A Niched-Penalty Approach for Constraint Handling in Genetic Algorithms
Most applications of genetic algorithms (GAs) in handling constraints use a straightforward penalty function method. Such techniques involve penalty parameters which must be set right in order for GAs to work. Although many researchers use adaptive variation of penalty parameters and penalty functions, the general conclusion is that these variations are specific to a problem and cannot be generalized. In this paper, we propose a niched-penalty approach which does not require any penalty parameter. The penalty function creates a selective pressure towards the feasible region and a niching maintains diversity among feasible solutions for the genetic recombination operator to find new feasible solutions. The approach is only ap plicable to population-based approaches, thereby giving GAs (or other evolutionary algorithms) a niche in exploiting this penalty-parameter-less penalty approach.Simulation results on a number of constrained optimization problems suggest the efficacy of the proposed method.
KeywordsPenalty Function Penalty Parameter Constraint Violation Constraint Handling Penalty Function Method
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Deb, K.: Optimization for engineering design: Algorithms and examples. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall 1995.Google Scholar
- Deb, K., Goldberg, D. E.: An investigation of niche and species formation in genetic function optimization, Proc. Third International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, Washington D. C, pp. 42–50, 1989.Google Scholar
- Deb, K., Goyal, M.: A combined genetic adaptive search (GeneAS) for engineering design, Computer Science and Informatics, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 30–45, 1996.Google Scholar
- Harik, G., Cantu-Paz, E., Goldberg, D. E., Miller, B. L.: The gambler’s ruin problem, genetic algorithms, and the sizing of populations, Proc. 1997 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, Orlando, FL, pp. 7–12, 1997.Google Scholar
- Hock, W., Schittkowski, K.: Test examples for nonlinear programming code, Lecture Notes on Economics and Mathematical Systems, 187, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1980.Google Scholar
- Joines, J. A., Houck, C. R.: On the use of nonstation-ary penalty functions to solve nonlinear constrained optimization problems with GAs, Proc International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, Orlando, FL, pp. 579–584, 1994.Google Scholar
- Michalewicz, Z.: Genetic algorithms, numerical optimization, and constraints, Proc. Sixth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, Carnegie-Mellon, PA, pp. 151–158,1995.Google Scholar
- Michalewicz, Z., Attia, N.: Evolutionary optimization of constrained problems, Proc. Third Annual Conference on Evolutionary Programming, pp. 98–108,1994.Google Scholar
- Powell, D., Skolnick, M. M.: Using genetic algorithms in engineering design optimization with nonlinear constraints, Proc. Fifth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, Urbana, IL, pp. 424–430,1993.Google Scholar
- Reklaitis, G. V, Ravindran, A., Ragsdell, K. M.: Engineering optimization methods and applications, New York: Wiley, 1983.Google Scholar
- Richardson, J. T., Palmer, M. R., Liepins, G., Hilliard, M: Some guidelines for genetic algorithms with penalty functions, Proc. Third International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, Washington D. C, pp. 191–197,1989.Google Scholar