Abstract
Constrained optimization problems appear frequently in important real-world applications. In this chapter, we study algorithms for constrained optimiation problems from a theoretical perspective. Our goal is to understand how the fitness landscape influences the success of certain types of algorithms. One important feature for analyzing and classifying fitness landscape is its ruggedness. It is generally assumed that rugged landscapes make the optimization process by bio-inspired computing methods much harder than smoothed landscapes, which give clear hints toward an optimal solution. We introduce different methods for quantifying the ruggedness of a given constrained optimization problem. They, in particular, take into account how to deal with infeasible regions in the underlying search space.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Box GE, Jenkins GM, Reinsel GC (2013) Time series analysis: forecasting and control. Wiley
Eberhart R, Kennedy J (1995) A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. In: Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on micro machine and human science, MHS’95. IEEE, pp 39–43
Floudas CA, Pardalos PM (1990) A collection of test problems for constrained global optimization algorithms, vol 455. Springer, Berlin
Gen M, Cheng R (2000) Genetic algorithms and engineering optimization, vol 7. Wiley, New York
Hordijk W (1996) A measure of landscapes. Evol Comput 4(4):335–360
Liang J, Runarsson TP, Mezura-Montes E, Clerc M, Suganthan P, Coello CC, Deb K (2006) Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for the CEC 2006 special session on constrained real-parameter optimization. J Appl Mech 41
Lipsitch M (1991) Adaptation on rugged landscapes generated by local interactions of neighboring genes. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on genetic algorithms. San Mateo
Malan KM, Engelbrecht AP (2009) Quantifying ruggedness of continuous landscapes using entropy. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, CEC’09, pp 1440–1447
Mallipeddi R, Suganthan PN (2010) Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for the CEC 2010 competition on constrained real-parameter optimization. Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Manderick B, de Weger, M, Spiessens P (1991) The genetic algorithm and the structure of the fitness landscape. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on genetic algorithms. Morgan Kauffman, San Mateo, pp 143–150
Mattfeld DC, Bierwirth C, Kopfer H (1999) A search space analysis of the job shop scheduling problem. Ann Oper Res 86:441–453
Mersmann O, Bischl B, Trautmann H, Preuss M, Weihs C, Rudolph G (2011) Exploratory landscape analysis. In: Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation. ACM, pp 829–836
Mezura-Montes E, Coello Coello CA (2011) Constraint-handling in nature-inspired numerical optimization: past, present and future. Swarm Evol Comput 1(4):173–194
Naudts B, Kallel L (2000) A comparison of predictive measures of problem difficulty in evolutionary algorithms. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 4(1):1–15
Runarsson TP, Yao X (2000) Stochastic ranking for constrained evolutionary optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 4(3):284–294
Schwefel HPP (1993) Evolution and optimum seeking: the sixth generation. Wiley, New York
Smith T, Husbands P, Layzell P, O’Shea M (2002) Fitness landscapes and evolvability. Evol Comput 10(1):1–34
Stadler PF et al (1995) Towards a theory of landscapes. In: Complex systems and binary networks. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 78–163
Storn R, Price K (1997) Differential evolution—a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J Glob Optim 11(4):341–359
Vassilev VK, Fogarty TC, Miller JF (2000) Information characteristics and the structure of landscapes. Evol Comput 8(1):31–60
Vassilev VK, Fogarty TC, Miller JF (2003) Smoothness, ruggedness and neutrality of fitness landscapes: from theory to application. In: Advances in evolutionary computing. Springer, pp 3–44
Weinberger E (1990) Correlated and uncorrelated fitness landscapes and how to tell the difference. Biol Cybern 63(5):325–336
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
The experimented benchmark functions described in Mallipeddi and Suganthan (2010) are summarised here. In this experiment \(\varepsilon \) is considered as 0.0001.
2.1.1 C01
Minimize
subject to
2.1.2 C02
Minimize
subject to
2.1.3 C03
Minimize
subject to
2.1.4 C06
Minimize
subject to
2.1.5 C07
Minimize
subject to
2.1.6 C09
Minimize
subject to
2.1.7 C10
Minimize
subject to
2.1.8 C17
Minimize
subject to
2.1.9 C18
Minimize
subject to
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer India
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Poursoltan, S., Neumann, F. (2015). Ruggedness Quantifying for Constrained Continuous Fitness Landscapes. In: Datta, R., Deb, K. (eds) Evolutionary Constrained Optimization. Infosys Science Foundation Series(). Springer, New Delhi. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2184-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2184-5_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New Delhi
Print ISBN: 978-81-322-2183-8
Online ISBN: 978-81-322-2184-5
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)