Advertisement

A Critical Review of Adaptive Penalty Techniques in Evolutionary Computation

  • Helio J. C. Barbosa
  • Afonso C. C. Lemonge
  • Heder S. Bernardino
Chapter
Part of the Infosys Science Foundation Series book series (ISFS)

Abstract

Constrained optimization problems are common in the sciences, engineering, and economics. Due to the growing complexity of the problems tackled, nature-inspired metaheuristics in general, and evolutionary algorithms in particular, are becoming increasingly popular. As move operators (recombination and mutation) are usually blind to the constraints, most metaheuristics must be equipped with a constraint handling technique. Although conceptually simple, penalty techniques usually require user-defined problem-dependent parameters, which often significantly impact the performance of a metaheuristic. A penalty technique is said to be adaptive when it automatically sets the values of all parameters involved using feedback from the search process without user intervention. This chapter presents a survey of the most relevant adaptive penalty techniques from the literature, identifies the main concepts used in the adaptation process, as well as observed shortcomings, and suggests further work in order to increase the understanding of such techniques.

Keywords

Adaptive techniques Penalty techniques Evolutionary computation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the reviewers for their comments, which helped improve the quality of the final version, and acknowledge the support from CNPq (grants 308317/2009-2, 310778/2013-1, 300192/2012-6 and 306815/2011-7) and FAPEMIG (grant TEC 528/11).

