Advertisement

Genetic Algorithms for Solving Shortest Path Problem in Maze-Type Network with Precedence Constraints

  • JunWoo Kim
  • Soo Kyun Kim
Article
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

Shortest path (SP) problem is a classical combinatorial optimization problem, which has various application domains such as communication network routing and location-based services under cloud environment. However, maze-type networks, sparse networks with many pairs of disconnected nodes, had rarely been studied. A maze-type network is more difficult to analyze than common dense network, since it has rare feasible paths. Moreover, precedence constraints among the nodes further increase the complexity of maze-type network, and this paper aims to develop genetic algorithms for finding the shortest path in maze-type network with precedence constraints. In order to address precedence constrained maze-type shortest path (PCM-SP) problem, the fitness switching genetic algorithm (FSWGA), which has been developed to solve the unconstrained maze-type shortest path (M-SP) problems, is revised by adopting position listing representation as encoding scheme and applying two enhanced decoding procedures. In addition, genetic operator of candidate order based genetic algorithm (COGA) is used to explore the search space effectively, and experiment results demonstrate that the enhanced FSWGA can solve PCM-SP problems more effectively than the previous FSWGA.

Keywords

Maze-type network Shortest path problem Precedence constraint Fitness switching genetic algorithm Candidate order based genetic algorithm 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) Grant funded by the Korea government (Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning) (NRF-2017R1C1B1008650).

References

  1. 1.
    Feillet, D., Dejax, P., Gendreau, M., & Gueguen, C. (2004). An exact algorithm for the elementary shortest path problem with resource constraints: Application to some vehicle routing problems. Networks, 44(3), 216–229.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Senthil Kumar, K., & Ramkumar, D. (2016). Combined genetic and fuzzy approach for shortest path routing problem in ad hoc networks. Wireless Personal Communications, 90(2), 609–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim, J. W., & Kim, S. K. (2016). Fitness switching genetic algorithm for solving combinatorial optimization problems with rare feasible solutions. Journal of Supercomputing, 72(9), 3549–3571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhang, L., Li, J., Yang, S., & Wang, B. (2017). Privacy preserving in cloud environment for obstructed shortest path query. Wireless Personal Communications, 96(2), 2305–2322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ahuja, R. K., Mehlhorn, K., Orlin, J., & Tarjan, R. E. (1990). Faster algorithms for the shortest path problem. Journal of the ACM, 37(2), 213–223.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lenstra, J. K., & Kan, A. R. (1978). Complexity of scheduling under precedence constraints. Operations Research, 26(1), 22–35.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kowalczyk, R. (1997). Constraint consistent genetic algorithms. In Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE international conference on evolutionary computation (pp. 343–348).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moon, C., Kim, J., Choi, G., & Seo, Y. (2002). An efficient genetic algorithm for the traveling salesman problem with precedence constraints. European Journal of Operational Research, 140(3), 606–617.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim, J. W. (2016). Candidate order based genetic algorithm (COGA) for constrained sequencing problems. International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Theory Applications and Practice, 23(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Poon, P. W., & Carter, J. N. (1995). Genetic algorithm crossover operators for ordering applications. Computers & Operations Research, 22(1), 135–147.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tseng, H.-W., Lee, Y.-H., Lo, C.-Y., Yen, L.-Y., & Jan, Y.-G. (2015). Applying genetic algorithms to the data traffic scheduling and performance analysis of a long-term evolution system. Wireless Personal Communications, 81(1), 387–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zadehparizi, F., & Jam, S. (2017). Frequency reconfigurable antennas design for cognitive radio applications with different number of sub-bands based on genetic algorithm. Wireless Personal Communications.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-017-5022-5.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Su, S., & Tsuchiya, K. (1993). Learning of a maze using a genetic algorithm. In Proceedings of the 1993 international conference on industrial electronics, control, and instrumentation (pp. 376–379).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baba, N., & Hanada, H. (1994). Genetic algorithm applied to maze passing problem of mobile robot—a comparison with the learning performance of the hierarchical structure stochastic automata. In Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE international conference on neural networks (pp. 2690–2695).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Inagaki, J., Haseyama, M., & Kitajima, H. (1999). A genetic algorithm for determining multiple routes and its applications. In Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE international symposium on circuits and systems (pp. 137–140).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gordon, V. S., & Matley, Z. (2004). Evolving sparse direction maps for maze pathfinding. In Proceedings of the 2004 congress on evolutionary computation (pp. 835–838).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li, S., Ding, M., Cai, C., & Jiang, L. (2010). Efficient path planning method based on genetic algorithm combining path network. In Proceedings of the 2010 4th international conference on genetic and evolutionary computing (pp. 194–197).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carrick, C., & MacLeod, K. (2013). An evaluation of genetic algorithm solutions in optimization and machine learning. In Proceedings of the 21st annual conference of Canadian association for information science (pp. 224–231).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goldberg, D. E., & Lingle, R. (1985). Alleles, loci, and the traveling salesman problem. Proceedings of the international conference on genetic algorithms and their applications, 154, 154–159.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oliver, I. M., Smith, D. J., & Holland, J. R. (1987). A study of permutation crossover operators on the traveling salesman problem. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on genetic algorithms (pp. 224–230).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Davis, L. (1985). Applying adaptive algorithms to epistatic domains. Proceedings of the international joint conference on artificial intelligence, 85, 162–164.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Syswerda, G. (1991). Schedule optimization using genetic algorithms. In L. Davis (Ed.), Handbook of genetic algorithms (pp. 332–349). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee, K. M., Yamakawa, T., & Lee, K. M. (1998). A genetic algorithm for general machine scheduling problem. Proceedings of international conference on knowledge based intelligent electronics systems, 2, 60–66.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Whitley, D., Hains, D., & Howe, A. (2009). Tunneling between optima: partition crossover for the traveling salesman problem. In Proceedings of the 11th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation (pp. 915–922).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kozen, D. (1992). The design and analysis of algorithms. New York: Springer.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim, J. W. (2015). Developing a job shop scheduling system through integration of graphic user interface and genetic algorithm. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 74(10), 3329–3343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Management Systems EngineeringDong-A UniversityBusanKorea
  2. 2.Department of Game EngineeringPaichai UniversityDaejeonKorea

Personalised recommendations