Original Paper

Measurement and Control

2024, Vol. 57(8) 1211–1217
Global optimization of mixed integer Ó The Author(s) 2024
Article reuse guidelines:
signomial fractional programing sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00202940231217340

problems journals.sagepub.com/home/mac

Jaleh Shirin Nejad1, Mansour Saraj2 , Sara Shokrolahi Yancheshmeh1 and

Fatemeh Kiany Harchegani1

Abstract
The main issue in the present article is to investigate how to solve a mixed integer fractional signomial geometric pro-
graming problem (MIFSGP). In the first step to achieving this idea, we must convert a fractional signomial programing
problem into a non-fractional problem via a simple conversion technique. Then, a convex relaxation with a new modified
piecewise linear approximation with integer break points as a pre-solve method is used to reach an integer global opti-
mum solution. A few numerical examples are included to illustrate the advantages of the proposed method

Keywords
Global optimization, geometric programing, signomial fractional programing, mixed integer programing, and piecewise
linear approximation.

Date received: 24 June 2023; accepted: 13 November 2023

Introduction were also used to solve many issues involving geometric

fractional objectives. Several specialized methods have
A mixed integer signomial geometric fractional program- been proposed to obtain the global optimum for mixed
ing problem (MISFP) arises from the minimization of a integer geometric programing problems (MIGPP).7
quotient function which consists of several signomial Chang8 worked on a problem to reach a solution as
terms appearing in the objective function subject to given close as a global solution for the mixed integer frac-
signomial constraints with some integer decision tional posynomial programing problems. Tsai9 pro-
variables.1 In the optimization literature, geometric poses a new treat by using a convex and linearization
fractional programing problems play a very important method for solving nonlinear fractional programing
role in engineering designs and management problems. problems, with multiple fractional signomial functions.
Fractional programing problems occur in many deci- M. Saraj et al. (2018) solved posynomial fractional
sion programs such as industrial economics, Information programing problems (PFP) via the linearization
theory.2–4 In addition, fractional programing problems approach, in addition, they have also considered the
are identified to optimize power distribution systems.5 problem of linear multi objective geometric programing
Even though fractional programing has received intensive problem via reference point approach in (2014).10,11 In
attention in the last four decades because of its a recent researches, Mishra et al12 solved nonlinear frac-
importance in modeling many optimization problems, tional programing problems by signomial geometric
the discussion on methods of solving signomial fractional programing approach. Shirinnejad et al.13 proposed a
problems (SFP) has received less attention. Since these technique to solve a signomial fractional programing
problems often occur in Complex industrial designs with
a large number of variables and require a lot of accuracy, 1
Department of Mathematics, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University,
the main challenge of such problems is to reach the Ahvaz, Iran
global optimal solution for integer or real variables 2
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Mathematical Sciences and
within the shortest time and the least amount of Computer, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
computer memory space usage. For this reason our effort
has been made to reach a more efficient and faster Corresponding author:
Mansour Saraj, Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Mathematical
method than the previous methods. Sciences and Computer, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz
In 1967, Dinkelbach6 proposed an algorithm to solve 6135743337, Khuzestan, Iran.
continuous nonlinear fractional programing problems that Email: [email protected]

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/
open-access-at-sage).
1212 Measurement and Control 57(8)

