Multi-agent collaborative search : an agent-based memetic multi-objective optimization algorithm applied to space trajectory design

This article presents an algorithm for multi-objective optimization that blends together a number of heuristics. A population of agents combines heuristics that aim at exploring the search space both globally and in a neighbourhood of each agent. These heuristics are complemented with a combination of a local and global archive. The novel agent-based algorithm is tested at first on a set of standard problems and then on three specific problems in space trajectory design. Its performance is compared against a number of state-of-the-art multi-objective optimization algorithms that use the Pareto dominance as selection criterion: non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II), Pareto archived evolution strategy (PAES), multiple objective particle swarm optimization (MOPSO), and multiple trajectory search (MTS). The results demonstrate that the agent-based search can identify parts of the Pareto set that the other algorithms were not able to capture. Furthermore, convergence is statistically better although the variance of the results is in some cases higher

A new approach to particle swarm optimization algorithm

Particularly interesting group consists of algorithms that implement co-evolution or co-operation in natural environments, giving much more powerful implementations. The main aim is to obtain the algorithm which operation is not influenced by the environment. An unusual look at optimization algorithms made it possible to develop a new algorithm and its metaphors define for two groups of algorithms. These studies concern the particle swarm optimization algorithm as a model of predator and prey. New properties of the algorithm resulting from the co-operation mechanism that determines the operation of algorithm and significantly reduces environmental influence have been shown. Definitions of functions of behavior scenarios give new feature of the algorithm. This feature allows self controlling the optimization process. This approach can be successfully used in computer games. Properties of the new algorithm make it worth of interest, practical application and further research on its development. This study can be also an inspiration to search other solutions that implementing co-operation or co-evolution.Angeline, P. (1998). Using selection to improve particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of the IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, Anchorage (pp. 84–89).Arquilla, J., & Ronfeldt, D. (2000). Swarming and the future of conflict, RAND National Defense Research Institute, Santa Monica, CA, US.Bessaou, M., & Siarry, P. (2001). A genetic algorithm with real-value coding to optimize multimodal continuous functions. Structural and Multidiscipline Optimization, 23, 63–74.Bird, S., & Li, X. (2006). Adaptively choosing niching parameters in a PSO. In Proceedings of the 2006 genetic and evolutionary computation conference (pp. 3–10).Bird, S., & Li, X. (2007). Using regression to improve local convergence. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (pp. 592–599).Blackwell, T., & Bentley, P. (2002). Dont push me! Collision-avoiding swarms. In Proceedings of the IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, Honolulu (pp. 1691–1696).Brits, R., Engelbrecht, F., & van den Bergh, A. P. (2002). Solving systems of unconstrained equations using particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (pp. 102–107).Brits, R., Engelbrecht, A., & van den Bergh, F. (2002). A niching particle swarm optimizer. In Proceedings of the fourth asia-pacific conference on simulated evolution and learning (pp. 692–696).Chelouah, R., & Siarry, P. (2000). A continuous genetic algorithm designed for the global optimization of multimodal functions. Journal of Heuristics, 6(2), 191–213.Chelouah, R., & Siarry, P. (2000). Tabu search applied to global optimization. European Journal of Operational Research, 123, 256–270.Chelouah, R., & Siarry, P. (2003). Genetic and Nelder–Mead algorithms hybridized for a more accurate global optimization of continuous multiminima function. European Journal of Operational Research, 148(2), 335–348.Chelouah, R., & Siarry, P. (2005). A hybrid method combining continuous taboo search and Nelder–Mead simplex algorithms for the global optimization of multiminima functions. European Journal of Operational Research, 161, 636–654.Chen, T., & Chi, T. (2010). On the improvements of the particle swarm optimization algorithm. Advances in Engineering Software, 41(2), 229–239.Clerc, M., & Kennedy, J. (2002). The particle swarm-explosion, stability, and convergence in a multidimensional complex space. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6(1), 58–73.Fan, H., & Shi, Y. (2001). Study on Vmax of particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of the workshop particle swarm optimization, Indianapolis.Gao, H., & Xu, W. (2011). Particle swarm algorithm with hybrid mutation strategy. Applied Soft Computing, 11(8), 5129–5142.Gosciniak, I. (2008). Immune algorithm in non-stationary optimization task. In Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on computational intelligence for modelling control & automation, CIMCA ’08 (pp. 750–755). Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society.He, Q., & Wang, L. (2007). An effective co-evolutionary particle swarm optimization for constrained engineering design problems. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 20(1), 89–99.Higashitani, M., Ishigame, A., & Yasuda, K., (2006). Particle swarm optimization considering the concept of predator–prey behavior. In 2006 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (pp. 434–437).Higashitani, M., Ishigame, A., & Yasuda, K. (2008). Pursuit-escape particle swarm optimization. IEEJ Transactions on Electrical and Electronic Engineering, 3(1), 136–142.Hu, X., & Eberhart, R. (2002). Multiobjective optimization using dynamic neighborhood particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of the evolutionary computation on 2002. CEC ’02. Proceedings of the 2002 congress (Vol. 02, pp. 1677–1681). Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society.Hu, X., Eberhart, R., & Shi, Y. (2003). Engineering optimization with particle swarm. In IEEE swarm intelligence symposium, SIS 2003 (pp. 53–57). Indianapolis: IEEE Neural Networks Society.Jang, W., Kang, H., Lee, B., Kim, K., Shin, D., & Kim, S. (2007). Optimized fuzzy clustering by predator prey particle swarm optimization. In IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, CEC2007 (pp. 3232–3238).Kennedy, J. (2000). Stereotyping: Improving particle swarm performance with cluster analysis. In Proceedings of the 2000 congress on evolutionary computation (pp. 1507–1512).Kennedy, J., & Mendes, R. (2002). Population structure and particle swarm performance. In IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (pp. 1671–1676).Kuo, H., Chang, J., & Shyu, K. (2004). A hybrid algorithm of evolution and simplex methods applied to global optimization. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 12(4), 280–289.Leontitsis, A., Kontogiorgos, D., & Pange, J. (2006). Repel the swarm to the optimum. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 173(1), 265–272.Li, X. (2004). Adaptively choosing neighborhood bests using species in a particle swarm optimizer for multimodal function optimization. In Proceedings of the 2004 genetic and evolutionary computation conference (pp. 105–116).Li, C., & Yang, S. (2009). A clustering particle swarm optimizer for dynamic optimization. In Proceedings of the 2009 congress on evolutionary computation (pp. 439–446).Liang, J., Suganthan, P., & Deb, K. (2005). Novel composition test functions for numerical global optimization. In Proceedings of the swarm intelligence symposium [Online]. Available: .Liang, J., Qin, A., Suganthan, P., & Baskar, S. (2006). Comprehensive learning particle swarm optimizer for global optimization of multimodal functions. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 10(3), 281–295.Lovbjerg, M., & Krink, T. (2002). Extending particle swarm optimizers with self-organized criticality. In Proceedings of the congress on evolutionary computation, Honolulu (pp. 1588–1593).Lung, R., & Dumitrescu, D. (2007). A collaborative model for tracking optima in dynamic environments. In Proceedings of the 2007 congress on evolutionary computation (pp. 564–567).Mendes, R., Kennedy, J., & Neves, J. (2004). The fully informed particle swarm: simpler, maybe better. IEEE Transaction on Evolutionary Computation, 8(3), 204–210.Miranda, V., & Fonseca, N. (2002). New evolutionary particle swarm algorithm (EPSO) applied to voltage/VAR control. In Proceedings of the 14th power systems computation conference, Seville, Spain [Online] Available: .Parrott, D., & Li, X. (2004). A particle swarm model for tracking multiple peaks in a dynamic environment using speciation. In Proceedings of the 2004 congress on evolutionary computation (pp. 98–103).Parrott, D., & Li, X. (2006). Locating and tracking multiple dynamic optima by a particle swarm model using speciation. In IEEE transaction on evolutionary computation (Vol. 10, pp. 440–458).Parsopoulos, K., & Vrahatis, M. (2004). UPSOA unified particle swarm optimization scheme. Lecture Series on Computational Sciences, 868–873.Passaroand, A., & Starita, A. (2008). Particle swarm optimization for multimodal functions: A clustering approach. Journal of Artificial Evolution and Applications, 2008, 15 (Article ID 482032).Peram, T., Veeramachaneni, K., & Mohan, C. (2003). Fitness-distance-ratio based particle swarm optimization. In Swarm intelligence symp. (pp. 174–181).Sedighizadeh, D., & Masehian, E. (2009). Particle swarm optimization methods, taxonomy and applications. International Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering, 1(5), 1793–8201.Shi, Y., & Eberhart, R. (2001). Particle swarm optimization with fuzzy adaptive inertia weight. In Proceedings of the workshop particle swarm optimization, Indianapolis (pp. 101–106).Shi, Y., & Eberhart, R. (1998). A modified particle swarm optimizer. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation (pp. 69–73). Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society.Thomsen, R. (2004). Multimodal optimization using crowding-based differential evolution. In Proceedings of the 2004 congress on evolutionary computation (pp. 1382–1389).Trojanowski, K., & Wierzchoń, S. (2009). Immune-based algorithms for dynamic optimization. Information Sciences, 179(10), 1495–1515.Tsoulos, I., & Stavrakoudis, A. (2010). Enhancing PSO methods for global optimization. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 216(10), 2988–3001.van den Bergh, F., & Engelbrecht, A. (2004). A cooperative approach to particle swarm optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 8, 225–239.Wolpert, D., & Macready, W. (1997). No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Transaction on Evolutionary Computation, 1(1), 67–82.Xie, X., Zhang, W., & Yang, Z. (2002). Dissipative particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of the congress on evolutionary computation (pp. 1456–1461).Yang, S., & Li, C. (2010). A clustering particle swarm optimizer for locating and tracking multiple optima in dynamic environments. In IEEE Trans. on evolutionary computation (Vol. 14, pp. 959–974).Kuo, H., Chang, J., & Liu, C. (2006). Particle swarm optimization for global optimization problems. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 14(3), 170–181

Genetic learning particle swarm optimization

Social learning in particle swarm optimization (PSO) helps collective efficiency, whereas individual reproduction in genetic algorithm (GA) facilitates global effectiveness. This observation recently leads to hybridizing PSO with GA for performance enhancement. However, existing work uses a mechanistic parallel superposition and research has shown that construction of superior exemplars in PSO is more effective. Hence, this paper first develops a new framework so as to organically hybridize PSO with another optimization technique for “learning.” This leads to a generalized “learning PSO” paradigm, the *L-PSO. The paradigm is composed of two cascading layers, the first for exemplar generation and the second for particle updates as per a normal PSO algorithm. Using genetic evolution to breed promising exemplars for PSO, a specific novel *L-PSO algorithm is proposed in the paper, termed genetic learning PSO (GL-PSO). In particular, genetic operators are used to generate exemplars from which particles learn and, in turn, historical search information of particles provides guidance to the evolution of the exemplars. By performing crossover, mutation, and selection on the historical information of particles, the constructed exemplars are not only well diversified, but also high qualified. Under such guidance, the global search ability and search efficiency of PSO are both enhanced. The proposed GL-PSO is tested on 42 benchmark functions widely adopted in the literature. Experimental results verify the effectiveness, efficiency, robustness, and scalability of the GL-PSO

Improved dynamical particle swarm optimization method for structural dynamics

A methodology to the multiobjective structural design of buildings based on an improved particle swarm optimization algorithm is presented, which has proved to be very efficient and robust in nonlinear problems and when the optimization objectives are in conflict. In particular, the behaviour of the particle swarm optimization (PSO) classical algorithm is improved by dynamically adding autoadaptive mechanisms that enhance the exploration/exploitation trade-off and diversity of the proposed algorithm, avoiding getting trapped in local minima. A novel integrated optimization system was developed, called DI-PSO, to solve this problem which is able to control and even improve the structural behaviour under seismic excitations. In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach, the methodology is tested against some benchmark problems. Then a 3-story-building model is optimized under different objective cases, concluding that the improved multiobjective optimization methodology using DI-PSO is more efficient as compared with those designs obtained using single optimization.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version

