Advertisement

Natural Computing

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 913–932 | Cite as

An enhanced genetic algorithm for constrained knapsack problems in dynamic environments

  • Shuqu Qian
  • Yanmin LiuEmail author
  • Yongqiang Ye
  • Guofeng Xu
Article
  • 78 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, an enhanced genetic algorithm (ERGA), based on memory updating and environment reaction schemes, has been proposed to solve constrained knapsack problems in dynamic environments (DKPs). Its key operators, e.g., the memory updating and the environment reaction schemes, have been further investigated to improve the ability of adapting to different dynamic environments. To maintain the diversity of solutions in the memory, when the memory is due to update, the elite that differs from any of the solutions in the memory in terms of the hamming distance will replace the worst solution in the memory set. In this way, the memory set can store diversiform information as much as possible. On the other hand, the environment reaction operation is used to determine when to retrieve and how to use the solutions saved in the memory set. Experimental results on a series of DKPs with different randomly generated data sets indicate that ERGA can faster track the changing environments and manifest superior statistical performance, when compared with peer dynamic genetic algorithms. The sensitivity analysis concerning some important parameters of ERGA has also been made and presented in the section on experimental results.

Keywords

Dynamic optimization Constrained knapsack problems Genetic algorithms Memory updating Environment reaction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants 61762001, 71461027, 71471158. Provincial Science and Technology Foundation of Guizhou of China under Grants 20152002 and Qian ke he LH zi 20177047. Creative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of Guizhou of China under Grants Qian Jiao he KY zi 2018034.