P Q a
problems globally with as small as distance from the solution denoted as CðxÞ = Jj= 1 cj ni= 1 xj ji where cj
solution of the original problem. In a valuable work by and aji2 Rnf0g.
Westerlund,14 a few helpful transformation techniques The variables in a signomial function must be
are considered in deterministic global optimization for Positive.
signomial programing problems. In addition, he applied This study considers a MISFP problem with the fol-
the most effortless power transformations to convexify lowing form:
posynomial and signomial geometric terms. Although
the GGPECP algorithm used by Westerlund in 2003 PðxÞ
Minimize fðxÞ =
was used to solve the convexified and underestimated QðxÞ
problems to reach a globally optimal solution, in his
method, he used too many constraints in expressing a S:t Ax4b
piecewise linear function, which may cause heavy com-
putational burdens. Therefore we have presented an Bk ðxÞ + Ck ðxÞ40, k = 1, 2, . . . , K
efficient technique by combining power transforma-
tions tool to convexify the non-convex signomial terms X = ðx1 , x2 , . . . , xn Þ, 04xi 4xi 4
xi
and a more accurate modified linearization technique
which can give mixed integer solution as close as possi-
ble to the original problem. By applying our propose, Where P(x) and Q(x) represent twice–differentiable
we observed not only less number of iterations but also signomial functions and Q(x) . 0.
got the integer solution as well. The matrix A and vector b are constants, and Bk
There are two ways to convex a positive signomial and Ck represent convex and non–convex signomial
term (posynomial) with power transformation, so- functions, respectively. xi and xi indicate the lower
called Negative power transformation (NPT) and posi- and upper bounds of a real and bounded variable xi.
tive power transformation (PPT). Since the transformation approach is valid for signo-
Although using NPT is more accessible than PPT, mial constraints, therefore the signomial fractional
the PPT technique makes a convex form of signomial expression QPððxxÞÞ in objective function can be rewritten in
function tighter than NPT to original non-convex func- the constraint form as below:
tions, as explained in Westerlund et al.14 Tsai (2005)
proposed a new approach to solve a general signomial Minimize xn + 1
fractional programing problem to reach a global opti-
mum. He used NPT to convexify posynomial terms and PðxÞ
S:t  xn + 1 40, QðxÞ . 0 8x
superior piecewise linearization techniques. We now use QðxÞ
the PPT technique to convexify the non-convex posyno-
mial term along with piecewise linear approximations. S:t Ax4b
In this work, we have applied a modified model for
piecewise linear functions of one and two variables Bk ðxÞ + Ck ðxÞ40, k = 1, 2, . . . , K
which perform significantly better than the standard
binary models that Vilma and Nemhauser15 proved the
x = ðx1 , x2 , . . . , xn Þ, 04xi 4xi 4xi , i = 1, . . . , n
efficiency of this superior piecewise linearization tech-
nique. Therefore, this work discusses a mixed integer
global optimal solution to convexify every non-convex The problem is further converted to:
signomial term. Univariate transformations are applied
PðxÞ  xn + 1 :Q(x)40
in such a way to convexify and underestimate with this
piecewise linear approximation of the inverse transfor-
mation of f(x), where x lies in the interval [a0, am] such Where xn + 1 is a new real and bounded variable.
that a0, am2 Z with m + 1 integer breakpoints. In this (2.2) is a signomial function and may be non–
article, applying integer breakpoints for integer vari- convex.
ables is studied in detail as a pre-solution method to
reach the integer solution for those variables.
This issue develops a global optimization method Convexification strategies
with fewer iteration numbers and CPU time than other The problem of convexification a non-convex signo-
methods to obtain a mixed integer solution in solving a mial term, such as inverse and exponential transforma-
Signomial Fractional Programing problem (SFP). tions, is discussed in detail in Shen and Yu2,7 Lundell
et al.16, Chang1 In this study, we use a particular case
Problem formulation of the inverse transformation technique suggested by
Westerlund. Convexity requirements for negative and
A mixed integer signomial fractional programing prob- positive signomial terms are given in the following
lem (MISFP) seeks an approximate global optimum propositions.9
Nejad et al. 1213

