A New Real-valued Diploid Genetic Algorithm for
Optimization in Dynamic Environments
Amineh Omidpour
Department of electronic, Computer and IT
Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University
Qazvin, Iran
Omidpour_amineh@yahoo.com
Babak Nasiri
Department of electronic, Computer and IT
Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University
Qazvin, Iran
Nasiri_babak@yahoo.com
Abstract—Many real-world problems are dynamic, requiring
an optimization algorithm which is able to continuously track a
changing optimum over the time. Using a diploidy and
dominance is one method to enhance the performance of
genetic algorithms in dynamic environment. Diploid genetic
algorithm has two chromosomes in each individual. In this
paper, for the first time, a real-valued diploid genetic
algorithm is proposed. Its new dominance mechanism is based
on a simple function with homogeneous outputs. In addition, a
new dominance change mechanism is added to the algorithm.
Hence, when environment change occurs, it can increase
diversity to respond more quickly to the changes. Other
diploid genetic algorithms in literature are discrete and they
have never been tested by Moving Peak Benchmark (MPB)
which is continuous and dynamic. For the first time, the
proposed approach is tested by MPB. Results are compared
with other diploid genetic algorithms showing that proposed
algorithm significantly outperforms previous approaches.
Keywords-diploid genetic algorithm; dynamic environment;
moving peak benchmark.
I. INTRODUCTION
Evolutionary algorithms (EA’s) are a class of meta-
heuristic algorithms inspired by principles of natural
evolution, such as selection and population genetics. While
most of the optimization problems discussed in the scientific
literature are static, many real world problems are dynamic,
i.e., they change over time. In such cases the optimization
algorithm has to track a moving optimum as closely as
possible, rather than just find a single good solution.[1]
Genetic algorithms (G.A’s) 1 are stochastic, global
optimization methods which model the biological principles
of Darwin’s theory of evolution and Mendelian of
inheritance. We can call genetic algorithms as the most
widespread and universal optimization method, which
1
978-1-4799-3351-8/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE
Kamran Alagheband
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Shiraz University
Shiraz, Iran
Kam_alagheband@yahoo.com
Mohammad Reza Meybodi
Department of Computer engineering and IT
Amirkabir University of Technology
Tehran, Iran
mmeybodi@aut.ac.ir
models the process of natural evolution. G.A.’s have been
applied to a diverse field of problems with promising results.
Most of the approaches found in literature address stationary
problems, whereas problems with changing environments
present a challenging area of research.
The main reason why traditional G.A’s don’t perform
well in dynamic environments is that they quickly converge
to a solution and the population loses its genetic diversity
consequently, when a change occurs, it is hard for the
converged population to adapt. One of the main approaches
for coping with different types of changing environments is
memory. Memory may be provided in two general ways.
Implicitly by using redundant representations, or explicitly
by introducing an extra memory and formulating strategies
to deposit and retrieve solutions from it [2-6].
Diploidy and dominance have been studied for
improving genetic algorithms performance in dynamic
environments. A diploid genetic algorithm has two
chromosomes in each individual, and has the advantage of
being able to adapt rapidly to changes in the environment.
Researchers have developed several genotypic representation
and dominance schemes [7,8].
In 1987, Goldberg and Smith, report on experiments
with using diploidy and dominance. They use a triallelic
scheme where an allele can take on one of three values “0”,
“recessive 1”, and “dominant 1”. In 1995, this approach has
been reviewed critically by Ng and Wong. They argued that
the triallelic is biased and proposed a new diploid scheme
with four possible alleles (0 and 1, each dominant and
recessive). In 1997, Ryan uses additive multiploidy. The
phenotypic trait becomes 1 when a certain threshold is
exceeded, and is 0 otherwise. In 1998, Lewis et al. observed
that a simple dominance scheme is not sufficient to track the
optimum reasonably well. If the diploid approaches are
extended with a dominance change mechanism, much better
results can be obtained. They extended additive approach
with dominance change mechanism [5-12].
