A New Optimization Approach Based on
Rotational Mutation and Crossover Operator
Masoumeh Vali
Department of Mathematics, Dolatabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
E-mail: vali.masoumeh@gmail.com

Abstract
Evaluating a global optimal point in many global optimization problems in large space is required
to more calculations. In this paper, there is presented a new approach for the continuous functions
optimization with rotational mutation and crossover operator.
This proposed method (RMC) starts from the point which has best fitness value by elitism
mechanism and after that rotational mutation and crossover operator are used to reach optimal
point. RMC method is implemented by GA (Briefly RMCGA) and is compared with other wellknown algorithms such as: DE, PGA, Grefensstette and Eshelman[15,16] and numerical and
simulating results show that RMCGA achieve global optimal point with more decision by smaller
generations.
Keywords: genetic algorithm (GA), rotational mutation, crossover operator, optimal point.

1. Introduction
This paper concerned with the simple-bounded continuous optimization problem as follows:
f ( , , ..., ) where each  is a real parameter so that  ≤  ≤  for some constants  and 
and = 1, 2, … , .
This problem has widespread applications including optimization simulating models, fitting
nonlinear curve to data, solving system of nonlinear, engineering design and control problem, and
setting weights on neural networks.
Since GA provides a comprehensive search methodology for optimization, this problem is
implemented by GA for more optimal performance. In global optimization scenarios, GAs often
manifests their strengths: efficiency, parallelizable search; the ability to evolve solutions with
different dimension; and a characterized and controllable process of innovation.

1

In this paper is presented a new approach for simple-bounded continuous optimization problem
that is called RMC. In other words, RMC is a new approach for finding global optimal point
(max/min) by simple algebra, without derivation and based on search.
This method, at first, search the point has the best fitness in its search space and after that by using
rotational mutation and crossover operator finds the global optimal point.
This paper starts with the description of related work in section 2. Section 3 gives the model and
problem definition of RMC. In section 4, text problems of RMC method is implemented. In
section 5, Schemata Analysis for RMCGA is present. Evaluation by De Jong's functions and the
compression of RMCGA with the other methods (DE, PGA, Grefensstette and Eshelman) for De
Jong Functions are shown in sections 6. The discussion ends with a conclusion and future trend.

2. Related Work
In the early 1960s and 1970s, new search algorithms were initially proposed by Holland, his
colleagues and his students at the University of Michigan. These search algorithms which are
based on nature and mimic the mechanism of natural selection were known as Genetic
Algorithms (GAs) [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. Holland in his book “Adaptation in Natural and Artificial
Systems” [1] initiated this area of study. Theoretical foundations besides exploring applications
were also presented.
As a matter of fact, “Genetic algorithms’ functionality is based upon Darwin's theory of evolution
through natural and sexual selection.” [6], they mimic biological organisms [3]. In GAs a solution
to the problem is represented as a genome (or chromosome) [1, 3, 4].
Pratibha Bajpal and Manojkumar [9] have proposed an approach to solve Global Optimization
Problems by GA and obtained that GA is applicable to both continuous and discrete optimization
problems.
Hayes and Gedeon [10] considered infinite population model for GA where the generation of the
algorithm corresponds to a generation of a map. They showed that for a typical mixing operator all
the fixed points are hyperbolic.
Gedeon et al. [11] showed that for an arbitrary selection mechanism and a typical mixing operator,
their composition has finitely many fixed points.
Qian et al.[12] proposed a GA to treat with such constrained integer programming problem for the
sake of efficiency. Then, the fixed-point evolved (E)-UTRA PRACH detector was presented,
which further underlines the feasibility and convenience of applying this methodology to practice.
Devis Karaboga and Selcuk. [15] is proposed new heuristic approach with deferential evaluation
(DE) for finding a true global minimum regardless of the initial parameter values, fast convergence
using similar operators crossover, mutation and selection.

