Natural selection in Genetic Algorithms - “Effect of

Elite Size And Tournament Size On Fitness”

Niall Deasy

School of Computer Science & Informatics

University College Dublin

Abstract
Natural selection, as proposed by Charles Darwin, is a widely accepted mechanism in nature where the best
survive and the weak eventually die out. In Grammatical evolution, selection mechanisms are based on this theory
in order to come up with a “good enough” solution. Two of these mechanisms are Tournament selection and
Elitism. Both of these selection procedures work in very different ways. However their influence can be
determined by limiting the population they have access to, i.e. tournament size and elite size. What remains to be
seen is if there exists a correlation between the elite size and the tournament size, which results in an optimal
fitness value.

1. Introduction
In her book “An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms”, Melanie Mitchell describes the fitness, in the
context of genetic algorithms, as the probability that a genetic algorithm will survive to reproduce [3].
We do this by evaluating a subset of the population, whose size is determined by the tournament size,
and choosing the algorithms whose fitness value is the best. When we talk about Elitism in Genetic
Algorithms what we really mean is how many of the top best competing algorithms can make it
through to the next generation. Tournament selection is similar to rank selection but is much more
efficient [3]. Tournament selection works by choosing two organisms from a population and using a
random operator to determine whether the fittest or less fitter algorithm should be chosen as a parent.
The two individuals are then returned to the population where they are eligible for selection again [3].
Both tournament selection and elitism selection are important mechanisms for increasing the
performance of the fitness of a GA. We can define how much these selection mechanisms are used by
defining how much of the population they have an effect on, i.e. elite size and tournament size.

One grammatical evolution tool which makes effect use of these selection procedures is
GEVA. GEVA was developed at UCD's Natural Computing Research and Applications (NCRA) as an
open source grammatical evolution platform [2]. It offers a graphical interface, which provides a
configuration, options as well text and graphed results. GEVA can also be run from the command line,
which takes in parameters as arguments, which allows for scripting.

There are essentially 4 main components, the Backus Naur Form (BNF) grammar, the
genotype search engine, the GE mapper and the fitness function evaluator that drive GEVA. GEVA
makes use of a BNF, which represents a method of expressing the grammar of a language in a logical
form as a set of production rules [2]. This grammar is made up of 4 main components, a start symbol S,
non-terminals N, a set of terminals T and finally, a set of production rules P. For example the following
grammar can describe any simple Boolean expressions:

N = { <expr>, <biop>, <uop>, <bool> }

T = { and, or, xor, nand, not, true, false, (, ) }
S = { <expr> }

And P can be represented as:

(A) <expr> ::= ( <expr> <biop> <expr> ) | <uop> <expr> | <bool>

(B) <biop> ::= and | or | xor | nand
(C) <uop> ::= not
 (D) <bool> ::= true | false

At each production rule we have a set of choices, for example production rule D gives us two
choices ‘true’ or ‘false’, where or is represented by ‘|’. GEVA works by mapping what are known as
codons through this grammar by using the following mapping function,

Rule = c mod r

Where c is the codon (integer value) and r is the number of rule choices for the current non-
terminal symbol [2]. A codon is a piece of the DNA, where DNA is a list of integers, which determines
which tuple to choose at a give state. For example lets take the current node to be a boolop and the
codon being read gives the integer value of 6,

<boolop> ::= and (0) | or (1) | xor (2) | nand (3)

6 mod 4 = 2

We determine which of the 4 choices to pick from boolop by using the mapping rule, 4 choices and
codon gives us the value of 6. Therefore <boolop> is mapped to xor, because the rule gives 2. This
process of mapping process is what’s known as a genotype to phenotype mapping and it continues until
a terminal node is reached. This will eventually result in a executable program who’s fitness is then
tested by the fitness function. The selection processes then take place before another generation is
executed. This potentially infinite cycle, given that the number of generations is infinite, can be seen in
figure 1.

In GEVA fitness of an algorithm is determined through using pieces of food, which the
genetic algorithms need to collect. The amount of food pieces is usually 89. If a genetic algorithm
manages to find and eat 70 of those pieces, its fitness will be 19 (89-70). Therefore the best fitness will
be 0 (89-89). Some genetic algorithm mechanisms deal with the fitness function differently for
example many particle swarm algorithms use a fitness range between 0 and 1.

