Frontiers of Computer Science

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 101–121 | Cite as

GPS: a constraint-based gene position procurement in chromosome for solving large-scale multiobjective multiple knapsack problems

  • Jayanthi Manicassamy
  • Dinesh Karunanidhi
  • Sujatha Pothula
  • Vengattaraman Thirumal
  • Dhavachelvan Ponnurangam
  • Subramanian Ramalingam
Research Article
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

The multiple knapsack problem (MKP) forms a base for resolving many real-life problems. This has also been considered with multiple objectives in genetic algorithms (GAs) for proving its efficiency. GAs use self-adaptability to effectively solve complex problems with constraints, but in certain cases, self-adaptability fails by converging toward an infeasible region. This pitfall can be resolved by using different existing repairing techniques; however, this cannot assure convergence toward attaining the optimal solution. To overcome this issue, gene position-based suppression (GPS) has been modeled and embedded as a new phase in a classical GA. This phase works on the genes of a newly generated individual after the recombination phase to retain the solution vector within its feasible region and to improve the solution vector to attain the optimal solution. Genes holding the highest expressibility are reserved into a subset, as the best genes identified from the current individuals by replacing the weaker genes from the subset. This subset is used by the next generated individual to improve the solution vector and to retain the best genes of the individuals. Each gene’s positional point and its genotype exposure for each region in an environment are used to fit the best unique genes. Further, suppression of expression in conflicting gene’s relies on the requirement toward the level of exposure in the environment or in eliminating the duplicate genes from the environment. TheMKP benchmark instances from the OR-library are taken for the experiment to test the new model. The outcome portrays that GPS in a classical GA is superior in most of the cases compared to the other existing repairing techniques.

Keywords

combinatorial problems evolutionary algorithm multiobjective problems multiple knapsack problem gene position effect gene suppression 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

11704_2016_5195_MOESM1_ESM.ppt (228 kb)
GPS: a constraint-based gene position procurement in chromosome for solving large-scale multiobjective multiple knapsack problems

