One of the major drawbacks of the conventional genetic algorithm (GA) is premature convergence, which typically occurs because the selection operator relies heavily on the genetic information of the best individuals in the population. When the chromosomes of individuals are directly accessible, their genetic structure becomes easily exploitable during selection, increasing the likelihood of converging to suboptimal solutions. Moreover, in linear chromosome representations, the crossover process is highly dependent on the encoding scheme and the positional arrangement of genes, resulting in a very low probability of structural variation through mutation particularly toward the end of the chromosome. In this study, the unit commitment problem is addressed using a GA enhanced with a deterministic selection operator, in which all individuals in the population are treated as parents. Additionally, a circular crossover (CR) operator is employed, converting the chromosome into a ring-shaped structure. This approach increases the diversity of potential recombination’s and reduces the risk of early stagnation. The experimental results demonstrate that incorporating these operators leads to superior convergence behavior and enables the GA to achieve more optimal solutions compared with conventional genetic operators.
Nidhra, S., & Dondeti, J. (2012). Black box and white box testing techniques: A literature review. International Journal of Embedded Systems and Applications, 2(2), 29-50. https://doi.org/10.5121/ijesa.2012.2204
Syaikhuddin, M. M., Anam, C., Rinaldi, A. R., & Conoras, M. E. B. (2018). Conventional software testing using white box method. Kinetik: Game Technology, Information System, Computer Network, Computing, Electronics, and Control, 3(1), 65-72. https://doi.org/10.22219/kinetik.v3i1.231umm.ac.id+4mdpi.com+4mdpi.com+4
Khari, M., Sinha, A., Verdu, E., & González-Crespo, R. (2020). Performance analysis of six meta-heuristic algorithms over automated test suite generation for path coverage-based optimization. Soft Computing, 24(12), 9143-9160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04444-y
Rothermel, G., & Harrold, M. J. (1996). Analyzing regression test selection techniques. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 22(8), 529-551. https://doi.org/10.1109/32.536955
McMinn, P. (2004). Search-based software test data generation: A survey. Software Testing, Verification & Reliability, 14(2), 105-156. https://doi.org/10.1002/stvr.294
Abdel-Basset, M., Abdel-Fatah, L., & Sangaiah, A. K. (2018). Metaheuristic algorithms: A comprehensive review. In Computational Intelligence for Multimedia Big Data on the Cloud with Engineering Applications (pp. 185-231). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813314-9.00010-4
Dehghani, M., et al. (2023). Coati Optimization Algorithm: A new bio-inspired metaheuristic algorithm for solving optimization problems. Knowledge-Based Systems, 259, 110011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2022.110011
Ghaemi, A., & Arasteh, B. (2020). SFLA-based heuristic method to generate software structural test data. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 32(1), e2228. https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.2228
Yang, F.-Y., et al. (2023). Test data generation method based on multiple convergence direction adaptive PSO. Software Quality Journal, 31(1), 279-303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-022-09605-1
Jiao, C., & Zhou, Q. (2024). Path test data generation using adaptive simulated annealing particle swarm optimization. Soft Computing, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-024-06055-3
Arasteh, B., & Hosseini, S. M. J. (2022). Traxtor: An automatic software test suite generation method inspired by imperialist competitive optimization algorithms. Journal of Electronic Testing, 38(2), 205-215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10836-022-05999-9
Jha, S., & Bisi, M. (2022). Teaching Learning-Based Optimization model to generate software test cases. In Advances in Distributed Computing and Machine Learning: Proceedings of ICADCML 2022 (pp. 521-531). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1018-0_45
Bao, X., Xiong, Z., Zhang, N., Qian, J., Wu, B., & Zhang, W. (2017). Path-oriented test cases generation based adaptive genetic algorithm. PLOS ONE, 12(11), e0187471. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187471
Damia, A. H., Esnaashari, M., & Parvizimosaed, M. (2021). Software testing using an adaptive genetic algorithm. Journal of AI and Data Mining, 9(4), 465-474. https://doi.org/10.22044/jadm.2021.10020.1186
Nosrati, M., Haghighi, H., & Asl, M. V. (2021). Test data generation using genetic programming. Information and Software Technology, 130, 106446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2020.106446
Damia, A. H., & Esnaashari, M. (2020). Automated test data generation using a combination of firefly algorithm and asexual reproduction optimization algorithm. International Journal of Web Research, 3(1), 19-28. https://doi.org/10.22044/ijwr.2020.10178.1392
Damia, A. H., Esnaashari, M., & Parvizimosaed, M. (2021). Automatic web-based software structural testing using an adaptive particle swarm optimization algorithm for test data generation. In 2021 7th International Conference on Web Research (ICWR) (pp. 282-286). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICWR51868.2021.9443153
Liang, S., & He, Z. (2024). Automated test case generation for path coverage by using multi-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm with reinforcement learning and relationship matrix strategies. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218194024500189
Panigrahi, S. S., & Jena, A. K. (2022). Spider monkey particle swarm optimization (SMPSO) with coverage criteria for optimal test case generation in object-oriented systems. International Journal of Open Source Software and Processes, 13(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJOSSP.300750
Bag, S., Kumar, S. K., & Tiwari, M. K. (2019). An efficient recommendation generation using relevant Jaccard similarity. Information Sciences, 483, 53-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2019.01.023
Esnaashari, M., & Damia, A. H. (2021). Automation of software test data generation using genetic algorithm and reinforcement learning. Expert Systems with Applications, 183, 115446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115446
Kempka, J., McMinn, P., & Sudholt, D. (2015). Design and analysis of different alternating variable searches for search-based software testing. Theoretical Computer Science, 605, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2014.12.009
Windisch, A., Wappler, S., & Wegener, J. (2007). Applying particle swarm optimization to software testing. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (pp. 1121-1128). https://doi.org/10.1145/1276958.1277178
Esmail Beag,M. and Najibi,S. (2025). Genetic Algorithm Optimization with Deterministic Circular Crossover Operator for Unit Commitment Problem (UCP). Transactions on Machine Intelligence, 8(1), 1-16. doi: 10.47176/TMI.2025.1
MLA
Esmail Beag,M. , and Najibi,S. . "Genetic Algorithm Optimization with Deterministic Circular Crossover Operator for Unit Commitment Problem (UCP)", Transactions on Machine Intelligence, 8, 1, 2025, 1-16. doi: 10.47176/TMI.2025.1
HARVARD
Esmail Beag M., Najibi S. (2025). 'Genetic Algorithm Optimization with Deterministic Circular Crossover Operator for Unit Commitment Problem (UCP)', Transactions on Machine Intelligence, 8(1), pp. 1-16. doi: 10.47176/TMI.2025.1
CHICAGO
M. Esmail Beag and S. Najibi, "Genetic Algorithm Optimization with Deterministic Circular Crossover Operator for Unit Commitment Problem (UCP)," Transactions on Machine Intelligence, 8 1 (2025): 1-16, doi: 10.47176/TMI.2025.1
VANCOUVER
Esmail Beag M., Najibi S. Genetic Algorithm Optimization with Deterministic Circular Crossover Operator for Unit Commitment Problem (UCP). Trans. Mach. Intell., 2025; 8(1): 1-16. doi: 10.47176/TMI.2025.1