2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2013.04.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A rough penalty genetic algorithm for constrained optimization

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
24
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 68 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
24
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Even though the penalty function is very simple and popular, it is not trivial to define a set of appropriate penalty factors. To circumvent this problem, researchers have proposed many variants of penalty function method to deal with penalty factor values, such as dynamic method (Paszkowicz, 2009), adaptive method (Tessema & Yen, 2009), co-evolved method (Coello Coello, 2000), fuzzy method (Wu, Yu, & Liu, 2001), and some other methods (Lin, 2013). Among these methods, the adaptive penalty function is one of the most competitive approaches.…”
Section: ) Penalty Functionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Even though the penalty function is very simple and popular, it is not trivial to define a set of appropriate penalty factors. To circumvent this problem, researchers have proposed many variants of penalty function method to deal with penalty factor values, such as dynamic method (Paszkowicz, 2009), adaptive method (Tessema & Yen, 2009), co-evolved method (Coello Coello, 2000), fuzzy method (Wu, Yu, & Liu, 2001), and some other methods (Lin, 2013). Among these methods, the adaptive penalty function is one of the most competitive approaches.…”
Section: ) Penalty Functionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this section, we will compare BSA-SAe with some classic and latest constrained optimization algorithms, which include stochastic ranking (SR) (Runarsson & Yao, 2000), nonlinear simplex method with mutations using the a constrained method (a Simplex) , agent based memetic algorithm (AMA) (Ullah, Sarker, & Cornforth, 2007), modified artificial bee colony algorithm (MABC) (Karaboga & Akay, 2011), and penalty genetic algorithm based on rough set theory (RPGA) (Lin, 2013). The largest number of function evaluation on the 13 benchmark functions is set as 350,000 times, and each algorithm runs 30 times on each function independently.…”
Section: Comparison Of Bsa-sae and Other Constrained Optimization Algmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, a cluster-replacement-based feasibility rule was developed to alleviate the greediness of the feasibility rule. To effectively handle constraints, genetic algorithm was hybridized with the rough set theory and the penalty function was used as constraint handling (Lin, 2013). Moreover, many bioinspired algorithms were applied to constrained optimization problem such as bacterial-inspired algorithm (Niu et al, 2015), elephant herding optimization (Ivana Strumberger et al, 2018), particle swarm optimization (Garg, 2016), grey wolf optimization algorithm (Kohli and Arora, 2017) etc.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some of the most popular EAs suggested in the literature are Genetic Algorithm (GA) [1], Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) [2] , Simulated Annealing algorithm (SA) [3], Cultural Evolutionary algorithm [4], Modified Differential Evolution (COMDE) [5], Rough Penalty Genetic Algorithm (RPGA) [6], Modified Artificial Bee Colony algorithm (MABC) [7] etc. However, most of these algorithms are either complicated or suffer with computational burdensome to handle equality constraints.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%