IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v11y2023i8p1928-d1127720.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Successive Approximation Genetic Algorithm (SAGA) for Optimization Problems with Single Constraint

Author

Listed:
  • Zhihua Chen

    (State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China
    Department of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China)

  • Xuchen Xu

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China)

  • Hongbo Liu

    (State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China
    Department of Civil Engineering, Hebei University of Engineering, Handan 056038, China)

Abstract

A limited feasible region restricts individuals from evolving optionally and makes it more difficult to solve constrained optimization problems. In order to overcome difficulties such as introducing initial feasible solutions, a novel algorithm called the successive approximation genetic algorithm (SAGA) is proposed; (a) the simple genetic algorithm (SGA) is the main frame; (b) a self-adaptive penalty function is considered and the penalty factor is adjusted automatically by the proportion of feasible and infeasible solutions; (c) a generation-by-generation approach and a three-stages evolution are introduced; and (d) dynamically enlarging and reducing the tolerance error of the constraint violation makes it much easier to generate initial feasible solutions. Then, ten benchmarks and an engineering problem were adopted to evaluate the SAGA in detail. It was compared with the improved dual-population genetic algorithm (IDPGA) and eight other algorithms, and the results show that SAGA finds the optimum in 5 s for an equality constraint and 1 s for an inequality constraint. The largest constraint violation can be accurate to at least three decimal fractions for most problems. SAGA obtains a better value, of 1.3398, than the eight other algorithms for the engineering problem. In conclusion, SAGA is very suitable for solving nonlinear optimization problems with a single constraint, accompanied by more accurate solutions, but it takes a longer time. In reality, SAGA searched for a better solution along the bound after several iterations and converged to an acceptable solution in early evolution. It is critical to improve the running speed of SAGA in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhihua Chen & Xuchen Xu & Hongbo Liu, 2023. "The Successive Approximation Genetic Algorithm (SAGA) for Optimization Problems with Single Constraint," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-26, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:11:y:2023:i:8:p:1928-:d:1127720
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/8/1928/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/8/1928/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yang, Ao & Qiu, Qingan & Zhu, Mingren & Cui, Lirong & Chen, Weilin & Chen, Jianhui, 2022. "Condition-based maintenance strategy for redundant systems with arbitrary structures using improved reinforcement learning," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).
    2. Tsai, Shing Chih & Fu, Sheng Yang, 2014. "Genetic-algorithm-based simulation optimization considering a single stochastic constraint," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(1), pages 113-125.
    3. Atidel Ben Hadj-Alouane & James C. Bean, 1997. "A Genetic Algorithm for the Multiple-Choice Integer Program," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 45(1), pages 92-101, February.
    4. Qiu, Qingan & Cui, Lirong & Gao, Hongda & Yi, He, 2018. "Optimal allocation of units in sequential probability series systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 351-363.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yaguang Wu, 2023. "Optimal Stopping and Loading Rules Considering Multiple Attempts and Task Success Criteria," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Zhao, Xian & Wang, Xinlei & Dai, Ying & Qiu, Qingan, 2024. "Joint optimization of loading, mission abort and rescue site selection policies for UAV," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    3. Ling, Xiaoliang & Wei, Yinzhao & Si, Shubin, 2019. "Reliability optimization of k-out-of-n system with random selection of allocative components," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 186-193.
    4. Zong-Zhi Lin & James C. Bean & Chelsea C. White, 2004. "A Hybrid Genetic/Optimization Algorithm for Finite-Horizon, Partially Observed Markov Decision Processes," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 27-38, February.
    5. Ke Chen & Xian Zhao & Qingan Qiu, 2022. "Optimal Task Abort and Maintenance Policies Considering Time Redundancy," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-16, April.
    6. Qiu, Qingan & Cui, Lirong, 2019. "Gamma process based optimal mission abort policy," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Martin Schlüter & Matthias Gerdts, 2010. "The oracle penalty method," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 293-325, June.
    8. Yang, Li & Zhao, Yu & Peng, Rui & Ma, Xiaobing, 2018. "Hybrid preventive maintenance of competing failures under random environment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 130-140.
    9. Miettinen, Kaisa & Makela, Marko M., 2006. "Synchronous approach in interactive multiobjective optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 170(3), pages 909-922, May.
    10. Alice E. Smith, 2023. "Note from the Editor," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 711-712, July.
    11. Jeffrey W. Ohlmann & Barrett W. Thomas, 2007. "A Compressed-Annealing Heuristic for the Traveling Salesman Problem with Time Windows," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 80-90, February.
    12. Jacob R. Fooks & Kent D. Messer & Maik Kecinski, 2018. "A Cautionary Note on the Use of Benefit Metrics for Cost-Effective Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(4), pages 985-999, December.
    13. Yaguang Wu & Qingan Qiu, 2022. "Optimal Triggering Policy of Protective Devices Considering Self-Exciting Mechanism of Shocks," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(15), pages 1-18, August.
    14. Tsai, Shing Chih & Chen, Sin Ting, 2017. "A simulation-based multi-objective optimization framework: A case study on inventory management," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 148-159.
    15. Qingan Qiu & Lirong Cui & Dejing Kong, 2019. "Availability and maintenance modeling for a two-component system with dependent failures over a finite time horizon," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 233(2), pages 200-210, April.
    16. Zhao, Xian & Liu, Haoran & Wu, Yaguang & Qiu, Qingan, 2023. "Joint optimization of mission abort and system structure considering dynamic tasks," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    17. Wang, Jinhe & Zhang, Xiaohong & Zeng, Jianchao & Zhang, Yunzheng, 2020. "Joint external and internal opportunistic optimisation for wind turbine considering wind velocity," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 380-398.
    18. Liu, Hengchang & Li, Bo & Yao, Fengming & Hu, Gexi & Xie, Lei, 2024. "Maintenance optimization of multi-unit balanced systems using deep reinforcement learning," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    19. Turan, Hasan Hüseyin & Jalalvand, Fatemeh & Elsawah, Sondoss & Ryan, Michael J., 2022. "A joint problem of strategic workforce planning and fleet renewal: With an application in defense," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 296(2), pages 615-634.
    20. Alexouda, Georgia & Paparrizos, Konstantinos, 2001. "A genetic algorithm approach to the product line design problem using the seller's return criterion: An extensive comparative computational study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 165-178, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:11:y:2023:i:8:p:1928-:d:1127720. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.