Q 1. A twice differentiable function

Proposition since c . 0, so (  c)k . 0, ak . 0 and for 14j \ k,
fðxÞ = c ni= 1 xai i is convex if c \ 0, xi , ai . 0, The number of aj \ 0, is odd, then
Q 
k kaj 2
Pn j = 1 aj xj \0
ði = 1, . . . , nÞ and i=1 ai 41.
Therefore:  Pk 
H (X) . 0, if and only if 1  a 40 or
Q 2. A twice differentiable function,
Proposition P k  j = 1 j
fðxÞ = c ni= 1 xai i is convex if 8c . 0, xi . 0, k
j = 1 aj 51 .
ai 40, (i = 1, . . . , n)
Proposition 2 in the literature is called (NPT). The tech-
(2) If k is odd, then:
nique of NPT is used to convexify and underestimate
the posynomial terms because it seems simpler than
positive power transformation (PPT). Westerlund indi- Since c . 0, so (  c)k \ 0, ak . 0 and for 14j \ k,
The number of aj \ 0, is even, then
cated that PPT is a tighter underestimate than (NPT). Q 
k kaj 2
j = 1 aj xj \0
Therefore, we apply PPT to convexify posynomial terms. Therefore:
PPT can be expressed and proved in Proposition 3.  Pk 
Hk (X) . 0, if and only if 1 j = 1 j 40 or
a
Consider the following Lemma and Hints from P 
Tsai9: k
a
j=1 j 51 .
Lemma.
Q Due to differentiability of X, we have fðXÞ =
Since detHi (X)50, for all i, then H(X) is positive
c ni= 1 xai i where X = ðx1 , x2 , . . . , xn Þ for i = 1, . . . , n,
definite, and consequently, f(X) is convex.
8i xi , ai ,
Yn  Xn 
c 2 R, detHðXÞ=(c)n a xnai 2
i=1 i i
1 i=1
a i : Transformation and underestimation approach
Convexification a non-convex function is a very essen-
tial concept in determining global optimization tech-
niques. A good convex under-estimator should be as
Hint 1: If c, xi . 0 and ai 40 (for all i), det HðxÞ50: tight as possible and contains a minimum number of
HintP2: If c \ 0 and xi , ai 50 (for all i), and additional variables and constraints. By approximating
1
1  ni= 1 ai 50, det HðxÞ50: the inverse power transformations, x = Xa or xa = X,
with piecewise linear functions, the whole problem can
Proposition
Q 3. A differentiable function, fðXÞ =
be convexified. Now we prove the transformation theo-
c ni= 1 xai i is said to be convex if 8c, xi . 0,
rem for negative signomial terms.
9k 6¼ i, ak . 0, Pn Consider the following remark from Tsai and Lin,17
ai 40ði = 1, . . . , nÞ, i = 1 ai 51. which expresses the conditions to convexify a power
function:
Proposition 3 is called PPT technique in the literature.
We demonstrate an alternative proof for this Remark 1. A function fðxÞ = xa , x . 0, is convex when
proposition: a40 or a51, and f(x) is concave if 0 \ a \ 1.
Proof. Through the Hessian matrix H(X) of f (X), for Remark 3. A negative signomial term, z = cxp11
i = 1, . . . , n, ai 40, 9k 6¼ i, ak . 0, by lemma 3.1 and xp22 . . . xpnn , where xi . 0, (for i = 1, . . . , n, c \ 0,
Hint 1, we have pi 50), (for i = 1, 2, . . . , k, k \ n, pi \ 0) and
Yi  Xi  (for i = k + 1, . . . , n), can be convexified and underes-
iaj 2
det Hi ðXÞ=(c)i ax
j=1 j j
1 j=1
aj .0, timated as follows:
 1 b !pi
for i=1, ...,n, i 6¼ k Qk  a1 a pi Qn 
(i) z = c i = 1 xi : i=k+1 xi b
ð1Þ
Pk P
Yk   (ii) a pi b ni=k+1 pi 41, where 0\a41, b.0
kaj 2
Xk Yi=1
k Yn Yk
det Hk ðXÞ = (  c)k j=1
a j xj 1  j=1
a j c i=1 LðXi ÞaPi : i=k+1 LðXi ÞbPi 4c i=1 Xap
i :
i

(iii) Yn
ð2Þ
i=k+1 i
X bPi

Now, concerning k, there are two modes: Where L(Xi) is a piecewise linearization approximation of
1

(1) If k is even, then: Xi = xai i = 1, . . . , k ð3Þ

1214 Measurement and Control 57(8)

And L(Xi) is a piecewise linearization approximation of And LðXi Þ5Xi For i = 2, . . . , k ð9Þ

1
Xi = xib i = k + 1, . . . , n ð4Þ Since the first transformation variable in the left-hand
inequality of (iii) is an increasing function where the
next k21 variables in the transformed signomial term
Hint: Without losing generality, the signomial terms have negative powers, it corresponds to decreasing
can be rewritten by (i), inverse transformations (3), and functions. Hence, it was found that (8) and (9) are valid
(4) for a, b . 0. Now, with assumptions (ii) and (iii), if the inverse transformation (6) is provided a concave
we want to prove that Z can be convexified and function and the inverse transformations (7) are offered
underestimated. by convex functions too. Thus, (iii) is fully satisfied
Proof. Since all powers in (iii) are positive with parameter a is chosen, such as the a51 for (6) to be a
a, b . 0, the inequality (iii) will be valid if concave function and b . 0 for (7) to be a convex
function.
LðXi Þ5Xi i = 1, . . . , n ð5Þ Since a51 and b . 0, in the expression (ii),
P P
ap1  b ki= 2 pi + ni= k + 1 pi 51
We find that (5) and thus (iii) will be valid if (3) and (4) The first term is positive and the second and third
are convex functions; it is fulfilled if a is chosen in are negative. It is also valid for any sufficiently large a
0 \ a41 and b . 0, so they are satisfied by conditions and small b.
of (ii) and remark 1. Hence, according to conditions (ii) and (iii), z is a
Thus, Z in (i) is a convex term referring to proposi- convex w.r.t.
tion 3.
Piecewise linear approximation
Theorem 1: A positive signomial term (posynomial)
z = cxp11 xp22 . . . xpnn . Where pi 50 (for i = 1, . . . , k), A custom way to Solve piecewise linear approximation
is to apply the special order sets (SOS). However, this
study used a much better approach in fractional pro-
Pi \ 0 (for i = k + 1, . . . , n), and p1 5p2 5 . . . 5pn graming, which is more efficient than ordinary meth-
can be convexified and underestimated as follows: ods. Therefore, this work uses a tight relaxation
method of approximating piecewise linear functions.15
 1 a p1 Q  1 b !pi Remark17: An injective function B : f1, 2, . . . , mg
k Q
i) z = c x1a : xib : ni= k + 1 xpi i . ! f0, 1gu , u = log2 m, where the vectors B(p) and
i=2
B(p + 1) differ in at most one component for all
P
k Pn
ii) ap1  b pi + pi 51, where a51, b . 0. p 2 f1, 2, . . . , m  1g.
i=2
Q
i=k+1
Q Let B(p) = ðu1 , u2 , . . . , uu Þ, 8uh 2 f0, 1g, k = 1, 2, . . . u.
iii) cðLðX1 ÞÞap1 : ki= 2 (LðXi Þ)bPi : ni= k + 1 xpi i 4cXap
1 :
1
and B(0) = B(1).
Qk Qn
i=2 Xbp
i
i
: i=k+1 xpi i S+ (k) = fp j 8B(p) and B(p + 1), uk = 1, p = 1, 2,
. . . , m  1g [ fp j 8B(p), ui = 1, p 2 f0, mgg
Where L(Xi) represents piecewise linear approximations S (k) = fp j 8B(p) and B(p + 1), uY = 0, p = 1, 2,
of . . . , m  1g [ fp j 8B(p), uk = 0, p 2 f0, mgg.
1
X1 = xa1 ð6Þ Theorem 217: The Given a univariate function f(x),
a0 4x4am , denote L(f(x)) as the piecewise linear func-
tion of f(x), where
and
1 a0 \ a1 \ a2 \    \ am be the m + 1 integer break
Xi = xib , for i = 2, . . . , k: ð7Þ points of L(f(x)) can be expressed as
X
m   X
m X
m
L(f(x)) = f ap wp , x = ap w p , wp = 1,
Proof. Without losing generality, z can be rewritten by p=0 p=0 p=0
1 1
b
(i) by choosing X1 = x1 , Xi = xi , i = 2, . . . , k a,
a
X X
Qk bpi Qn
b . 0, so we have z = cXap 1
1 : i = 2 Xi : i = k + 1 xpi i . wp 4uk , wp 41  uk , 8wp 2 R+ ,
Inequality (iii) should be valid if p2S+ (k) p2S (k)

