Adaptive particle swarm optimization

An adaptive particle swarm optimization (APSO) that features better search efficiency than classical particle swarm optimization (PSO) is presented. More importantly, it can perform a global search over the entire search space with faster convergence speed. The APSO consists of two main steps. First, by evaluating the population distribution and particle fitness, a real-time evolutionary state estimation procedure is performed to identify one of the following four defined evolutionary states, including exploration, exploitation, convergence, and jumping out in each generation. It enables the automatic control of inertia weight, acceleration coefficients, and other algorithmic parameters at run time to improve the search efficiency and convergence speed. Then, an elitist learning strategy is performed when the evolutionary state is classified as convergence state. The strategy will act on the globally best particle to jump out of the likely local optima. The APSO has comprehensively been evaluated on 12 unimodal and multimodal benchmark functions. The effects of parameter adaptation and elitist learning will be studied. Results show that APSO substantially enhances the performance of the PSO paradigm in terms of convergence speed, global optimality, solution accuracy, and algorithm reliability. As APSO introduces two new parameters to the PSO paradigm only, it does not introduce an additional design or implementation complexity

Orthogonal learning particle swarm optimization

Particle swarm optimization (PSO) relies on its learning strategy to guide its search direction. Traditionally, each particle utilizes its historical best experience and its neighborhood’s best experience through linear summation. Such a learning strategy is easy to use, but is inefficient when searching in complex problem spaces. Hence, designing learning strategies that can utilize previous search information (experience) more efficiently has become one of the most salient and active PSO research topics. In this paper, we proposes an orthogonal learning (OL) strategy for PSO to discover more useful information that lies in the above two experiences via orthogonal experimental design. We name this PSO as orthogonal learning particle swarm optimization (OLPSO). The OL strategy can guide particles to fly in better directions by constructing a much promising and efficient exemplar. The OL strategy can be applied to PSO with any topological structure. In this paper, it is applied to both global and local versions of PSO, yielding the OLPSO-G and OLPSOL algorithms, respectively. This new learning strategy and the new algorithms are tested on a set of 16 benchmark functions, and are compared with other PSO algorithms and some state of the art evolutionary algorithms. The experimental results illustrate the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed learning strategy and algorithms. The comparisons show that OLPSO significantly improves the performance of PSO, offering faster global convergence, higher solution quality, and stronger robustness

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

Feedback learning particle swarm optimization

This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Applied Soft Computing. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published and is available at the link below - Copyright @ Elsevier 2011In this paper, a feedback learning particle swarm optimization algorithm with quadratic inertia weight (FLPSO-QIW) is developed to solve optimization problems. The proposed FLPSO-QIW consists of four steps. Firstly, the inertia weight is calculated by a designed quadratic function instead of conventional linearly decreasing function. Secondly, acceleration coefficients are determined not only by the generation number but also by the search environment described by each particle’s history best fitness information. Thirdly, the feedback fitness information of each particle is used to automatically design the learning probabilities. Fourthly, an elite stochastic learning (ELS) method is used to refine the solution. The FLPSO-QIW has been comprehensively evaluated on 18 unimodal, multimodal and composite benchmark functions with or without rotation. Compared with various state-of-the-art PSO algorithms, the performance of FLPSO-QIW is promising and competitive. The effects of parameter adaptation, parameter sensitivity and proposed mechanism are discussed in detail.This research was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of PR China (Grant No 60874113), the Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education (Grant No 200802550007), the Key Creative Project of Shanghai Education Community (Grant No 09ZZ66), the Key Foundation Project of Shanghai(Grant No 09JC1400700), the International Science and Technology Cooperation Project of China under Grant 2009DFA32050, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation of Germany

An adaptive learning particle swarm optimizer for function optimization

This article is posted here with permission of the IEEE - Copyright @ 2009 IEEETraditional particle swarm optimization (PSO) suffers from the premature convergence problem, which usually results in PSO being trapped in local optima. This paper presents an adaptive learning PSO (ALPSO) based on a variant PSO learning strategy. In ALPSO, the learning mechanism of each particle is separated into three parts: its own historical best position, the closest neighbor and the global best one. By using this individual level adaptive technique, a particle can well guide its behavior of exploration and exploitation. A set of 21 test functions were used including un-rotated, rotated and composition functions to test the performance of ALPSO. From the comparison results over several variant PSO algorithms, ALPSO shows an outstanding performance on most test functions, especially the fast convergence characteristic.This work was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) of the United Kingdom under Grant EP/E060722/1

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

Chaotic Quantum Double Delta Swarm Algorithm using Chebyshev Maps: Theoretical Foundations, Performance Analyses and Convergence Issues

Quantum Double Delta Swarm (QDDS) Algorithm is a new metaheuristic algorithm inspired by the convergence mechanism to the center of potential generated within a single well of a spatially co-located double-delta well setup. It mimics the wave nature of candidate positions in solution spaces and draws upon quantum mechanical interpretations much like other quantum-inspired computational intelligence paradigms. In this work, we introduce a Chebyshev map driven chaotic perturbation in the optimization phase of the algorithm to diversify weights placed on contemporary and historical, socially-optimal agents' solutions. We follow this up with a characterization of solution quality on a suite of 23 single-objective functions and carry out a comparative analysis with eight other related nature-inspired approaches. By comparing solution quality and successful runs over dynamic solution ranges, insights about the nature of convergence are obtained. A two-tailed t-test establishes the statistical significance of the solution data whereas Cohen's d and Hedge's g values provide a measure of effect sizes. We trace the trajectory of the fittest pseudo-agent over all function evaluations to comment on the dynamics of the system and prove that the proposed algorithm is theoretically globally convergent under the assumptions adopted for proofs of other closely-related random search algorithms.Comment: 27 pages, 4 figures, 19 table