2

3. Model and Problem Definition of RMC
In this section, at first, model of RMC is expressed.
Suppose f  ,  ,  … . . ,   with constraint  ≤  ≤  for i=1, 2,…, n. The serial algorithm
RMC is as follows:
Step 1: Draw the diagrams for  =  and  =  for i=1, 2,…, n.
Step 2: Consider the vertex of this polytope which has best fitness among other vertexes and call it
S.
Step 3: Put S = f(S) ,=(1,1,…,1),

(1,-1,1,…,1),…, or (-1,-1,…,-1) and
 = ,
 = 0.1" , n=1,2,…,10.

Step 4: Move the point ‘S’ with length of α in direction of  vector (notice: the direction of 
vector must be inside the search space, also the α measurement depends on problem precision).
The endpoint of vector  is called P.
Step 5: If f (P) better than S , then put S=P and go to step 8 else go to step 6.

Step 6: Put # = 0.1, 0.25, …, % = 1,1, … ,1, 1, −1,1, … ,1, … , and −1, −1, … , −1,P = #% .
Step 7: If f (P) is better than S , then S=P else go to step 8.

Step 8: If P is in search space, go to step 9 else go to stop.
Step 9: Halve the adjacent sides of polytope. The result is the production of new points.
Step 10: Select point has best fitness among the new points produced from step 9 and point ‘S’.
Then, put S the point which has the best value and S' fitness of point S then go to step 3 and repeat
this trend.
4. Implementing Test problems by RMC
4.1.Test problem1:
The minimization problem is formulated as follows:
min fx = x  + x  − 18 cos x − 18 cos x

* ∈ℝ-

−1 ≤ 5 ≤ 1,

5

= 1,2

Its global minimum is equal to -2 and the minimum point is at (0,0).
The process of achieve to optimal global point by RMC is shown following figure.

3


1

S
Q

-1

Q''

S Q'


1

-1

Figure 1: The Performance RMC

Note that f(1,1) = f(-1,1) = f(1,-1) = f(-1,-1) so it's not important that from which side start. As you
can see, the first two mutations improve the fitness of problem- The fitness value of mutated
points are better than the fitness value of points produced by crossover - but the fitness of the third
mutation cannot improve the fitness of problem so use crossover operator and produce Q and Q'
points.Then among S, Q and Q' select S which has best fitness and after that rotational mutation
and crossover operator is used for achieve global optimal point.
4.2.Test problem2:
The Goldstein-Price function [GP71] is a global optimization test function.
function definition:
6789:  ,   ;1 0  0  0 1 . 19 & 14 0 3  & 14 0 6  0 3  @.
;30 0 2 & 3  . 18 & 32 0 12  0 48 & 36  0 27  @
&2    2,
1,2
Global minimum:

6  ,  

3;  ,  

0, &1

-2
Figure 2: Figure of the Goldstein-Price

4


2

Q
2

-2



Q'

-2

S

Figure 3: The Performance RMC

As regards the fitness value of points (2,-2) and (-2,-2) is equal and better than the fitness value of
points (2, 2) and (-2, 2) so we start from point (2,-2). As you can see, the first third mutations
improve the fitness of problem- The fitness value of mutated points are better than the fitness
value of points produced by crossover - but the fitness of the forth mutation cannot improve the
fitness of problem so use crossover operator and produce Q and Q' points and select Q' which has
the best fitness. After that use rotational mutation to achieve point which the improvement is better
but this point didn't find so point Q' is chosen as the global point optimal.
5. Schema Analysis RMCGA
This schema (Figure 4) starts from the vertex (offspring) which has best fitness value that is
called ‘S’. Then it sets initial point of 
 vector at ‘S’ and mutates offspring ‘S’ in direction
of 
 vector with length of mutation α. ( notice that the direction of  vector must be inside
the search space, also the α measurment depends on problem precision.) . This mutated
offspring is calledP.
If fitness value of offspring P was better than the fitness value of offspring S we
would use crossover operator for adjacent edges of offspringP. Otherwise by using
rotational mutation by %
 vector, we would search an offspring-with better fitness value in
comparison with‘S’. Then we make a crossover. After that we select an offspring with the
better fitness value –between the mutated offspring and offspring's which were generated
crossover operator. We mutate and make a crossover on it again. We repeat this action while
the mutated offspring doesn’t get out of search space. Eventually, we would select the last

