This paper considers a number of selection schemes commonly used in modern genetic algorithms. Specifically, proportionate reproduction, ranking selection, tournament selection, and Genitor (or «steady state") selection are compared on the basis of solutions to deterministic difference or differential equations, which are verified through computer simulations. The analysis provides convenient approximate or exact solutions as well as useful convergence time and growth ratio estimates. The paper recommends practical application of the analyses and suggests a number of paths for more detailed analytical investigation of selection techniques. Keywords: proportionate selection, ranking selection, tournament selection, Genitor, takeover time, time complexity, growth ratio. 1

This paper analyzes the effects of tournament selection (Goldberg, Korb, & Deb, 1989) with replacement (TWR) on the convergence time and population sizing for selectorecombinative genetic algorithms. In contrast to tournament selection without replacement (TWOR), TWR has not received considerable analytical attention in genetic algorithms literature. TWR is usually considered to be equivalent to TWOR. However, we empirically show that TWR requires more function evaluations for attaining the same accuracy as TWOR

Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) are particularly suited to solve problems for which there is not much information available. From this standpoint, estimation of distribution algorithms (EDAs), which guide the search by using probabilistic models of the population, have brought a new view to evolutionary computation. While solving a given problem with an EDA, the user has access to a set of models that reveal probabilistic dependencies between variables, an important source of information about the problem. However, as the complexity of the used models increases, the chance of overfitting and consequently reducing model interpretability, increases as well. This paper investigates the relationship between the probabilistic models learned by the Bayesian optimization algorithm (BOA) and the underlying problem structure. The purpose of the paper is threefold. First, model building in BOA is analyzed to understand how the problem structure is learned. Second, it is shown how the selection operator can lead to model overfitting in Bayesian EDAs. Third, the scoring metric that guides the search for an adequate model structure is modified to take into account the non-uniform distribution of the mating pool generated by tournament selection. Overall, this paper makes a contribution towards

The Bayesian optimization algorithm (BOA) uses Bayesian networks to learn linkages between the decision variables of an optimization problem. This paper studies the influence of different selection and replacement methods on the accuracy of linkage learning in BOA. Results on concatenated m-k deceptive trap functions show that the model accuracy depends on a large extent on the choice of selection method and to a lesser extent on the replacement strategy used. Specifically, it is shown that linkage learning in BOA is more accurate with truncation selection than with tournament selection. The choice of replacement strategy is important when tournament selection is used, but it is not relevant when using truncation selection. On the other hand, if performance is our main concern, tournament selection and restricted tournament replacement should be preferred. These results aim to provide practitioners with useful information about the best way to tune BOA with respect to structural model accuracy and overall performance.

Genetic algorithms [1, 2] are stochastic optimization methods inspired by natural evolution and genetics. Over the last few decades, genetic algorithms have been successfully applied to many problems of business, engineering, and science. Because of their operational simplicity and wide applicability, genetic algorithms are now playing an increasingly important role in computational optimization and operations research. This article provides an introduction to genetic algorithms as well as numerous pointers for obtaining additional information.