the higher the frequency of crossover, the higher thefrequency of introduction of new structures. A too high crossover rate candiscard good solutions faster than selection can improve them, while a toolow rate may create stagnation with a resulting lower exploration rate.

3. Mutation rate: a too large mutation rate creates an inefficient randomsearch, while a too low mutation rate fails to prevent a given bit to remainforever in the population or can fail to mitigate premature convergence.

4. Generation gap: the percentage of the population to be replaced duringeach generation is optimised with respect to same above the trade-offs.

5. Scaling window: the reference to which solutions are compared maychange their relative fitness, and alter the resulting fitness-proportionalselection.


6. Selection strategy: pure selection, elitist selection, but also other mech-anisms, are possible, and induce particular balance between selection, di-versity, efficiency and convergence rate.

As it is simple to understand the impact of one parameter, the others beingconstant (it has been suggested that most parameters exhibited uni-modal, con-vex responses (Pushak and Hoos, 2018)), but hard to understand interactionsof parameters, Grefenstette, 1986 developed a meta-level GA to identify high-performance GAs on some numerical test functions. The resulting GAs receiveda significant boost in performance. Some regularities were identified: mutationrates above 0.05 (or at 0) were usually harmful, and the optimal crossover rateand optimal mutation rates appear negatively correlated. Crossover rate ap-pears to decrease as the population size increases. These insights were crucialin the early applications of GAs and proposed some much used baseline pa-rameter values. Grefenstette, 1986 and Caruana and Schaffer, 1988 identifiedgeneral ideal settings for elitist (non-elitist) selection strategies: a populationsize of 30 (80), a crossover probability of 0.95 (0,45), a mutation probability of0.01 (0.01).

In the spirit of the no free lunch theorem of optimization for which no algo-rithm works universally for all optimization problems, one needs to tailor theGA to tackle different problems. The practical value of these theoretical resultson parameter settings remains unclear: they can be expected to vary dependingon problems and the variant operators used by the GA. These early attemptsto design optimal GAs remained limited by the set limitations on the space ofpossible GAs, and the computational cost of the meta-simulations.

Recent progress has been made in automatic parameter tuning (automaticalgorithm configuration) to eliminate the limitations and drawbacks of man-ual parameter setting. This process can be described as a meta-optimizationprocess that identifies the set of parameters in a configuration space for a givenparametrised algorithm that maximizes a performance metric over a set of prob-lem instances. C. Huang et al., 2019 surveys different state of the art techniquesused in automatic parameter tuning, the classification of parameters into nu-merical (rates) and categorical (operators) types. Different tuning methods doexist: the Simple Generate-Evaluate (GEM) methods generate a set of candi-date configurations, evaluate their performance and select the maximizing oneBrute-force and F-race (close to dominance selection) approaches are quite pop-ular in SGEMs. Iterative GEMs create new configurations throughout search,and include notably heuristic search-based methods. High-level GEMs use exist-ing tuners and search methods to generate high-quality candidates and comparethem. Among these categories of tuning algorithms, Iterative GEMs stand outby their efficiency in exploring the configuration space, and their computationefficiency in doing so, as they use information from previous evaluations togenerate new candidates. In particular, heuristic search-based iterative GEMsinclude iterative F-races (that eliminate candidates as statistic evidence growsagainst them, adapted to cases of many candidates: see Balaprakash et al.,


2007), meta-evolutionary algorithms (meta-EAs) and ParamILS (a versatile lo-cal search approach with adaptive capping of runs to avoid unnecessary runs,introduced by Hutter et al., 2009). Two techniques are considered as the currentstate of the art within meta-EAs.

The Covariance Matrix Adaptation (CMA)-Evolution Strategies (CMA-ES,Hansen, 2006, Hansen, 2016) is a numerical optimization technique that sam-ples candidates according to a multivariate normal distribution. Recombinationamounts to changing the distribution mean, and mutations consist in a zero-mean perturbation. The covariance matrix of the variables is updated to max-imise the likelihood of occurrence of previously successful solutions, in a relatedfashion to gradient descent. This method is very fast with small populations,essentially parameter free, and does makes very few assumptions on the under-lying objective function. Evolution paths information is taken into account instep-size control to prevent premature convergence and from overshooting theoptimal region.

The Gender-based GA (GGA, Ansotegui et al., 2009) takes advantage ofthe parallelism and handling of rugged landscapes features of the GA. As theway parameters interact with each others is a priori unknown, the GA becomesa great candidate. They distinguish populations in two categories, and ap-ply different selection pressures. Only the competitive sub-population receivesintra-specific competition, and struggle to mate with the noncompetitive sub-population. This part of the population not directly subject to selection allowsto diversify the search and prevent premature convergence, while improving thecomputation cost of the automatic tuner. This work is related to the interestingintroduction of genders in the population (Rejeb and Abu Elhaij, 2000, Sanchez-Velazco and Bullinaria, 2003) to regulate the mating process in a more naturalway, outperforming the GA without genders in graph partitioning problems insolution quality and the number of generations required to attain the solution.As C. Huang et al., 2019, the tuning process being computationally expensivecould be improved by reducing the configurations to evaluate, or reducing theaverage cost of evaluation. Improving the computation efficiency of these pa-rameter tuning methods hence remains an area of future investigation. Thoughcapable of reaching the global optimum, and to return good solutions at anypoint of the search, meta-EAs do require a large number of evaluations, whichentails computation cost issues with large parameter spaces, and struggle in han-dling categorical parameters (C. Huang et al., 2019, de Lacerda et al., 2020).However, the GPU could spark a revolution in making these computation-heavyparameter configuration search methods feasible and more precise by searchingover a large space of configurations.

In the larger field of algorithm automatic configuration, evolutionary al-gorithms are both subject and answer to the challenge of parameter tuning.These works on parameter tuning have been recently been complemented withan increasing attention on parameter control, where the values of the parame-ters are changing during the run according to some deterministic, adaptive orself-adaptive strategies.


4.2.2 Parameter control

A single run of the GA is a stochastic path, intrinsically adaptive. Stickingto rigid parameters is in contrast with its spirit (Grefenstette, 1986). It isintuitive that different parameters settings may be optimal at different periodsin time (Back, 1992, Forrest, 1993). Large mutations could be explored in theearly steps to maximize exploration of promising regions of the search space,increasing selection pressure in later stages to narrow down the search to theoptimal chromosomes, as does Boltzman selection (M.-R. Chen et al., 2019).Allowing a GA to dynamically modify its own parameters during a run wasfirst suggested by Grefenstette, 1986, noting however that the evaluations donein some time interval would probably not be sufficient to conduct a realisticassessment of the search traits performance. Benefits and early approacheswere surveyed by Eiben et al., 1999.

In the deterministic parameter control paradigm, parameters are changed bya fixed, predetermined rule, which can improve GA performance, but what theoptimal rule depends again on the context. Adaptive parameter control usessome feedback from the search to determine the changes to implement in theparameters. However, the updating mechanism used to control parameters isexternally set. Both these methods suffer from the difficulty of identifying suchoptimal rules of change (Eiben et al., 1999), an issue addressed by the use ofself-adaptive parameter control.

Natural evolution is itself a powerful meta-learning algorithm (Stanley et al.,2019), and was seen quite early as a natural development for GAs, with firstpositive theoretical results appearing with Greenwood and Zhu, 2001. Grefen-stette, 1986 presented self adaptation as two dual searches taking place, onesearch for a solution to a given problem in a search space of possible candi-dates, and a second for an optimal algorithm setting in the space of possiblealgorithms. Adapting only the mutation rate for example, would restrict thissecond search to the space of algorithms with fixed mutation rate. Populationsize itself in natural systems is controlled by complex ecological interactions(Mitchell, 1998).

A line of research has explored self adaptation of operators rates, to let theGA choose the probability of distributions of operators. Davis, 1989 identifieda key challenge for self adaptation of GAs to work: having the GA adaptationrate -and find ways to measure it- match the population adaptation rate. That”synchronization” problem appears to be the obstacle towards efficient self-adapting GAs. Hassanat and Alkafaween, 2017 enhanced GA performance withmultiple crossover operators, and a meta-selection of the best to use. Meta-GAsassembled in a population with migrations were found appropriate to find goodgeneralist parameter configurations, and to achieve performance close to spe-cialist configurations for given problems (Clune et al., 2005). Their results alsooutlined the existence of shifts on the optimal parameters or operators throughtime, notably from crossover types, which was beneficial in short term perfor-mance, but detrimental in the longer run. Clune et al., 2005 also show how the


ability to adapt exhibited by meta-GAs could lead to premature convergence tolocal optima. It is possible that those results apply in a specific context with arelatively low population (36 different GAs), or some restrictions of the searchspace, but they outline that while the meta-GA approach has some potential, itstill faces important issues that need to be addressed to achieve it, notably thechain issue of finding the parameter configuration of higher level meta-GAs. Ina related fashion, natural evolution failed to optimise mutation rates on ruggedfitness landscapes, and selects sub-optimal mutation rates for their short termadvantages (Clune et al., 2008). It appears that the dual search of a GA inthe space of GAs, and the solution to a problem in a solution search space, ismore complex, and amplifies the challenges they face. Parameter control is un-doubtedly non-universal, and specific to each GA run (C. Huang et al., 2019).We highlight in the next section some promising directions for fundamentalbreakthroughs that may help us come back with new tools to these topics ofparameter control by self-adaptive algorithms. Very recently, Case and Lehre,2020 and Dang and Lehre, 2016 demonstrated theoretically and experimentallythat self adaptation of GAs where parameters such a the mutation rate, are en-coded with the individual chromosomes, leads to significant speedups, achieveoptimal parameters as if they were known in advance. Evolutionary algorithmsenhanced with self adaptation were found to have an asymptotic speed improve-ment over the state of the art solution for their considered problem (Case andLehre, 2020).

4.3 Realism and robustness

It is not enough for GAs to be computationally efficient, and well parametrised.We also desire them to be robust in their trajectories, open in their explorationcapacities, and realistic in their design. Choices of representation of individuals,and design of the fitness landscape, are essential choices to ensure realism androbustness of the approach. We open towards a greater embrace of evolution,to not only evolve solutions in complex environments, but also the GA itself,and address these limitations all together.

4.3.1 Initial population sampling

This concern for diversity starts from the very initialisation of the GA. Bias inthe first generation is likely to induce further bias in search, leading potentiallyto premature convergence and local optima. Sampling error was early identifiedas one of the main difficulties faced by GAs (Forrest and Holland, 1991), andcan induce premature convergence (Forrest and Mitchell, 1993). In matter ofinstance of evolution, studying whether and how initial conditions impact theGA outcomes provides as well valuable information on the evolution process.However, for more practical purposes, some more rigor on the initial samplingcan greatly benefit GA applications. In high dimensional spaces, new methodsto generate initial populations allow to maintain diversity with limited popula-tion sizes. While little attention has been paid on establishing formal desirable


conditions for this initial diversity, significant results for searching in very largespaces have been achieved starting from ”unbiased” initial populations (Deavenand Ho, 1995). This unbiasedness has often been achieved by simple random uni-form sampling. As the object being considered by the GA grows in dimensionsand complexity, random uniform sampling requires a substantially higher pop-ulation size to satisfy this unbiasedness objective. To maintain the diversity ofthe GA initial population without sacrificing computation efficiency with exces-sively large population sizes, we may be interested in alternative initial seedingtechniques. Recent advances have suggested advanced sampling methods as apromising means to achieve better robustness and diversity in high-dimensionalsimulation exploration. Latin Hypercube Sampling (Helton and Davis, 2003,see application and discussion by Jing et al., 2019) and Sobol Sequences (Sobol,1967), that consist in generating low discrepancy sequences, i.e. quasi uniformsets of points in a high dimensional space, are now being used in the analysisof simulation models (Romain Reuillon, 2013), and can similarly improve thestarting points of the GA in the search space. While the current practice ofGAs is focused on random initial samples (Yakovlev et al., 2019), we maintainthat the danger of sampling bias for GAs optimisation is significant, increasingin higher dimensions, and can be mitigated by the above sampling methods.

4.3.2 Representation

One of the most crucial limitation of GAs is representation, most often denotedencoding, that denotes how the action space is modelled. Various encodingtechniques exist in the literature. The most popular, the binary encoding, usesstrings composed of 0s and 1s. It has the advantage of containing a higherdegree of implicit parallelism, as a GA instance will contain more schemas, andmost of the mutation, crossover operators have been built around the binaryencoding. The encoding representation commonly used in GAs admits manyvariants, and exhibits a high versatility. However, binary encoding might betoo narrow an encoding for some problems. Some may require integer values,some may contain strings or operators. In other cases, the number of bitsnecessary to encode a certain space of solutions in a binary way would simply betoo large for this encoding to function. The encoding representation indirectlyconstrains the search space, with the issue of partial cover. Only a robust,careful representation design allows to cover its fully diversity (Juzonis et al.,2012). A founding analysis on encoding in Genetic algorithms has been doneby Ronald, 1997. He notably defined the nine desirable properties for a robustencoding in the context of the schema approach:

1. Embodies the problem-relevant fundamental building blocks2. Is amenable to a set of genetic operators to operate selection, crossover

and mutation3. Minimises epistatis (expression of one gene suppresses the action of others)4. Allows a tractable mapping to the phenotype that allows fitness to be

measured


5. Exploits an appropriate mapping from the genotype to the phenotype6. Embodies feasible solutions and discards illegal candidates7. Suppresses isomorphism and mitigates redundancy: many genotypes con-

verging to a same solution point8. Uses the smallest cardinally of an alphabet for the gene values, the binary

being the best if relevant9. Represents the problem at the correct level of abstraction

To avoid genetic hitchhiking, in which some low fitness sequences associ-ated with highly successful alleles are maintained in spite of their low overallperformance, and reduce the size of the representations GA have to search,Schraudolph and Belew, 1992 proposed a dynamic parameter encoding mecha-nism that adjusts in size as evolution occurs. Kumar, 2013 surveys the differentencoding schemes: binary, octal, hexadecimal, permutation, value, tree encod-ing, and restricts their design to the principle of minimal alphabet, and principleof meaningful building blocks.