LðX1 Þ4X1 ð8Þ 8uk 2 f0, 1g and 8 x 2 Z, ap 2 Z¢

Nejad et al. 1215

Since we are looking for a global integer solution for a Let a1 =  0:5, a2 =  0:5, a3 = 2:4 so it needs to
class of mixed integer nonlinear programing problems, power transformations as: X1 = x2 1 , X2 = x1
2
0:5 0:5 1:2 0:5 0:5 2:4
we use in this study integer breakpoints in the piecewise and X3 = x3 therefore x1 x2 x3 = X1 X2 X3
linearization technique to approximate the inverse To convexify the non-convex negative signomial
transformation functions for every integer decision term 2 x2 x3 x4 by referring to proposition 1, we
variable. This strategy can solve the mixed integer con- have:
vexified signomial programing problems faster than the a(1 + 1 + 1)41 with 04a41 so we have a4 13,
custom (SOS). Thus, the integer results were achieved and the inverse transformation variables yi = x3i and
for integer variables with no greater dominations. for the non-convex signomial term 2x2 x3 x4 yields to
1 1 1
2Y32 Y33 Y34 , and for another signomial term:
44
Illustrative examples x2:1 1:3 10
2 x3 x4 We have: 4:4a41 ) a4 34 , Zi = ðxi Þ
10

21 13 10
so x2:1 1:3
2 x3 x4 is convexified as Z2 Z3 Z4 .
44 44 44

Example 1. Consider the following non-convex MISFP The original MISFP problem is reformulated as
problem. The tolerable error is specified as e = 0.02 follows:
from Chang1: Minimize x4
1 1 1 21 13 10
S:t X^0:5
1 X^0:5
2 X^2:4 ^3 ^3 ^3 ^44 ^44 ^44
3  2Y2 Y3 Y4  Z2 Z3 Z4 40
 2   1   
x1 x0:5
2 x3
1:2
X^1 = L x1 , X^2 = L x2 , X^3 = L x0:5
Min  44 
3
 44 
2x2 x3 + x2 x1:3
2:1
3  3
ð10Þ ^
Yi = L xi , i = 2, 3, 4, Z4 = L x4 , Z^3 = L x133 ,
^ 10

S:t  44 
2x1 + 3x2 + x3 58 Z^2 = L x21 2

ð1Þ  (5)
3x1 + x2 55 ð11Þ x1 , x4 2 R, x2 , x3 2 Z

x2 + 2x3 510 ð12Þ  

Where L xai , i = 1, 2, 3, 4 represent the piecewise line-
arized expressions. By considering theorem 1 and utiliz-
2x1 + x3 44 ð13Þ
ing only four integer breakpoints, to achieve piecewise
linearization, as you can see in table 1, we can solve that
0:24x1 45, 14x2 45, 14x3 45 ð14Þ problem. The convex problem is solved by LINGO soft-
ware 18.0 (2014),7 and the global mixed-integer result is
x1 2 R, x2 , x3 2 Z ðx1 , x2 , x3 Þ = (0:33, 4, 3). The objective value for the
relaxed problem x4 is 0.01, and e = 0:00009 by 14 itera-
tions without using any additional integer programing
We introduce a new and small variable algorithm. Although, if the original non-convex problem
(0:01 \ x4 41:9) for the above problem and use propo- is solved using the branch and bound algorithm, it will
sition 1 and proposition 3 as a transforming strategy have the mixed integer solution with fewer iterations, the
and theorem1 from Tsai and Lin17 as a linear approxi- value of the objective function will be worse. In addition,
mation strategy to treat this problem, respectively. compared to the previous solution method in Chang,1
This problem then becomes a convex MISP problem which by considering four breakpoints, the value of the
below: objective function was 0.07361 and the approximation
error was 0.062737 without reaching the integer solution
Minimize x4 for x3. so, to reach an acceptable approximation error,
S:t x1 x0:5 1:2 2:1 1:3
2 x3  2x2 x3 x4  x2 x3 x4 40
the author had to choose more break points. It is obvi-
S:t ð1Þ  (5) ous that the proposed method has reached the desired
solution by devoting less time and CPU memory, and
0:014x4 41:9
this difference will be more visible in problems with more
x1 , x4 2 R, x2 , x3 2 Z variables.
Example 2. The actual optimization problem of a
There are three non-convex terms in the constraints. shock absorber design presented minimizing the weight
To convexify the positive term x1 x0:5 1:2
2 x3 , Based on of a stress shock absorber subject to some constraints
proposition 3: on the minimum deflection. The variables x1, x2, and
Let K = 3, a1 , a2 \ 0, a3 . 0, such that a1 + x3 are the mean coil diameter, the wire diameter, and
a2 + a3 51 the number of active coils, respectively.9
1216 Measurement and Control 57(8)

Minimize ðx3 + 2Þx1 x22 X

4
wP + 5 = 1, w5 + w6 4u3 , w8 + w9 41  u3 ,
x31 x3
Subject to 1  40 P=0
71785x42 w7 4u4 , w5 + w9 41  u4 ,
3x21  x1 x2 1
 +  140
3
12566 x1 x2  x24 5108x22
8wj 2 R+ , j = 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
140:45x2
1 40
x2 x3
x1 + x2 X
4 X
4
 140 x3 = aP wP + 10 , Y^3 = (aP )1 wP + 10 ,
1:5 P=0 P=0
0:254x1 41:3, 0:054x2 42:0, 24x3 415 X
4
Z^1 = (aP )4 wP , aP 2 ½2, . . . , 15
P=0
The above problem can be reformulated as follows:

Minimize Y^1 ^4 ^1 ^1 2 X

4
1 Y2 Y3 + 2Y1 x2 wP + 10 = 1, w10 + w11 4u5 , w13 + w14 41  u5 ,
Subject to  1 + 71785 + Z^0:75 x4 x1 40
1 2 3 P=0

3Y^2 ^3 ^1 Y^1 X^2 w12 4u6 , w10 + w14 41  u6 ,

1 X2 u
+ 1 + 2  140
12566 12566 5108
x3  140:4540
8wj 2 R+ , j = 10, . . . , 14
x1 + x2  1:540
where Y1 = x11 , Y2 = x2
0:5
, Y3 = x1 4
3 , Z1 = x1
X
4 X
4
u = x1  x2 , Y^i = LðYi Þ, Z^1 = LðZ1 Þ x1 = aP wP , Z^1 = (aP )4 wP + 15 , aP 2 ½0:25, 1:3
P=0 P=0
0:254x1 41:3, 0:054x1 42:0, 24x3 415
x1 , x2 2 R, x3 2 Z
X
4
wP + 15 = 1, w15 + w16 4u7 , w18 + w19 41  u7 ,
By previous theorems P=0
w17 4u8 , w15 + w19 41  u8 ,
Y^1 5Y1 , Y^3 5Y3 , Z^1 5Z1 and Y^2 5Y2

L(Yi) represents the piecewise linearization expressions 8wj 2 R+ , j = 15, . . . , 19

of the terms Yi = 1,2,3 by Theorem 2.
Without utilizing any integer algorithm, to reach a
global optimum solution for four breakpoints, we have: This program is solved by LINGO 18.0 (2014), where
the tolerable error is specified as 0.001. The obtained
mixed integer solution with the comparison of solutions
X
4 X
4
x1 = aP wP , Y^1 = (aP )1 wP , of previous methods is listed in Table 2.
P=0 P=0 This table indicates the advantage of our method
X
4 compared with the other solution obtained by the other
Z^1 = (aP )4 wP , aP 2 ½0:25, 1:3 authors, as Table 2. shows the results of the proposed
P=0 method is global optimum within the tolerable error of
X
4 0.001.
wP = 1, w0 + w1 4u1 , w3 + w4 41  u1 ,
P=0
w2 4u2 , w0 + w4 41  u2 ,
Table 1. Chosen integer breakpoints for integer variables.
8wj 2 R+ , j = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4
u1 , u2 2 f0, 1g Variables Breakpoints

x1 (0.2,1.4,2.6,3.8,5)
X
4 X
4 x2 (1,2,3,4,5)
x2 = aP wP + 5 , Y^2 = (aP )0:5 wP + 5 , x3 (1,2,3,4,5)
P=0 P=0 x4 (0.01,0.49,0.97,1.45,1.91)
X
4
Z^1 = (aP )4 wP , aP 2 ½0:05, 2
P=0
Nejad et al. 1217

Table 2. The comparison of results for the shock absorber design problem.

Variable Arora (1989)18 Coello (1999)19 Ray and Saini (2001)20 J-F Tsai (2005)9 Proposed method

x1 0.39918 0.351661 0.321532 0.3567178 0.3509423

x2 0.053396 0.05148 0.050417 0.05168906 0.051396512
x3 9.1854 11.632201 13.979915 11.28896 11.00000
O.V. 0.012730273 0.012704783 0.01306 0.01266523 0.011684151

Conclusion 5. Ota RR, Pati JC and Ojha AK. Geometric programming

technique to optimize power distribution system.
In this study, we applied a convenient non- Opsearch 2019; 56: 282–299.
fractionalization technique and a tight power transfor- 6. Dinkelbach W. On nonlinear fractional programming.
mation method (PPT) with a novel modified piecewise Manage Sci 1967; 13: 492–498.
linear approximation to convert a non-convex MIFSP 7. Mixed integer nonlinear programming Convexification
problem into a convex MISP problem that yields global techniques and algorithm development. PhD Thesis, Aca-
optimality. It is essential to be noted the mentioned pie- demic University, 2000.
cewise linear approximation underestimates convexified 8. Chang CT. Formulating the mixed integer fractional posy-
functions, and we could obtain an integer solution nomial programming. Eur J Oper Res 2006; 173: 370–386.
without using any integer algorithm. Since this pro- 9. Tsai J-F. Global optimization of nonlinear fractional
posed method works only for a class of non-convex programming problems in engineering design. Eng Optim
2005; 37: 399–409.
signomial fractional programing problems with integer
10. Bazikar F and Saraj M. Solving linear multi-objective
variables where the integer variables have no large geometric programming problems via reference point
domains, we can introduce this technique as a pre-solve approach. Sains Malaysia. 2014; 43(8): 1271–1274.
reduction method to reduce the calculation of problem- 11. Bazikar F and Saraj M. Solving fractional geometric pro-
solving and reach a better solution. After comparing gramming problems via relaxation approach. MatLAB J
the results of this study with the previous works (see 2018; 1(3): 1–14.
example in Tsai9), we found that using the proposed 12. Mishra S and Ota RR. Signomial geometric program-
algorithm is more efficient and tighter to obtain a ming approach to solve Non-Linear fractional program-
mixed integer signomial fractional global solution. ming problems. Int J Appl Comput Math 2022; 8(1): 38.
DOI: 10.1007/s40819-022-01248-x
13. Shirinnejad Z, Saraj M, Shokrolahi S, et al. Fuzzy
Declaration of conflicting interests approach to solve a global mixed integer multi-objective
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with fractional signomial geometric programming problem.
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this Int J Ind Math 2023; 15(2): 127–136.
article. 14. Westerlund T, Liberti L and Maculan N (eds). Some
transformation techniques in global optimization. Global
optimization from theory to implementation. Boston, MA:
Funding Springer, 2007, pp.45–74.
15. Vielma JP and Nemhauser GL. Modeling disjunctive con-
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
straints with a logarithmic number of binary variables
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
and constraints. Math Program 2011; 128(1–2): 49–72.
16. Lundell A, Westerlund J and Westerlund T. Some trans-
ORCID iD formation techniques with applications in global optimi-
Mansour Saraj https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4076-5158 zation. J Glob Optim 2009; 43(2-3): 391–405.
17. Tsai J-F and Lin M-H. An efficient global approach for
posynomial geometric programming problems. informs J
References
Comput 2011; 23: 483–492.
1. Chang CT. On the posynomial fractional programming 18. Arora JS. Introduction to optimum design. New York:
problems. Eur J Oper Res 2002; 143(1): 42–52. Elsevier, 2004.
2. Shen K and Yu W. Fractional programming for commu- 19. Coello C. Self-adaptive penalties for GA based optimiza-
nication systems—part I: power control and beamform- tion. In: Proceeding of the congress on evolutionary com-
ing. IEEE Trans Signal Process 2018; 66(10): 2616–2630. putation, vol. 1. Washington, DC: IEEE Service Center,
3. Meister B and Oettli W. On the capacity of a discrete 1999, pp.573–580.
constant channel. Inf Control 1967; 11: 341–351. 20. Ray T and Saini P. Engineering design optimization
4. Bradley SP and Frey CS. Fractional programming with using a swarm with intelligent information sharing
homogeneous fractions. Eur J Oper Res 1974; 22(2): among individuals. Eng Optimiz 2001; 33: 735–748.
350–357.