References

  1. Barbosa HJC, Lemonge ACC (2002) An adaptive penalty scheme in genetic algorithms for constrained optimization problems. In: Langdon WB, Cantú-Paz E, Mathias KE, Roy R, Davis D, Poli R, Balakrishnan K, Honavar V, Rudolph G, Wegener J, Bull L, Potter MA, Schultz AC, Miller JF, Burke EK (eds) Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO). Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbosa HJC, Lemonge ACC (2003a) An adaptive penalty scheme for steady-state genetic algorithms. In: Cantú-Paz E, Foster JA, Deb K, Davis LD, Roy R, O’Reilly U-M, Beyer H-G, Standish R, Kendall G, Wilson S, Harman M, Wegener J, Dasgupta D, Potter MA, Schultz AC, Dowsland KA, Jonoska N, Miller J (eds) Genetic and evolutionary computation (GECCO). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin, pp 718–729Google Scholar
  3. Barbosa HJC, Lemonge ACC (2003b) A new adaptive penalty scheme for genetic algorithms. Inf Sci 156:215–251Google Scholar
  4. Barbosa HJC, Lemonge ACC (2008) An adaptive penalty method for genetic algorithms in constrained optimization problems. Front Evol Robot 34:9–34Google Scholar
  5. Barbosa HJC, Bernardino HS, Barreto AMS (2010a) Using performance profiles to analyze the results of the 2006 CEC constrained optimization competition. In: 2010 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC), pp 1–8Google Scholar
  6. Barbosa HJC, Lemonge ACC, Fonseca LG, Bernardino HS (2010b) Comparing two constraint handling techniques in a binary-coded genetic algorithm for optimization problems. In: Deb K, Bhattacharya A, Chakraborti N, Chakroborty P, Das S, Dutta J, Gupta SK, Jain A, Aggarwal V, Branke J, Louis SJ, Tan KC (eds) Simulated evolution and learning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin, pp 125–134Google Scholar
  7. Barbosa HJC, Bernardino HS, Barreto AMS (2013) Using performance profiles for the analysis and design of benchmark experiments. In: Di Gaspero L, Schaerf A, Stutzle T (eds) Advances in metaheuristics. Operations Research/computer Science Interfaces Series, vol 53. Springer, New York, pp 21–36Google Scholar
  8. Bean J, Alouane A (1992) A Dual Genetic Algorithm For Bounded Integer Programs. Technical Report Tr 92-53, Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, The University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  9. Beaser E, Schwartz JK, Bell CB, Solomon EI (2011) Hybrid genetic algorithm with an adaptive penalty function for fitting multimodal experimental data: application to exchange-coupled non-Kramers binuclear iron active sites. J Chem Inf Model 51(9):2164–2173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coello CAC (2000) Use of a self-adaptive penalty approach for engineering optimization problems. Comput Ind 41(2):113–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coello CAC (2002) Theoretical and numerical constraint-handling techniques used with evolutionary algorithms: a survey of the state of the art. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 191(11–12):1245–1287CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Coit DW, Smith AE, Tate DM (1996) Adaptive penalty methods for genetic optimization of constrained combinatorial problems. INFORMS J Comput 8(2):173–182CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Costa L, Santo IE, Oliveira P (2013) An adaptive constraint handling technique for evolutionary algorithms. Optimization 62(2):241–253CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Courant R (1943) Variational methods for the solution of problems of equilibrium and vibrations. Bull Am Math Soc 49:1–23CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Dolan E, Moré JJ (2002) Benchmarking optimization software with performance profiles. Math Program 91(2):201–213CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Eiben AE, Smith JE (2003) Introduction to evolutionary computing. Springer, New YorkCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Eiben AE, Jansen B, Michalewicz Z, Paechter B (2000) Solving CSPs using self-adaptive constraint weights: how to prevent EAs from cheating. In: Whitley, LD (ed) Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 128–134Google Scholar
  18. Farmani R, Wright J (2003) Self-adaptive fitness formulation for constrained optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 7(5):445–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gan M, Peng H, Peng X, Chen X, Inoussa G (2010) An adaptive decision maker for constrained evolutionary optimization. Appl Math Comput 215(12):4172–4184CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. Gen M, Cheng R (1996) Optimal design of system reliability using interval programming and genetic algorithms. Comput Ind Eng, (In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on computers and industrial engineering), vol 31(1–2), pp 237–240Google Scholar
  21. Hamida H, Schoenauer M (2000) Adaptive techniques for evolutionary topological optimum design. In: Parmee I (ed) Proceedings of the international conference on adaptive computing in design and manufacture (ACDM). Springer, Devon, pp 123–136Google Scholar
  22. Hamida S, Schoenauer M (2002) ASCHEA: new results using adaptive segregational constraint handling. In: Proceedings of the IEEE service center congress on evolutionary computation (CEC), vol 1. Piscataway, New Jersey, pp 884–889Google Scholar
  23. Harrell LJ, Ranjithan SR (1999) Evaluation of alternative penalty function implementations in a watershed management design problem. In: Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO), vol 2. Morgan Kaufmann, pp 1551–1558Google Scholar
  24. He Q, Wang L (2007) An effective co-evolutionary particle swarm optimization for constrained engineering design problems. Eng Appl Artif Intell 20(1):89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. He Q, Wang L, zhuo Huang F (2008) Nonlinear constrained optimization by enhanced co-evolutionary PSO. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, CEC 2008. (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence), pp 83–89Google Scholar
  26. Hughes T (1987) The finite element method: linear static and dynamic finite element analysis. Prentice Hall Inc, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  27. Koziel S, Michalewicz Z (1998) A decoder-based evolutionary algorithm for constrained parameter optimization problems. In: Eiben A, Bäck T, Schoenauer M, Schwefel H-P (eds) Parallel problem solving from nature (PPSN). LNCS, vol 1498. Springer, Berlin, pp 231–240Google Scholar