References

  1. 1.
    Azad M A K, Rocha A M A C, Fernandes E M G P. Improved binary artificial fish swarm algorithm for the 0–1 multidimensional knapsack problems. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 2014, 14: 66–75CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Petersen C C. Computational experience with variants of the Balas algorithm applied to the selection of R&D projects. Management Science, 1967, 13(9): 736–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weingartner H M. Mathematical programming and the analysis of capital budgeting problems. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1963.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gavish B, Pirkul H. Efficient algorithms for solving multiconstraint zero-one knapsack problems to optimality. Mathematical programming, 1985, 31(1): 78–105MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shih W. A branch and bound method for the multiconstraint zero-one knapsack problem. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 1979: 369–378Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pisinger D. Algorithms for knapsack problems. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen, 2000Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coello C A C, Lamont G B, Van Veldhuizen D A. Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-objective Problems. New York: Springer, 2007MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    He J, Mitavskiy B, Zhou Y. A theoretical assessment of solution quality in evolutionary algorithms for the knapsack problem. In: Proceedings of IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation. 2014: 141–148Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ibarra O H, Kim C E. Fast approximation algorithms for the knapsack and sum of subset problems. Journal of the ACM(JACM), 1975, 22(4): 463–468MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bansal J C, Deep K. A modified binary particle swarm optimization for knapsack problems. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 2012, 218(22): 11042–11061MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T A M T. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA–II. IEEE Transaction on Evolutionary Computation, 2002, 6(2): 182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li Z Y, Rudolph G, Li K L. Convergence performance comparison of quantum-inspired multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 2014, 57: 1843–1854MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kumar R, Rockett P. Multiobjective genetic algorithm partitioning for hierarchical learning of high-dimensional pattern spaces: a learning follows-decomposition strategy. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 1998, 9(5): 822–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bosman P A N, Thierens D. The balance between proximity and diversity in multiobjective evolutionary algorithms. IEEE Transaction on Evolutionary Computation, 2003, 7(2): 174–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Erlebach T, Kellerer H, Pferschy U. Approximating multiobjective knapsack problems. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Algorithms and Data Structures. 2001, 210–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kumar R, Banerjee N. Analysis of a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm on the 0–1 knapsack problem. Theoretical Computer Science, 2006, 358(1): 104–120MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paul P V, Ramalingam A, Baskaran R, Dhavachelvan P, Vivekanandan K, Subramanian R. A new population seeding technique for permutation-coded genetic algorithm: service transfer approach. Journal of Computational Science, 2014, 5(2): 277–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Kampen A H C, Strom C S, Buydens L M C. Lethalization, penalty and repair functions for constraint handling in the genetic algorithm methodology. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 1996, 34(1): 55–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Uyar S, Eryigit G. Improvements to penalty-based evolutionary algorithms for the multi-dimensional knapsack problem using a gene-based adaptive mutation approach. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation. 2005, 1257–1264Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Glover F. Advanced greedy algorithms and surrogate constraint methods for linear and quadratic knapsack and covering problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 2013, 230(2): 212–225MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gorski J, Paquete L, Pedrosa F. Greedy algorithms for a class of knapsack problems with binary weights. Computers & Operations Research, 2012, 39(3): 498–511MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang L, Wang S Y, Xu Y. An effective hybrid EDA-based algorithm for solving multidimensional knapsack problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 2012, 39(5): 5593–5599MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Martins J P, Fonseca C M, Delbem A C B. On the performance of linkage-tree genetic algorithms for the multidimensional knapsack problem. Neurocomputing, 2014, 146: 17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chih M. Self-adaptive check and repair operator-based particle swarm optimization for the multidimensional knapsack problem. Applied Soft Computing, 2015, 26: 378–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kumar R, Rockett P. Improved sampling of the Pareto-front in multiobjective genetic optimizations by steady-state evolution: a Pareto converging genetic algorithm. Evolutionary computation, 2002, 10(3): 283–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chih M, Lin C J, Chern M S, Ou T Y. Particle swarm optimization with time-varying acceleration coefficients for the multidimensional knapsack problem. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 2014, 38(4): 1338–1350MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Michailidis J, Graves J A M, Murray N D. Suppression of positioneffect variegation in Drosophila melanogaster, by fatty acids and dimethylsulphoxide: implications for the mechanism of position-effect variegation. Journal of Genetics, 1989, 68(1): 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mount S M, Anderson P. Expanding the definition of informational suppression. Trends in Genetics, 2000, 16(4): 157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Manicassamy J, Dhavachelvan P. Gene transinfection directs towards gene functional enhancement using genetic algorithm. IERI Procedia, 2013, 4: 268–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Costantini F D, Roberts S, Evans E P, Burtenshaw M D, Lacy E. Position Effects and Gene Expression in the Transgenic Mouse, Transfer and Expression of Eukraryotic Genes. New York: Academic Press, 1984Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Magtanong L, Ho C H, Barker S L, Jiao W, Baryshnikova A, Bahr S, Smith A M, Heisler L E, Choy J S, Kuzmin E, Andrusiak K, Kobylianski A, Li Z J, Costanzo M, Basrai M A, Giaever G, Nislow C, Andrews B, Boone C. Dosage suppression genetic interaction networks enhance functional wiring diagrams of the cell. Natures Biotechnology, 2011, 29: 505–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Barabasi A L, Oltvai Z N. Network biology: understanding the cell’s functional organization. Nature reviews. Genetics, 2004, 5(2): 101–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hartman P E, Roth J R. Mechanisms of suppression. Advances in Genetics, 1973, 17: 1–105Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Prelich G. Mechanisms of suppression: themes from variations. Trends Genetics, 1999, 15(7): 261–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ma A N, Wang H, Guo R, Wang Y X, Li W, Cui J W, Wang G J, Hoffman A R, Hu J F. Targeted gene suppression by inducing de novo DNA methylation in the gene promoter. Journal of Epigenetics and Chromatin, 2014, 7(1): 20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lissemore J L, Currie P D, Turk CM, Maine EM. Intragenic dominant suppressors of GLP-1, a gene essential for cell-signaling in Caenorhabditis elegans, support a role for cdc10/SWI6/Ankyrin motifs in GLP-1 function. Genetics, 1993, 135(4): 1023–1034Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wu Y, Han M. Suppression of activated Let-60 ras protein defines a role of Caenorhabditis elegans Sur-1 MAP kinase in vulval differentiation. Genes & Development, 1994, 8(2): 147–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sturtevant A H. The vermillion gene and gynandromorphism. Experimental Biology and Medicine, 1920, 17(4): 70–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lai X, Schmitz U, Gupta S K, Bhattacharya A, Kunz M, Wolkenhauer O, Vera J. Computational analysis of target hub gene repression regulated by multiple and cooperative miRNAs. Nucleic Acid Research, 2012, 40(18): 8818–8834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Guo S W. Proportion of genes survived in offspring conditional on inheritance of flanking markers. Genetics, 1994, 138(3): 953–962Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yang N, Hu F, Zhou L X, Tang J J. Reconstruction of ancestral gene orders using probabilistic and gene encoding approaches. PloS One, 2014, 9(10): e108796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Seo M, Oh S. Derivation of an artificial gene to improve classification accuracy upon gene selection. Computational Biology and Chemistry, 2012, 36: 1–12MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jayanthi Manicassamy
    • 1
  • Dinesh Karunanidhi
    • 1
  • Sujatha Pothula
    • 1
  • Vengattaraman Thirumal
    • 1
  • Dhavachelvan Ponnurangam
    • 1
  • Subramanian Ramalingam
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer SciencePondicherry UniversityPondicherryIndia

Personalised recommendations