<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd">
  <responseDate>2026-07-22T22:18:04Z</responseDate>
  <request identifier="1482" metadataPrefix="oai_dc" verb="GetRecord">https://drops.dagstuhl.de/oai</request>
  <GetRecord>
    <record>
      <header>
        <identifier>oai:drops-oai.dagstuhl.de:1482</identifier>
        <datestamp>2024-03-06T11:07:55Z</datestamp>
        <setSpec>ddc:004</setSpec>
        <setSpec>open_access</setSpec>
      </header>
      <metadata>
        <oai_dc:dc xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
          <dc:title>A Comparison of GAs Penalizing Infeasible Solutions and Repairing Infeasible Solutions on the 0-1 Knapsack Problem</dc:title>
          <dc:creator>He, Jun</dc:creator>
          <dc:creator>Zhou, Yuren</dc:creator>
          <dc:creator>Yao, Xin</dc:creator>
          <dc:subject>Genetic Algorithms</dc:subject>
          <dc:subject>Constrained Optimization</dc:subject>
          <dc:subject>Knapsack Problem</dc:subject>
          <dc:subject>Computation Time</dc:subject>
          <dc:subject>Performance Analysis</dc:subject>
          <dc:description>Constraints exist in almost every optimization problem. Different&#13;
constraint handling techniques have been incorporated with genetic&#13;
algorithms (GAs), however most of current studies are based on&#13;
computer experiments. An example is Michalewicz's comparison among&#13;
GAs using different constraint handling techniques on the 0-1&#13;
knapsack problem. The following phenomena are observed in&#13;
experiments: 1) the penalty method needs more generations to find a&#13;
feasible solution to the restrictive capacity knapsack than the&#13;
repair method; 2) the penalty method can find&#13;
better solutions to the average capacity knapsack. Such observations&#13;
need a theoretical explanation. This paper aims at providing a&#13;
theoretical analysis of Michalewicz's experiments. The main result&#13;
of the paper is that GAs using the repair method are more efficient&#13;
than GAs using the penalty method on both restrictive capacity and&#13;
average capacity knapsack problems. This result of the average&#13;
capacity is a little different from Michalewicz's experimental&#13;
results. So a supplemental experiment is implemented to support the&#13;
theoretical claim. The results confirm the general principle pointed&#13;
out by Coello: a better constraint-handling approach should tend to&#13;
exploit specific domain knowledge.</dc:description>
          <dc:publisher>Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik</dc:publisher>
          <dc:contributor>Jun He and Yuren Zhou and Xin Yao</dc:contributor>
          <dc:date>2008</dc:date>
          <dc:relation>Is Part Of Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Volume 8051, Theory of Evolutionary Algorithms (2008)</dc:relation>
          <dc:type>InProceedings</dc:type>
          <dc:type>Text</dc:type>
          <dc:type>doc-type:ResearchArticle</dc:type>
          <dc:type>publishedVersion</dc:type>
          <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
          <dc:identifier>doi:10.4230/DagSemProc.08051.3</dc:identifier>
          <dc:identifier>urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-14822</dc:identifier>
          <dc:identifier>https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/DagSemProc.08051.3</dc:identifier>
          <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
          <dc:rights>https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode</dc:rights>
        </oai_dc:dc>
      </metadata>
    </record>
  </GetRecord>
</OAI-PMH>