  28. Krempser E, Bernardino H, Barbosa H, Lemonge A (2012) Differential evolution assisted by surrogate models for structural optimization problems. In: Proceedings of the international conference on computational structures technology (CST). Civil-Comp Press, p 49Google Scholar
  29. Lemonge ACC, Barbosa HJC (2004) An adaptive penalty scheme for genetic algorithms in structural optimization. Int J Numer Methods Eng 59(5):703–736CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Lemonge ACC, Barbosa HJC, Bernardino HS (2012) A family of adaptive penalty schemes for steady-state genetic algorithms. In: 2012 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC). IEEE, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  31. Liang J, Runarsson TP, Mezura-Montes E, Clerc M, Suganthan P, Coello CC, Deb K (2006) Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for the CEC 2006 special session on constrained real-parameter optimization. Technical report, Nanyang Technological University, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  32. Lin C-H (2013) A rough penalty genetic algorithm for constrained optimization. Inf Sci 241:119–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lin C-Y, Wu W-H (2004) Self-organizing adaptive penalty strategy in constrained genetic search. Struct Multidiscip Optim 26(6):417–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Luenberger DG, Ye Y (2008) Linear and nonlinear programming. Springer, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Mallipeddi R, Suganthan PN (2010) Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for the CEC 2010 competition on constrained real-parameter optimization. Technical report, Nanyang Technological University, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  36. Mezura-Montes E, Coello CAC (2011) Constraint-handling in nature-inspired numerical optimization: past, present and future. Swarm Evol Comput 1(4):173–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Michalewicz Z (1995) A survey of constraint handling techniques in evolutionary computation methods. In: Proceedings of the 4th annual conference on evolutionary programming. MIT Press, pp 135–155Google Scholar
  38. Michalewicz Z, Schoenauer M (1996) Evolutionary algorithms for constrained parameter optimization problems. Evol Comput 4(1):1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Montemurro M, Vincenti A, Vannucci P (2013) The automatic dynamic penalisation method (ADP) for handling constraints with genetic algorithms. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 256:70–87CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  40. Nanakorn P, Meesomklin K (2001) An adaptive penalty function in genetic algorithms for structural design optimization. Comput Struct 79(29–30):2527–2539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Puzzi S, Carpinteri A (2008) A double-multiplicative dynamic penalty approach for constrained evolutionary optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 35(5):431–445CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. Rasheed K (1998) An adaptive penalty approach for constrained genetic-algorithm optimization. In: Koza J, Banzhaf W, Chellapilla K, Deb K, Dorigo M, Fogel D, Garzon M, Goldberg D, Iba H, Riolo R (eds) Proceedings of the third annual genetic programming conference. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 584–590Google Scholar
  43. Richardson JT, Palmer MR, Liepins GE, Hilliard M (1989) Some guidelines for genetic algorithms with penalty functions. In: Proceedings of the international conference on genetic algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 191–197Google Scholar
  44. Rocha AMAC, Fernandes EMDGP (2009) Self-adaptive penalties in the electromagnetism-like algorithm for constrained global optimization problems. In: Proceedings of the 8th world congress on structural and multidisciplinary optimization, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  45. Runarsson T, Yao X (2000) Stochastic ranking for constrained evolutionary optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 4(3):284–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Salcedo-Sanz S (2009) A survey of repair methods used as constraint handling techniques in evolutionary algorithms. Comput Sci Rev 3(3):175–192CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. Schoenauer M, Michalewicz Z (1996) Evolutionary computation at the edge of feasibility. In: Proceedings of parallel problem solving from nature (PPSN). LNCS, Springer, pp 245–254Google Scholar
  48. Tessema B, Yen GG (2006) A self adaptive penalty function based algorithm for constrained optimization. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, CEC 2006. IEEE, pp 246–253Google Scholar
  49. Tessema B, Yen G (2009) An adaptive penalty formulation for constrained evolutionary optimization. IEEE Trans Syst, Man Cybern, Part A: Syst Hum 39(3):565–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vincenti A, Ahmadian MR, Vannucci P (2010) BIANCA: a genetic algorithm to solve hard combinatorial optimisation problems in engineering. J Glob Optim 48(3):399–421CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  51. Wang Y, Cai Z, Zhou Y, Fan Z (2009) Constrained optimization based on hybrid evolutionary algorithm and adaptive constraint-handling technique. Struct Multidiscip Optim 37(4):395–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wu B, Yu X, Liu L (2001) Fuzzy penalty function approach for constrained function optimization with evolutionary algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on neural information processing. Citeseer, pp 299–304Google Scholar
  53. Wu W-H, Lin C-Y (2004) The second generation of self-organizing adaptive penalty strategy for constrained genetic search. Adv Eng Softw 35(12):815–825CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  54. Yokota T, Gen M, Ida K, Taguchi T (1995) Optimal design of system reliability by an improved genetic algorithm. Trans Inst Electron Inf Comput Eng J78-A(6):702–709 (in Japanese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helio J. C. Barbosa
    • 1
    • 3
  • Afonso C. C. Lemonge
    • 2
  • Heder S. Bernardino
    • 3
  1. 1.National Laboratory for Scientific Computing—LNCCRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Applied and Computational MechanicsFederal University of Juiz de ForaJuiz de ForaBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceFederal University of Juiz de ForaJuiz de ForaBrazil

Personalised recommendations