Explicit memory schemes for evolutionary algorithms in dynamic environments

Copyright @ 2007 Springer-VerlagProblem optimization in dynamic environments has atrracted a growing interest from the evolutionary computation community in reccent years due to its importance in real world optimization problems. Several approaches have been developed to enhance the performance of evolutionary algorithms for dynamic optimization problems, of which the memory scheme is a major one. This chapter investigates the application of explicit memory schemes for evolutionary algorithms in dynamic environments. Two kinds of explicit memory schemes: direct memory and associative memory, are studied within two classes of evolutionary algorithms: genetic algorithms and univariate marginal distribution algorithms for dynamic optimization problems. Based on a series of systematically constructed dynamic test environments, experiments are carried out to investigate these explicit memory schemes and the performance of direct and associative memory schemes are campared and analysed. The experimental results show the efficiency of the memory schemes for evolutionary algorithms in dynamic environments, especially when the environment changes cyclically. The experimental results also indicate that the effect of the memory schemes depends not only on the dynamic problems and dynamic environments but also on the evolutionary algorithm used

Triggered memory-based swarm optimization in dynamic environments

This is a post-print version of this article - Copyright @ 2007 Springer-VerlagIn recent years, there has been an increasing concern from the evolutionary computation community on dynamic optimization problems since many real-world optimization problems are time-varying. In this paper, a triggered memory scheme is introduced into the particle swarm optimization to deal with dynamic environments. The triggered memory scheme enhances traditional memory scheme with a triggered memory generator. Experimental study over a benchmark dynamic problem shows that the triggered memory-based particle swarm optimization algorithm has stronger robustness and adaptability than traditional particle swarm optimization algorithms, both with and without traditional memory scheme, for dynamic optimization problems

Evolutionary computation for dynamic optimization problems

This is an invited tutorial on "Evolutionary Computation for Dynamic Optimization Problems", which was given at the 15th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GECCO 2013)

Evolutionary Computation for Dynamic Optimization Problems

This is an invited tutorial on "Evolutionary Computation for Dynamic Optimization Problems", which was given at the 2015 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO 2015).Many real-world optimization problems are subject to dynamic environments, where changes may occur over time regarding optimization objectives, decision variables, and/or constraint conditions. Such dynamic optimization problems (DOPs) are challenging problems for researchers and practitioners in decision-making due to their nature of difficulty. Yet, they are important problems that decision-makers in many domains need to face and solve. Evolutionary computation (EC) is a class of stochastic optimization methods that mimic principles from natural evolution to solve optimization and search problems. EC methods are good tools to address DOPs due to their inspiration from natural and biological evolution, which has always been subject to changing environments. EC for DOPs has attracted a lot of research effort during the last twenty years with some promising results. However, this research area is still quite young and far away from well-understood. This tutorial aims to summarise the research area of EC for DOPs and attract potential young researchers into the important research area. It will provide an introduction to the research area of EC for DOPs and carry out an in-depth description of the state-of-the-art of research in the field regarding the following five aspects: benchmark problems and generators, performance measures, algorithmic approaches, theoretical studies, and applications. Some future research issues and directions regarding EC for DOPs will also be presented. The purpose is to (i) provide clear definition and classification of DOPs; (ii) review current approaches and provide detailed explanations on how they work; (iii) review the strengths and weaknesses of each approach; (iv) discuss the current assumptions and coverage of existing research on EC for DOPs; and (v) identify current gaps, challenges, and opportunities in EC for DOPs

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 particle swarm optimization based memetic algorithm for dynamic optimization problems

Copyright @ Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2010.Recently, there has been an increasing concern from the evolutionary computation community on dynamic optimization problems since many real-world optimization problems are dynamic. This paper investigates a particle swarm optimization (PSO) based memetic algorithm that hybridizes PSO with a local search technique for dynamic optimization problems. Within the framework of the proposed algorithm, a local version of PSO with a ring-shape topology structure is used as the global search operator and a fuzzy cognition local search method is proposed as the local search technique. In addition, a self-organized random immigrants scheme is extended into our proposed algorithm in order to further enhance its exploration capacity for new peaks in the search space. Experimental study over the moving peaks benchmark problem shows that the proposed PSO-based memetic algorithm is robust and adaptable in dynamic environments.This work was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under Grant No. 70431003 and Grant No. 70671020, the National Innovation Research Community Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 60521003, the National Support Plan of China under Grant No. 2006BAH02A09 and the Ministry of Education, science, and Technology in Korea through the Second-Phase of Brain Korea 21 Project in 2009, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) of UK under Grant EP/E060722/01 and the Hong Kong Polytechnic University Research Grants under Grant G-YH60

Exploring the Performance of an Evolutionary Algorithm for Greenhouse Control

Evolutionary algorithms for optimization of dynamic problems have recently received increasing attention. Online control is a particularly interesting class of dynamic problems, because of the interactions between the controller and the controlled system. In this paper, we report experimental results on two aspects of the direct control strategy in relation to a crop-producing greenhouse. In the first set of experiments, we investigated how to balance the available computation time between population size and generations. The second experiments were on different control horizons, and showed the importance of this aspect for direct control. Finally, we discuss the results in the wider context of dynamic optimization

Reproducibility and Baseline Reporting for Dynamic Multi-objective Benchmark Problems

Dynamic multi-objective optimization problems (DMOPs) are widely accepted to be more challenging than stationary problems due to the time-dependent nature of the objective functions and/or constraints. Evaluation of purpose-built algorithms for DMOPs is often performed on narrow selections of dynamic instances with differing change magnitude and frequency or a limited selection of problems. In this paper, we focus on the reproducibility of simulation experiments for parameters of DMOPs. Our framework is based on an extension of PlatEMO, allowing for the reproduction of results and performance measurements across a range of dynamic settings and problems. A baseline schema for dynamic algorithm evaluation is introduced, which provides a mechanism to interrogate performance and optimization behaviours of well-known evolutionary algorithms that were not designed specifically for DMOPs. Importantly, by determining the maximum capability of non-dynamic multi-objective evolutionary algorithms, we can establish the minimum capability required of purpose-built dynamic algorithms to be useful. The simplest modifications to manage dynamic changes introduce diversity. Allowing non-dynamic algorithms to incorporate mutated/random solutions after change events determines the improvement possible with minor algorithm modifications. Future expansion to include current dynamic algorithms will enable reproduction of their results and verification of their abilities and performance across DMOP benchmark space.Comment: Accepted for publication in "Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO) 2022

A survey on metaheuristics for stochastic combinatorial optimization

Metaheuristics are general algorithmic frameworks, often nature-inspired, designed to solve complex optimization problems, and they are a growing research area since a few decades. In recent years, metaheuristics are emerging as successful alternatives to more classical approaches also for solving optimization problems that include in their mathematical formulation uncertain, stochastic, and dynamic information. In this paper metaheuristics such as Ant Colony Optimization, Evolutionary Computation, Simulated Annealing, Tabu Search and others are introduced, and their applications to the class of Stochastic Combinatorial Optimization Problems (SCOPs) is thoroughly reviewed. Issues common to all metaheuristics, open problems, and possible directions of research are proposed and discussed. In this survey, the reader familiar to metaheuristics finds also pointers to classical algorithmic approaches to optimization under uncertainty, and useful informations to start working on this problem domain, while the reader new to metaheuristics should find a good tutorial in those metaheuristics that are currently being applied to optimization under uncertainty, and motivations for interest in this fiel