Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2008.04002

Using Neural Networks and Diversifying Differential Evolution for Dynamic Optimisation

Maryam Hasani Shoreh·Renato Hermoza Aragonés·Frank Neumann
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Dynamic optimisation occurs in a variety of real-world problems. To tackle these problems, evolutionary algorithms have been extensively used due to their effectiveness and minimum design effort. However, for dynamic problems, extra mechanisms are required on top of standard evolutionary algorithms. Among them, diversity mechanisms have proven to be competitive in handling dynamism, and recently, the use of neural networks have become popular for this purpose. Considering the complexity of using neural networks in the process compared to simple diversity mechanisms, we investigate whether they are competitive and the possibility of integrating them to improve the results. However, for a fair comparison, we need to consider the same time budget for each algorithm. Thus, instead of the usual number of fitness evaluations as the measure for the available time between changes, we use wall clock timing. The results show the significance of the improvement when integrating the neural network and diversity mechanisms depends on the type and the frequency of changes. Moreover, we observe that for differential evolution, having a proper diversity in population when using neural networks plays a key role in the neural network's ability to improve the results.

Explore related subjects

cs.NE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Maryam Hasani Shoreh, Renato Hermoza Aragonés, Frank Neumann. 2020-08-10. Using Neural Networks and Diversifying Differential Evolution for Dynamic Optimisation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.04002

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Genetic Programming with Behaviour-based Niching for Learning Guided Local Search in Vehicle Routing Problems

Genetic Programming Guided Local Search (GPGLS) learns utility functions that guide local search for vehicle routing. Its evolving programs can have similar fitness while inducing different search behaviour, making fitness alone an incomplete basis for population diversity management. We propose GPGLS with Behaviour-based Niching (BN-GPGLS), which characterises programs through six operator-level descriptors collected during local search. A current-generation archive selects fitness-competitive, compact representatives from strata of a behaviour score. Fixed policies use archive parents continuously, whereas adaptive policies activate them using training-fitness and standardised behaviour-dispersion signals, optionally with a tree-size condition. We compare four behaviour-based variants with a no-archive GPGLS control and fitness-based niching over 30 seed-matched runs on generated 200-customer instances. BN-Adaptive achieves the best descriptive average rank on a separate 90-instance monitoring set; aggregate routing-cost differences are small. All five archive policies produce lower final-population median tree sizes than the GPGLS control, with paired Wilcoxon comparisons remaining significant after Holm adjustment. These results identify useful solution-quality and program-size trade-offs within the evaluated setting, without attributing the size reductions to behaviour representation alone.

cs.NE↗
arXiv2026

DCL-GPGLS: Dynamic Curriculum Learning for Genetic Programming Guided Local Search in Large-Scale Vehicle Routing

Genetic Programming Guided Local Search (GPGLS) uses genetic programming to evolve utility functions for guided local search in large-scale vehicle routing problems (LSVRPs). Evaluating every GP individual on every training instance at every generation is expensive, so GPGLS is usually trained on small instance batches. Existing curriculum-based GPGLS orders these batches mainly by instance size. Adaptive Curriculum Learning GPGLS (ACL-GPGLS) improves training efficiency by adapting when the search moves between fixed curriculum stages, but the instance difficulty order remains predefined. We propose DCL-GPGLS, which estimates the difficulty of each training instance from the current population's solution quality and updates the estimates during evolution. Each generation then receives a batch near a scheduled difficulty level, with a correction that limits repeated selection of the same instances. Experiments on a fixed training-test split of the CVRPLIB X set show that DCL-GPGLS achieves the best observed average rank and mean test cost among six training policies. It obtains the lowest mean cost on 36 of 65 unseen test instances and is significantly better than the static feedback-derived curriculum, matched in total evaluator calls, on 6 instances, with no significant difference on the remaining 59.

cs.NE↗
arXiv2026

Online Automated Algorithm Design with Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) enable automated algorithm design (AAD) through reasoning and code synthesis. However, most existing LLM-based AAD methods separate algorithm design from target optimization, deploying a fixed design even as the optimization state evolves. Conventional adaptive optimizers can respond to such changes, but their adjustments remain confined to predefined parameters, operators, or strategies. To address these limitations, we introduce online LLM-based AAD, a novel optimization paradigm that treats the algorithm itself as a state-dependent decision variable. At each stage, LLM agents synthesize an algorithm with new behavior logic from the current optimization state. Executing the generated algorithm advances the search and provides feedback for subsequent designs, coupling algorithm design with target optimization without requiring a separate offline algorithm pretraining stage. To implement this paradigm, we propose OnDesign, a multi-agent framework that reconciles competing design perspectives to synthesize executable algorithms and uses execution feedback to refine how runtime evidence is interpreted for subsequent designs. We evaluate OnDesign across two mainstream black-box optimization paradigms on three scenarios: Bayesian optimization, evolutionary continuous optimization, and evolutionary mixed-variable optimization. Extensive experiments on six benchmark suites and one engineering problem across multiple problem dimensions demonstrate superior overall performance over conventional optimizers and offline LLM-based AAD methods.

cs.NE↗