What I propose in this project is to test if there exists a correlation between the size of the
competition (tournament size), and the number of top competing algorithms that can go to the next
round (elite size).

Figure 1
2. Experiment Set-Up
• Population size = 100
• Generations = 100
• NCRA and SantaFeAntTrail
• Initialization: Operator.Operations.TournamentSelect
• Crossover Probability = - 0.9
• Crossover-Point = variable
• Mutation Probability = 0.01
• Replacement type = generational
• Grow Probability = 0.5
• Max Wraps = 3
• Max Depth = 6
• Class path = bin/GUI.jar
• Main class = Main.run
• Userpick size = 20
• Fixed point crossover = false
• Initial chromosome size = 200

I decided to set my elite size and tournament size values based on the population size, since
they are closely related. I decided to test the elite size and tournament size values as a percentage of the
population, for example where the elite size is set to 50, this represents an elite size that is 50 percent
the size of the population size. I also decided upon testing the values as pairs to determine if there
exists a correlation between a specific ratio of elite size to tournament size on the fitness result.

I hope to find the best combination between elite size and tournament size by exploring all of
the possible combinations for this range. I will run each combination three times and then calculate the
average per pair. For example, taking the combination to be elite 1 percent, tournament 100 percent,
this represents a test where the value of elite will be 1 percent of the population size and the value of
the tournament size will be the population size. I will run each combination 30 times and then calculate
the average fitness over those 30 combinations.

As mentioned before, GEVA allows for both graphical user interface input as well as
command line input. I decided that it would be a good idea to take advantage of the command line
interface since I plan on running several hundred GEVA runs to gain an accurate results data set. The
script I designed ran 30 GEVA runs per configuration and averaged the total of those runs. I ran into
problems with running GEVA through the command line and it should be noted for replication issues
that the method for running GEVA through the command line in the documentation provided by
GEVA forgets to mention the correct class path and main class arguments which are required to run
GEVA. I found that GEVA needed to have its mainclass set to Main.Run and its classpath set to
bin/GUI.jar. An example command is below:

java -jar GEVA.jar -mainclass Main.Run -classpath bin/GUI.jar

3. Results

I decided against using three-dimensional graphs simply for the reason that I myself find them difficult
to interpret. I laid out all of my graphs in a unified structure. On the Y-axis I have the Average fitness
value determined over 30 runs. On the X-axis I have both the Elite size and the tournament size,
represents as pairs and their values represent a percentage of the population as described before.
 Experiment 1
The first experiment I set out upon was to determine whether a correlation exists between elite
size and fitness, tournament size and fitness or a combination of the two. A pattern is clearly visible
from the graph (fig 3.1.A ), where the fitness value drastically increases when the elite size is the same
as the population size. The best performing algorithm is indicated by the lowest fitness value, ie the
closest value to zero. This correlation between elite size and fitness can be seen in figure 3.1.A where
the green line representing elite size is at its highest, the fitness value for that tournament size range is
also at its highest. It appears that a correlation between elite size and fitness exists in that, when the
elite size is set to over 75 percent the population size, the fitness can be seen to dramatically increase. I
defined this correlation through the following function:

( 75 < Elite Size <= 100 ) => highest fitness => Worst Performance

The next step was to plot the average fitness per elite size value, to determine which elite size
gave the best fitness over any tournament size. I found a surprising pattern where the fitness seems to
oscillate every time the elite size is increased by 25 percent. This oscillation meats its peak when the
elite size is the population size. From figure 3.1.B I can conclude that the best elite values are 25
percent of the population size closely followed by 75 percent of the population size.

I now needed to determine if the tournament size has any substantial effect on the fitness outcome. This
can be seen in figure 3.1.C, where I grouped the tournament size in increasing order and calculated the
average fitness per group. The result was very linear with no apparent indication of a correlation
between the tournament size and the fitness size.