In 1998, an interesting comparative study has been
performed by Lewis et. al. They observed that a simple
dominance scheme is not sufficient to track the optimum
reasonably well. If the diploid approaches are extended with
a dominance change mechanism, much better results can be
obtained [13,14].
All the diploid genetic algorithms being reviewed are
discrete and they have tested by discrete dynamic
environments like oscillating knapsack. Unlike other diploid
genetic algorithms, in this paper, we explore a novel real-
valued diploid genetic algorithm that is especially designed
for continuous dynamic environment. In order to test
different algorithmic approaches to dynamic problems,
several benchmarks have been proposed in the literature.
Among the most used ones are the Moving Peak Benchmark
(MPB). In Addition, for the first time, a diploid genetic
algorithm will be tested by MPB. It makes it possible to
compare the result of real-valued proposed algorithm with
other obtained result of discrete ones to observe if they can
be generalized.
The paper is structured as follows. The next section,
provide a brief introduction on diploid genetic algorithms
and their dominance schemes. Section III describes in detail
the proposed real-valued diploid genetic algorithm. In
section IV the proposed approach is empirically evaluated on
the moving peak benchmark and compared with other
approaches from literature. Finally, section V concludes the
paper and some idea for future work.
II. DIPLOID GENETIC ALGORITHM
An Evolutionary algorithm that uses representations
containing more information than necessary to define
phenotype, i.e. redundant representations, basically has some
memory. This kind of memory is called implicit. Redundant
representations slow down convergence and increase
diversity. The most prominent approach to redundant
representations seems to be diploidy. A diploid evolutionary
algorithm is usually an algorithm whose chromosomes
contain two alleles at each locus.
Genetic algorithms with diploidy representation and
dominance schemes are called diploid genetic algorithms.
Diploid genetic algorithms differ from traditional genetic
algorithms mainly in two aspects: the representation and
evaluation scheme and the reproduction operations.
A. Representation and evaluation scheme
For the first aspect, each individual in diploid genetic
algorithms has two genotypic chromosomes. In order to
evaluate an individual we need first map the diploid
genotype into a haploid phenotype according to some
dominance mechanism. Then, the phenotype is evaluated
according to the external environment to give fitness to the
individual. As mentioned before, genotypic representation
and dominance schemes play a significant role in the
performance and researchers have developed several
genotypic representation and dominance schemes that two of
the most famous schemes are Ng-Wong and Additive. Ng-
Wong dominance scheme uses four genotypic alleles:
dominant “1” and “0”, and recessive “i” and “o”. The
dominant allele is always expressed in the phenotype. If
contention exists between two dominant or two recessive
alleles, one is randomly chosen to be expressed. The
occurrence of “1i” or “0o” is prohibited. If it occurs the
recessive gene is promoted to be dominant. The genotype to
phenotype mapping is shown in Fig. (1). Ng and Wong also
incorporated a dominance scheme: when the environment
change is detected, the dominance values of all allele-pairs
are invented such that “11” becomes “ii”, “00” become “oo”,
“10” becomes “1o” becomes “i0”, and vice versa. The
genotype to phenotype mapping keeps unchanged. Additive
dominance scheme uses four genotypic alleles A, B, C and D
and allocates the values 2, 3, 7, and 9 to them respectively.
An addition is performed on the values allocated with the
two genotypic alleles for each gene locus. If the sum is
greater than 10, the phenotypic allele becomes 1; otherwise,
it becomes 0. The resulting dominance map is shown in
Fig.(2).
A B C D
A 0 0 0 1
B 0 0 0 1
C 0 0 1 1
D 1 1 1 1
Figure 1. Ng-Wong dominance mechanism
0 o 1 i
0 0 0 0/1 1
o 0 0 1 0/1
1 0/1 1 1 1
i 0 0/1 1 1
Figure 2. Additive dominance mechanism
B. Reproduction operations
For the second aspect, in diploid genetic algorithms,
crossover is divided into two steps. In the first step, two
parents are exchange their chromosomes randomly to create
two temporary offsprings. Each offspring has one
chromosome from each parent and hence the genotypic
materials from the parents are mixed and propagated to the
offsprings.
In the second step, two chromosomes in each offspring
undergo the uniform crossover operation with the probability
pc, which is the same as in traditional genetic algorithms.
After crossover, each of the two genotypic chromosomes of
an offspring is independently subject to a bitwise mutation
with a probability pm [4-7].
III. THE PROPOSED ALGORITHM
There are several discrete diploid genetic algorithms
developed in the literature. In this paper, for the first time, a
real-valued diploid genetic algorithm is proposed. It aims to
overcome the deficiencies of other previously diploid
approaches and make it possible to compare the result of
real-valued proposed algorithm with other discrete ones to
observe if results can be generalized. In this algorithm, the
individuals have diploid chromosomes and a global
domination map is used to determine the phenotype of them. The individuals that take part in the reproduction step are
The general pseudocode of proposed algorithm is given in determined using tournament selection.
Fig. (3). The different parts of the algorithm will be
explained in the following parts. 2) Crossover
At first stage of crossover phase, one chromosome from
Proposed Diplid Genetic Algorithm: each parent is randomly selected to be copied into each one
Initialize population P(0) // randomly of the two offspring. At the second stage, each offspring
Dominace Mechanism(P(0)) undergoes an arithmetic crossover that occurs between its
{ for each individual own chromosomes. This ensures that genotypic materials
α i = min( xi , y i ), β i = max( xi , y i ) from the parent are mixed for propagation into the next
⎧if β i ≥ α i + (length / 2) ⇒ β i generations.
phenotypei = ⎨
⎩otherwise ⇒ α i 3) Mutation
end The effect of uniform mutation is the same as in standard
} genetic algorithms. At this part, mutation acts directly on the
Evaluate population P(0) genotype, i.e. on each gene of the two strings of
Repeat chromosomes. Each mutation at each location is independent
P’(t)=Select for Reproduction(P(t)) // Tournament selection of those in other locations and the probability of its
Crossover(P’(t),Pc) // Pc is the crossover probability occurrence is the same for all genes.
Mutate( P’(t),Pm) // Pm is the mutation probability
Dominace Mechanism(P’(t)) 4) Dominance Mechanism
{for each offspring Since the phenotype of the individual determines the
α i = min( xi , y i ), β i = max( xi , y i ) actual characteristics and the fitness, mapping the genotype
to the phenotype, play a crucial role in the performance of
⎧if β i ≥ α i + (length / 2) ⇒ β i diploid genetic algorithm. Subsequently, there has been some
phenotypei = ⎨ research in this area as outlined in the previous sections.
⎩otherwise ⇒ α i
end In this study, instead of strictly dominant or recessive
} discrete alleles, for the first time, continuous ones are
Evaluate offsprings(P’(t)) considered. They are calculated based on a function with
Replacement(P’(t),P(t)) // Elitism of size 1 homogeneous outputs. In the other words, the method
If ( Environment Change=true) involves a function that makes the probability of occurrence
Dominance Change Mechanism(P(t)) any real-valued numbers in the interval [L,U] equal. One of
For individuals whose fitness have gotten 20% worse the main advantages of this function is its simplicity. For
{ determining the ith location phenotype, the genotype
genotypei ,t = genotypei ,t −1 + (Rand (−1,1) × Severity) elements corresponding to that location are considered as the
} inputs of the function. Its output, express the allele of
end phenotype corresponding to that location. This function is
end explained in more details as follows:
End if terminated = true
Initially, the minimum and maximum of two alleles
Figure 3. Pseudocode of proposed diploid genetic algorithm
corresponding to the ith location are defined. Next, based on
A. Initialization and evaluation the function condition, one of them is chosen to be expressed
as the allele of phenotype regarding to that location:
In this algorithm, a diploid representation for individuals
is used and each individual has two chromosomes. In the - If the maximum is greater than
initialization step, individuals are initialized with random [minimum+(length/2)], then the maximum is chosen,
real-valued numbers in the interval [L,U]. The L and U are otherwise, the minimum is selected for the
lower and upper bound of real-valued numbers respectively. phenotype.
Choosing the value of L and U is arbitrary and depends on Note that length is range of alleles, i.e. (U-L). As
the problem. There is a global domination mechanism being mentioned before, L and U are lower and upper bound of
used to determine the phenotype of them that will be real-valued alleles respectively and they are arbitrary
discussed in more detail in the following sections. The chosen.
fitness value is calculated based on the phenotype of the
individual. The proposed function of dominance mechanism is given
in Esq. (1).
B. Reproduction offsprings
α i = min (xi , yi )
The loop runs for a number of predefined generations and β i = max(xi , y i )
is composed mainly of selection, reproduction, dominance (1)
mechanism and dominance change mechanism steps. ⎧if β i ≥ α i + (length / 2) ⇒ β i
phenotypei = ⎨
1) Selection ⎩otherwise ⇒ α i
 The xi and yi represent two alleles of ith location in environment change, all individuals whose fitness values
genotypes. The α i and β i depict the minimum and have gotten worse by a threshold percentage 20% between
maximum of the two corresponding alleles of ith location (xi successive evaluation cycles are determined. Then they
and yi) respectively. uniformly and randomly distributed in the vicinity of
genotypic alleles before change. After the environment
To demonstrate how the alleles of phenotype are change, the new genotypic alleles of individual i in the t
calculated, consider an example. Assume that each iteration, can be calculated by Eq. (2):
individual from the current population has two chromosomes
with 5 genes and the value of alleles is in the interval [0,100] genotype i ,t = genotype i ,t −1 + (Rand ( −1,1) × Severity ) (2)
(Fig. (4)). For this example, phenotype of the individual
becomes: (83.698 …, 28.005 …, 79.359 …, 42.741 …, in which Rand function produces a vector of random
89.396 …) (Fig. (5)). The required calculations are shown in numbers with a uniform distribution in the range of [-1,1]
table (I). and severity is the shift length of peaks in the changing
environment.
83.698 … 41.029 … 11.082 … 42.741 … 93.657 …
20.443 … 28.005 … 79.359 … 53.817 … 89.396 … IV. PARAMETERE SETTING AND RESULTS
Figure 4. An example of an individual’s real-valued genotypes To assess correctness and efficiency of the proposed
algorithm, it is tested on Moving Peak Benchmark (MPB)
83.698 … 28.005 … 79.359 … 42.741 … 89.369 … and compared with various known diploid genetic
Figure 5. An example of an individual’s real-valued phenotype algorithms. MPB is one of the most famous benchmarks of
dynamic environments and it is the first time that MPB is
TABLE I. AN EXAMPLE OF CALCULATION OF used for testing diploid genetic algorithms. Experiments
PHENOTYPE
have been done with respect to MPB parameters being given
Calculation phenotypei in table (II) [15,16].
83.698 …>=(20.443 …+50) 83.698 … (Max)
41.029 …<(28.005 …+50) 28.005 … (Min) TABLE II. MOVING PEAK PARAMETER SETTING
79.359 …>=(11.082 …+50) 79.359 … (Max)
53.817 …<(42.741 …+50) 42.741 … (Min) Parameter Value
93.657 …<(89.396 …+50) 89.396 … (Min) Number of peaks Variable between 1 to 100
After using dominance mechanism, based on obtained Change frequency Variable between 500 to 10000
Height change 7.0
phenotypes, the fitness values of offsprings are calculated. Width change 1.0
5) Replacement Peaks shape Cone
Basic function No
For replacement, consider union of produced offsprings Shift length 1.0
and the current population. Next, copy the elites from union Number of dimension 5
for the next generation as a population. Correlation coefficient 0
Peaks location range [0-100]
6) Detecting Change Peak height [30.0-70.0]
Detecting changes by re-evaluating solutions is by far the Peak width [1-12]
most common change-detection approach. To detect Initial value of peaks 50.0
environment change in the proposed algorithm, a point with To compare different approaches, in a dynamic
a random position called test point is selected in the search environment it is not sufficient to simply compare the best
space at the beginning of algorithm execution and its fitness solution found, because the optimum is changing over time.
value is stored. In each iteration of proposed algorithm The main metric for evaluating the performance of
execution, the fitness value of test point is evaluated and algorithms is offline error, indicating the average of the best
compared to its previous result. If the two results in two found position’s fitness during the running optimization
subsequent executions are the same, it means that the process. The value of offline error is equal or greater than
environment has not changed. On the other hand, their zero, where zero indicates the ideal situation.
difference illustrates a change in the environment. This
algorithm, regularly re-evaluate the current best solution to For all diploid genetic algorithms, parameter settings are
detect changes in the environment. as follows: population size n=100, standard tournament
selection with tournament size of 2 and elitism of size 1for
7) Dominance Change Mechanism replacement.
In natural systems, dominance can change over time, as a
result of the presence or absence of particular enzymes. We Uniform crossover for discrete diploid genetic algorithms
have extended proposed diploid genetic algorithm by adding with increase accuracy to a certain degree with Pc=0.6 and
a similar dominance change mechanism. After detecting arithmetic crossover for proposed real-valued diploid genetic
change, there will be the problem of diversity loss. To solve algorithm with the same crossover probability is considered
this problem a dominance change mechanism is executed to and bit flip mutation with Pm=0.01 for discrete ones and
increase diversity. In this mechanism, the genotypic alleles uniform mutation for proposed real-valued algorithm with
of all individuals will change according to their genotypic the same probability is applied.
alleles before the environment change. After the
 For all diploid genetic algorithms with dominance
change scheme, change mechanism is triggered whenever
the environment changes are detected. For each experiment
of diploid genetic algorithms on MPB, 30 independent runs
were executed and each time, they were performed by
different random seeds. Each run continued until
environment changes 10 times. In table (III) to (VII), the
proposed algorithm efficiency is compared with other known
diploid genetic algorithms. two well known diploid
algorithms have been chosen for the study: Ng-Wong with
dominance change mechanism and Additive with dominance
change mechanism.
As it is observed, the proposed algorithm has the better
efficiency than the other algorithms. In addition, the
proposed algorithm with dominance change mechanism has
the better performance than the proposed algorithm without
change mechanism. Extending the proposed algorithm with a
change mechanism improves it considerably, since it can
respond quickly to changes in the environment.
Although the performance of all diploid genetic
algorithms decreases by increase of peak numbers, the
efficiency of proposed algorithm is still better than the
others. In other words, the proposed algorithm efficiency is
higher than the others both when there are a few number of
peaks and when there are many of them.

TABLE III. COMPARISON OF OFFLINE ERROR OF 4 DGAS ON MPB PROBLEM WITH DIFFERENT NUMBER OF PEAKS IN 500 FREQUENCY

Number of Ng-Wong (with Additive (with Continuous Diploid Genetic Continuous Diploid Genetic
peaks dominance change) dominance change) Algorithm(without dominance Algorithm (with dominance
change) change)
1 59.0231(0.21) 49.3014(0.06) 39.2914(0.01) 37.8907(0.12)
5 63.7970(0.04) 55.7586(0.05) 38.9997(0.08) 38.9258(0.15)
10 61.0486(0.12) 57.3101(0.05) 45.4607(0.11) 39.1627(0.07)
20 62.6846(0.11) 58.7142(0.05) 33.9244(0.07) 38.0419(0.08)
30 59.9374(0.04) 59.7608(0.06) 42.0238(0.76) 40.9180(0.06)
50 63.4169(0.17) 61.2444(0.07) 41.7898(0.08) 41.7549(0.17)
100 68.2784(0.10) 62.7261(0.06) 43.9885(0.03) 42.5675(0.03)

