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

Researches on Hierarchical Bare Bones Particle Swarm Optimization for Single-Objective Optimization Problems

In experiments and applications, optimization problems aim at finding the best solution from all possible solutions. According to the number of objective functions, optimization problems can be divided into single-objective problems and multi-objective problems. In this thesis, we focus on solutions for single-objective optimization problems. The purpose of this thesis is to clarify a means for realizing high search accuracy without parameter adjustment.To achieve high accuracy results for single-objective optimization problems, there are four major points to note: the local search ability in unimodal problems, the global search ability in multimodal problems, diverse search patterns for different problems, and the convergence speed controlling. Population-based methods like the particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithms are often used to solve single-objective optimization problems. However, the PSO is a parameter-needed method which means it needs to adjust parameters for better performances. The adjustment of parameters becomes an overhead when considering for engineering applications. Besides, the bare bones particle swarm optimization (BBPSO) algorithm is a parameter-free method but unable to change the search pattern according to different problems. Also, the convergence speed of the BBPSO is too fast to achieve high accuracy results. To cross the shortcoming of existing methods and present high accuracy results for single-objective optimization problems, seven different hierarchical strategies are combined with the BBPSO in this thesis. Four of the proposed algorithms are designed with swarm division which are able to converge to the global optimum fast. The other three algorithms are designed with swarm reconstruction which are able to slow down the convergence and solve shifted or rotated problems. Moreover, no parameter adjustment is needed when controlling the convergence speed.First of all, four algorithms with swarm division are proposed. In the pair-wise bare bones particle swarm optimization (PBBPSO) algorithm, the swarm splits into several search units. Two particle are placed in one unit to enhance the local search ability of the particle swarm.To increase the global search ability, the dynamic allocation bare bones particle swarm optimization (DABBPSO) algorithm is proposed. Particles in DABBPSO are divided into two groups before evaluation according to their personal best position. One group is named as the core group (CG) and the other one is called the edge group (EG). The CG focuses on digging and trying to find the optimal point in the current local optimum. Conversely, the EG aims at exploring the research area and giving the whole swarm more chances to escape from the local optimum. The two groups work together to find the global optimum in the search area.To solve the shifted of rotated problems, traditional methods usually need to increase the population size. However, the growth of population size may increase the computing time. To cross this shortcoming, a multilayer structure is used in the triple bare bones particle swarm optimization (TBBPSO) algorithm. The TBBPSO is able to present high accuracy results in shifted and rotated problems without the increasing of population size.In real-world applications, optimization methods are required to solve different types of optimization problems. However, the original BBPSO can not change its search pattern according to different problems. To solve this problem, a bare bones particle swarm optimization algorithm with dynamic local search (DLS-BBPSO) is proposed. The dynamic local search strategy is able to provide different search patterns based on different questions.In engineering applications, the optimization results can be improved by controlling the convergence speed. Normally, traditional methods need parameter adjustment to control the convergence speed. It is difficult to adjust the parameters for every single problem. To solve this problem, three different reorganization strategies are combined with the BBPSO. In the bare bones particle swarm optimization algorithm with co-evaluation (BBPSO-C), a shadow swarm is used to increase the diversity of the original swarm. A dynamic grouping method is used to disperse both the shadow particle swarm and the original particle swarm. After the dispersion, an exchanging process will be held between the two swarms. The original swarm will be more concentrated and the shadow swarm will be more scattered. With the moving of particles between the two swarms, the BBPSO-C gains the ability to slow down the convergence without parameter adjustment.With the improvement of technologies, it is possible to get high accuracy results with a long calculation. In the dynamic reconstruction bare bones particle swarm optimization (DRBBPSO) algorithm, a dynamic elite selection strategy is used to improve the diversity of the swarm. After elite selection, the swarm will be reconstructed by elite particles. According to experimental results, the DRBBPSO is able to provide high accuracy results after a long calculation.To adapt to different types of optimization problems, a fission-fusion hybrid bare bones bare bones particle swarm optimization (FHBBPSO) is proposed. The FHBBPSO combines a fission strategy and a fusion strategy to sample new positions of the particles. The fission strategy aims at splitting the search space. Particles are assigned to different local groups to sample the corresponding regions. On the other side, the fusion strategy aims at narrowing the search space. Marginal groups will be gradually merged by the central groups until only one group is left. The two strategies work together for the theoretically best solution. The FHBBPSO shows perfect results on experiments with multiple optimization functions.To conclude, the proposed hierarchical strategies provide each of the BBPSO-based algorithms variants with different search characteristics, which makes them able to realize high search accuracy without parameter adjustment.博士(理学)法政大学 (Hosei University

Hybridization of multi-objective deterministic particle swarm with derivative-free local searches

The paper presents a multi-objective derivative-free and deterministic global/local hybrid algorithm for the efficient and effective solution of simulation-based design optimization (SBDO) problems. The objective is to show how the hybridization of two multi-objective derivative-free global and local algorithms achieves better performance than the separate use of the two algorithms in solving specific SBDO problems for hull-form design. The proposed method belongs to the class of memetic algorithms, where the global exploration capability of multi-objective deterministic particle swarm optimization is enriched by exploiting the local search accuracy of a derivative-free multi-objective line-search method. To the authors best knowledge, studies are still limited on memetic, multi-objective, deterministic, derivative-free, and evolutionary algorithms for an effective and efficient solution of SBDO for hull-form design. The proposed formulation manages global and local searches based on the hypervolume metric. The hybridization scheme uses two parameters to control the local search activation and the number of function calls used by the local algorithm. The most promising values of these parameters were identified using forty analytical tests representative of the SBDO problem of interest. The resulting hybrid algorithm was finally applied to two SBDO problems for hull-form design. For both analytical tests and SBDO problems, the hybrid method achieves better performance than its global and local counterparts