Varying fitness functions in genetic algorithms: Studying the rate of increase of the dynamic penalty terms
In this paper we present a promising technique that enhances the efficiency of GAs, when they are applied to constrained optimisation problems. According to this technique, the problem constraints are included in the fitness function as penalty terms, that vary during the GA evolution, facilitating thus the location of the global optimum and the avoidance of local optima. Moreover we proceed to test the effect that the rate of change in the fitness function has on GA performance. The tests are performed on two well-known real-world optimisation problems: the Cutting Stock problem and the Unit Commitment problem. Comparative results are reported.
KeywordsPenalty Function Penalty Term Constraint Violation Penalty Factor Unit Commitment
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- A. R. Brown, “Optimum packing and Depletion”, American Elsevier Inc., 1971, New York.Google Scholar
- L. Davis, “Adapting operator probabilities in genetic algorithms”, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Genetic Algorithms and Their Applications, San Mateo, California, Morgan Kaufman, 1989.Google Scholar
- D. E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning, Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley, 1989.Google Scholar
- J. A. Joines and C. R. Houck, “On the Use of Non-Stationary Penalty Functions to Solve Nonlinear Constrained Optimisation Problems with GA's,” in Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Service Center, 1994, pp. 579–584.Google Scholar
- Z. Michalewicz and G. Nazhiyath, “Genocop III: A Co-evolutionary Algorithm for Numerical Optimisation Problems with Nonlinear Constraints,” in Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, Vol. 2, Perth-Australia, 29 Nov. — 1 Dec. 1995, pp. 647–651.Google Scholar
- J. A. Miller. W. D. Potter, R. V. Gandham and C. N. Lapena, “An Evaluation of Local Improvement Operators for Genetic Algorithms”, in IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. 23, No. 5, Sep./Oct. 1993.Google Scholar
- V. Petridis and S. Kazarlis “Varying Quality Function in Genetic Algorithms and the Cutting Problem”, in Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation (ICEC '94 as part of WCCI'94), IEEE Service Center, 1994, Vol. l, pp. 166–169.Google Scholar
- V. Petridis, S. Kazarlis and A. Bakirtzis, “Varying Fitness Functions in Genetic Algorithm Constrained Optimisation: The Cutting Stock and Unit Commitment Problems,” accepted for publication at the IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol 28 Part B No 5 issue of October 1998.Google Scholar
- A. E. Smith and D. M. Tate, “Genetic Optimisation Using A Penalty Function,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, S. Forrest, Ed. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1993, pp. 499–505.Google Scholar
- W.M. Spears and K.A. De Jong, “An Analysis of Multi-Point Crossover” in Foundations of Genetic Algorithms, San Mateo California, Morgan Kaufman, 1991, pp. 301–315.Google Scholar
- Paul. E. Sweeney, Elizabeth Ridenour Paternoster, “Cutting and Packing Problems: A categorized Application — Oriented Research Bibliography”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 43, No. 7, p.p. 691–706.Google Scholar
- A.J. Wood and B.F. Wollenberg, Power Generation Operation and Control, 1984, John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar