Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A combined constraint handling framework: an empirical study

  • Regular Research Paper
  • Published:
Memetic Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents a new combined constraint handling framework (CCHF) for solving constrained optimization problems (COPs). The framework combines promising aspects of different constraint handling techniques (CHTs) in different situations with consideration of problem characteristics. In order to realize the framework, the features of two popular used CHTs (i.e., Deb’s feasibility-based rule and multi-objective optimization technique) are firstly studied based on their relationship with penalty function method. And then, a general relationship between problem characteristics and CHTs in different situations (i.e., infeasible situation, semi-feasible situation, and feasible situation) is empirically obtained. Finally, CCHF is proposed based on the corresponding relationship. Also, for the first time, this paper demonstrates that multi-objective optimization technique essentially can be expressed in the form of penalty function method. As CCHF combines promising aspects of different CHTs, it shows good performance on the 22 well-known benchmark test functions. In general, it is comparable to the other four differential evolution-based approaches and five dynamic or ensemble state-of-the-art approaches for constrained optimization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mezura-Montes E, Coello Coello CA (2005) A simple multimembered evolution strategy to solve constrained optimization problems. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 9(1):1–17

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Coello Coello CA (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):1245–1287

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Mezura-Montes E, Coello Coello CA (2011) Constraint-handling in nature-inspired numerical optimization: past, present and future. Swarm Evol Comput 1(4):173–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Jordehi AR (2015) A review on constraint handling strategies in particle swarm optimization. Neural Comput Appl 26(6):1265–1275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Deb K (2000) An efficient constraint handling method for genetic algorithms. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 186(2–4):311–338

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhou A, Qu B-Y, Li H, Zhao S-Z, Suganthan PN, Zhang Q (2011) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a survey of the state-of-the-art. Swarm Evol Comput 1(1):32–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wang Y, Cai Z (2012) Combining multiobjective optimization with defferential evolution to solve constrained optimization problems. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 16(1):117–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tang K, Peng F, Chen G, Yao X (2014) Population-based algorithm portfolios with automated constituent algorithms selection. Inf Sci 279:94–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gao W, Yen GG, Liu S (2015) A dual-population differential evolution with coevolution for constrained optimization. IEEE Trans Cybern 45(5):1094–1107

    Google Scholar 

  10. Shiu Y, Zhang X (2015) On composing an algorithm portfolio. Memet Comput 7:203–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mallipeddi R, Suganthan PN (2010) Ensemble of constraint handling techniques. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 14(4):561–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wang Y, Cai Z, Zhou Y, Zeng W (2008) An adaptive tradeoff model for constrained evolutionary optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 12(1):80–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhang M, Luo W, Wang X (2008) Differential evolution with dynamic stochasitc selection for constrained optimization. Inf Sci 178(15):3043–3074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tessema B, Yen GG (2009) An adaptive penalty formulation for constrained evolutionary optimization. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 39(3):565–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang Y, Cai Z (2011) Constrained evolutionary optimization by means of (\(\mu +\lambda \))-differential evolution and improved adaptive trade-off model. Evol Comput 19(2):249–285

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Jia G, Wang Y, Cai Z, Jin Y (2013) An improved (\(\mu +\lambda \))-constrained differential evolution for constrained optimization. Inf Sci 222:302–322

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Michalewicz Z (2012) Quo Vadis, evolutionary computation? On a growing gap between theory and practice. In: Liu J et al (eds) Plenary/invited lectures (WCCI 2012). LNCS, vol 7311, pp 98–121

  18. Jin Y, Tang K, Yu X, Sendhoff B, Yao X (2013) A framework for finding robust optimal solutions over time. Memetic Comput 5:3–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. He J, Chen T, Yao X (2015) On the easiest and hardest fitness functions. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 19(2):295–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Yao X (2012) Unpacking and understand evolutionary algorithms. In: Liu J et al (eds) Plenary/invited lectures (WCCI 2012). LNCS, vol 7311, pp 60–76

  21. Tsang E, Kwan A (1993) Mapping constraint satisfaction problems to algorithms and heuristics. Technical Report CSM-198, Department of Computer Science, University of Essex, Colchester, UK

  22. Mezura-Montes E, Miranda-Varela ME, Gómez-Ramón RC (2010) Differential evolution in constrained numerical optimization: an empirical study. Inf Sci 180(22):4223–4262

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Gibbs M, Maier H, Dandy G (2011) Relationship between problem characteristics and the optimal number of genetic algorithm generations. Eng Optim 43(4):349–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wang Y, Wang B, Li H, Yen GG (2015) Incorporating objective function information into the feasibility rule for constrained evolutionary optimization. IEEE Tran Cybern 46(12):2938–2952

  25. Qiu X, Xu J, Tan KC, Abbass HA (2016) Adaptive cross-generation differential evolution operators for multi-objective optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 20(2):232–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Elsayed S, Sarker R (2016) Differential evolution framework for big data optimization. Memet Comput 8(1):17–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Feng L, Ong YS, Lim MH, Tsang IW (2015) Memetic search with interdomain learning: a realization between CVRP and CARP. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 19(5):644–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Si C, Wang L, Wu Q (2012) Mapping constrained optimization problems to algorithms and constraint handling techniques. In: Proceedings of the CEC, pp 3308–3315

  29. Das S, Suganthan PN (2011) Differential evolution: a Survey of the state-of-the-art. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 15(1):4–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zitzler E, Deb K, Thiele L (2000) Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: empirical results. Evol Comput 8(2):173–195 summer

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Si C, Shen J, Zou X, Duo Y, Wang L, Wu Q (2015) A dynamic penalty function for constrained optimization. In: Tan Y et al (eds) ICSI 2015. LNCS, vol 9141, pp 261–272

  32. Liang JJ, Runarsson TP, Mezura-Montes E, Clerc M, Suganthan PN, Coello Coello CA, Deb K (2006) Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for the CEC 2006. Special session on constrained real-parameter optimization. Technical Report, Nanyang Technology University, Singapore

  33. Mohamed AW, Sabry HZ (2012) Constrained optimization based on modified differential evolution algorithm. Inf Sci 194(1):171–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

CS would like to thank Prof. Dr. Robert Weigel for his great help in the life and research work, and he is grateful to Dr. Guojun Gao for proofreading and valuable suggestions for this paper. CS also appreciates M.S. Chengyu Huang’s inspiration on the systematical analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Shanghai-Hamburg College, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai, 200093, China

    Chengyong Si

  2. Department of Electrical Engineering, Center for Electric Power and Energy, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, 2800, Denmark

    Junjie Hu

  3. Institute of Sustainable Electric Networks and Sources of Energy, Technical University of Berlin, 10587, Berlin, Germany

    Tian Lan

  4. College of Electronics and Information Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, 201804, China

    Lei Wang & Qidi Wu

Authors
  1. Chengyong Si
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Junjie Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tian Lan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lei Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Qidi Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chengyong Si.

Additional information

This work is partially done when Chengyong Si was with the Institute for Electronics Engineering, University of Erlangen-Nuernberg in Germany as a joint doctor.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Si, C., Hu, J., Lan, T. et al. A combined constraint handling framework: an empirical study. Memetic Comp. 9, 69–88 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12293-016-0221-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12293-016-0221-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation