Article Sidebar

Submitted
December 19, 2019
Published
July 19, 2019
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 342 Download : 193

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Purpose: The present paper focuses on the Non-Linear Programming Problem (NLPP) with equality constraints. NLPP with constraints could be solved by penalty or barrier methods.


Methodology: We apply the penalty method to the NLPP with equality constraints only. The non-quadratic penalty method is considered for this purpose. We considered a transcendental i.e. exponential function for imposing the penalty due to the constraint violation. The unconstrained NLPP obtained in this way is then processed for further solution. An improved version of evolutionary and famous meta-heuristic Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) is used for the same. The method is tested with the help of some test problems and mathematical software SCILAB. The solution is compared with the solution of the quadratic penalty method.


Results: The results are also compared with some existing results in the literature.

Keywords

Penalty Function NLPP Non-quadratic Penalty Function Improved Particle Swarm Optimization Optimization Test Problems

Article Details

License

Authors retain the copyright without restrictions for their published content in this journal. IJSRTM is a SHERPA ROMEO Journal. 

Publishing License

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of  Creative Commons License

 

How to Cite
Prajapati, R., Prakash Dubey, O., & Pradhan, R. (2019). ON NON-QUADRATIC PENALTY FUNCTION FOR NON-LINEAR PROGRAMMING PROBLEM WITH EQUALITY CONSTRAINTS. International Journal of Students’ Research in Technology & Management, 7(3), 01–06. https://doi.org/10.18510/ijsrtm.2019.715
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Andrei, N., 2008. An unconstrained optimization test functions collection. Adv. Model. Optim, 10(1), pp.147-161.
  2. Angeline, P.J., 1998, May. Using selection to improve particle swarm optimization.In Evolutionary Computation Proceedings, 1998. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence., The 1998 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 84-89). IEEE.
  3. Ben-Tal, A. and Zibulevsky, M., 1997. Penalty/barrier multiplier methods for convex programming problems. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 7(2), pp.347-366. https://doi.org/10.1137/S1052623493259215 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1137/S1052623493259215
  4. Bertsekas, D.P., 1999. Nonlinear programming (pp. 191-276). Belmont: Athena scientific.
  5. Den Hertog, D., Roos, C. and Terlaky, T., 1994. Inverse barrier methods for linear programming. RAIRO-Operations Research, 28(2), pp.135-163. https://doi.org/10.1051/ro/1994280201351 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/ro/1994280201351
  6. Du, K.L. and Swamy, M.N.S., 2016. Particle swarm optimization. In Search and optimization by metaheuristics(pp. 153-173). Birkhäuser, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41192-7_9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41192-7_9
  7. Eberhart, R. and Kennedy, J., 1995, October. A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. In Micro Machine and Human Science, 1995.MHS'95., Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on (pp. 39-43). IEEE.
  8. Eberhart, R.C. and Shi, Y., 2000. Comparing inertia weights and constriction factors in particle swarm optimization.In Evolutionary Computation, 2000.Proceedings of the 2000 Congress on (Vol. 1, pp. 8488).IEEE.
  9. Feng, M. and Li, S., 2018. An approximate strong KKT condition for multiobjective optimization. TOP, 26(3), pp.489-509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11750-018-0491-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11750-018-0491-6
  10. Haeser, G. and Schuverdt, M.L., 2011. On approximate KKT condition and its extension to continuous variational inequalities. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 149(3), pp.528-539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10957-011-9802-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10957-011-9802-x
  11. Li, W.T., Shi, X.W. and Hei, Y.Q., 2008. An improved particle swarm optimization algorithm for pattern synthesis of phased arrays. Progress In Electromagnetics Research, 82, pp.319-332. https://doi.org/10.2528/PIER08030904 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2528/PIER08030904
  12. Li, X., Sun, D. and Toh, K.C., 2018. QSDPNAL: a two-phase augmented Lagrangian method for convex quadratic semidefinite programming. Mathematical Programming Computation, pp.1-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12532-018-0137-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12532-018-0137-6
  13. Nie, P.Y., 2006. A new penalty method for nonlinear programming. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 52(6-7), pp.883-896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2006.05.012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2006.05.012
  14. Parsopoulos, K.E. and Vrahatis, M.N., 2002. Particle swarm optimization method for constrained optimization problems. Intelligent Technologies–Theory and Application: New Trends in Intelligent Technologies, 76(1), pp.214-220. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812777140_0021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812777140_0021
  15. Rao, R. and Patel, V., 2013. Comparative performance of an elitist teaching-learning-based optimization algorithm for solving unconstrained optimization problems. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 4(1), pp.29-50. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijiec.2012.09.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijiec.2012.09.001
  16. Younis, A. and Dong, Z., 2010. Trends, features, and tests of common and recently introduced global optimization methods. Engineering Optimization, 42(8), pp.691-718. https://doi.org/10.1080/03052150903386674 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03052150903386674

Most read articles by the same author(s)