5

new produced offspring- inside the search space- as the global optimization point which would
be fixed point of our question.

start

     ,  ≤  ≤ C ,
…, ≤  ≤ D
E =  ,  , F =  , C ,
…,G =  , D 

S= vertex of the polytope which has
best fitness and put S’= f(S)

=(1,1,…,1),(1,-1,1,…,1),…,or

(-1,-1,…,-1)
Set initial point of 
 vector at H

 = 

 , = 0.1"
n=1,2,…,10, So that be
 in search
space Y

Put P=end of point of vector 
# = 0.1, 0.25, …
% =(1,1,…,1),(1,-1,1,…,1),…, and
(-1,-1,…,-1)

 = #%" ,p=end of point of

vector 


Is fitness value of

No

I better than S’?

N
o

Is fitness value of p
better than S’?

S=p

Yes

N
e

Is p in search
space?

No

Yes

Acts Crossover operator on the
adjacent sides P

Put S’= best fitness of offsprings (vertexes)
among S and resulting offspring of
crossover operator
Print 'S' point

Figure 4: The improved GA

6
End

6. Evaluation
In this section, Definition of De Jong's Functions, Numerical results of RMCGA on De Jongs'
functions and finally simulating results and the compression of RMCGA with the other methods
such as DE, PGA, Grefensstette and Eshelman[15, 16] are shown.
6.1 De Jong's Functions
In this section, Definition of De Jong's Functions (F1 to F5) and initial population RMCGA which
depends on the dimensional space are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: De Jong's Functions
Function
Number
F1

F2

Function

F5

Dim.

&5.12 ≤  ≤ 5.12

Initial
Population

3

8

−2.048 ≤  ≤ 2.048

2

4

−5.12 ≤  ≤ 5.12

5

32

-1.28≤  ≤ 1.28

30

−65.536 ≤  ≤ 65.536

2



J  
K

100.   −   + 1 −  
O

F3

F4

Limits

30. + JLM N


K

J;  C . +PQ 0,1@
K

0.002 +

1

∑C
K



D∑Y
TZ[;ST UVWT @

4

X

6.2. Numerical Results
In this section, the experimental results of RMCGA on the five problems of De Jong (F1 to F5)
[De Jong, 1975] in Table 2 are shown. Furthermore, results were saved for the best performance
(BP) which BP is the best fitness of the objective function obtained over all function evaluations.
At last, standard deviation (SD) is calculated and measured with final answer of De Jong function.
The following parameters were evaluated in the following table.
rotational mutation size (RMS), number of iterations rotational mutation (TRM), number of
iterations crossover operator (TC).

7

Table 2: The average number of generations.
Algorithm

De Jong’s
Function
F1

RMCGA

F2

RMCGA

F3

RMCGA

RMCGA

RMCGA

F4

F5

RMS

TRM

TC

Best Point

BP

SD

0.1

55

102

(0,0,0)

0

0

0.1

15

20

(1,1)

0

0

0.1

4

1

(-5.12,-5.12,-5.12, 5.12, -5.12)

0

0

0.1

15

21

0

30

Depend
on \

(-32,-32)

0

0

(0,0,…,0)

0.1

340

670

6.3. Simulating Results
Dervis Karaboga and Selcuk O^kdema15b introduced new method DE for finding global
optimization problems. They compared DE method with other methods: PGA, Grefensstette and
Eshelman [16] and showed that DE algorithm works much better than other methods[16].
In order to obtain the average results, PGA, Grefensstette and Eshelman algorithms were run 50
times; the DE algorithm was run 1000 times and RMCGA 200 times for each function.
Table 3: The average number of generations

Algorithms

F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

PGAc = d

1170

1235

3481

3194

1256

PGAc = e

1526

1671

3634

5243

2076

Grefensstette

2210

14229

2259

3070

4334

Eshelman

1538

9477

1740

4137

3004

DE(F: RandomValues)

260

670

125

2300

1200

RMCGA

157

35

5

36

1010

PNG

1.656

19.142

25

63.888

1.188

8

As you can see in Table 3, the convergence speed RMCGA achieves the optimal point with more
decision by smaller generation. Furthermore, the most significant improvement is with F4 since

the proportion of the number of generations (PNG) about f ≅ 64 times smaller than the
average of the number of generations DE algorithm.

