DOCSLIB.ORG

New Heuristic and Metaheuristic Approaches Applied to the Multiple-Choice Multidimensional Knapsack Problem

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New Heuristic and Metaheuristic Approaches Applied to the Multiple-Choice Multidimensional Knapsack Problem Wright State University CORE Scholar Browse all Theses and Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2008 New Heuristic And Metaheuristic Approaches Applied To The Multiple-choice Multidimensional Knapsack Problem Chaitr Hiremath Wright State University Follow this and additional works at: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/etd_all Part of the Engineering Commons Repository Citation Hiremath, Chaitr, "New Heuristic And Metaheuristic Approaches Applied To The Multiple-choice Multidimensional Knapsack Problem" (2008). Browse all Theses and Dissertations. 223. https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/etd_all/223 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at CORE Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Browse all Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CORE Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. New Heuristic And Metaheuristic Approaches Applied To The Multiple-choice Multidimensional Knapsack Problem A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Chaitr S. Hiremath M.S., Wright State University, 2004 2008 Wright State University COPYRIGHT BY Chaitr S. Hiremath 2008 WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES February 23, 2008 I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE DISSERTATION PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION BY Chaitr S. Hiremath ENTITLED New Heuristic And Metaheuristic Approaches Applied To The Multiple-choice Multidimensional Knapsack Problem BE AC- CEPTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DE- GREE OF Doctor of Philosophy. Raymond R. Hill, Ph.D. Dissertation Director Ramana Grandhi, Ph.D. Director, Engineering Ph.D. Program Joseph F. Thomas, Jr. , Ph.D. Dean, School of Graduate Studies Committee on Final Examination Raymond R. Hill, Ph.D. James T. Moore, Ph.D. Xinhui Zhang, Ph.D. Gary Kinney, Ph.D. Mateen Rizki, Ph.D. ABSTRACT Hiremath, Chaitr . Ph.D., Department of Biomedical, Industrial and Human Factors Engineer- ing, Wright State University, 2008. New Heuristic And Metaheuristic Approaches Applied To The Multiple-choice Multidimensional Knapsack Problem. The knapsack problem has been used to model various decision making processes. Industrial appli- cations find the need for satisfying additional constraints and these necessities lead to the variants and extensions of knapsack problems which are complex to solve. Heuristic algorithms have been developed by many researchers to solve the variants of knapsack problems. Empirical analysis has been done to compare the performance of these heuristics. Little research has been done to find out why certain algorithms perform well on certain test problems while not so well on other test problems. There has been little work done to gain knowledge of the test problem characteristics and their effects on algorithm performance. The research focuses on the Multiple-choice Multidimensional Knapsack Problem (MMKP), a complex variant of the knapsack problem. The objectives of the research are fourfold. The first objective is to show how empirical science can lead to theory. The research involves the empirical analysis of current heuristics with respect to problem structure especially constraint correlation and constraint slackness settings. The second objective is to consider the performance traits of heuristic procedures and develop a more diverse set of MMKP test problems considering problem charac- teristics like the number of variables, number of constraints, constraint correlation, and constraint right-hand side capacities. The third objective is the development of new heuristic approaches for solving the MMKP. This involves examining the existing heuristics against our new test set and using the analysis of the results to help in the development of new heuristic approaches. The fourth objective is to develop improved metaheuristic procedures for the MMKP using the improved heuristic approaches to initialize searches or to improve local search neighborhoods. iii Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Discussion of Knapsack Problems .......................... 1 1.2 Overview of the Dissertation Research ........................ 2 1.3 Contributions of the Dissertation Research ...................... 3 2 Multi-Dimensional Knapsack Problems 5 2.1 Introduction ...................................... 5 2.2 Branch-and-Bound Approach ............................. 6 2.3 Dynamic Programming ................................ 10 2.4 Greedy Heuristics ................................... 13 2.5 Transformation Heuristics .............................. 16 2.6 Metaheuristic Approaches .............................. 18 2.6.1 Tabu Search (TS) ............................... 19 2.6.2 Genetic Algorithm (GA) ........................... 22 2.6.3 Simulated Annealing (SA) .......................... 28 3 Extensions and Variants of the Knapsack Problem involving the notion of sets 30 3.1 Introduction ...................................... 30 3.2 Multiple Knapsack Problems (MKP) ......................... 31 3.2.1 MKP Formulation .............................. 31 3.2.2 Heuristic Solution Approaches for MKP ................... 31 3.3 Multiple Choice Knapsack Problems (MCKP) .................... 33 3.3.1 MCKP Formulation ............................. 33 3.3.2 Heuristic Solution Approaches for MCKP .................. 34 3.4 Multiple-choice Multi-dimensional Knapsack Problems (MMKP) ......... 36 3.4.1 MMKP Formulation ............................. 36 3.4.2 Heuristic Solution Approaches for MMKP ................. 37 3.5 Applications and Formulations of the MMKP-type problems ............ 43 4 Legacy Heuristics and Test Problems Analysis 50 4.1 Introduction ...................................... 50 4.2 Legacy Heuristics ................................... 51 4.2.1 Legacy Heuristics for Multiple Knapsack Problems (MKP) ......... 51 4.2.2 Legacy Heuristics for Multiple Choice Knapsack Problems (MCKP) .... 55 iv 4.2.3 Legacy Heuristics for Multiple-choice Multi-dimensional Knapsack Prob- lems (MMKP) ................................ 58 4.3 Test Problem Analysis ................................ 69 4.3.1 Test Problem Analysis for Multiple Knapsack Problems (MKP) ...... 69 4.3.2 Test Problems for Multiple Choice Knapsack Problems (MCKP) ...... 71 4.3.3 Test Problems for Multiple-choice Multi-dimensional Knapsack Problems (MMKP) ................................... 74 4.4 Problem Structure Analysis of Test Problems .................... 76 4.4.1 Structure of MDKP Test Problems ...................... 76 4.4.2 Structure of MKP Test Problems ....................... 78 4.4.3 Structure of MCKP Test Problems ...................... 81 4.4.4 Structure of MMKP Test Problems ...................... 82 4.5 Summary ....................................... 84 5 Empirical Analyses of Legacy MMKP Heuristics and Test Problem Generation 90 5.1 Introduction ...................................... 90 5.2 Problem Generation and Problem Characteristics for MMKP ............ 91 5.2.1 Standard MMKP Test Problem Generation ................. 92 5.2.2 Analytical MMKP Test Problem Generation ................. 93 5.2.3 Competitive MMKP Test Problem Generation ................ 95 5.2.4 Analytical MMKP Test Sets Versus Available MMKP Test Set ....... 97 5.3 Empirical Analyses of MMKP Heuristics on Available Test Problems ....... 102 5.4 Empirical Analyses of MMKP Heuristics on New MMKP Test Problem Set .... 109 5.4.1 Analyses based on Constraint Right-Hand Side Setting ........... 109 5.4.2 Analyses based on Correlation Structure ................... 120 5.5 Summary ....................................... 125 6 New Greedy Heuristics for the MMKP 127 6.1 Introduction ...................................... 127 6.2 A TYPE-based Heuristic for the MMKP ....................... 127 6.3 New Greedy Heuristic Version 1 (CH1) ....................... 130 6.3.1 NG V3 Heuristic (Cho 2005) ......................... 130 6.3.2 CH1 Implementation ............................. 133 6.3.3 Empirical Tests for the CH1 Implementation ................ 134 6.4 New Greedy Heuristic Version 2 (CH2) ....................... 143 6.4.1 CH2 Implementation ............................. 143 6.4.2 Empirical Tests for the CH2 Implementation ................ 146 6.5 Summary ....................................... 152 7 Metaheuristic Solution Procedure for the MMKP 159 7.1 Introduction ...................................... 159 7.2 Concept of a Search Neighborhood .......................... 160 7.3 First-Level Tabu Search (FLTS) for the MMKP ................... 161 7.3.1 FLTS Implementation ............................ 161 7.3.2 Empirical Tests for the FLTS Implementation ................ 163 v 7.3.3 Extensions of the FLTS for the MMKP ................... 172 7.4 Sequential Fan Candidate List (FanTabu) for the MMKP .............. 172 7.4.1 FanTabu Implementation ........................... 175 7.4.2 Empirical Tests for the FanTabu Implementation .............. 177 7.5 CPCCP with Fan Candidate List (CCFT) for the MMKP .............. 188 7.5.1 CCFT Implementation ............................ 188 7.5.2 Empirical Tests for the CCFT Candidate List Implementation ....... 188 7.6 Comparison of TS approaches with Reactive Local Search Approach (RLS) .... 192 7.6.1 RLS Approach ................................ 192 7.6.2 Empirical Tests Comparing TS approaches with RLS Approach ...... 200 7.7 Summary ....................................... 201 8 Summary, Contributions, and Future Avenues 214 8.1 Summary and Contributions ............................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lecture 3 1 Geometry of Linear Programs
    ORIE 6300 Mathematical Programming I September 2, 2014 Lecture 3 Lecturer: David P. Williamson Scribe: Divya Singhvi Last time we discussed how to take dual of an LP in two different ways. Today we will talk about the geometry of linear programs. 1 Geometry of Linear Programs First we need some definitions. Definition 1 A set S ⊆ <n is convex if 8x; y 2 S, λx + (1 − λ)y 2 S, 8λ 2 [0; 1]. Figure 1: Examples of convex and non convex sets Given a set of inequalities we define the feasible region as P = fx 2 <n : Ax ≤ bg. We say that P is a polyhedron. Which points on this figure can have the optimal value? Our intuition from last time is that Figure 2: Example of a polyhedron. \Circled" corners are feasible and \squared" are non feasible optimal solutions to linear programming problems occur at \corners" of the feasible region. What we'd like to do now is to consider formal definitions of the \corners" of the feasible region. 3-1 One idea is that a point in the polyhedron is a corner if there is some objective function that is minimized there uniquely. Definition 2 x 2 P is a vertex of P if 9c 2 <n with cT x < cT y; 8y 6= x; y 2 P . Another idea is that a point x 2 P is a corner if there are no small perturbations of x that are in P . Definition 3 Let P be a convex set in <n. Then x 2 P is an extreme point of P if x cannot be written as λy + (1 − λ)z for y; z 2 P , y; z 6= x, 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Hybridizations of Metaheuristics with Branch & Bound Derivates
    Hybridizations of Metaheuristics With Branch & Bound Derivates Christian Blum1, Carlos Cotta2, Antonio J. Fern´andez2,Jos´e E. Gallardo2, and Monaldo Mastrolilli3 1 ALBCOM research group Universitat Polit`ecnica de Catalunya [email protected] 2 Dept. Lenguajes y Ciencias de la Computaci´on Universidad de M´alaga {ccottap,afdez,pepeg}@lcc.uma.es 3 Istituto Dalle Molle di Studi sull’Intelligenza Artificiale (IDSIA) [email protected] Summary. An important branch of hybrid metaheuristics concerns the hybridiza- tion with branch & bound derivatives. In this chapter we present examples for two different types of hybridization. The first one concerns the use of branch & bound fea- tures within construction-based metaheuristics in order to increase their efficiancy. The second example deals with the use of a metaheuristic, in our case a memetic algorithm, in order to increase the efficiancy of branch & bound, respectively branch & bound derivatives such as beam search. The quality of the resulting hybrid tech- niques is demonstrated by means of the application to classical string problems: the longest common subsequence problem and the shortest common supersequence problem. 1 Introduction One of the basic ingredients of an optimization technique is a mechanism for exploring the search space, that is, the space of valid solutions to the con- sidered optimization problem. Algorithms belonging to the important class of constructive optimization techniques tackle an optimization problem by ex- ploring the search space in form of a tree, a so-called search tree.Thesearch tree is generally defined by an underlying solution construction mechanism. Each path from the root node of the search tree to one of the leaves corre- sponds to the process of constructing a candidate solution.
    [Show full text]
  • Metaheuristics1
    METAHEURISTICS1 Kenneth Sörensen University of Antwerp, Belgium Fred Glover University of Colorado and OptTek Systems, Inc., USA 1 Definition A metaheuristic is a high-level problem-independent algorithmic framework that provides a set of guidelines or strategies to develop heuristic optimization algorithms (Sörensen and Glover, To appear). Notable examples of metaheuristics include genetic/evolutionary algorithms, tabu search, simulated annealing, and ant colony optimization, although many more exist. A problem-specific implementation of a heuristic optimization algorithm according to the guidelines expressed in a metaheuristic framework is also referred to as a metaheuristic. The term was coined by Glover (1986) and combines the Greek prefix meta- (metá, beyond in the sense of high-level) with heuristic (from the Greek heuriskein or euriskein, to search). Metaheuristic algorithms, i.e., optimization methods designed according to the strategies laid out in a metaheuristic framework, are — as the name suggests — always heuristic in nature. This fact distinguishes them from exact methods, that do come with a proof that the optimal solution will be found in a finite (although often prohibitively large) amount of time. Metaheuristics are therefore developed specifically to find a solution that is “good enough” in a computing time that is “small enough”. As a result, they are not subject to combinatorial explosion – the phenomenon where the computing time required to find the optimal solution of NP- hard problems increases as an exponential function of the problem size. Metaheuristics have been demonstrated by the scientific community to be a viable, and often superior, alternative to more traditional (exact) methods of mixed- integer optimization such as branch and bound and dynamic programming.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Emerging Metaheuristic Strategies on Opimal Transmission Pricing
    Evaluation of Emerging Metaheuristic Strategies on Opimal Transmission Pricing José L. Rueda, Senior Member, IEEE István Erlich, Senior Member, IEEE Institute of Electrical Power Systems Institute of Electrical Power Systems University Duisburg-Essen University Duisburg-Essen Duisburg, Germany Duisburg, Germany [email protected] [email protected] Abstract--This paper provides a comparative assessment of the In practice, there are several factors that can influence the capabilities of three metaheuristic algorithms for solving the adoption of a particular scheme of transmission pricing. Thus, problem of optimal transmission pricing, whose formulation is existing literature on definition of pricing mechanisms is vast. based on principle of equivalent bilateral exchanges. Among the Particularly, the principle of Equivalent Bilateral Exchange selected algorithms are Covariance Matrix Adaptation (EBE), which was originally proposed in [5], has proven to be Evolution Strategy (CMA-ES), Linearized Biogeography-based useful for pool system by providing suitable price signals Optimization (LBBO), and a novel swarm variant of the Mean- reflecting variability in the usage rates and charges across Variance Mapping Optimization (MVMO-SM). The IEEE 30 transmission network. In [6], an optimization problem was bus system is used to perform numerical comparisons on devised based on EBE in order enable exploration of multiple convergence speed, achieved optimum solutions, and computing solutions in deciding equivalent bilateral exchanges. In the effort. 2011 competition on testing evolutionary algorithms for real- Index Terms--Equivalent bilateral exchanges, evolutionary world optimization problems (CEC11), this problem was mechanism, metaheuristics, transmission pricing. solved by different metaheuristic algorithms, most of them constituting extended or hybridized variants of genetic I.
    [Show full text]
  • Extreme Points and Basic Solutions
    EXTREME POINTS AND BASIC SOLUTIONS: In Linear Programming, the feasible region in Rn is defined by P := {x ∈ Rn | Ax = b, x ≥ 0}. The set P , as we have seen, is a convex subset of Rn. It is called a convex polytope. The term convex polyhedron refers to convex polytope which is bounded. Polytopes in two dimensions are often called polygons. Recall that the vertices of a convex polytope are what we called extreme points of that set. Recall that extreme points of a convex set are those which cannot be represented as a proper convex combination of two other (distinct) points of the convex set. It may, or may not be the case that a convex set has any extreme points as shown by the example in R2 of the strip S := {(x, y) ∈ R2 | 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, y ∈ R}. On the other hand, the square defined by the inequalities |x| ≤ 1, |y| ≤ 1 has exactly four extreme points, while the unit disk described by the ineqality x2 + y2 ≤ 1 has infinitely many. These examples raise the question of finding conditions under which a convex set has extreme points. The answer in general vector spaces is answered by one of the “big theorems” called the Krein-Milman Theorem. However, as we will see presently, our study of the linear programming problem actually answers this question for convex polytopes without needing to call on that major result. The algebraic characterization of the vertices of the feasible polytope confirms the obser- vation that we made by following the steps of the Simplex Algorithm in our introductory example.
    [Show full text]
  • The Feasible Region for Consecutive Patterns of Permutations Is a Cycle Polytope
    Séminaire Lotharingien de Combinatoire XX (2020) Proceedings of the 32nd Conference on Formal Power Article #YY, 12 pp. Series and Algebraic Combinatorics (Ramat Gan) The feasible region for consecutive patterns of permutations is a cycle polytope Jacopo Borga∗1, and Raul Penaguiaoy 1 1Department of Mathematics, University of Zurich, Switzerland Abstract. We study proportions of consecutive occurrences of permutations of a given size. Specifically, the feasible limits of such proportions on large permutations form a region, called feasible region. We show that this feasible region is a polytope, more precisely the cycle polytope of a specific graph called overlap graph. This allows us to compute the dimension, vertices and faces of the polytope. Finally, we prove that the limits of classical occurrences and consecutive occurrences are independent, in some sense made precise in the extended abstract. As a consequence, the scaling limit of a sequence of permutations induces no constraints on the local limit and vice versa. Keywords: permutation patterns, cycle polytopes, overlap graphs. This is a shorter version of the preprint [11] that is currently submitted to a journal. Many proofs and details omitted here can be found in [11]. 1 Introduction 1.1 Motivations Despite not presenting any probabilistic result here, we give some motivations that come from the study of random permutations. This is a classical topic at the interface of combinatorics and discrete probability theory. There are two main approaches to it: the first concerns the study of statistics on permutations, and the second, more recent, looks arXiv:2003.12661v2 [math.CO] 30 Jun 2020 for the limits of permutations themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • Linear Programming
    Stanford University | CS261: Optimization Handout 5 Luca Trevisan January 18, 2011 Lecture 5 In which we introduce linear programming. 1 Linear Programming A linear program is an optimization problem in which we have a collection of variables, which can take real values, and we want to find an assignment of values to the variables that satisfies a given collection of linear inequalities and that maximizes or minimizes a given linear function. (The term programming in linear programming, is not used as in computer program- ming, but as in, e.g., tv programming, to mean planning.) For example, the following is a linear program. maximize x1 + x2 subject to x + 2x ≤ 1 1 2 (1) 2x1 + x2 ≤ 1 x1 ≥ 0 x2 ≥ 0 The linear function that we want to optimize (x1 + x2 in the above example) is called the objective function.A feasible solution is an assignment of values to the variables that satisfies the inequalities. The value that the objective function gives 1 to an assignment is called the cost of the assignment. For example, x1 := 3 and 1 2 x2 := 3 is a feasible solution, of cost 3 . Note that if x1; x2 are values that satisfy the inequalities, then, by summing the first two inequalities, we see that 3x1 + 3x2 ≤ 2 that is, 1 2 x + x ≤ 1 2 3 2 1 1 and so no feasible solution has cost higher than 3 , so the solution x1 := 3 , x2 := 3 is optimal. As we will see in the next lecture, this trick of summing inequalities to verify the optimality of a solution is part of the very general theory of duality of linear programming.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Optimisation Through Hyper-Heuristics: Unfolding Population-Based Metaheuristics
    applied sciences Article Global Optimisation through Hyper-Heuristics: Unfolding Population-Based Metaheuristics Jorge M. Cruz-Duarte 1,† , José C. Ortiz-Bayliss 1,† , Ivan Amaya 1,*,† and Nelishia Pillay 2,† 1 School of Engineering and Sciences, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Av. Eugenio Garza Sada 2501 Sur, Monterrey 64849, NL, Mexico; [email protected] (J.M.C.-D.); [email protected] (J.C.O.-B.) 2 Department of Computer Science, University of Pretoria, Lynnwood Rd, Hatfield, Pretoria 0083, South Africa; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +52-(81)-8358-2000 † These authors contributed equally to this work. Abstract: Optimisation has been with us since before the first humans opened their eyes to natural phenomena that inspire technological progress. Nowadays, it is quite hard to find a solver from the overpopulation of metaheuristics that properly deals with a given problem. This is even considered an additional problem. In this work, we propose a heuristic-based solver model for continuous optimisation problems by extending the existing concepts present in the literature. We name such solvers ‘unfolded’ metaheuristics (uMHs) since they comprise a heterogeneous sequence of simple heuristics obtained from delegating the control operator in the standard metaheuristic scheme to a high-level strategy. Therefore, we tackle the Metaheuristic Composition Optimisation Problem by tailoring a particular uMH that deals with a specific application. We prove the feasibility of this model via a two-fold experiment employing several continuous optimisation problems and a collection of Citation: Cruz-Duarte, J.M.; diverse population-based operators with fixed dimensions from ten well-known metaheuristics in Ortiz-Bayliss, J.C.; Amaya, I.; Pillay, the literature.
    [Show full text]
  • A Multi-Objective Hyper-Heuristic Based on Choice Function
    A Multi-objective Hyper-heuristic based on Choice Function Mashael Maashi1, Ender Ozcan¨ 2, Graham Kendall3 1 2 3Automated Scheduling, Optimisation and Planning Research Group, University of Nottingham, Department of Computer Science, Jubilee Campus,Wollaton Road, Nottingham, NG8 1BB ,UK. 1email: [email protected] 2email: [email protected] 3The University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus email:[email protected] Abstract Hyper-heuristics are emerging methodologies that perform a search over the space of heuristics in an attempt to solve difficult computational opti- mization problems. We present a learning selection choice function based hyper-heuristic to solve multi-objective optimization problems. This high level approach controls and combines the strengths of three well-known multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (i.e. NSGAII, SPEA2 and MOGA), utilizing them as the low level heuristics. The performance of the pro- posed learning hyper-heuristic is investigated on the Walking Fish Group test suite which is a common benchmark for multi-objective optimization. Additionally, the proposed hyper-heuristic is applied to the vehicle crash- worthiness design problem as a real-world multi-objective problem. The experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the hyper-heuristic approach when compared to the performance of each low level heuristic run on its own, as well as being compared to other approaches including an adaptive multi-method search, namely AMALGAM. Keywords: Hyper-heuristic, metaheuristic, evolutionary algorithm, multi-objective optimization. 1. Introduction Most real-world problems are complex. Due to their (often) NP-hard nature, researchers and practitioners frequently resort to problem tailored heuristics to obtain a reasonable solution in a reasonable time.
    [Show full text]
  • Math 112 Review for Exam Ii (Ws 12 -18)
    MATH 112 REVIEW FOR EXAM II (WS 12 -18) I. Derivative Rules • There will be a page or so of derivatives on the exam. You should know how to apply all the derivative rules. (WS 12 and 13) II. Functions of One Variable • Be able to find local optima, and to distinguish between local and global optima. • Be able to find the global maximum and minimum of a function y = f(x) on the interval from x = a to x = b, using the fact that optima may only occur where f(x) has a horizontal tangent line and at the endpoints of the interval. Step 1: Compute the derivative f’(x). Step 2: Find all critical points (values of x at which f’(x) = 0.) Step 3: Plug all the values of x from Step 2 that are in the interval from a to b and the endpoints of the interval into the function f(x). Step 4: Sketch a rough graph of f(x) and pick off the global max and min. • Understand the following application: Maximizing TR(q) starting with a demand curve. (WS 15) • Understand how to use the Second Derivative Test. (WS 16) If a is a critical point for f(x) (that is, f’(a) = 0), and the second derivative is: f ’’(a) > 0, then f(x) has a local min at x = a. f ’’(a) < 0, then f(x) has a local max at x = a. f ’’(a) = 0, then the test tells you nothing. IMPORTANT! For the Second Derivative Test to work, you must have f’(a) = 0 to start with! For example, if f ’’(a) > 0 but f ’(a) ≠ 0, then the graph of f(x) is concave up at x = a but f(x) does not have a local min there.
    [Show full text]
  • On Metaheuristic Optimization Motivated by the Immune System
    Applied Mathematics, 2014, 5, 318-326 Published Online January 2014 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/am) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/am.2014.52032 On Metaheuristic Optimization Motivated by the Immune System Mohammed Fathy Elettreby1,2*, Elsayd Ahmed2, Houari Boumedien Khenous1 1Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, King Khalid University, Abha, KSA 2Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt Email: *[email protected] Received November 16, 2013; revised December 16, 2013; accepted December 23, 2013 Copyright © 2014 Mohammed Fathy Elettreby et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribu- tion License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In accordance of the Creative Commons Attribution License all Copyrights © 2014 are reserved for SCIRP and the owner of the intellectual property Mohammed Fathy Elettreby et al. All Copyright © 2014 are guarded by law and by SCIRP as a guardian. ABSTRACT In this paper, we modify the general-purpose heuristic method called extremal optimization. We compare our results with the results of Boettcher and Percus [1]. Then, some multiobjective optimization problems are solved by using methods motivated by the immune system. KEYWORDS Multiobjective Optimization; Extremal Optimization; Immunememory and Metaheuristic 1. Introduction Multiobjective optimization problems (MOPs) [2] are existing in many situations in nature. Most realistic opti- mization problems require the simultaneous optimization of more than one objective function. In this case, it is unlikely that the different objectives would be optimized by the same alternative parameter choices. Hence, some trade-off between the criteria is needed to ensure a satisfactory problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Metaheuristics ``In the Large''
    Metaheuristics “In the Large” Jerry Swan∗, Steven Adriaensen, Alexander E. I. Brownlee, Kevin Hammond, Colin G. Johnson, Ahmed Kheiri, Faustyna Krawiec, J. J. Merelo, Leandro L. Minku, Ender Ozcan,¨ Gisele L. Pappa, Pablo Garc´ıa-S´anchez, Kenneth S¨orensen, Stefan Voß, Markus Wagner, David R. White Abstract Following decades of sustained improvement, metaheuristics are one of the great success stories of optimization research. However, in order for research in metaheuristics to avoid fragmentation and a lack of reproducibility, there is a pressing need for stronger scientific and computational infrastructure to sup- port the development, analysis and comparison of new approaches. To this end, we present the vision and progress of the “Metaheuristics ‘In the Large’ ” project. The conceptual uderpinnings of the project are: truly extensible algo- rithm templates that support reuse without modification, white box problem descriptions that provide generic support for the injection of domain specific knowledge, and remotely accessible frameworks, components and problems that will enhance reproducibility and accelerate the field’s progress. We ar- gue that, via principled choice of infrastructure support, the field can pur- sue a higher level of scientific enquiry. We describe our vision and report on progress, showing how the adoption of common protocols for all metaheuris- tics can help liberate the potential of the field, easing the exploration of the design space of metaheuristics. Keywords: Evolutionary Computation, Operational Research, Heuristic design, Heuristic methods, Architecture, Frameworks, Interoperability 1. Introduction arXiv:2011.09821v4 [cs.NE] 3 Jun 2021 Optimization problems have myriad real world applications [42] and have motivated a wealth of research since before the advent of the digital computer [25].
    [Show full text]