TABLE IV. COMPARISON OF OFFLINE ERROR OF 4 DGAS ON MPB PROBLEM WITH DIFFERENT NUMBER OF PEAKS IN 1000 FREQUENCY

Number of Ng-Wong (with Additive (with Continuous Diploid Genetic Continuous Diploid Genetic
peaks dominance change) dominance change) Algorithm(without dominance Algorithm (with dominance
change) change)
1 53.6435(0.06) 37.5436(0.02) 29.4836(0.10) 28.1412(0.03)
5 57.0909(0.21) 48.7586(0.06) 32.2897(0.06) 33.5334(0.02)
10 59.0860(0.10) 50.8833(0.17) 33.0824(0.03) 35.6446(0.07)
20 59.3099(0.17) 52.2097(0.13) 35.8220(0.19) 33.8648(0.06)
30 62.6387(0.08) 52.0025(0.09) 36.0639(0.04) 35.6192(0.01)
50 65.6844(0.06) 61.2444(0.62) 34.0704(0.05) 36.4688(0.02)
100 71.2784(0.01) 62.7261(0.05) 37.0734(0.05) 37.0628(0.05)

TABLE V. COMPARISON OF OFFLINE ERROR OF 4 DGAS ON MPB PROBLEM WITH DIFFERENT NUMBER OF PEAKS IN 2500 FREQUENCY

Number of Ng-Wong (with Additive (with Continuous Diploid Genetic Continuous Diploid Genetic
peaks dominance change) dominance change) Algorithm(without dominance Algorithm (with dominance
change) change)
1 40.4848(0.76) 54.1001(0.38) 19.8517(0.21) 16.5960(0.06)
5 42.9442(0.56) 46.6150(0.32) 22.4296(0.19) 22.6373(0.03)
10 44.1571(0.26) 39.8061(0.16) 28.5634(0.12) 28.6494(0.27)
20 44.7853(0.31) 38.3590(0.08) 25.1881(0.11) 25.0247(0.22)
30 45.9699(0.11) 39.7983(0.09) 27.4953(0.05) 26.6119(0.14)
50 49.3867(0.18) 47.2633(0.10) 29.1899(0.08) 29.0448(0.10)
100 53.0158(0.09) 52.8635(0.21) 26.9202(0.06) 28.0621(0.16)
 TABLE VI. COMPARISON OF OFFLINE ERROR OF 4 DGAS ON MPB PROBLEM WITH DIFFERENT NUMBER OF PEAKS IN 5000 FREQUENCY

Number of Ng-Wong (with Additive (with Continuous Diploid Genetic Continuous Diploid Genetic
peaks dominance change) dominance change) Algorithm(without dominance Algorithm (with dominance
change) change)
1 41.0384(0.17) 38.8207(0.06) 14.8440(0.12) 11.6838(0.16)
5 40.8552(0.19) 35.2645(0.08) 23.2127(0.05) 21.6591(0.31)
10 43.2642(0.14) 40.8552(0.09) 23.9921(0.04) 22.9517(0.17)
20 46.3564(0.16) 38.3887(0.02) 26.9870(0.10) 27.0733(0.16)
30 51.5379(0.04) 42.3138(0.08) 27.9030(0.02) 27.8398(0.17)
50 50.7719(0.21) 43.5692(0.09) 27.0894(0.01) 22.5450(0.06)
100 50.7970(0.11) 47.2099(0.26) 31.0293(0.31) 25.5878(0.11)

TABLE VII. COMPARISON OF OFFLINE ERROR OF 4 DGAS ON MPB PROBLEM WITH DIFFERENT NUMBER OF PEAKS IN 10000 FREQUENCY

Number of peaks Ng-Wong (with Additive (with Continuous Diploid Genetic Continuous Diploid
dominance change) dominance change) Algorithm(without dominance Genetic Algorithm (with
change) dominance change)
1 32.2672(0.20) 29.2927(0.14) 9.6922(0.15) 8.5307(0.08)
5 38.9451(0.32) 27.8454(0.10) 19.0228(0.38) 19.2818(0.05)
10 34.2337(0.18) 35.2690(0.03) 21.1115(0.12) 20.5169(0.02)
20 35.2773(0.17) 31.7640(0.10) 23.6263(0.09) 22.4366(0.09)
30 39.8805(0.06) 34.4421(0.07) 24.0374(0.04) 25.2383(0.09)
50 44.9072(0.15) 39.9801(0.02) 24.9321(0.10) 24.7480(0.05)
100 46.0750(0.13) 43.6175(0.39) 25.1383(0.18) 23.9844(0.47)

V. CONCLUSION [4] Y. Jin, J. Branke, “Evolutionary Optimization in Uncertain

Redundant coding using diploid genomes are the most
common implicit memory used in evolutionary algorithms
for solving dynamic problems. In this paper, for the first
time, a real-valued diploid genetic algorithm was proposed
for optimization in dynamic environments. The new
dominance mechanism consists of a simple function which
has homogeneous outputs. Results on MPB problem, being
the most famous dynamic and continuous benchmark, were
compared with other known discrete diploid genetic
algorithm with increased accuracy to a certain degree. Also a
new dominance change mechanism is proposed and added to
new diploid genetic algorithm to improve its performance for
responding to changes of the environment. It is clear from
the result of experiments that there is a significant difference
between the performance of proposed algorithm and other
discrete diploid genetic algorithms.