Average Fitness: SantaFeAntTrail Fitness

Elite Size
Tournament Size

120

100

80
69.66 71 69.3
67.36 67.96
Fitness

60

40 34.7 33.83 31.8 32.73 34.33 33.06 31.6631.63

34.46 33.86
28.43 30.3330.63 29.8 30.6330.46 30
27.2
24.13
19.93
20

0
1:25 1:75 25:1 25:50 25:100 50:25 50:75 75:1 75:50 75:100 100:25 100:75
1:1 1:50 1:100 25:25 25:75 50:1 50:50 50:100 75:25 75:75 100:1 100:50 100:100

Tournament-size % : Elite-size %
As Percent of population

Figure 3.1.A Graph displaying the correlation between elite size, tournament size and fitness. The
fitness function used was SantaFeAntTrail and the grammar used was also SantaFeAntTrail. On the X-
axis we have an elite size and tournament size pair in that order, where the both are represented as a
percentage of the population size. On the Y-axis we have the average fitness obtained over 30 runs.
 Elite Size - Effect on Fitness
SantaFeAntTrail
80
71
69.66 69.3
70 67.36 67.96

60
Fitness (Avg 30 runs)

50
43.46

40
Fitness
34.7 33.83
31.8
34.33 33.86 32.73 33.06 Average
30.33 31.66 30.63 30.63 31.63 30.46 29.8 30
28.43
30 27.2
24.13
19.93
20

10

0
1:25 1:75 25:1 25:50 25:100 50:25 50:75 75:1 75:50 75:100 100:25 100:75
1:1 1:50 1:100 25:25 25:75 50:1 50:50 50:100 75:25 75:75 100:1 100:50 100:100

Elite Size (Percent of population)

Figure 3.1.B Graph displaying the correlation between elite size and average fitness. The fitness
function used was SantaFeAntTrail and the grammar used was also SantaFeAntTrail. On the X-axis we
have elite sizes grouped in ascending order, which are valued as a percentage of the population size.
On the Y-axis we have the average fitness obtained over 30 runs. The red line indicates the average
fitness per elite size group. Each elite size group is made up of a elite size and all of the corresponding
tournament size’s, e.g. group 1: (1:1, 1:25, 1:50, 1:75, 1:100).

Tournament - Effect on Fitness

SantaFeAntTrail
80
69.66 71 69.3
67.36 67.96
70

60
Fitness (Avg 30 runs)

50
Fitness
40 34.7 34.46
33.83 34.33 33.06 33.86 Average
31.8 32.73 30.33 30.63 31.66 31.63 30.63 30.46
28.43 29.8 30
30 27.2
24.13
19.93
20

10

0
1:25 1:75 25:1 25:50 25:100 50:25 50:75 75:1 75:50 75:100 100:25 100:75
1:1 1:50 1:100 25:25 25:75 50:1 50:50 50:100 75:25 75:75 100:1 100:50 100:100

Tournament size (Percent of Population size)

Figure 3.1.C Graph displaying the correlation between tournament size and average fitness. The
fitness function used was SantaFeAntTrail and the grammar used was also SantaFeAntTrail. On the X-
axis we have tournament sizes grouped in ascending order, which are valued as a percentage of the
population size. On the Y-axis we have the average fitness obtained over 30 runs. The red line
indicates the average fitness per tournament size group. Each tournament size group is made up of a
tournament size and all of the corresponding elite size’s, e.g. group 1: (1:1, 1:25, 1:50, 1:75, 1:100)
where tournament size is to elite size (t:e).
 Experiment 2
In my second experiment I set out to discover if the 75 to 100 percent range for elite size could be
narrowed down. I.e. to discover a value for elite size, where the elite size is between 75 to 100 percent
of the population size, which results in the highest rate of change of fitness. So I adapted my runs to
work within this range with elite size ranging from 75 to 100 percent of the population size in
increments of 5 percent and the tournament size remaining constant at one percent of the population §

We can see from figure 3.2.A that the rise in fitness only occurs when the elite size is greater
than or equal to 95 percent of the population size. We can now adjust our relation between Elite Size
and Fitness:

(94<Elite Size<=100) => highest fitness => Worst Performance

SantaFeAntTrail
Fitness
Elite 75 to 100 range

80
69.9
70

60
Fitness Average (30 runs)

50

40
29.86
30 25.83 26.06
23.2 24.26
20

10

0
75:1 80:1 85:1 90:1 95:1 100:1

Tournament-size % : Elite-size %
As Percent of population

Figure 3.2.A Graph displaying the correlation between elite size, within the 75 to 100 range, and
fitness. The fitness function used was SantaFeAntTrail and the grammar used was also
SantaFeAntTrail. On the X-axis we have an elite size and tournament size pair in that order, where the
both are represented as a percentage of the population size. On the Y-axis we have the average fitness
obtained over 30 runs.

