Applied Intelligence

, Volume 49, Issue 3, pp 963–982 | Cite as

Transfer of learning with the co-evolutionary decomposition-based algorithm-II: a realization on the bi-level production-distribution planning system

  • Abir ChaabaniEmail author
  • Lamjed Ben Said


Bi-Level Optimization Problem (BLOP) is a class of challenging problems with two levels of optimization tasks. The main goal is to optimize the upper level problem, which has another optimization problem as a constraint. In this way, the evaluation of each upper level solution requires finding an optimal solution to the corresponding lower level problem, which is computationally so expensive. For this reason, most proposed bi-level resolution methods have been restricted to solve the simplest case (linear continuous BLOPs). This fact has attracted the evolutionary computation community to solve such complex problems. Besides, to enhance the search performance of Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs), reusing knowledge captured from past optimization experiences along the search process has been proposed in the literature, and was demonstrated much promise. Motivated by this observation, we propose in this paper, a memetic version of our proposed Co-evolutionary Decomposition-based Algorithm-II (CODBA-II), that we named M-CODBA-II, to solve combinatorial BLOPs. The main motivation of this paper is to incorporate transfer learning within our recently proposed CODBA-II scheme to make the search process more effective and more efficient. Our proposed hybrid algorithm is investigated on two bi-level production-distribution problems in supply chain management formulated to: (1) Bi-CVRP and (2) Bi-MDVRP. The experimental results reveal a potential advantage of memes incorporation in CODBA-II. Most notably, the results emphasize that transfer learning allows not only accelerating the convergence but also finding better solutions.


Memetic evolutionary computing Transfer learning Co-evolution Bi-level combinatorial optimization 


  1. 1.
    Aiyoshi E, Shimizu K (1981) Hierarchical decentralized systems and its new solution by a barrier method. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 6:444–449MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Augerat P, Belenguer JM, Benavent E, Corberán A, Naddef D, Rinaldi G (1998) Computational results with a branch-and-cut code for the capacitated vehicle routing problem. Rapport de recherche- IMAGGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bard JF, Falk J (1982) An explicit solution to the multi-level programming problem. Comput Oper Res 9 (1):77–100MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borgwardt KM, Gretton A, Rasch MJ, Kriegel H-P, Schölkopf B, Smola A (2006) Integrating structured biological data by kernel maximum mean discrepancy. Bioinformatics 22(14):e49–e57Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bracken J, McGill J (1973) Mathematical programs with optimization problems in the constraints. Oper Res 21(1):37–44MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calvete HI, Galé C (2010) A multiobjective bilevel program for production-distribution planning in a supply chain. Springer, pp 155–165Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Calvete HI, Galé C, Oliveros M (2011) Bilevel model for production–distribution planning solved by using ant colony optimization. Comput Oper Res 38(1):320–327zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Calvete HI, Galé C, Oliveros M-J (2013) A hybrid algorithm for solving a bilevel production-distribution planning problem. In: Modeling and simulation in engineering, economics, and management. Springer, pp 138–144Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Candler W, Norton R (1977) Multilevel programming. Tech. rep. Technical Report 20. World Bank Development Research, Washington D. CGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chaabani A, Bechikh S, Ben Said L, Azzouz R (2015) An improved co-evolutionary decomposition-based algorithm for bi-level combinatorial optimization. In: Proceedings of the companion publication of the 2015 annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation. ACM, pp 1363–1364Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chaabani A, Bechikh S, Said LB (2015) A co-evolutionary decomposition-based algorithm for bi-level combinatorial optimization. In: 2015 IEEE Congress on evolutionary computation (CEC). IEEE, pp 1659–1666Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen X, Ong Y-S, Lim M-H, Tan K (2011) A multi-facet survey on memetic computation. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 15(5):591–607Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Christofides N, Eilon S (1969) An algorithm for the vehicle-dispatching problem. J Oper Res Soc 20 (3):309–318Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Colson B, Marcotte P, Savard G (2007) An overview of bilevel optimization. Ann Oper Res 153 (1):235–256MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cordeau J-F, Gendreau M, Laporte G (1997) A tabu search heuristic for periodic and multi-depot vehicle routing problems. Networks 30(2):105–119zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Deb K, Sinha A (2010) An efficient and accurate solution methodology for bilevel multi-objective programming problems using a hybrid evolutionary-local-search algorithm. Evol Comput 18(3):403–449Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dempe S (2003) Annotated bibliography on bilevel programming and mathematical programs with equilibrium constraintsGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dempe S, Kalashnikov VV, Kalashnykova N (2006) Optimality conditions for bilevel programming problems. In: Optimization with multivalued mappings. Springer, pp 3–28Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eiben AE, Smit S (2011) Parameter tuning for configuring and analyzing evolutionary algorithms. Swarm Evol Comput 1(1):19–31Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    El Ela AA, Abido M, Spea S (2010) Differential evolution algorithm for emission constrained economic power dispatch problem. Electr Power Syst Res 80(10):1286–1292Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Feng L, Ong Y-S, Tan A-H, Tsang I (2015) Memes as building blocks: a case study on evolutionary optimization+ transfer learning for routing problems. Memetic Comput 7(3):159–180Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fliege J, Vicente L (2006) Multicriteria approach to bilevel optimization. J Optim Theory Appl 131 (2):209–225MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fortuny-Amat J, McCarl B (1981) A representation and economic interpretation of a two-level programming problem. J Oper Res Soc, 783–792Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gretton A, Bousquet O, Smola A, Schölkopf B (2005) Measuring statistical dependence with Hilbert-Schmidt norms. In: International conference on algorithmic learning theory, pp 63–77Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gretton A, Fukumizu K, Teo CH, Song L, Schölkopf B, Smola A (2008) A kernel statistical test of independence. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst, 585–592Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kolstad C (1985) A review of the literature on bi-level mathematical programming. Tech rep., Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NMGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kuhn H, Tucker A (1951a) Non linear programming. In: Proceedings of the second Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, Berkeley, University of California, pp 481–492Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lan H, Li R, Liu Z, Wang R (2011) Study on the inventory control of deteriorating items under vmi model based on bi-level programming. Expert Syst Appl 38(8):9287–9295Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Legillon F, Liefooghe A, Talbi E-G (2012) Cobra: A cooperative coevolutionary algorithm for bi-level optimization. In: 2012 IEEE Congress on evolutionary computation, 1–8Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Marinakis Y, Marinaki M (2008) A bilevel genetic algorithm for a real life location routing problem. Int J Logist Res Appl 11(1):49–65zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mathieu R, Pittard L, Anandalingam G (1994) Genetic algorithm based approach to bi-level linear programming. Revue franċaise d’automatique, d’informatique et de recherche opérationnelle. Recherche Opérationnelle 28(1):1–21MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Meng Q, Yang H, Bell M (2001) An equivalent continuously differentiable model and a locally convergent algorithm for the continuous network design problem. Transp Res B Methodol 35(1):83–105Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Oduguwa V, Roy R (2002) Bi-level optimisation using genetic algorithm. In: IEEE International conference on artificial intelligence systems (ICAIS), pp 322–327Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ong Y-S, Krasnogor N, Ishibuchi H (2007) Special issue on memetic algorithms. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B (Cybern) 37(1):2–5Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ong Y-S, Lim M-H, Neri F, Ishibuchi H (2009) Special issue on emerging trends in soft computing: memetic algorithms. Soft Comput- Fus Found Methodol Appl 13(8):739–740Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Phadke MS (1995) Quality engineering using robust design. Prentice Hall PTRGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Potvin J-Y, Bengio S (1996) The vehicle routing problem with time windows part ii: genetic search. INFORMS J Comput 8(2):165–172zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ross PJ (1988) Taguchi techniques for quality engineering: loss function, orthogonal experiments, parameter and tolerance designGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sinha A, Malo P, Frantsev A, Deb K (2014) Finding optimal strategies in a multi-period multi-leader–follower Stackelberg game using an evolutionary algorithm. Comput Oper Res 41:374–385MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stackelberg H (1952) The theory of the market economy. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Vicente LN, Calamai P (1994) Bilevel and multilevel programming: a bibliography review. J Global Optim 5(3):291–306MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wang Y, Jiao Y-C, Li H (2005) An evolutionary algorithm for solving nonlinear bilevel programming based on a new constraint-handling scheme. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C (Appl Rev) 35(2):221–232Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yin Y (2000) Genetic-algorithms-based approach for bilevel programming models. J Transp Eng 126(2):115–120Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gupta A, Ong YS, Feng L, Tan KC (2017) Multiobjective multifactorial optimization in evolutionary multitasking. IEEE Trans Cybern 47(7):1652–1665Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wang, Li H, Wang L, Hei X, Li W, Jiang Q (2017) A decomposition-based chemical reaction optimization for multi-objective vehicle routing problem for simultaneous delivery and pickup with time windows. Memetic Comput, 1–18Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fazlollahtabar H, Hassanli S (2018) Hybrid cost and time path planning for multiple autonomous guided vehicles. Appl Intell 48(2):482–498Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Feng L, Ong YS, Jiang S, Gupta A (2017) Autoencoding evolutionary search with learning across heterogeneous problems. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 21(5):760–772Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gupta A, Mandziuk J, Ong YS (2016) Evolutionary multitasking in bi-level optimization. Complex Intell Syst 1(1-4):83–95Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Handoko SD, Chuin LH, Gupta A, Soon OY, Kim HC, Siew TP (2015) Solving multi-vehicle profitable tour problem via knowledge adoption in evolutionary bi-level programming. In: IEEE Congress on evolutionary computation (CEC), pp 2713–2720Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Dorigo M, Stützle T (2010) Ant colony optimization: overview and recent advances. In: Handbook of metaheuristics. Springer, Boston, pp 227–263Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sinha A, Malo P, Deb K (2018) A review on bilevel optimization: from classical to evolutionary approaches and applications. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 22(2):276–295Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Islam MM, Singh HK, Ray T, Sinha A (2017) An enhanced memetic algorithm for single-objective bilevel optimization problems. Evol Comput 25(4):607–642Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SMART Lab, ISG Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Tunis (Université de Tunis)TunisTunisia

Personalised recommendations