The use of GAs to evolve neural network architectures inspired a lot of re-search on encoding and representation. As the network size grew, so did thesize of the required chromosome to encode the network structure, which ledto significant issues in performance (how high a fitness can be obtained) andefficiency (how long does it take to obtain this high fitness result). Direct en-coding methods represent each network connection, and struggled in encodingrepeated structure, such as symmetry in a network. For complex networks, en-coding the network adjacency matrix in the chromosomes may become huge andintractable for any search algorithm. A set of 100 nodes would require chromo-somes of 5000 bits. A set of 1000 nodes would have to be encoded in 500,000-bitstrings to represent each connection. One solution identified by Kitano, 1990was grammatical encoding: encode network as grammars of structure opera-tors, in a related fashion to genetic programming. This representation requiresshorter chromosomes, as the GA evolves sets of building instructions, ratherthan the network structure itself. Grammatical encoding hence mitigates thatissue of complexity, and can inspire innovations in encoding representations,in order to design more robust or efficient networks in neural nets, security,communications, production, supply-chain, or financial contexts.

Indirect encoding has enjoyed a recent popularity (Stanley et al., 2019): thegenotype is a formula, a set of instructions for generating the network, ratherthan a direct edge by edge encoding. Some approaches have been based onCartesian genetic programming where the encoding being evolved is machinecode with some operators (Khan et al., 2013, Turner and Miller, 2014). In-spired from genetic regulatory networks, Mattiussi and Floreano, 2007 havedeveloped the Analog genetic encoding, that allows complexification and de-complexification of the network during the evolutionary process. How can 100trillion connections and 100 billion neurons be encoded in a DNA encoding of30,000 genes? (Stanley et al., 2019) Indirect encoding aims at using regularitysuch as symmetries or motifs, to improve compression. This has been connected


with canalization: capacity of natural indirect encoding to yield robust, adapt-able evolutionary paths of development (Le Rouzic et al., 2013).

As Grefenstette, 1986 point out, these representations, whether binary, fi-nite alphabet in fixed-length chromosomes, is intrinsically inconsistent with theadaptive, evolution framework of the GA. These encoding methods are not adap-tive, and as such, they restrict the search space, potentially limiting it to sub-optimal choices of lesser complexity. Any fixed length representation limits thecomplexity of the candidate solutions, hence the search space (Mitchell, 1998).It could even be argued that evolution not only makes the genotypes biggerin size, more complex and more adaptive, but could change the genetic encod-ing and the mapping between genotypes and phenotypes themselves (Mitchell,1998). As we consider the chromosomes as carrying evolving information, butalso as evolving objects, we walk even further into an evolutionary paradigm.As we seek further inspiration from biology and genetics to understand hownature is encoded and mapped to phenotypes, we may move from manual de-sign of representation to evolved representations, in which the design principleswe enumerated are the product of evolution, rather than constraints on man-ual design. Embracing the evolution paradigm to a larger extent leads GAs toopen-endedness, and vast uncertainty on their resulting behavior or properties,that is largely left to analyse, but that may contain essential innovations for thepractice of GAs.

4.3.3 Fitness evaluation

While the evaluation function is often contained in the problem formulation, itsdesign can be a difficult task (Whitley, 1994). Digital evolution is surprisinglycreative in exploiting misspecified fitness functions, create unintended debug-ging of simulated environments (Lehman et al., 2020). The design of the fitnessfunction may reflect some preconceptions of the experimenter on the form of thesolution, include unintended loopholes that are easy for evolution programs toexploit, in the same ways well-intentioned metrics in human societies can havedetrimental effects by the pressure to optimise them. Well-intentioned quanti-tative measures of fitness can be maximized in counter-intuitive, glitchy ways.In some other cases, digital evolution programs learned unintended regularitiesinstead of learning the complex behaviors experimenters were aiming for (Ellef-sen et al., 2014), or took advantage of simulation bugs or design flaws that werepreviously unseen. Various stories of digital evolution algorithms ”outsmarting”their creators are compiled by Lehman et al., 2020.

Evidently, fitness is not exogenous in nature, and there is no such phys-ical thing as an objective fitness evaluation function. At best, this functionwould appear rather related to fuzzy logic (J. Huang and Xie, 1998). Whilean objective function is certainly relevant for optimization problems, subject tothe design issues we highlighted above, modelling more complex, evolutionarysystems could benefit from endogenous fitness determination (J. H. Holland,1999). The fitness, or qualities of a given phenotype, may heavily depend not


only on a fixed environment, but also on the other phenotypes present in theenvironment. When those instabilities in the environment are well understood,they can be included in the fitness evaluation function (Vie, 2020a). The GAevolving under this more uncertain environment was able to both identify thetwo Nash equilibria of the variants, and to develop optimal mixed responses inbetween.

Evolving intelligent agents requires them to explore different selves, alterna-tive ways to represent them, and to modify them. One possible direction couldbe to develop a co-evolutionary paradigm in which the fitness landscape evolveswith the agents. . In fact, endogenous fitness opens to multiple phenomenaobserved in natural systems: predator-prey relationships, symbiosis, crowdingeffects. Interactions within the GA allow emergence of an evolving, autonomousecology of phenotypes (Smith and Bedau, 2000), leading to both optimization,and understanding of the ecology behavior. It connects genetic algorithms withartificial life (Mitchell, 1998). Endogenous, not explicit, fitness, is at the root ofopen-ended, creative, surprising digital evolution (Lehman and Stanley, 2011,Lehman et al., 2020). These directions are likely to require progress in param-eter configuration, computation efficiency to become possible, and will mostlikely create new challenges on how to understand such complex systems, butcarry promising insights.

5 Conclusion

In this review, we have attempted to present in a condensed way the differentproperties of genetic algorithms, their merits as exploration and optimisationheuristics, and the challenges they face, notably in computation efficiency, pa-rameter configuration, realism and robustness. We hope to have well covered thesearch space in this objective and to have identified its most promising pointsof its landscape.