There is some relevant works to pursue in the future.
Combining the explicit memory schemes with the proposed
algorithm will further improve the performance of new
diploid genetic algorithm in dynamic environment.
REFERENCES
[1] X. Yu, Introduction to Evolutionary Algorithms, Springer, 2010.
[2] I. G. Amo, D. A. Petla, J. R. Gonzalez, A. D. Masegosa, “An
Algorithm Comparison for Dynamic Optimization Problems”,
Applied Soft Computing, Vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 3176-3192, 2012.
[3] S. Yang, “Population-Based Incremental Learning With Associative
Memory for Dynamic Environments”, IEEE Transaction on
Evolutionary Computation, Vol. 12, no. 5, pp.542-561, 2008.
Environments-A Survey”, IEEE Transaction on Evolutionary
Computation, Vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 303-317, 2005.
[5] J. Branke, Evolutionary Optimization in Dynamic Environments,
springer, 2001.
[6] J. Branke, Schmeck H. “Designing Evolutionary Algorithms for
Dynamic Optimization Problems”, Advances in Evolutionary
Computing, Springer, pp. 239-262, 2003.
[7] M. Kominami, Hamagami T., “A New genetic Algorithm with
Diploid Chromosomes Using Probability Decoding for Adaptation to
Various Environment”, Wiley Publishing, Vol. 93, pp. 38-46, 2010.
[8] S. Yang, “On the Design of Diploid Genetic Algorithms for problem
Optimization in Dynamic Environments”, IEEE Congress on
Evolutionary Computation, pp. 1362-1369, 2006.
[9] S. Yang, “Learning the Dominance in Diploid Genetic Algorithms for
Changing Optimization Problems”, ACM, 2nd International
Symposium on Intelligence Computation and Applications, pp. 157-
162, 2007.
[10] S. Yang, “Dominance Learning in Diploid Genetic Algorithms for
Dynamic Optimization Problems”, ACM, pp.1435-1436, 2006.
[11] S. Uyar, Harmanci E., “A new Population based Adaptive
Domination Change Mechanism for Diploid Genetic Algorithms in
Dynamic Environments”, Springer Soft Compute, pp. 803-814, 2005.
[12] K. V. Makhotilo "Diploid Genetic Algorithm with Mortality," vol. 43,
pp. 60-73, 2011.
[13] J. Lewis, Hart E., “A Comparison of Dominance Mechanisms and
Simple Mutation on Non-Stationary Problems”, Springer, pp. 139-
148, 1998.
[14] M. Kominami and T. Hamagami, "A new genetic algorithm with
diploid chromosomes by using probability decoding for non-
stationary function optimization," in Systems, Man and Cybernetics,
2007. ISIC. IEEE International Conference ,pp. 1268-1273, 2007.
[15] T. T. Nguyen, S. Yang, J. Branke, “Evolutionary Dynamic
Optimization: A Survey of the state of the art”, Swarm and
Evolutionary Computation, Vol. 6, pp. 1-24, 2012.
[16] J. Branke, Available at: http://people.aifb.kit.edu/jbr/MovPeaks/