References

  1. Ahmadi E, Zandieh M, Farrokh M, Emami SM (2016) A multi objective optimization approach for flexible job shop scheduling problem under random machine breakdown by evolutionary algorithms. Comput Oper Res 73(9):56–66MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker BM, Ayechew MA (2003) A genetic algorithm for the vehicle routing problem. Comput Oper Res 30(5):787–800MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basu SK, Bhatia AK (2006) A naive genetic approach for non-stationary constrained problems. Soft Comput 10(2):152–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosman PAN (2007) Learning and anticipation in online dynamic optimization with evolutionary algorithms:the stochastic case. In: Proceedings of genetic and evolutionary computation conference, GECCO 2007, London, vol 1, pp 1165–1172Google Scholar
  5. Branke JU (2004) Memory enhanced evolutionary algorithms for changing optimization problems. Congress Evolut Comput Cec 3:1875–1882MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Changdar C, Mahapatra GS, Pal RK (2015) An improved genetic algorithm based approach to solve constrained knapsack problem in fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 42(4):2276–2286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheng H, Yang S (2010) Genetic algorithms with immigrants schemes for dynamic multicast problems in mobile ad hoc networks. Eng Appl Artif Intell 23(5):806–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cobb HG, Grefenstette JJ (1993) Genetic algorithms for tracking changing environments. In: Fifth international conference on genetic algorithms, pp 523–530Google Scholar
  9. Cruz C, González JR, Pelta DA (2011) Optimization in dynamic environments: a survey on problems, methods and measures. Soft Comput 15(7):1427–1448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Derrac J, García S, Molina D, Herrera F (2011) A practical tutorial on the use of nonparametric statistical tests as a methodology for comparing evolutionary and swarm intelligence algorithms. Swarm Evolut Comput 1(1):3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Finner H (1993) On a monotonicity problem in step-down multiple test procedures. J Am Stat Assoc 88(423):920–923MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Friedman M (1939) A comparison of alternative tests of significance for the problem of m rankings. Ann Math Stat 11(1):86–92MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grefenstette JJ (1992) Genetic algorithms for changing environments. Proc Paralle Prob Solving Nat 2:139–146Google Scholar
  14. Hochberg Y (1988) A sharper bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika 75(4):800–802MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hodges JL, Lehmann EL (1962) Rank methods for combination of independent experiments in analysis of variance. Ann Math Stat 33(2):482–497MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holland BS, Copenhaver DP (1987) An improved sequentially rejective bonferroni procedure. Biometrics 43(2):417–423MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Hommel G (1988) A stagewise rejective multiple test procedure on a modified boneferroni test. Biometrika 75(2):383–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jin Y, Branke J (2005) Evolutionary optimization in uncertain environments—a survey. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 9(3):303–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li C, Yang S (2012) A general framework of multipopulation methods with clustering in undetectable dynamic environments. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 16(4):556–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li J (2008) A two-step rejection procedure for testing multiple hypotheses. J Stat Plan Inference 138(6):1521–1527MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mendes RRA, Paiva AP, Peruchi RS, Balestrassi PP, Leme RC, Silva MB (2016) Multiobjective portfolio optimization of ARMAGARCH time series based on experimental designs. Comput Oper Res 66(2):434–444MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Michalewicz Z, Arabas J (1994) Genetic algorithms for the 0/1 knapsack problem. In: Proceedings of the 8th international symposium on methodologies for intelligent systems, vol 869, pp 134–143Google Scholar
  24. Nguyen TT, Yang S, Branke J (2012) Evolutionary dynamic optimization: a survey of the state of the art. Swarm Evolut Comput 6:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Novoa-Hernández P, Corona CC, Pelta DA (2013) Self-adaptive, multipopulation differential evolution in dynamic environments. Soft Comput 17(10):1861–1881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peng X, Gao X, Yang S (2011) Environment identification-based memory scheme for estimation of distribution algorithms in dynamic environments. Soft Comput 15(2):311–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Quade D (1979) Using weighted rankings in the analysis of complete blocks with additive block effects. J Am Stat Assoc 74(367):680–683MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Richter H, Yang S (2009) Learning behavior in abstract memory schemes for dynamic optimization problems. Soft Comput 13(12):1163–1173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rom DM (1990) A sequentially rejective test procedure based on a modified Bonferroni inequality. Biometrika 77(3):663–665MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Singh HK, Isaacs A, Nguyen TT, Ray T (2009) Performance of infeasibility driven evolutionary algorithm (IDEA) on constrained dynamic single objective optimization problems. In: Eleventh conference on congress on evolutionary computation, vol 1, pp 3127–3134Google Scholar
  31. Turky AM, Abdullah S (2014a) A multi-population electromagnetic algorithm for dynamic optimisation problems. Appl Soft Comput 22(5):474–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Turky AM, Abdullah S (2014b) A multi-population harmony search algorithm with external archive for dynamic optimization problems. Inf Sci 272(8):84–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang Y, Li B (2009) Investigation of memory-based multi-objective optimization evolutionary algorithm in dynamic environment. In: iEEE congress on evolutionary computation cec, pp 630–637Google Scholar
  34. Yang S (2003) Non-stationary problem optimization using the primal-dual genetic algorithm. In: The 2003 congress on evolutionary computation, vol 3, pp 2246–2253Google Scholar
  35. Yang S (2005) Memory-based immigrants for genetic algorithms in dynamic environments. In: The 2005 congress on evolutionary computation, pp 1115–1122Google Scholar
  36. Yang S (2007) Genetic algorithms with elitism-based immigrants for changing optimization problems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4448, pp 627–636Google Scholar
  37. Yang S (2008) Genetic algorithms with memory- and elitism-based immigrants in dynamic environments. Evolut Comput 16(3):385–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yang S, Tinó’s R (2007) A hybrid immigrants scheme for genetic algorithms in dynamic environments. Int J Autom Comput 4(3):243–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yang S, Yao X (2005) Experimental study on population-based incremental learning algorithms for dynamic optimization problems. Soft Comput 9(11):815–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yang S, Yao X (2008) Population-based incremental learning with associative memory for dynamic environments. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 12(5):542–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yazdani D, Nasiri B, Sepas-Moghaddam A, Meybodi MR (2013) A novel multi-swarm algorithm for optimization in dynamic environments based on particle swarm optimization. Appl Soft Comput 13(4):2144–2158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yu X, Tang K, Chen T, Yao X (2009) Empirical analysis of evolutionary algorithms with immigrants schemes for dynamic optimization. Memet Comput 1(1):3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhang Z (2008) Multiobjective optimization immune algorithm in dynamic environments and its application to greenhouse control. Appl Soft Comput 8(2):959–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of SciencesAnshun UniversityAnshunChina
  2. 2.School of Mathematics and Computer ScienceZunyi Normal CollegeZunyiChina
  3. 3.College of Automatic EngineeringNanjing University of Aeronautics and AstronauticsNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations