# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

October  2014, 10(4): 1279-1296. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2014.10.1279

## A hybrid method combining genetic algorithm and Hooke-Jeeves method for constrained global optimization

 1 School of Science, Information, Technology and Engineering, University of Ballarat, Mt Helen, 3350, Victoria 2 School of Built Environment, Curtin University, Perth 4845, WA, Australia

Received  August 2012 Revised  October 2013 Published  February 2014

A new global optimization method combining genetic algorithm and Hooke-Jeeves method to solve a class of constrained optimization problems is studied in this paper. We first introduce the quadratic penalty function method and the exact penalty function method to transform the original constrained optimization problem with general equality and inequality constraints into a sequence of optimization problems only with box constraints. Then, the combination of genetic algorithm and Hooke-Jeeves method is applied to solve the transformed optimization problems. Since Hooke-Jeeves method is good at local search, our proposed method dramatically improves the accuracy and convergence rate of genetic algorithm. In view of the derivative-free of Hooke-Jeeves method, our method only requires information of objective function value which not only can overcome the computational difficulties caused by the ill-condition of the square penalty function, but also can handle the non-differentiability by the exact penalty function. Some well-known test problems are investigated. The numerical results show that our proposed method is efficient and robust.
Citation: Qiang Long, Changzhi Wu. A hybrid method combining genetic algorithm and Hooke-Jeeves method for constrained global optimization. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2014, 10 (4) : 1279-1296. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2014.10.1279
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
 [1] Armin Lechleiter, Tobias Rienmüller. Factorization method for the inverse Stokes problem. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2013, 7 (4) : 1271-1293. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2013.7.1271 [2] Qiang Guo, Dong Liang. An adaptive wavelet method and its analysis for parabolic equations. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2013, 3 (2) : 327-345. doi: 10.3934/naco.2013.3.327 [3] Tao Wu, Yu Lei, Jiao Shi, Maoguo Gong. An evolutionary multiobjective method for low-rank and sparse matrix decomposition. Big Data & Information Analytics, 2017, 2 (1) : 23-37. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2017006 [4] Deren Han, Zehui Jia, Yongzhong Song, David Z. W. Wang. An efficient projection method for nonlinear inverse problems with sparsity constraints. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2016, 10 (3) : 689-709. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2016017 [5] Boris Kramer, John R. Singler. A POD projection method for large-scale algebraic Riccati equations. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2016, 6 (4) : 413-435. doi: 10.3934/naco.2016018 [6] Petra Csomós, Hermann Mena. Fourier-splitting method for solving hyperbolic LQR problems. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2018, 8 (1) : 17-46. doi: 10.3934/naco.2018002 [7] Christina Surulescu, Nicolae Surulescu. Modeling and simulation of some cell dispersion problems by a nonparametric method. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2011, 8 (2) : 263-277. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2011.8.263 [8] Min Li. A three term Polak-Ribière-Polyak conjugate gradient method close to the memoryless BFGS quasi-Newton method. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020, 16 (1) : 245-260. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018149 [9] Ardeshir Ahmadi, Hamed Davari-Ardakani. A multistage stochastic programming framework for cardinality constrained portfolio optimization. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2017, 7 (3) : 359-377. doi: 10.3934/naco.2017023 [10] Manfred Einsiedler, Elon Lindenstrauss. On measures invariant under diagonalizable actions: the Rank-One case and the general Low-Entropy method. Journal of Modern Dynamics, 2008, 2 (1) : 83-128. doi: 10.3934/jmd.2008.2.83 [11] Xiaomao Deng, Xiao-Chuan Cai, Jun Zou. A parallel space-time domain decomposition method for unsteady source inversion problems. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2015, 9 (4) : 1069-1091. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2015.9.1069 [12] Marion Darbas, Jérémy Heleine, Stephanie Lohrengel. Numerical resolution by the quasi-reversibility method of a data completion problem for Maxwell's equations. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2020, 14 (6) : 1107-1133. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2020056 [13] Cicely K. Macnamara, Mark A. J. Chaplain. Spatio-temporal models of synthetic genetic oscillators. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2017, 14 (1) : 249-262. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2017016 [14] J. Frédéric Bonnans, Justina Gianatti, Francisco J. Silva. On the convergence of the Sakawa-Shindo algorithm in stochastic control. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2016, 6 (3) : 391-406. doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2016008 [15] Sara Munday. On the derivative of the $\alpha$-Farey-Minkowski function. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2014, 34 (2) : 709-732. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2014.34.709 [16] Xu Zhang, Xiang Li. Modeling and identification of dynamical system with Genetic Regulation in batch fermentation of glycerol. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2015, 5 (4) : 393-403. doi: 10.3934/naco.2015.5.393 [17] Demetres D. Kouvatsos, Jumma S. Alanazi, Kevin Smith. A unified ME algorithm for arbitrary open QNMs with mixed blocking mechanisms. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2011, 1 (4) : 781-816. doi: 10.3934/naco.2011.1.781 [18] Rafael Luís, Sandra Mendonça. A note on global stability in the periodic logistic map. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020, 25 (11) : 4211-4220. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020094 [19] Lakmi Niwanthi Wadippuli, Ivan Gudoshnikov, Oleg Makarenkov. Global asymptotic stability of nonconvex sweeping processes. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020, 25 (3) : 1129-1139. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2019212 [20] Ralf Hielscher, Michael Quellmalz. Reconstructing a function on the sphere from its means along vertical slices. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2016, 10 (3) : 711-739. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2016018

2019 Impact Factor: 1.366

## Metrics

• HTML views (0)
• Cited by (26)

• on AIMS