Magnetotactic Bacteria Constrained Optimization Algorithm

  • Lili LiuEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10954)


Many problems encountered in the field of science and engineering can be ultimately attributed to constrained optimization problems (COPs). During the past decades, solving COPs with evolutionary algorithms have received considerable attentions among researchers. A novel approach to deal with numerical constrained optimization problems, which incorporates a Magnetotactic Bacteria Optimization Algorithm (MBOA) and an adaptive constraint-handling technique, named COMBOA, is presented in this paper. COMBOA mainly consists of an improved MBOA and archiving-based adaptive tradeoff model (ArATM) used as the constraint-handling technique. Additionally, the adaptive constraint-handling technique consists of three main situations. In detail, at each situation, one constraint-handling mechanism is designed based on current population state. It is compared with several state-of-the-art algorithms on 13 well-known benchmark functions. The experiment results show that the COMBOA is effective in solving constrained optimization problems. It shows better or competitive performance compared with other state-of-the-art algorithms referred to in this paper in terms of the quality of the solutions.


Constrained optimization Magnetic bacteria optimization algorithm  Constraint-handling mechanism Adaptive tradeoff model Individual archiving technique 


  1. 1.
    Lin, C.-H.: A rough penalty genetic algorithm for constrained optimization. Inf. Sci. 241, 119–137 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li, J.Q., Sang, H.Y., Han, Y.Y., Wang, C.G., Gao, K.Z.: Efficient multi-objective optimization algorithm for hybrid flow shop scheduling problems with setup energy consumptions. J. Clean. Prod. 181, 584–598 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Li, J.Q., Wang, J.D., Pan, Q.K., Duan, P.Y., Sang, H.Y., Gao, K.Z., Xue, Y.: A hybrid artificial bee colony for optimizing a reverse logistics network system. Soft. Comput. 21(20), 6001–6018 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zheng, Z., Li, J.Q.: Optimal chiller loading by improved invasive weed optimization algorithm for reducing energy consumption. Energy Build. 161, 80–88 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duan, P., Li, J.Q., Wang, Y., Sang, H., Jia, B.: Solving chiller loading optimization problems using an improved teaching-learning-based optimization algorithm. Optimal Control Appl. Methods 39(1), 65–77 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Han, Y.Y., Gong, D.W., Jin, Y.C., Pan, Q.K.: Evolutionary multiobjective blocking lot-streaming flow shop scheduling with machine breakdowns. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 99, 1–14 (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huang, F., Wang, L., He, Q.: An effective co-evolutionary differential evolution for constrained optimization. Appl. Math. Comput. 186(1), 340–356 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coello Coello, C.A., Mezura-Montes, E.: Constraint-Handling in genetic algorithms through the use of dominance-based tournament selection. Adv. Eng. Inform. 16(3), 193–203 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mo, H.W., Xu, L.F.: Magnetotactic bacteria algorithm for function optimization. J. Softw. Eng. Appl. 5, 66–71 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mo, H.W., Liu, L.L., Zhao, J.: A new magnetotactic bacteria optimization algorithm based on moment migration. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinf. 14(1), 15–26 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mo, H.W., Zhao, Y.Y.: Motor imagery electroencephalograph classification based on optimized support vector machine by magnetic bacteria optimization algorithm. Neural Process. Lett. 44(1), 185–197 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jia, G.B., Wang, Y., Cai, Z.X.: An improved (μ + λ)-constrained differential evolution for constrained optimization. Inf. Sci. 222, 302–322 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang, Y., Cai, Z., Zhou, Y., Zeng, W.: An adaptive tradeoff model for constrained evolutionary optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 12(1), 80–92 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang, Y., Cai, Z.: Constrained evolutionary optimization by means of (μ + λ)-differential evolution and improved adaptive trade-off model. Evol. Comput. 19(2), 249–285 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang, Y., Cai, Z., Guo, G., Zhou, Y.: Multiobjective optimization and hybrid evolutionary algorithm to solve constrained optimization problems. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B Cybern. 37(3), 560–575 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Runarsson, T.P., Yao, X.: Stochastic ranking for constrained evolutionary optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 4(3), 284–294 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kusakci, A.O., Can, M.: An adaptive penalty based covariance matrix adaptation–evolutions strategy. Comput. Oper. Res. 40, 2398–2417 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Toscano, G., Landa, R., Lárraga, G., Leguizamón, G.: On the use of stochastic ranking for parent selection in differential evolution for constrained optimization. Soft. Comput. 21(16), 4617–4633 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mezura-Montes, E., Miranda-Varela, M.E., del Carmen Gómez-Ramón, R.: Differential evolution in constrained numerical optimization: an empirical study. Inf. Sci. 180(22), 4223–4262 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LiaoCheng UniversityLiaochengChina

Personalised recommendations