Optimizing Engagement Simulations Through the Advanced Framework for Simulation, Integration, and Modeling (AFSIM) Software

The ability to effectively model and simulate military missions holds the potential to save lives, money, and resources for the United States. The Advanced Framework for Simulation, Integration, and Modeling (AFSIM) software is a tool used to rapidly simulate and model new technologies and mission level scenarios. In this thesis, our objective is to integrate a closed loop optimization routine with AFSIM to identify an effective objective function to assess optimal inputs for engagement scenarios. Given the many factors which impact a mission level engagement, we developed a tool which interfaces with AFSIM to observe the effects from multiple inputs in an engagement scenario. Our tool operates under the assumption that simulation results have met an acceptable convergence threshold. The objective function evaluates the effectiveness and associated cost with a scenario using a genetic algorithm and a particle swarm optimization algorithm. From this, a statistical analysis was performed to assess risk from the distribution of effectiveness and cost at each point. The method allows an optimal set of inputs to be selected for a desired result from the selected engagement scenario.No embargoAcademic Major: Mechanical Engineerin

State-of-the-art in aerodynamic shape optimisation methods

Aerodynamic optimisation has become an indispensable component for any aerodynamic design over the past 60 years, with applications to aircraft, cars, trains, bridges, wind turbines, internal pipe flows, and cavities, among others, and is thus relevant in many facets of technology. With advancements in computational power, automated design optimisation procedures have become more competent, however, there is an ambiguity and bias throughout the literature with regards to relative performance of optimisation architectures and employed algorithms. This paper provides a well-balanced critical review of the dominant optimisation approaches that have been integrated with aerodynamic theory for the purpose of shape optimisation. A total of 229 papers, published in more than 120 journals and conference proceedings, have been classified into 6 different optimisation algorithm approaches. The material cited includes some of the most well-established authors and publications in the field of aerodynamic optimisation. This paper aims to eliminate bias toward certain algorithms by analysing the limitations, drawbacks, and the benefits of the most utilised optimisation approaches. This review provides comprehensive but straightforward insight for non-specialists and reference detailing the current state for specialist practitioners

Multi-objective discrete particle swarm optimisation algorithm for integrated assembly sequence planning and assembly line balancing

In assembly optimisation, assembly sequence planning and assembly line balancing have been extensively studied because both activities are directly linked with assembly efficiency that influences the final assembly costs. Both activities are categorised as NP-hard and usually performed separately. Assembly sequence planning and assembly line balancing optimisation presents a good opportunity to be integrated, considering the benefits such as larger search space that leads to better solution quality, reduces error rate in planning and speeds up time-to-market for a product. In order to optimise an integrated assembly sequence planning and assembly line balancing, this work proposes a multi-objective discrete particle swarm optimisation algorithm that used discrete procedures to update its position and velocity in finding Pareto optimal solution. A computational experiment with 51 test problems at different difficulty levels was used to test the multi-objective discrete particle swarm optimisation performance compared with the existing algorithms. A statistical test of the algorithm performance indicates that the proposed multi-objective discrete particle swarm optimisation algorithm presents significant improvement in terms of the quality of the solution set towards the Pareto optimal set

A self-learning particle swarm optimizer for global optimization problems

Copyright @ 2011 IEEE. All Rights Reserved. This article was made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund.Particle swarm optimization (PSO) has been shown as an effective tool for solving global optimization problems. So far, most PSO algorithms use a single learning pattern for all particles, which means that all particles in a swarm use the same strategy. This monotonic learning pattern may cause the lack of intelligence for a particular particle, which makes it unable to deal with different complex situations. This paper presents a novel algorithm, called self-learning particle swarm optimizer (SLPSO), for global optimization problems. In SLPSO, each particle has a set of four strategies to cope with different situations in the search space. The cooperation of the four strategies is implemented by an adaptive learning framework at the individual level, which can enable a particle to choose the optimal strategy according to its own local fitness landscape. The experimental study on a set of 45 test functions and two real-world problems show that SLPSO has a superior performance in comparison with several other peer algorithms.This work was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council of U.K. under Grants EP/E060722/1 and EP/E060722/2