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

A New K means Grey Wolf Algorithm for Engineering Problems

Purpose: The development of metaheuristic algorithms has increased by researchers to use them extensively in the field of business, science, and engineering. One of the common metaheuristic optimization algorithms is called Grey Wolf Optimization (GWO). The algorithm works based on imitation of the wolves' searching and the process of attacking grey wolves. The main purpose of this paper to overcome the GWO problem which is trapping into local optima. Design or Methodology or Approach: In this paper, the K-means clustering algorithm is used to enhance the performance of the original Grey Wolf Optimization by dividing the population into different parts. The proposed algorithm is called K-means clustering Grey Wolf Optimization (KMGWO). Findings: Results illustrate the efficiency of KMGWO is superior to GWO. To evaluate the performance of the KMGWO, KMGWO applied to solve 10 CEC2019 benchmark test functions. Results prove that KMGWO is better compared to GWO. KMGWO is also compared to Cat Swarm Optimization (CSO), Whale Optimization Algorithm-Bat Algorithm (WOA-BAT), and WOA, so, KMGWO achieves the first rank in terms of performance. Statistical results proved that KMGWO achieved a higher significant value compared to the compared algorithms. Also, the KMGWO is used to solve a pressure vessel design problem and it has outperformed results. Originality/value: Results prove that KMGWO is superior to GWO. KMGWO is also compared to cat swarm optimization (CSO), whale optimization algorithm-bat algorithm (WOA-BAT), WOA, and GWO so KMGWO achieved the first rank in terms of performance. Also, the KMGWO is used to solve a classical engineering problem and it is superiorComment: 15 pages. World Journal of Engineering, 202

A survey of swarm intelligence for dynamic optimization: algorithms and applications

Swarm intelligence (SI) algorithms, including ant colony optimization, particle swarm optimization, bee-inspired algorithms, bacterial foraging optimization, firefly algorithms, fish swarm optimization and many more, have been proven to be good methods to address difficult optimization problems under stationary environments. Most SI algorithms have been developed to address stationary optimization problems and hence, they can converge on the (near-) optimum solution efficiently. However, many real-world problems have a dynamic environment that changes over time. For such dynamic optimization problems (DOPs), it is difficult for a conventional SI algorithm to track the changing optimum once the algorithm has converged on a solution. In the last two decades, there has been a growing interest of addressing DOPs using SI algorithms due to their adaptation capabilities. This paper presents a broad review on SI dynamic optimization (SIDO) focused on several classes of problems, such as discrete, continuous, constrained, multi-objective and classification problems, and real-world applications. In addition, this paper focuses on the enhancement strategies integrated in SI algorithms to address dynamic changes, the performance measurements and benchmark generators used in SIDO. Finally, some considerations about future directions in the subject are given

Feature selection using enhanced particle swarm optimisation for classification models.

In this research, we propose two Particle Swarm Optimisation (PSO) variants to undertake feature selection tasks. The aim is to overcome two major shortcomings of the original PSO model, i.e., premature convergence and weak exploitation around the near optimal solutions. The first proposed PSO variant incorporates four key operations, including a modified PSO operation with rectified personal and global best signals, spiral search based local exploitation, Gaussian distribution-based swarm leader enhancement, and mirroring and mutation operations for worst solution improvement. The second proposed PSO model enhances the first one through four new strategies, i.e., an adaptive exemplar breeding mechanism incorporating multiple optimal signals, nonlinear function oriented search coefficients, exponential and scattering schemes for swarm leader, and worst solution enhancement, respectively. In comparison with a set of 15 classical and advanced search methods, the proposed models illustrate statistical superiority for discriminative feature selection for a total of 13 data sets

Towards Optimized K Means Clustering using Nature-inspired Algorithms for Software Bug Prediction

In today s software development environment the necessity for providing quality software products has undoubtedly remained the largest difficulty As a result early software bug prediction in the development phase is critical for lowering maintenance costs and improving overall software performance Clustering is a well-known unsupervised method for data classification and finding related patterns hidden in dataset

A NOVEL DISCRETE RAT SWARM OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHM FOR THE QUADRATIC ASSIGNMENT PROBLEM

The quadratic assignment problem (QAP) is an NP-hard problem with a wide range of applications in many real-world applications. This study introduces a discrete rat swarm optimizer (DRSO)algorithm for the first time as a solution to the QAP and demonstrates its effectiveness in terms of solution quality and computational efficiency. To address the combinatorial nature of the QAP, a mapping strategy is introduced to convert real values into discrete values, and mathematical operators are redefined to make then suitable for combinatorial problems. Additionally, a solution quality improvement strategy based on local search heuristics such as 2-opt and 3-opt is proposed. Simulations with test instances from the QAPLIB test library validate the effectiveness of the DRSO algorithm, and statistical analysis using the Wilcoxon parametric test confirms its performance. Comparative analysis with other algorithms demonstrates the superior performance of DRSO in terms of solution quality, convergence speed, and deviation from the best-known values, making it a promising approach for solving the QAP

Algoritmo de colonia de abejas artificiales hibridado con algoritmos evolutivos

In this paper, we design, implement, and analysis the replacement of the method to create new solutions in artificial bee colony algorithm by recombination operators, since the original method is similar to the recombination process used in evolutionary algorithms. For that purpose, we present a systematic investigation of the effect of using six different recombination operators for real-coded representations at the employed bee step. All the analysis is carried out using well known test problems. The experimental results suggest that the method to generate a new candidate food position plays an important role in the performance of the algorithm. Computational results and comparisons show that three of the six proposed algorithms are very competitive with the traditional bee colony algorithm.En este trabajo, se ha diseñado, implementado y analizado el reemplazo del método para crear nuevas soluciones en algoritmos basados en colonia de abejas artificiales por operadores de recombinación, ya que el método original es similar al proceso de recombinación usado en los algoritmos evolutivos. Para cumplir con este propósito, se presenta una investigación sistemática del efecto de usar seis operadores de recombinación distintos en el procedimiento llevado a cabo por la abeja empleada. Para la experimentación se utilizan casos de pruebas complejos, habitualmente utilizados en la literatura. Los resultados obtenidos sugieren que el método generador de nuevas fuentes de comida afecta el desempeño del algoritmo. A partir del análisis y comparaciones de los resultados, se observa que tres de las seis propuestas algorítmicas son competitivas con respecto al algoritmo basado en colonia de abejas tradicional.Facultad de Informátic