How Good are Genetic Algorithms at Finding Large Cliques: An Experimental Study

This paper investigates the power of genetic algorithms at solving the MAX-CLIQUE problem. We measure the performance of a standard genetic algorithm on an elementary set of problem instances consisting of embedded cliques in random graphs. We indicate the need for improvement, and introduce a new genetic algorithm, the multi-phase annealed GA, which exhibits superior performance on the same problem set. As we scale up the problem size and test on \hard" benchmark instances, we notice a degraded performance in the algorithm caused by premature convergence to local minima. To alleviate this problem, a sequence of modi cations are implemented ranging from changes in input representation to systematic local search. The most recent version, called union GA, incorporates the features of union cross-over, greedy replacement, and diversity enhancement. It shows a marked speed-up in the number of iterations required to find a given solution, as well as some improvement in the clique size found. We discuss issues related to the SIMD implementation of the genetic algorithms on a Thinking Machines CM-5, which was necessitated by the intrinsically high time complexity (O(n3)) of the serial algorithm for computing one iteration. Our preliminary conclusions are: (1) a genetic algorithm needs to be heavily customized to work "well" for the clique problem; (2) a GA is computationally very expensive, and its use is only recommended if it is known to find larger cliques than other algorithms; (3) although our customization e ort is bringing forth continued improvements, there is no clear evidence, at this time, that a GA will have better success in circumventing local minima.

On the Effectiveness of Genetic Search in Combinatorial Optimization

In this paper, we study the efficacy of genetic algorithms in the context of combinatorial optimization. In particular, we isolate the effects of cross-over, treated as the central component of genetic search. We show that for problems of nontrivial size and difficulty, the contribution of cross-over search is marginal, both synergistically when run in conjunction with mutation and selection, or when run with selection alone, the reference point being the search procedure consisting of just mutation and selection. The latter can be viewed as another manifestation of the Metropolis process. Considering the high computational cost of maintaining a population to facilitate cross-over search, its marginal benefit renders genetic search inferior to its singleton-population counterpart, the Metropolis process, and by extension, simulated annealing. This is further compounded by the fact that many problems arising in practice may inherently require a large number of state transitions for a near-optimal solution to be found, making genetic search infeasible given the high cost of computing a single iteration in the enlarged state-space.