A genetic algorithm with local search for solving single-source single-sink nonlinear non-convex minimum cost flow problems

  • Behrooz GhasemishabankarehEmail author
  • Melih Ozlen
  • Xiaodong Li
  • Kalyanmoy Deb
Methodologies and Application


Network models are widely used for solving difficult real-world problems. The minimum cost flow problem (MCFP) is one of the fundamental network optimisation problems with many practical applications. The difficulty of MCFP depends heavily on the shape of its cost function. A common approach to tackle MCFPs is to relax the non-convex, mixed-integer, nonlinear programme (MINLP) by introducing linearity or convexity to its cost function as an approximation to the original problem. However, this sort of simplification is often unable to sufficiently capture the characteristics of the original problem. How to handle MCFPs with non-convex and nonlinear cost functions is one of the most challenging issues. Considering that mathematical approaches (or solvers) are often sensitive to the shape of the cost function of non-convex MINLPs, this paper proposes a hybrid genetic algorithm with local search (namely GALS) for solving single-source single-sink nonlinear non-convex MCFPs. Our experimental results demonstrate that GALS offers highly competitive performances as compared to those of the mathematical solvers and a standard genetic algorithm.


Minimum cost flow problem Non-convex cost function Genetic algorithm Local search 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. Ahuja RK, Magnanti TL, Orlin JB (1993) Network flows: theory, algorithms, and applications. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, pp 4–6zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Burer S, Letchford AN (2012) Non-convex mixed-integer nonlinear programming: a survey. Surv Oper Res Manag Sci 17(2):97–106MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Burkard RE, Dollani H, Thach PT (2001) Linear approximations in a dynamic programming approach for the uncapacitated single-source minimum concave cost network flow problem in acyclic networks. J Glob Optim 19(2):121–139MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheng R, Gen M (1998) An evolution programme for the resource-constrained project scheduling problem. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 11(3):274–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Erickson RE, Monma CL, Veinott AF Jr (1987) Send-and-split method for minimum-concave-cost network flows. Math Oper Res 12(4):634–664MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fontes DBMM, Gonalves JF (2007) Heuristic solutions for general concave minimum cost network flow problems. Netw Int J 50(1):67–76MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Fontes DBMM, Hadjiconstantinou E, Christofides N (2006a) A branch-and-bound algorithm for concave network flow problems. J Glob Optim 34(1):127–155MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fontes DBMM, Hadjiconstantinou E, Christofides N (2006b) A dynamic programming approach for solving single-source uncapacitated concave minimum cost network flow problems. Eur J Oper Res 174(2):1205–1219MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garey MR, Johnson DS (2002) Computers and intractability, vol 29. wh freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Gen M, Cheng R, Wang D (1997) Genetic algorithms for solving shortest path problems. In: IEEE International conference on evolutionary computation, 1997. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  11. Gen M, Cheng R, Lin L (2008) Network models and optimization: multiobjective genetic algorithm approach. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Ghasemishabankareh B, Ozlen M, Neumann F, Li X (2018) A probabilistic tree-based representation for nonconvex minimum cost flow problems. In: International conference on parallel problem solving from nature. Springer, Cham, pp 69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldberg DE, Holland JH (1988) Genetic algorithms and machine learning. Mach Learn 3(2):95–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guisewite GM, Pardalos PM (1991a) Global search algorithms for minimum concave-cost network flow problems. J Glob Optim 1(4):309–330MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guisewite GM, Pardalos PM (1991b) Algorithms for the single-source uncapacitated minimum concave-cost network flow problem. J Glob Optim 1(3):245–265MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Horst R, Thoai NV (1998) An integer concave minimization approach for the minimum concave cost capacitated flow problem on networks. Oper Res Spektrum 20(1):47–53MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kim H-J, Hooker JN (2002) Solving fixed-charge network flow problems with a hybrid optimization and constraint programming approach. Ann Oper Res 115(1–4):95–124MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klansek U (2014) Solving the nonlinear discrete transportation problem by MINLP optimization. Transport 29(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klansek U, Psunder M (2010) Solving the nonlinear transportation problem by global optimization. Transport 25(3):314–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kovacs P (2015) Minimum-cost flow algorithms: an experimental evaluation. Optim Methods Softw 30(1):94–127MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lin L, Gen M (2009) Multiobjective genetic algorithm for bicriteria network design problems. In: Gen M, Katai O, McKay B, Namatame A, Sarker RA, Zhang B-T (eds) Intelligent and evolutionary systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 141–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lin SY, Lin CH (1997) A computationally efficient method for nonlinear multicommodity network flow problems. Netw Int J 29(4):225–244MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Lin Y, Schrage L (2009) The global solver in the LINDO API. Optim Methods Softw 24(4–5):657–668MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Michalewicz Z, Stephen H (1996) Genetic algorithms + data structures = evolution programs. Math Intell.
  25. Michalewicz Z, Vignaux GA, Hobbs M (1991) A nonstandard genetic algorithm for the nonlinear transportation problem. ORSA J Comput 3(4):307–316zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Monteiro MSR, Fontes DB, Fontes FA (2011) An ant colony optimization algorithm to solve the minimum cost network flow problem with concave cost functions. In: Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, pp 139–146Google Scholar
  27. Monteiro MSR, Fontes DBMM, Fontes FACC (2013) Concave minimum cost network flow problems solved with a colony of ants. J Heuristics 19(1):1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Newell GF (1996) Non-convex traffic assignment on a rectangular grid network. Transp Sci 30(1):32–42zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ortega F, Wolsey LA (2003) A branch-and-cut algorithm for the single-commodity, uncapacitated, fixed-charge network flow problem. Netw Int J 41(3):143–158MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Reca J, Martnez J, Lpez-Luque R (2017) A new efficient bounding strategy applied to the heuristic optimization of the water distribution networks design. In: Congress on numerical methods in engineering CMNGoogle Scholar
  31. Sherali HD, Adams WP (2013) A reformulation-linearization technique for solving discrete and continuous nonconvex problems, vol 31. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Sinha A, Malo P, Deb K (2017) Evolutionary algorithm for bilevel optimization using approximations of the lower level optimal solution mapping. Eur J Oper Res 257(2):395–411MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tawarmalani M, Sahinidis NV, Sahinidis N (2002) Convexification and global optimization in continuous and mixed-integer nonlinear programming: theory, algorithms, software, and applications, vol 65. Springer, BerlinzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vegh LA (2016) A strongly polynomial algorithm for a class of minimum-cost flow problems with separable convex objectives. SIAM J Comput 45(5):1729–1761MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Xie F, Jia R (2012) Nonlinear fixed charge transportation problem by minimum cost flow-based genetic algorithm. Comput Ind Eng 63(4):763–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yan S, Shih YL, Wang CL (2010) An ant colony system-based hybrid algorithm for square root concave cost transhipment problems. Eng Optim 42(11):983–1001MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Behrooz Ghasemishabankareh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Melih Ozlen
    • 1
  • Xiaodong Li
    • 1
  • Kalyanmoy Deb
    • 2
  1. 1.School of ScienceRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations