Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:22:21.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CAM-ADX: A New Genetic Algorithm with Increased Intensification and Diversification for Design Optimization Problems with Real Variables

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2019

Edson Koiti Kudo Yasojima Open the ORCID record for Edson Koiti Kudo Yasojima [Opens in a new window] ,
Roberto Célio Limão de Oliveira ,
Otávio Noura Teixeira  and
Rodrigo Lisbôa Pereira
Edson Koiti Kudo Yasojima*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Computer Engineering, Federal University of Pará, Rua Augusto Corrêa 01, Caixa Postal 479, Guamá, Belém, Pará CEP:66075-100, Brazil E-mails: [email protected]; [email protected]
Roberto Célio Limão de Oliveira
Affiliation:
Faculty of Computer Engineering, Federal University of Pará, Rua Augusto Corrêa 01, Caixa Postal 479, Guamá, Belém, Pará CEP:66075-100, Brazil E-mails: [email protected]; [email protected]
Otávio Noura Teixeira
Affiliation:
Faculty of Computer Engineering, Federal University of Pará, Campus Universitário de Tucuruí, Rua Itaipu, 36 - Vila Permanente, Tucuruí, Pará CEP:68464-000, Brazil E-mail: [email protected]
Rodrigo Lisbôa Pereira
Affiliation:
Faculty of Computer Engineering, Federal University of Pará, Campus Universitário de Tucuruí, Rua Itaipu, 36 - Vila Permanente, Tucuruí, Pará CEP:68464-000, Brazil E-mail: [email protected]
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This paper presents a modified genetic algorithm (GA) using a new crossover operator (ADX) and a novel statistic correlation mutation algorithm (CAM). Both ADX and CAM work with population information to improve existing individuals of the GA and increase the exploration potential via the correlation mutation. Solution-based methods offer better local improvement of already known solutions while lacking at exploring the whole search space; in contrast, evolutionary algorithms provide better global search in exchange of exploitation power. Hybrid methods are widely used for constrained optimization problems due to increased global and local search capabilities. The modified GA improves results of constrained problems by balancing the exploitation and exploration potential of the algorithm. The conducted tests present average performance for various CEC’2015 benchmark problems, while offering better reliability and superior results on path planning problem for redundant manipulator and most of the constrained engineering design problems tested compared with current works in the literature and classic optimization algorithms.

Keywords

Genetic algorithmDesign optimizationReal variablesEngineering design
Type
Articles
Information
Robotica , Volume 37 , Issue 9 , September 2019 , pp. 1595 - 1640
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Michalewicz, Z., Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution Programs (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, X. and Gen, M., Introduction to Evolutionary Algorithms (Springer-Verlag, London, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garg, H., “Solving structural engineering design optimization problems using an artificial bee colony algorithm,” J. Ind. Manage. Optim. 10(3), 777–794 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garg, H., “A hybrid PSO-GA algorithm for constrained optimization problems,” Appl. Math. Comput. 274, 292–305 (2016).Google Scholar
Cheraghalipour, A., Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M. and Mahdi Paydar, M., “Tree Growth Algorithm (TGA): A novel approach for solving optimization problems,” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 72, 393–414 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., Xiao, M., Gao, L. and Pan, Q., “Queuing search algorithm: A novel metaheuristic algorithm for solving engineering optimization problems,” Appl. Math. Modell. 63, 464–490 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patwal, R. S., Narang, N. and Garg, H., “A novel TVAC-PSO based mutation strategies algorithm for generation scheduling of pumped storage hydrothermal system incorporating solar units,” Energy 142, 822–837 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rani, D., Gulati, T. R. and Garg, H., “Multi-objective non-linear programming problem in intuitionistic fuzzy environment: Optimistic and pessimistic view point,” Expert Syst. Appl. 64, 228–238 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garg, H., “An efficient biogeography-based optimization algorithm for solving reliability optimization problems,” Swarm Evol. Comput. 24, 1–10 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garg, H. and Sharma, S. P., “Multi-objective reliability-redundancy allocation problem using particle swarm optimization,” Comput. Ind. Eng. 64(1), 247–255 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garg, H., “Performance analysis of an industrial system using soft computing based hybridized technique,” J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 39, 1441–1451 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hills, T. T., Todd, P. M., Lazer, D., Redish, A. D. and Couzin, I. D., “Exploration versus exploitation in space, mind, and society,” Trends Cognit. Sci. 19(1), 46–54 (2014).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crepinsek, M., Liu, S. H. and Mernik, M., “Exploration and exploitation in evolutionary algorithms: A survey,” ACM Comput. Surv. 45(3), 33–35 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pandeya, H. M., Chaudharyb, A. and Mehrotrac, D., “A comparative review of approaches to prevent premature convergence in GA,” Appl. Soft Comput. 24, 1047–1077 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, Y.-Y., Lee, K.-H., Leung, K.-S. and Ho, C.-W., “A novel approach in parameter adaptation and diversity maintenance for genetic algorithms,” Soft Comput. 7, 506–515 (2003).Google Scholar
Curran, D., O’Riordan, C. and Sorensen, H., “The effects of lifetime learning on the diversity and fitness of populations,” Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, London, UK (2007) p. 337.Google Scholar
McGinley, B., Maher, J., O’Riordan, C. and Morgan, F., “Maintaining healthy population diversity using adaptive crossover, mutation, and selection,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 15(5), 692–714 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eshelman, L. J. and Schaffer, J. D., “Real-coded genetic algorithms and interval-schemata,” Proceedings of the Workshop on Foundations of Genetic Algorithms, Vail, Colorado, USA (1992) pp. 187–202.Google Scholar
Deb, K. and Agrawal, R. B., “Simulated binary crossover for continuous search space,” Complex Syst. 9, 115–148 (1995).Google Scholar
Cervantes-Castilho, A., Mezura-Montes, E. and Coello, C., “An empirical comparison of two crossover operators in real-coded genetic algorithms for constrained numerical optimization problems,” Special Session on Evolutionary Computation (ROPEC), Ixtapa, Mexico (2014).Google Scholar
Chuang, Y. C., Chen, C. T. and Hwang, C., “A real-coded genetic algorithm with direction-based crossover operator,” Inf. Sci. 305, 320–348 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, M., Qianting, L., Meiqiong, M. and Sicong, L., “Optimization and application of single point crossover and multi offspring genetic algorithm,” Int. J. Hybrid Inf. Technol. 9(1), 1–8 (2016).Google Scholar
Zhu, Q., Lin, Q., Du, Z., Liang, Z., Wang, W., Zhu, Z., Chen, J., Huang, P. and Ming, Z., “A novel adaptive hybrid crossover operator for multi objective evolutionary algorithm,” Inf. Sci. 345, 177–198 (2016).Google Scholar
Chuanga, Y.-C., Chena, C.-T. and Hwangba, C., “A simple and efficient real-coded genetic algorithm for constrained optimization,” Appl. Soft Comput. 38, 87–105 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Z.-Q. and Yin, Y.-F., “A new crossover operator for real-coded genetic algorithm with selective breeding based on difference between individuals,” 8th International Conference on Natural Computation (ICNC), Chongqing, Sichuan, China (2012).Google Scholar
Kaya, Y., Uyar, M. and Tekin, R., “A novel crossover for genetic algorithm: Ring crossover,” CoRR http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0355 (2011).Google Scholar
Ling, S. H., “Iterated function system-based crossover operation for real-coded genetic algorithm,” J. Intell. Learn. Syst. Appl. 7, 37–41 (2015).Google Scholar
Kendall, M. G., Rank Correlation Methods (Hafner Publishing Co., New York, 1955).Google Scholar
Abdi, H., “The Kendall rank correlation coefficient,” In: Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics (Salkind, N., ed.) (SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2007).Google Scholar
Chen, Q., Liu, B., Zhang, Q., Liang, J. J., Suganthan, P. N. and Qu, B. Y., “Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for CEC 2015 special session on bound constrained single-objective computationally expensive numerical optimization,” IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation, Sendai, Japan (2015).Google Scholar
Rueda, J. L. and Erlich, I., “MVMO for bound constrained single-objective computationally expensive numerical optimization,” 2015 IEEE Congress on evolutionary Computation, Sendai, Japan (2015) pp. 1011–1017.Google Scholar
Andersson, M., Bandaru, S., Ng, A. and Syberfeldt, A., “Parameter tuned CMA-ES on the CEC’15 expensive problems,” 2015 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Sendai, Japan (2015) pp. 1950–1957.Google Scholar
Tanweer, M. R., Suresh, S. and Sundararajan, N., “Improved srpso algorithm for solving cec 2015 computationally expensive numerical optimization problems,” 2015 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Sendai, Japan (2015) pp. 1943–1949.Google Scholar
Al-Dujaili, A., Subramanian, K. and Suresh, S., “Humancog: A cognitive architecture for solving optimization problems,” 2015 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Sendai, Japan (2015) pp. 3220–3227.Google Scholar
Momani, S., Abo-Hammour, Z. and Alsmadi, O., “Solution of inverse kinematics problem using genetic algorithms,” Appl. Math. Inf. Sci. 10, 1–9 (2015).Google Scholar
Abo-Hammour, Z. S., Alsmadi, O. M. K., Bataineh, S. I., Al-Omari, M. A. and Affach, N., “Continuous genetic algorithms for collision-free cartesian path planning of robot manipulators,” Int. J. Adv. Rob. Syst. 8(6), 14–36 (2011).Google Scholar
Sandgren, E., “Nonlinear integer and discrete programming in mechanical design,” Proceeding of the ASME Design Technology Conference, Kissimmee, Florida (1988), pp. 95–105.Google Scholar
Deb, K., “Optimal design of a welded beam via genetic algorithms,” AIAA J. 29(11), 2013–2015 (1991).Google Scholar
Belegundu, A. D., A Study of Mathematical Programming Methods for Structural Optimization (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, 1982).Google Scholar
Golinski, J., “Optimal synthesis problems solved by means of nonlinear programming and random methods,” J. Mech. 5, 287–309 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, M., Luo, W. and Wang, X., “Differential evolution with dynamic stochastic selection for constrained optimization,” Inf. Sci. 178, 3043–3074 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michalewicz, Z. and Schoenauer, M., “Evolutionary algorithms for constrained parameter optimization problems,” Evol. Comput. 4(1), 1–32 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amanchi, S. A., Applied Nonparametric Statistical Tests to Compare Evolutionary and Swarm Intelligence Approaches (Master of Science, Department of Computer Science, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota, USA, 2014).Google Scholar
Zhao, Y., Cail, Y. and Cheng, D., “A novel local exploitation scheme for conditionally breeding real-coded genetic algorithm,” Multimedia Tools Appl. 76, 17955–17969 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimopoulos, G. G., “Mixed-variable engineering optimization based on evolutionary and social metaphors,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 196, 803–817 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahdavi, M., Fesanghary, M. and Damangir, E., “An improved harmony search algorithm for solving optimization problems,” Appl. Math. Comput. 188, 1567–1579 (2007).Google Scholar
Hedar, A. R. and Fukushima, M., “Derivative – free filter simulated annealing method for constrained continuous global optimization,” J. Global Optim. 35, 521–549 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gandomi, A. H., Yang, X. S. and Alavi, A. H., “Mixed variable structural optimization using firefly algorithm,” Comput. Struct. 89, 2325–2336 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohamed, A.W., “A novel differential evolution algorithm for solving constrained engineering optimization problems,” J. Intell. Manuf. 29(3), 659–692 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohamed, A.W. and Sabry, H. Z., “Constrained optimization based on modified differential evolution algorithm,” Inf. Sci. 194, 171–208 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, L. and Li, L., “An effective differential evolution with level comparison for constrained engineering design,” Struct. Multi. Optim. 41, 947–963 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mezura-Montes, E., Coello, C. A. C., Velázquez-Reyes, J., and MuñozDávila, L., “Multiple trial vectors in differential evolution for engineering design,” Eng. Optim. 39(5), 567–589 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melo, V. V. and Carosio, G. L., “Investigating multi-view differential evolution for solving constrained engineering design problems,” Expert Syst. Appl. 40(9), 3370–3377 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gong, W., Cai, Z. and Liang, D., “Engineering optimization by means of an improved constrained differential evolution,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 268, 884–904 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, Q. and Wang, L., “An effective co-evolutionary particle swarm optimization for constrained engineering design problems,” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 20, 89–99 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadollah, A., Bahreininejada, A., Eskandar, H., and Hamdi, M., “Mine blast algorithm: A new population-based algorithm for solving constrained engineering optimization problems,” Appl. Soft Comput. 13, 2592–2612 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskandar, H., Sadollah, A., Bahreininejad, A. and Hamdi, M., “Water cycle algorithm – A novel metaheuristic optimization method for solving constrained engineering optimization problems,” Comput. Struct. 110–111, 151–166 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragsdell, K. M. and Phillips, D. T., “Optimal design of a class of welded structures using geometric programming,” ASME J. Eng. Ind. 98, 1021–1025 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, S. S., Engineering Optimization: Theory and Practice, 3rd edition (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1996).Google Scholar
Deb, K., “An efficient constraint handling method for genetic algorithms,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 186, 311–338 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, T. and Liew, K. M., “Society and civilization: An optimization algorithm based on the simulation of social behavior,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 7, 386–396 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hwang, S. F. and He, R. S., “A hybrid real-parameter genetic algorithm for function optimization,” Adv. Eng. Inf. 20, 7–21 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehta, V. K. and Dasgupta, B., “A constrained optimization algorithm based on the simplex search method,” Eng. Optim. 44, 537–550 (2012).Google Scholar
Arora, J. S., Introduction to Optimum Design (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1989).Google Scholar
Coello, C. A. C., “Use of a self-adaptive penalty approach for engineering optimization problems,” Comput. Ind. 41, 113–127 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, T. and Saini, P., “Engineering design optimization using a swarm with an intelligent information sharing among individuals,” Eng. Optim. 33, 735–748 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coello, C. A. C. and Montes, E. M., “Constraint-handling in genetic algorithms through the use of dominance-based tournament selection,” Adv. Eng. Inf. 16, 193–203 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, X. H., Eberhart, R. C. and Shi, Y. H., “Engineering optimization with particle swarm,” Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA (2003) pp. 53–57.Google Scholar
He, S., Prempain, E. and Wu, Q. H., “An improved particle swarm optimizer for mechanical design optimization problems,” Eng. Optim. 36, 585–605 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montes, E. M. and Coello, C. A. C., “An empirical study about the usefulness of evolution strategies to solve constrained optimization problems,” Int. J. Gen. Syst. 37, 443–473 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cagnina, L. C., Esquivel, S. C. and Coello, C. A. C., “Solving engineering optimization problem with the simple constrained particle swarm optimizer,” Informatica 32, 319–326 (2008).Google Scholar
Kaveh, A. and Talatahari, S., “An improved ant colony optimization for constrained engineering design problems,” Eng. Comput. 27, 155–182 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omran, M. G. H. and Salman, A., “Constrained optimization using CODEQ,” Chaos, Solitons Fractals 42, 662–668 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coelho, L. S., “Gaussian quantum-behaved particle swarm optimization approaches for constrained engineering design problems,” Expert Syst. Appl. 37, 1676–1683 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akay, B. and Karaboga, D., “Artificial bee colony algorithm for large-scale problems and engineering design optimization,” J. Intell. Manuf. 23, 1001–1014 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akhtar, S., Tai, K. and Ray, T., “A socio-behavioral simulation model for engineering design optimization,” Eng. Optim. 34(4), 341–354 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, S. S. and Xiong, Y., “A hybrid genetic algorithm for mixed discrete design optimization,” J. Mech. Des. 127(6), 1100–1112 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaberipour, M. and Khorram, E., “Two improved harmony search algorithms for solving engineering optimization problems,” Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 15(11), 3316–3331 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H. L. and Papalambros, P., “A production system for use of global optimization knowledge,” J. Mech. Transm. Autom. Des. 107(2), 277–284 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tosserams, S., Etman, L. F. P. and Rooda, J. E., “An augmented Lagrangian decomposition method for quasi-separable problems in MDO,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 34(3), 211–227 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, S. and Kim, H. M., “A regularized inexact penalty decomposition algorithm for multidisciplinary design optimization problems with complementarity constraints,” J. Mech. Des. 132(4), 12, Art. ID 041005 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, M.-H., Tsai, J.-F. and Wang, P.-C., “Solving engineering optimization problems by a deterministic global optimization approach,” Appl. Math. Inf. Sci. 6(3), 1101–1107 (2012).Google Scholar
Huang, C. H., “Engineering design by geometric programming,” Math. Prob. Eng. 2013, 8, Art. ID 568098 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, M.-H., Tsai, J.-F., Hu, N.-Z. and Chang, S.-C., “Design optimization of a speed reducer using deterministic techniques,” In: Mathematical Problems in Engineering (Hindawi Publishing Corporation, London, UK, 2013).Google Scholar
Wang, Y., Cai, Z. and Zhou, Y., “Accelerating adaptive trade-off model using shrinking space technique for constrained evolutionary optimization,” Int. Method Numer. Methods Eng. 77(11), 1501–1534 (2009).Google Scholar
Kannan, B. K. and Kramer, S. N., “An augmented lagrange multiplier based method for mixed integer discrete continuous optimization and its applications to mechanical design,” Trans. ASME J. Mech. Des. 116, 318–320 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deb, K. and Goyal, M., “A combined genetic adaptive search (GeneAS) for engineering design,” Comput. Sci. Inf. 26(4), 30–45 (1996).Google Scholar
Gandomi, A., Yang, X. S. and Alavi, A., “Cuckoo search algorithm: A metaheuristic approach to solve structural optimization problems,” Eng. Comput. 29(1), 17–35 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deb, K. and Gene, A. S., “A robust optimal design technique for mechanical component design,” In: Evolutionary Algorithms in Engineering Applications (Dasgupta, D. and Michalewicz, Z. eds.) (Springer, Berlin, 1997) pp. 497–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaveh, A. and Talatahari, S., “Engineering optimization with hybrid particle swarm and ant colony optimization,” Asian J. Civil Eng. (Build. Hous.) 10, 611–628 (2009).Google Scholar