7. Conclusion
RMCGA is a new method for finding the true optimal global optimization is based on rotational
mutation and crossover operator. In this work, the performance of the RMCGA has been compared
to that of some other well known GAs. From the simulation studies, it was observed that RMCGA
achieve the optimal point with more decision by smaller generation. Therefore, RMCGA seems to
be a promising approach for engineering optimization problems.

References
Holland J.H., "Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with
Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence", University of Michigan Press,
Ann Arbor, Mich, USA, 1975.
[2]
J. H. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with
Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge, USA: The MIT
Press, 1992.
[3]
Y. Liao, and C.T. Sun, “An Educational Genetic Algorithms Learning Tool” ©2001 IEEE.
[4]
N. A. AL-Madi, A. T. Khader, “A SOCIAL-BASED MODEL FOR GENETIC
ALGORITHMS”. Proceedings of the third International Conference on Information
[5]
Technology (ICIT), AL- Zaytoonah Univ., Amman, Jordan, 2007.
[6]
J. Dalton, “Genetic Algorithms” Newcastle Engineering Design Centre,
http://www.edc.ncl.ac.uk. 2007.
[7]
E. Bagheri, H. Deldari, 2006. “ Dejong Function Optimization by means of a Parallel
Approach to Fuzzified Genetic Algorithm” Proceedings of the 11th IEEE Symposium on
Computers and Communications (ISCC'06) 0-7695-2588-1/06 $20.00 © 2006 IEEE.
[8]
T. Back. “Evolutionary Algorithms in theory and practice Evolution Strategies, Evolutionary
Programming, Genetic Algorithms”. Accessed 2008.
[9]
Pratibha Bajpal and Manojkumar, Genetic Algorithm – an Approach to Solve Global
Optimization Problems,Pratibha Bajpai et al. / Indian Journal of Computer Science and
Engineering Vol 1 No 3 199-206.
[10] Zhang J., Dong Y., Gao R., and Shang Y.," An Improve Genetic Algorithm Based on Fixed
Point Theory for Function Optimization", IEEE, International Conference on Computer
Engineering and Technology, pp. 481-484, 2009.
[11] Gedeon T., Hayes C., and Swanson R., " Genericity of the Fixed Point set for the Infinite
Population Genetic Algorithm" Foundations of Genetic Algorithms Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, Volume 4436, pp. 97-109,2007.
[1]

9

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

Qian R., Peng T., Qi Y., and Wang W. " Genetic Algorithm-Aided Fixed Point Design of
E-UtraPrach Detector on Multi-Core DSP",In the proceeding of 17th European Signal
Processing Conference ,Glasgow, Scotland, pp. 1007-1011, 2009.
Rainer Storn and Kenneth Price, Differential Evolution - A simple and efficient adaptive
scheme for global optimization over continuous spaces, TR-95-012March 1995.
H. M¨uhlenbein, M. Schomisch, J.Born, \The Parallel Genetic Algorithm as Function
Optimizer", Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms,
University of California, San diego, pp. 270-278, 1991.
Dervis Karaboga and Selcuk Okdem, A Simple and Global Optimization Algorithm for
Engineering Problems: Differential Evolution Algorithm, Turk J Elec Engin, VOL.12, NO.1
2004.
H. MQ^ hlenbein, M. Schomisch, J. Born, "The Parallel Genetic Algorithm as Function
Optimizer",Proceedings of The Fourth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms,
University of California, San diego, pp. 270-278, 1991.

10

