GPS: a constraint-based gene position procurement in chromosome for solving large-scale multiobjective multiple knapsack problems
- 25 Downloads
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.
Keywordscombinatorial problems evolutionary algorithm multiobjective problems multiple knapsack problem gene position effect gene suppression
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Weingartner H M. Mathematical programming and the analysis of capital budgeting problems. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1963.Google Scholar
- 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.Pisinger D. Algorithms for knapsack problems. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen, 2000Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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.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
- 33.Hartman P E, Roth J R. Mechanisms of suppression. Advances in Genetics, 1973, 17: 1–105Google Scholar
- 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
- 40.Guo S W. Proportion of genes survived in offspring conditional on inheritance of flanking markers. Genetics, 1994, 138(3): 953–962Google Scholar