Experiment 3
It is now clear where the best and worst fitness values are achieved based on elite size for the
SantaFeAntTrail scenario. I now aim to investigate whether there exists the same effect across other
genetic algorithms. As time is short I will only have time to test the theory against two Scenarios where
I will only change the fitness function and the grammar used. For these two configurations I picked the
RoyalTree fitness and grammar, as well as the Sudoku fitness and grammar. I kept the same
configurations as described in experiment one apart from these two variables.
 The RoyalTree fitness test shows that the highest values for fitness are all achieved where the
elite size was over 75 percent of the population size. The results are a lot more varied than that of the
SantaFeAntTrail however the elite size still has a substantial effect on fitness where the elite size is set
to above 75 percent of the population size. I decided to check plot the average elite values against the
fitness again (figure 3.3.B). The oscillation that I found in the first test does not appear in this scenario.
Instead here we notice that the best fitness is to be found when the elite size is set to 25 percent of the
population size and rises in regular steps from there. The highest rise in fitness is again seen when the
elite size is set to over 100 percent the population size.

Since the same outcome was seen in experiment one I will assume that the elite size has the
same effect when it is over 95 percent of the population size. We can now determine that only two
correlations, between the elite size and fitness size, hold true across both fitness functions and
grammars.

1. The best fitness is seen when the elite size is set to 25 percent of the population size
2. The worst fitness is seen when the elite size is set to over 95 percent of the population size.

The Sudoku scenario revealed a more dramatic correlation between the elite size and the
fitness values (figure 3.3.C, figure 3.3.D). We can clearly see that where the elite size is set to the
population size, the fitness value can be seen to be over double the average. As seen in the previous
scenarios, the tournament size does not appear to have any substantial effect on the outcome of the
fitness value. The lowest average fitness value per elite size is again seen where the elite size is set to
25 percent of the population size. Although in this scenario it is closely followed by elite size at 50
percent of the population size, by .03 in difference of fitness.

Fitness
RoyalTree Fitness Test
4.5
4.02
4
3.32
Fitness - (over 30 runs)

3.5 3.15
3 2.79 2.65 2.79

2.5 2.15 2.26

2.01 2.08
2 1.81 1.87 1.89 1.87 1.79
1.62 1.65
1.38 1.38 1.42 1.43
1.5 1.27 1.37 1.29
0.99
1
0.5
0
1:25 1:75 25:1 25:50 25:100 50:25 50:75 75:1 75:50 75:100 100:25 100:75
1:1 1:50 1:100 25:25 25:75 50:1 50:50 50:100 75:25 75:75 100:1 100:50 100:100

Figure 3.3.A Graph displaying the correlation between elite size, tournament size and fitness. The
fitness function used was RoyalTree and the grammar used was also RoyalTree. On the X-axis we have
an elite size and tournament size pair in that order, where the both %are
Tournament-size represented
: Elite-size % as a percentage of
As Percent
the population size. On the Y-axis we have the average fitness of population
obtained over 30 runs.
 Elite Size - Effect On Fitness
RoyalTree
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5 Fitness
Fitness

2 Average
1.5
1
0.5
0
1:25 1:75 25:1 25:50 25:100 50:25 50:75 75:1 75:50 75:100 100:25 100:75
1:1 1:50 1:100 25:25 25:75 50:1 50:50 50:100 75:25 75:75 100:1 100:50 100:100
Elite size (% of population)

Figure 3.3.B Graph displaying the correlation between elite size and average fitness. The fitness
function used was RoyalTree and the grammar used was also RoyalTree. On the X-axis we have elite
sizes grouped in ascending order, which are valued as a percentage of the population size. On the Y-
axis we have the average fitness obtained over 30 runs. The red line indicates the average fitness per
elite size group. Each elite size group is made up of a elite size and all of the corresponding tournament
size’s, e.g. group 1: (1:1, 1:25, 1:50, 1:75, 1:100), where elite size is to tournament size (e:t).

Average Fitness: Sudoku Fitness

70
64.37 64.5 63.93 63.83 64.4

60
Fitness Avg over 30 runs

50
43.77

40
32.47 31.4 31.3
30 26.93 26.27
22.7 22.67 23.3 23.97 25.57 24.9323.63 23.7 25.37 24 22.93 23.3 24.87
21.93
20

10

0
1:25 1:75 25:1 25:50 25:100 50:25 50:75 75:1 75:50 75:100 100:25 100:75
1:1 1:50 1:100 25:25 25:75 50:1 50:50 50:100 75:25 75:75 100:1 100:50 100:100

Tournament-size % : Elite-size %
As Percent of population size

Figure 3.3.C Graph displaying the correlation between elite size, tournament size and fitness. The
fitness function used was Sudoku and the grammar used was also Sudoku. On the X-axis we have an
elite size and tournament size pair in that order, where the both are represented as a percentage of the
population size. On the Y-axis we have the average fitness obtained over 30 runs.
 Elite size - effect on fitness
Sudoku
70
64.37 64.5 63.93 63.83 64.4

60
Fitness (Average over 30 runs)

50
43.77

40 Fitness
32.47 31.4 31.3 Average
30 25.57
26.93 26.27 25.37
23.97 24.93 24 23.63 22.93 22.67 23.7 23.3 23.3
24.87
22.7 21.93
20

10

0
1 1 1 1 1 25 25 25 25 25 50 50 50 50 50 75 75 75 75 75 100 100 100 100 100
Elite Size (Percentage of population)

Figure 3.3.D Graph displaying the correlation between elite size and average fitness. The fitness
function used was Sudoku and the grammar used was also Sudoku. On the X-axis we have elite sizes
grouped in ascending order, which are valued as a percentage of the population size. On the Y-axis we
have the average fitness obtained over 30 runs. The red line indicates the average fitness per elite size
group. Each elite size group is made up of a elite size and all of the corresponding tournament size’s,
e.g. group 1: (1:1, 1:25, 1:50, 1:75, 1:100), where elite size is to tournament size (e:t).

4. Conclusions & Future Work

I started this paper as an attempt to find a correlation between Tournament Size Elite Size and fitness. I
ran a total of 2430 GEVA simulations and from this extensive amount of results data I did find some
patterns. What I found was that Tournament Size has no noticeable effect on the performance of the
fitness functions, as far as the above fitness functions are concerned. I did however find a very
noticeable correlation between the elite size and fitness performance. I found that when the elite size is
set between 95 and 100 percent of the population size, the fitness performance is dramatically
decreased. In the SantaFeAntTrail, Royal Tree and the Sudoku configurations, the worst fitness values
are found where the elite size is over 94 percent of the population size. The fitness in these cases, are
also at least double the size of the average fitness values when compared to the other combinations. I
also discovered that when the elite size is set to 25 percent of the population size, the fitness is most
likely to perform best. The performance can also be seen to be worse than the average where,
tournament size is 1 percent of the population size and elite size is 1 percent of the population size.

• Worst Fitness Performance

o Where elite size is 1 percent of the population size and the tournament size is 1
percent of the population size.
o Where elite size is greater than 94 percent of the population for all tournament sizes.
• Best Fitness Performance
o Elite size is 25 percent of the population size regardless of the tournament size.

I propose in future research on this subject that to test this 95-100 elite size range on other
fitness functions to determine whether it holds across those also. I would also propose that the 95-100
Elite size effect on fitness be tested on other Genetic Evolution simulations other that GEVA to ensure
that this effect is not unique to GEVA. If it is found that this effect holds across the board I would
suggest that the 95-100 percent range be further examined to determine if a more precise range can be
found. I would also suggest that this range be tested against as many different configurations of
population size, generations, mutation probability etc, to determine if this 95-100 percent elite size
range is in fact a global effect on genetic evolution.

References
[1] Brabazon A., O’Neill M. (2006). Biologically Inspired Algorithms for Financial Modelling.
Springer.
[2] Brabazon A., O’Neill M. GEVA - Grammatical Evolution in Java

[3] Melanie Mitchell An Introduction To Genetic Algorithms