Genetic algorithms are particularly suitable to solving sparse problems inlarge, rugged search spaces. They require very few assumptions on the fitnesslandscape properties, deal well with existence of local optima, or multiplicityof extrema. They are applicable to a wide range of problems, and are quiteefficient in returning good solutions quickly. They have achieved particular per-formance in the evolution of neural networks, multi-objective optimisation andgenetic programming. They are more than optimisers, as they generate novelty,are directly connected to artificial life as they foster emergence of complex dig-ital ecologies, and a clear relation with open-ended evolution that can greatlyimprove the modelling of evolutionary, adaptive systems. Genetic algorithmshave been facing significant issues in computation efficiency and cost, and inparameter configuration. Improving the efficiency of evolution as it is digitallyencoded will undoubtedly involve parallelism, and the evolution of parameterconfigurations themselves through self-adaptation. Advances in initial samplingmethods can overcome sampling bias issues.


Further inspiration from biology to incorporate in a computational formsome ecological and genetic interactions, will undoubtedly allow practition-ers to develop more sophisticated evolutionary algorithms, capable of evolvingin changing, or more complex environments. Phenomena of gene duplication,translocation, dominance, sexual differentiation, regulatory networks, have justemerged in the field. Epistasis -interactions between mutations- and pleiotropy-mutations at one locus affect several traits- are crucial in complex and realisticfitness landscapes. New developments on ”Structural Genetic Algorithms” (Vieet al., 2021) are attempting to incorporate these key biological phenomena toallow GAs to evolve more complex and more adaptive objects, expanding theircapabilities. Further connections with mathematical genetics and statistical me-chanics are likely to provide new theoretical grounds to understand the behaviorof genetic algorithms, and the properties of their operators. The technologicalprogress in computing power and the GPU revolution (Cheng and Gen, 2019)has pushed deep learning to the front of machine learning research, and excitingtimes are ahead as GAs will benefit from it, with their natural scaling withparallelism (Stanley et al., 2019).

The presence of a tremendous diversity of organisms stemming from naturalevolution, arguably involves the evolution of evolvability itself (Huizinga et al.,2018). Lehman et al., 2018 proposed a safe mutation approach that appliesmutations through output gradients, to improve the benefits from mutations,but evolution of mutations towards beneficial ones may also be the product ofthe evolution of evolvability and pleiotropy, rather than a manual addition. Theability to select some dimensions of variation to be more or less likely to be ex-plored through mutation, a phenomenon known as developmental canalization,is barely emerging in computational simulations of evolution, but could allowthe field of GA to tackle more important challenges. Open-ended, divergent evo-lutionary processes may be necessary for attaining this evolution of evolvability(Huizinga et al., 2018).

The latest developments of genetic algorithms towards meta-learning archi-tectures, learning how to learn, and the endogenous generation of learning envi-ronments, have placed AI-generating algorithms as a credible means to producegeneral AI (Clune, 2019). Open-endedness in their evolution could lead themto produce interesting and increasingly complex discoveries, and so indefinitely(Stanley et al., 2019). The first creator of GAs, John Holland, noted that suchcomputer programs that evolved in ways similar to natural selection, could solvecomplex problems even their creators do not fully understand. We add that theywill do so and generate surprising novelty, provided they are endowed with arepresentation, a landscape that allows to go beyond manual design, and placesall GA components, parameters to encoding, subject to open-ended evolution.

Acknowledgments

We wish to particularly thank Jeff Clune, Rama Cont, Melanie Mitchell, MaartenScholl, Lisa Soros for their previous time and remarks.


Funding

This publication is based on work supported [or partially supported] by the EP-SRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Mathematics of Random Systems: Anal-ysis, Modelling and Simulation (EP/S023925/1)

References

Abd-Elazim, S., & Ali, E. (2018). Load frequency controller design of a two-areasystem composing of pv grid and thermal generator via firefly algorithm.Neural Computing and Applications, 30 (2), 607–616.

Ahmad, I., Hussain, M., Alghamdi, A., & Alelaiwi, A. (2014). Enhancing svmperformance in intrusion detection using optimal feature subset selec-tion based on genetic principal components. Neural computing and ap-plications, 24 (7-8), 1671–1682.

Ahn, C., & Ramakrishna, R. S. (2003). Elitism-based compact genetic algo-rithms. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 7 (4), 367–385.

Ahn, H., & Kim, K. (2009). Bankruptcy prediction modeling with hybrid case-based reasoning and genetic algorithms approach. Applied soft comput-ing, 9 (2), 599–607.

Alterkawi, L., & Migliavacca, M. (2019). Parallelism and partitioning in large-scale gas using spark. Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Com-putation Conference, 736–744.

Altiparmak, F., Gen, M., Lin, L., & Karaoglan, I. (2009). A steady-state geneticalgorithm for multi-product supply chain network design. Computers &Industrial Engineering, 56 (2), 521–537.

Amin, A. (2013). A novel classification model for cotton yarn quality basedon trained neural network using genetic algorithm. Knowledge-BasedSystems, 39, 124–132.

Ansotegui, C., Sellmann, M., & Tierney, K. (2009). A gender-based genetic algo-rithm for the automatic configuration of algorithms. International Con-ference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, 142–157.

Armaghani, D. J., Hasanipanah, M., Mahdiyar, A., Abd Majid, M. Z., Amnieh,H. B., & Tahir, M. M. (2018). Airblast prediction through a hybrid ge-netic algorithm-ann model. Neural Computing and Applications, 29 (9),619–629.

Arthur, W. B. (1994). Inductive reasoning and bounded rationality. The Amer-ican economic review, 84 (2), 406–411.

Arulkumaran, K., Cully, A., & Togelius, J. (2019). Alphastar: An evolutionarycomputation perspective. Proceedings of the Genetic and EvolutionaryComputation Conference Companion, 314–315.

Axelrod, R. et al. (1987). The evolution of strategies in the iterated prisoner’sdilemma. The dynamics of norms, 1–16.


Azadeh, A., Mianaei, H. S., Asadzadeh, S., Saberi, M., & Sheikhalishahi, M.(2015). A flexible ann-ga-multivariate algorithm for assessment andoptimization of machinery productivity in complex production units.Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 35, 46–75.

Back, T. (1992). The interaction of mutation rate, selection, and self-adaptationwithin a genetic algorithm. Proc. 2nd Conference of Parallel ProblemSolving from Nature, 1992.

Baker, B. M., & Ayechew, M. (2003). A genetic algorithm for the vehicle routingproblem. Computers & Operations Research, 30 (5), 787–800.

Balaprakash, P., Birattari, M., & Stutzle, T. (2007). Improvement strategies forthe f-race algorithm: Sampling design and iterative refinement. Inter-national workshop on hybrid metaheuristics, 108–122.

Bhandari, D., Murthy, C., & Pal, S. K. (1996). Genetic algorithm with elitistmodel and its convergence. International journal of pattern recognitionand artificial intelligence, 10 (06), 731–747.

Bianco, S., Ciocca, G., & Schettini, R. (2017). Combination of video changedetection algorithms by genetic programming. IEEE Transactions onEvolutionary Computation, 21 (6), 914–928.

Braun, M. A., Seijo, S., Echanobe, J., Shukla, P. K., del Campo, I., Garcia-Sedano, J., & Schmeck, H. (2016). A neuro-genetic approach for model-ing and optimizing a complex cogeneration process. Applied Soft Com-puting, 48, 347–358.

Caruana, R. A., & Schaffer, J. D. (1988). Representation and hidden bias: Grayvs. binary coding for genetic algorithms. Machine learning proceedings1988 (pp. 153–161). Elsevier.

Case, B., & Lehre, P. K. (2020). Self-adaptation in non-elitist evolutionary al-gorithms on discrete problems with unknown structure. IEEE Transac-tions on Evolutionary Computation.

Chatterjee, S., Nag, R., Dey, N., & Ashour, A. S. (2018). Efficient economicprofit maximization: Genetic algorithm based approach. Smart trendsin systems, security and sustainability (pp. 307–318). Springer.

Chen, J., Su, M., Shen, S., Xiong, H., & Zheng, H. (2019). Poba-ga: Pertur-bation optimized black-box adversarial attacks via genetic algorithm.Computers & Security, 85, 89–106.

Chen, L., Deb, K., & Liu, H.-L. (2018). Investigating the effect of parallelismin decomposition based evolutionary many-objective optimization al-gorithms. Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA, Tech. Rep.COIN Report, (2018004).

Chen, M.-R., Chen, J.-H., Zeng, G.-Q., Lu, K.-D., & Jiang, X.-F. (2019). Animproved artificial bee colony algorithm combined with extremal opti-mization and boltzmann selection probability. Swarm and EvolutionaryComputation, 49, 158–177.

Chen, S.-H., & Yeh, C.-H. (2001). Evolving traders and the business school withgenetic programming: A new architecture of the agent-based artificialstock market. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 25 (3-4),363–393.


Cheng, J. R., & Gen, M. (2019). Accelerating genetic algorithms with gpu com-puting: A selective overview. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 128,514–525.

Chung, H., & Shin, K.-s. (2020). Genetic algorithm-optimized multi-channelconvolutional neural network for stock market prediction. Neural Com-puting and Applications, 32 (12), 7897–7914.

Clune, J. (2019). Ai-gas: Ai-generating algorithms, an alternate paradigm forproducing general artificial intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10985.

Clune, J., Goings, S., Punch, B., & Goodman, E. (2005). Investigations in meta-gas: Panaceas or pipe dreams? Proceedings of the 7th annual workshopon Genetic and evolutionary computation, 235–241.

Clune, J., Misevic, D., Ofria, C., Lenski, R. E., Elena, S. F., & Sanjuan, R.(2008). Natural selection fails to optimize mutation rates for long-termadaptation on rugged fitness landscapes. PLoS Comput Biol, 4 (9), e1000187.

Colapinto, C., La Torre, D., Liuzzi, D., & Vie, A. (2020). Toward the realiza-tion of the “europe 2020” agenda for economic growth in the europeanunion: An empirical analysis based on goal programming. Mathematicalmodelling in health, social and applied sciences (pp. 199–239). Springer.

Cully, A., Clune, J., Tarapore, D., & Mouret, J.-B. (2015). Robots that canadapt like animals. Nature, 521 (7553), 503–507.

Cully, A., & Demiris, Y. (2017). Quality and diversity optimization: A unifyingmodular framework. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation,22 (2), 245–259.

Dang, D.-C., & Lehre, P. K. (2016). Self-adaptation of mutation rates in non-elitist populations. International Conference on Parallel Problem Solv-ing from Nature, 803–813.

Das, R., Mitchell, M., & Crutchfield, J. P. (1994). A genetic algorithm discoversparticle-based computation in cellular automata. International Confer-ence on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, 344–353.

Davis, L. (1989). Adapting operator probabilities in genetic algorithms. Pro-ceedings of the third international conference on Genetic algorithms,61–69.

De Jong, K. (2020). Evolutionary computation: A unified approach. Proceedingsof the 2020 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Com-panion, 327–342.

De Jong, K. A. (1993). Genetic algorithms are not function optimizers. Foun-dations of genetic algorithms (pp. 5–17). Elsevier.

De Jong, K. A. (2008). Evolving intelligent agents: A 50 year quest. IEEE Com-putational Intelligence Magazine, 3 (1), 12–17.

Deaven, D. M., & Ho, K.-M. (1995). Molecular geometry optimization with agenetic algorithm. Physical review letters, 75 (2), 288.

Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., & Meyarivan, T. (2002). A fast and elitistmultiobjective genetic algorithm: Nsga-ii. IEEE transactions on evolu-tionary computation, 6 (2), 182–197.

Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T., & Fast, A. (2002). Nsga-ii.IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation, 6 (2), 182–197.


Del Moral, P., & Miclo, L. (2001). Asymptotic results for genetic algorithms withapplications to nonlinear estimation. Theoretical aspects of evolutionarycomputing (pp. 439–493). Springer.

de Lacerda, M. G. P., de Araujo Pessoa, L. F., de Lima Neto, F. B., Ludermir,T. B., & Kuchen, H. (2020). A systematic literature review on generalparameter control for evolutionary and swarm-based algorithms. Swarmand Evolutionary Computation, 100777.

Della Croce, F., Tadei, R., & Volta, G. (1995). A genetic algorithm for the jobshop problem. Computers & Operations Research, 22 (1), 15–24.

Dempster, M. A., & Jones, C. M. (2001). A real-time adaptive trading systemusing genetic programming. Quantitative Finance, 1 (4), 397–413.

Dempster, M. A., & Leemans, V. (2006). An automated fx trading system us-ing adaptive reinforcement learning. Expert Systems with Applications,30 (3), 543–552.

Devarriya, D., Gulati, C., Mansharamani, V., Sakalle, A., & Bhardwaj, A.(2020). Unbalanced breast cancer data classification using novel fitnessfunctions in genetic programming. Expert Systems with Applications,140, 112866.

Dhunny, A., Timmons, D., Allam, Z., Lollchund, M., & Cunden, T. (2020).An economic assessment of near-shore wind farm development usinga weather research forecast-based genetic algorithm model. Energy,117541.

Donate, J. P., Li, X., Sanchez, G. G., & de Miguel, A. S. (2013). Time series fore-casting by evolving artificial neural networks with genetic algorithms,differential evolution and estimation of distribution algorithm. NeuralComputing and Applications, 22 (1), 11–20.

Drugan, M. M. (2019). Reinforcement learning versus evolutionary computation:A survey on hybrid algorithms. Swarm and evolutionary computation,44, 228–246.

Eiben, A. E., Hinterding, R., & Michalewicz, Z. (1999). Parameter control inevolutionary algorithms. IEEE Transactions on evolutionary computa-tion, 3 (2), 124–141.

Ellefsen, K. O., Mouret, J.-B., & Clune, J. (2014). Neural modularity reducescatastrophic forgetting. The Evolution of Learning: Balancing Adaptiv-ity and Stability in Artificial Agents, 111.

Forrest, S. (1993). Optimal mutation rates in genetic search. Proc. 5th Int. Conf.Genetic Algorithms, 2–8.

Forrest, S., & Holland, J. (1991). The royal road for genetic algorithms: Fitnesslandscapes and ga performance. Toward a Practice of Autonomous Sys-tems: Proceedings of the First European Conference on Artificial Life,245–254.

Forrest, S., & Mitchell, M. (1993). What makes a problem hard for a ge-netic algorithm? some anomalous results and their explanation. Ma-chine Learning, 13 (2-3), 285–319.

Garcia, D., Lugo, A. E., Hemberg, E., & O’Reilly, U.-M. (2017). Investigat-ing coevolutionary archive based genetic algorithms on cyber defense


networks. Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary ComputationConference Companion, 1455–1462.

Ghofrani, M., Arabali, A., Etezadi-Amoli, M., & Fadali, M. S. (2013). A frame-work for optimal placement of energy storage units within a power sys-tem with high wind penetration. IEEE Transactions on SustainableEnergy, 4 (2), 434–442.

Goldberg, D. E., Richardson, J. et al. (1987). Genetic algorithms with sharing formultimodal function optimization. Genetic algorithms and their appli-cations: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on GeneticAlgorithms, 41–49.

Greenwood, G. W., & Zhu, Q. J. (2001). Convergence in evolutionary programswith self-adaptation. Evolutionary Computation, 9 (2), 147–157.

Grefenstette, J. J. (1986). Optimization of control parameters for genetic algo-rithms. IEEE Transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics, 16 (1),122–128.

Grefenstette, J. J. et al. (1992). Genetic algorithms for changing environments.Ppsn, 2, 137–144.

Han, J.-B., Kim, S.-H., Jang, M.-H., & Ri, K.-S. (2019). Using genetic algorithmand narx neural network to forecast daily bitcoin price. ComputationalEconomics, 1–17.

Hansen, N. (2006). The cma evolution strategy: A comparing review. Towardsa new evolutionary computation (pp. 75–102). Springer.

Hansen, N. (2016). The cma evolution strategy: A tutorial. arXiv preprintarXiv:1604.00772.

Hassanat, A. B., & Alkafaween, E. (2017). On enhancing genetic algorithmsusing new crossovers. International Journal of Computer Applicationsin Technology, 55 (3), 202–212.

Helton, J. C., & Davis, F. J. (2003). Latin hypercube sampling and the propa-gation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems. Reliability Engi-neering & System Safety, 81 (1), 23–69.

Hillis, W. D. (1990). Co-evolving parasites improve simulated evolution as an op-timization procedure. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 42 (1-3), 228–234.

Holland, J. (1975). Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: An introductoryanalysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence.MIT press.

Holland, J. (1992). Genetic algorithms. Scientific American, 267 (1), 66–73.Holland, J. H. (1999). Echoing emergence: Objectives, rough definitions, and

speculations for echo-class models. Complexity: Metaphors, models, andreality (pp. 309–342).

Homaifar, A., Qi, C. X., & Lai, S. H. (1994). Constrained optimization viagenetic algorithms. Simulation, 62 (4), 242–253.

Horn, J., Nafpliotis, N., & Goldberg, D. E. (1994). A niched pareto genetic al-gorithm for multiobjective optimization. Proceedings of the first IEEEconference on evolutionary computation. IEEE world congress on com-putational intelligence, 82–87.


Huang, C., Li, Y., & Yao, X. (2019). A survey of automatic parameter tuningmethods for metaheuristics. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Com-putation, 24 (2), 201–216.

Huang, J., & Xie, W. (1998). Genetic algorithm with fuzzy fitness evaluation.Journal of Electronics (China), 15 (3), 254–258.

Huizinga, J., Stanley, K. O., & Clune, J. (2018). The emergence of canalizationand evolvability in an open-ended, interactive evolutionary system. Ar-tificial life, 24 (3), 157–181.

Hutter, F., Hoos, H. H., Leyton-Brown, K., & Stutzle, T. (2009). Paramils:An automatic algorithm configuration framework. Journal of ArtificialIntelligence Research, 36, 267–306.

Jin, C., Mao, H., Chen, Y., Shi, Q., Wang, Q., Ma, G., & Liu, Y. (2020).Engineering-oriented dynamic optimal control of a greenhouse environ-ment using an improved genetic algorithm with engineering constraintrules. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 177, 105698.

Jing, Z., Chen, J., & Li, X. (2019). Rbf-ga: An adaptive radial basis functionmetamodeling with genetic algorithm for structural reliability analysis.Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 189, 42–57.

Juzonis, V., Goranin, N., Cenys, A., & Olifer, D. (2012). Specialized genetic algo-rithm based simulation tool designed for malware evolution forecasting.Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sk lodowska, sectio AI–Informatica,12 (4).

Khan, M. M., Ahmad, A. M., Khan, G. M., & Miller, J. F. (2013). Fast learningneural networks using cartesian genetic programming. Neurocomputing,121, 274–289.

Kitano, H. (1990). Designing neural networks using genetic algorithms withgraph generation system. Complex systems, 4, 461–476.

Kitano, H. (1994). Neurogenetic learning: An integrated method of designingand training neural networks using genetic algorithms. Physica D: Non-linear Phenomena, 75 (1-3), 225–238.

Koza, J. R. (1992). Genetic programming: On the programming of computers bymeans of natural selection (Vol. 1). MIT press.

Koza, J. R. (1995). Survey of genetic algorithms and genetic programming.Wescon conference record, 589–594.

Kramer, O. (2017). Genetic algorithm essentials (Vol. 679). Springer.Kumar, A. (2013). Encoding schemes in genetic algorithm. International Journal

of Advanced Research in IT and Engineering, 2 (3), 1–7.Langdon, W. B. (2020). Genetic programming and evolvable machines at 20.

Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 21 (1), 205–217.Laribi, M., Mlika, A., Romdhane, L., & Zeghloul, S. (2004). A combined genetic

algorithm–fuzzy logic method (ga–fl) in mechanisms synthesis. Mecha-nism and machine theory, 39 (7), 717–735.

Le Rouzic, A., Alvarez-Castro, J. M., & Hansen, T. F. (2013). The evolutionof canalization and evolvability in stable and fluctuating environments.Evolutionary Biology, 40 (3), 317–340.

LeBaron, B. et al. (1995). Experiments in evolutionary finance (tech. rep.).


Lehman, J., Chen, J., Clune, J., & Stanley, K. O. (2018). Safe mutations for deepand recurrent neural networks through output gradients. Proceedings ofthe Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, 117–124.

Lehman, J., Clune, J., Misevic, D., Adami, C., Altenberg, L., Beaulieu, J.,Bentley, P. J., Bernard, S., Beslon, G., Bryson, D. M., et al. (2020). Thesurprising creativity of digital evolution: A collection of anecdotes fromthe evolutionary computation and artificial life research communities.Artificial Life, 26 (2), 274–306.

Lehman, J., & Stanley, K. O. (2011). Abandoning objectives: Evolution throughthe search for novelty alone. Evolutionary computation, 19 (2), 189–223.

Lindgren, K. (1992). Evolutionary phenomena in simple dynamics. Artificial lifeII, 295–312.

Liu, L., Zhang, M., Buyya, R., & Fan, Q. (2017). Deadline-constrained coevo-lutionary genetic algorithm for scientific workflow scheduling in cloudcomputing. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience,29 (5), e3942.

Liuzzi, D., Lupi, V., & Vie, A. (2020). Sustainability, cooperation and mobilityof workers within and between european countries: A two-stage goalprogramming model. Annals of Operations Research, 1–21.

Lo, A. W. (2004). The adaptive markets hypothesis. The Journal of PortfolioManagement, 30 (5), 15–29.

Lo, A. W. (2019). Adaptive markets: Financial evolution at the speed of thought.Princeton University Press.

Lwin, K., Qu, R., & Kendall, G. (2014). A learning-guided multi-objective evo-lutionary algorithm for constrained portfolio optimization. Applied SoftComputing, 24, 757–772.

Malossini, A., Blanzieri, E., & Calarco, T. (2008). Quantum genetic optimiza-tion. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 12 (2), 231–241.

Martinez-Jaramillo, S., & Tsang, E. P. (2009). An heterogeneous, endogenousand coevolutionary gp-based financial market. IEEE Transactions onEvolutionary Computation, 13 (1), 33–55.

Mattiussi, C., & Floreano, D. (2007). Analog genetic encoding for the evolutionof circuits and networks. IEEE Transactions on evolutionary computa-tion, 11 (5), 596–607.

Maulik, U., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (2000). Genetic algorithm-based clusteringtechnique. Pattern recognition, 33 (9), 1455–1465.

Merz, P., & Freisleben, B. (2000). Fitness landscape analysis and memetic al-gorithms for the quadratic assignment problem. IEEE transactions onevolutionary computation, 4 (4), 337–352.

Metawa, N., Hassan, M. K., & Elhoseny, M. (2017). Genetic algorithm basedmodel for optimizing bank lending decisions. Expert Systems with Ap-plications, 80, 75–82.

Miller, B. L., Goldberg, D. E. et al. (1995). Genetic algorithms, tournamentselection, and the effects of noise. Complex systems, 9 (3), 193–212.

Mirjalili, S. (2019). Genetic algorithm. Evolutionary algorithms and neural net-works (pp. 43–55). Springer.


Mirjalili, S., Dong, J. S., Sadiq, A. S., & Faris, H. (2020). Genetic algorithm:Theory, literature review, and application in image reconstruction. Nature-inspired optimizers (pp. 69–85). Springer.

Mitchell, M. (1998). An introduction to genetic algorithms. MIT press.Mitchell, M., & Forrest, S. (1994). Genetic algorithms and artificial life. Artificial

life, 1 (3), 267–289.Nguyen, S., Mei, Y., & Zhang, M. (2017). Genetic programming for production

scheduling: A survey with a unified framework. Complex & IntelligentSystems, 3 (1), 41–66.

Østman, B., & Adami, C. (2014). Predicting evolution and visualizing high-dimensional fitness landscapes. Recent advances in the theory and ap-plication of fitness landscapes (pp. 509–526). Springer.

Packard, N. H. (1988). Adaptation toward the edge of chaos. Dynamic patternsin complex systems, 212, 293.

Packard, N. H. (1990). A genetic learning algorithm for the analysis of complexdata. Complex Systems, 4 (5), 543–572.

Palmer, R. G., Arthur, W. B., Holland, J. H., LeBaron, B., & Tayler, P. (1994).Artificial economic life: A simple model of a stockmarket. Physica D:Nonlinear Phenomena, 75 (1-3), 264–274.

Pitzer, E., & Affenzeller, M. (2012). A comprehensive survey on fitness landscapeanalysis. Recent advances in intelligent engineering systems (pp. 161–191). Springer.

Pugh, J. K., Soros, L. B., & Stanley, K. O. (2016). Quality diversity: A newfrontier for evolutionary computation. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 3,40.

Pushak, Y., & Hoos, H. (2018). Algorithm configuration landscapes. Interna-tional Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, 271–283.

Raman, M. G., Somu, N., Kirthivasan, K., Liscano, R., & Sriram, V. S. (2017).An efficient intrusion detection system based on hypergraph-geneticalgorithm for parameter optimization and feature selection in supportvector machine. Knowledge-Based Systems, 134, 1–12.

Ravi, V., Kurniawan, H., Thai, P. N. K., & Kumar, P. R. (2008). Soft computingsystem for bank performance prediction. Applied soft computing, 8 (1),305–315.

Raymer, M. L., Punch, W. F., Goodman, E. D., Kuhn, L. A., & Jain, A. K.(2000). Dimensionality reduction using genetic algorithms. IEEE trans-actions on evolutionary computation, 4 (2), 164–171.

Razali, N. M., Geraghty, J. et al. (2011). Genetic algorithm performance withdifferent selection strategies in solving tsp. Proceedings of the worldcongress on engineering, 2 (1), 1–6.

Real, E., Liang, C., So, D., & Le, Q. (2020). Automl-zero: Evolving machinelearning algorithms from scratch. International Conference on MachineLearning, 8007–8019.

Reddy, G. T., Reddy, M. P. K., Lakshmanna, K., Rajput, D. S., Kaluri, R.,& Srivastava, G. (2020). Hybrid genetic algorithm and a fuzzy logic


classifier for heart disease diagnosis. Evolutionary Intelligence, 13 (2),185–196.

Reeves, C. R. (1995). A genetic algorithm for flowshop sequencing. Computers& operations research, 22 (1), 5–13.

Rejeb, J., & Abu Elhaij, M. (2000). New gender genetic algorithm for solvinggraph partitioning problems. Proceedings of the 43rd IEEE MidwestSymposium on Circuits and Systems (Cat. No. CH37144), 1, 444–446.

Rodriguez, A. A. O., & Ortiz, M. R. S. (2020). Partial evaluation of geneticalgorithms. Industrial and Engineering Applications of Artificial In-telligence and Expert Systems: Proceedings of the Tenth InternationalConference, 217.

Romain Reuillon, S. R.-C., Mathieu Leclaire. (2013). Openmole, a workflowengine specifically tailored for the distributed exploration of simulationmodels. Future Generation Computer Systems, 29 (8), 1981–1990. http://www.openmole.org/files/FGCS2013.pdf

Ronald, S. (1997). Robust encodings in genetic algorithms: A survey of en-coding issues. Proceedings of 1997 IEEE International Conference onEvolutionary Computation (ICEC’97), 43–48.

Rudolph, G. (2001). Evolutionary search under partially ordered fitness sets.Universitatsbibliothek Dortmund.

Sanchez-Velazco, J., & Bullinaria, J. A. (2003). Gendered selection strategies ingenetic algorithms for optimization. survival, 8 (6), 11.

Schraudolph, N. N., & Belew, R. K. (1992). Dynamic parameter encoding forgenetic algorithms. Machine learning, 9 (1), 9–21.

Shin, K.-s., & Han, I. (1999). Case-based reasoning supported by genetic al-gorithms for corporate bond rating. Expert Systems with applications,16 (2), 85–95.

Smith, R., & Bedau, M. (2000). Emergence of complex ecologies in echo. Proceed-ings from the international conference on complex systems on Unifyingthemes in complex systems, Perseus Books, 473–486.

Smooth and rugged fitness landscapes [Accessed: 2020-12-02]. (n.d.).Sobol, I. M. (1967). On the distribution of points in a cube and the approximate

evaluation of integrals. Zhurnal Vychislitel’noi Matematiki i Matem-aticheskoi Fiziki, 7 (4), 784–802.

Stanley, K. O. (2019). Why open-endedness matters. Artificial Life, 25 (3), 232–235.

Stanley, K. O., Clune, J., Lehman, J., & Miikkulainen, R. (2019). Designingneural networks through neuroevolution. Nature Machine Intelligence,1 (1), 24–35.

Stanley, K. O., Lehman, J., & Soros, L. (2017). Open-endedness: The last grandchallenge you’ve never heard of. While open-endedness could be a forcefor discovering intelligence, it could also be a component of AI itself.

Street, A. G., & Mayo, S. L. (1999). Computational protein design. Structure,7 (5), R105–R109.

Such, F. P., Madhavan, V., Conti, E., Lehman, J., Stanley, K. O., & Clune,J. (2017). Deep neuroevolution: Genetic algorithms are a competitive

http://www.openmole.org/files/FGCS2013.pdf

http://www.openmole.org/files/FGCS2013.pdf


alternative for training deep neural networks for reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.06567.

Suganuma, M., Shirakawa, S., & Nagao, T. (2017). A genetic programmingapproach to designing convolutional neural network architectures. Pro-ceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference, 497–504.

Tanabe, R., & Ishibuchi, H. (2020). A review of evolutionary multimodal mul-tiobjective optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Compu-tation, 24 (1), 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2019.2909744

Tanese, R. (1987). Parallel genetic algorithm for a hypercube. Genetic algo-rithms and their applications: proceedings of the second InternationalConference on Genetic Algorithms: July 28-31, 1987 at the MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

Tanese, R. (1989). Distributed genetic algorithms for function optimization.Tang, Q., Basten, T., Geilen, M., Stuijk, S., & Wei, J.-B. (2017). Mapping of

synchronous dataflow graphs on mpsocs based on parallelism enhance-ment. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 101, 79–91.

Tao, Z., Huiling, L., Wenwen, W., & Xia, Y. (2019). Ga-svm based feature selec-tion and parameter optimization in hospitalization expense modeling.Applied Soft Computing, 75, 323–332.

Tayarani-N, M.-H., Yao, X., & Xu, H. (2014). Meta-heuristic algorithms in carengine design: A literature survey. IEEE Transactions on EvolutionaryComputation, 19 (5), 609–629.

Turner, A. J., & Miller, J. F. (2014). Neuroevolution: Evolving heterogeneousartificial neural networks. Evolutionary Intelligence, 7 (3), 135–154.

Varetto, F. (1998). Genetic algorithms applications in the analysis of insolvencyrisk. Journal of Banking & Finance, 22 (10-11), 1421–1439.

Vie, A., Kleinnijenhuis, A., & Farmer, D. (2021). Structural genetic algorithms:A biological pulse for artificial life.

Vie, A., Colapinto, C., La Torre, D., & Liuzzi, D. (2019). The long-run sus-tainability of the european union countries: Assessing the europe 2020strategy through a fuzzy goal programming model.

Vie, A. (2020a). Evolutionary strategies with analogy partitions in p-guessinggames. SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3645059

Vie, A. (2020b). Genetic algorithm approach to asymmetrical blotto games withheterogeneous valuations. SSRN. http : //dx .doi . org/10 . 2139/ssrn .3667055

Vinyals, O., Babuschkin, I., Chung, J., Mathieu, M., Jaderberg, M., Czarnecki,W. M., Dudzik, A., Huang, A., Georgiev, P., Powell, R., et al. (2019).Alphastar: Mastering the real-time strategy game starcraft ii. DeepMindblog, 2.

Waheeb, W., & Ghazali, R. (2019). A new genetically optimized tensor productfunctional link neural network: An application to the daily exchangerate forecasting. Evolutionary Intelligence, 12 (4), 593–608.

Wang, M., Li, B., Zhang, G., & Yao, X. (2017). Population evolvability: Dy-namic fitness landscape analysis for population-based metaheuristic al-

https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2019.2909744

http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3645059




gorithms. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 22 (4), 550–563.

Whitley, D. (1994). A genetic algorithm tutorial. Statistics and computing, 4 (2),65–85.

Wiransky, E. (2020). Hands-on genetic algorithms with python. Packt.Wright, S. (1931). Evolution in mendelian populations. Genetics, 16 (2), 97.Yakovlev, S., Kartashov, O., & Pichugina, O. (2019). Optimization on combi-

natorial configurations using genetic algorithms. CMIS, 28–40.Yang, J., & Honavar, V. (1998). Feature subset selection using a genetic al-

gorithm. Feature extraction, construction and selection (pp. 117–136).Springer.

Zhao, M., Ren, J., Ji, L., Fu, C., Li, J., & Zhou, M. (2012). Parameter selectionof support vector machines and genetic algorithm based on change areasearch. Neural Computing and Applications, 21 (1), 1–8.

Zitzler, E., Deb, K., & Thiele, L. (2000). Comparison of multiobjective evolu-tionary algorithms: Empirical results. Evolutionary computation, 8 (2),173–195.

Qualities, challenges and future of genetic algorithms - arXiv

Documents

Transcript of Qualities, challenges and future of genetic algorithms - arXiv