DNA Double-Helix and SQP Hybrid Genetic Algorithm

  • Jili TaoEmail author
  • Ridong Zhang
  • Yong Zhu


By utilizing the global exploration of GA and local exploitation characteristics of sequential quadratic programming (SQP), a hybrid genetic algorithm (HGA) is proposed in this chapter for the highly nonlinear constrained functions. Thereafter, the theoretical analysis for the convergence of the HGA is then made. In the global exploration phase, the Hamming cliff problem is solved by DNA double-helix structure, and DNA computing inspired operators are introduced to improve the global searching capability of GA.


  1. 1.
    Michalewicz, Z. 1994. Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution Programs. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sivanandam, S, and S Deepa. 2008. Genetic Algorithms. In Introduction to genetic algorithms, 15–37. Springer.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cukras, A.R., et al. 1999. Chess games: A model for RNA based computation. Biosystems 52 (1–3): 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boneh, D., et al. 1996. On the computational power of DNA. Discrete Applied Mathematics 71 (1–3): 79–94.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Adleman, L.M. 1994. Molecular computation of solutions to combinatorial problems. Science 266 (1): 1021–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ding, Y, and L Ren. 2000. DNA Genetic Algorithm For Design of the Generalized Membership-Type Takagi-Sugeno Fuzzy Control System. In 2000 IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics. IEEE.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yoshikawa, T, Furuhashi, and Y Uchikawa. 1997. The effects of combination of DNA coding method with pseudo-bacterial GA. In Proceedings of 1997 IEEE international conference on evolutionary computation (ICEC’97). IEEE.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tao, J.L., and N. Wang. 2007. Engineering, DNA computing based RNA genetic algorithm with applications in parameter estimation of chemical engineering processes. Computers & Chemical Engineering 31 (12): 1602–1618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yan, W., et al. 2006. A hybrid genetic algorithm-interior point method for optimal reactive power flow. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 21 (3): 1163–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Myung, H., and J.H. Kim. 1996. Hybrid evolutionary programming for heavily constrained problems. Biosystems 38 (1): 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gudla, P.K., and R. Ganguli. 2005. An automated hybrid genetic-conjugate gradient algorithm for multimodal optimization problems. Applied Mathematics Computation 167 (2): 1457–1474.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Başokur, A.T., I. Akca, and N.W. Siyam. 2007. Hybrid genetic algorithms in view of the evolution theories with application for the electrical sounding method. Geophysical Prospecting 55 (3): 393–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tao, J., and N. Wang. 2008. DNA double helix based hybrid GA for the gasoline blending recipe optimization problem. Chemical Engineering Technology 31 (3): 440–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ponsich, A., et al. 2008. Constraint handling strategies in Genetic Algorithms application to optimal batch plant design. Chemical Engineering and Processing 47 (3): 420–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rey Horn, J., N Nafpliotis, and D. E. Goldberg. 1994.A niched Pareto genetic algorithm for multiobjective optimization. In Proceedings of the first IEEE conference on evolutionary computation, IEEE world congress on computational intelligence. Citeseer.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chakraborty, U.K., and C.Z. Janikow. 2003. An analysis of Gray versus binary encoding in genetic search. Information Sciences 156 (3): 253–269.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tao, J., and Wang, N. 2007. DNA computing based RNA genetic algorithm with applications in parameter estimation of chemical engineering processes. Computers and Chemical Engineering 31 (12): 1602–1618.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Athreya, K.B., and P. Ney. 1978. A new approach to the limit theory of recurrent Markov chains. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 245: 493–501. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosenthal, J.S. 1995. Minorization Conditions and Convergence Rates for Markov Chain Monte Carlo. Publications of the American Statistical Association 90 (430): 558–566.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Deb, K. 2000. An efficient constraint handling method for genetic algorithms. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics Engineering 186 (2): 311–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information Science and EngineeringNingboTech UniversityNingboChina
  2. 2.The Belt and Road Information Research InstituteHangzhou Dianzi UniversityHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations