Leo: Lagrange Elementary Optimization

Global optimization problems are frequently solved using the practical and efficient method of evolutionary sophistication. But as the original problem becomes more complex, so does its efficacy and expandability. Thus, the purpose of this research is to introduce the Lagrange Elementary Optimization (Leo) as an evolutionary method, which is self-adaptive inspired by the remarkable accuracy of vaccinations using the albumin quotient of human blood. They develop intelligent agents using their fitness function value after gene crossing. These genes direct the search agents during both exploration and exploitation. The main objective of the Leo algorithm is presented in this paper along with the inspiration and motivation for the concept. To demonstrate its precision, the proposed algorithm is validated against a variety of test functions, including 19 traditional benchmark functions and the CECC06 2019 test functions. The results of Leo for 19 classic benchmark test functions are evaluated against DA, PSO, and GA separately, and then two other recent algorithms such as FDO and LPB are also included in the evaluation. In addition, the Leo is tested by ten functions on CECC06 2019 with DA, WOA, SSA, FDO, LPB, and FOX algorithms distinctly. The cumulative outcomes demonstrate Leo's capacity to increase the starting population and move toward the global optimum. Different standard measurements are used to verify and prove the stability of Leo in both the exploration and exploitation phases. Moreover, Statistical analysis supports the findings results of the proposed research. Finally, novel applications in the real world are introduced to demonstrate the practicality of Leo.Comment: 28 page

Comprehensive Taxonomies of Nature- and Bio-inspired Optimization: Inspiration versus Algorithmic Behavior, Critical Analysis and Recommendations

In recent years, a great variety of nature- and bio-inspired algorithms has been reported in the literature. This algorithmic family simulates different biological processes observed in Nature in order to efficiently address complex optimization problems. In the last years the number of bio-inspired optimization approaches in literature has grown considerably, reaching unprecedented levels that dark the future prospects of this field of research. This paper addresses this problem by proposing two comprehensive, principle-based taxonomies that allow researchers to organize existing and future algorithmic developments into well-defined categories, considering two different criteria: the source of inspiration and the behavior of each algorithm. Using these taxonomies we review more than three hundred publications dealing with nature-inspired and bio-inspired algorithms, and proposals falling within each of these categories are examined, leading to a critical summary of design trends and similarities between them, and the identification of the most similar classical algorithm for each reviewed paper. From our analysis we conclude that a poor relationship is often found between the natural inspiration of an algorithm and its behavior. Furthermore, similarities in terms of behavior between different algorithms are greater than what is claimed in their public disclosure: specifically, we show that more than one-third of the reviewed bio-inspired solvers are versions of classical algorithms. Grounded on the conclusions of our critical analysis, we give several recommendations and points of improvement for better methodological practices in this active and growing research field.Comment: 76 pages, 6 figure

Chaotic Sand Cat Swarm Optimization

In this study, a new hybrid metaheuristic algorithm named Chaotic Sand Cat Swarm Optimization (CSCSO) is proposed for constrained and complex optimization problems. This algorithm combines the features of the recently introduced SCSO with the concept of chaos. The basic aim of the proposed algorithm is to integrate the chaos feature of non-recurring locations into SCSO’s core search process to improve global search performance and convergence behavior. Thus, randomness in SCSO can be replaced by a chaotic map due to similar randomness features with better statistical and dynamic properties. In addition to these advantages, low search consistency, local optimum trap, inefficiency search, and low population diversity issues are also provided. In the proposed CSCSO, several chaotic maps are implemented for more efficient behavior in the exploration and exploitation phases. Experiments are conducted on a wide variety of well-known test functions to increase the reliability of the results, as well as real-world problems. In this study, the proposed algorithm was applied to a total of 39 functions and multidisciplinary problems. It found 76.3% better responses compared to a best-developed SCSO variant and other chaotic-based metaheuristics tested. This extensive experiment indicates that the CSCSO algorithm excels in providing acceptable results

A spring search algorithm applied to engineering optimization problems

At present, optimization algorithms are used extensively. One particular type of such algorithms includes random-based heuristic population optimization algorithms, which may be created by modeling scientific phenomena, like, for example, physical processes. The present article proposes a novel optimization algorithm based on Hooke’s law, called the spring search algorithm (SSA), which aims to solve single-objective constrained optimization problems. In the SSA, search agents are weights joined through springs, which, as Hooke’s law states, possess a force that corresponds to its length. The mathematics behind the algorithm are presented in the text. In order to test its functionality, it is executed on 38 established benchmark test functions and weighed against eight other optimization algorithms: a genetic algorithm (GA), a gravitational search algorithm (GSA), a grasshopper optimization algorithm (GOA), particle swarm optimization (PSO), teaching–learning-based optimization (TLBO), a grey wolf optimizer (GWO), a spotted hyena optimizer (SHO), as well as an emperor penguin optimizer (EPO). To test the SSA’s usability, it is employed on five engineering optimization problems. The SSA delivered better fitting results than the other algorithms in unimodal objective function, multimodal objective functions, CEC 2015, in addition to the optimization problems in engineering

A New Optimization Algorithm Based on Search and Rescue Operations

[EN] In this paper, a new optimization algorithm called the search and rescue optimization algorithm (SAR) is proposed for solving single-objective continuous optimization problems. SAR is inspired by the explorations carried out by humans during search and rescue operations. The performance of SAR was evaluated on fifty-five optimization functions including a set of classic benchmark functions and a set of modern CEC 2013 benchmark functions from the literature. The obtained results were compared with twelve optimization algorithms including well-known optimization algorithms, recent variants of GA, DE, CMA-ES, and PSO, and recent metaheuristic algorithms. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for some of the comparisons, and the convergence behavior of SAR was investigated. The statistical results indicated SAR is highly competitive with the compared algorithms. Also, in order to evaluate the application of SAR on real-world optimization problems, it was applied to three engineering design problems, and the results revealed that SAR is able to find more accurate solutions with fewer function evaluations in comparison with the other existing algorithms. Thus, the proposed algorithm can be considered an efficient optimization method for real-world optimization problems.This study was partially supported by the Spanish Research Project (nos. TIN2016-80856-R and TIN2015-65515-C4-1-R).Shabani, A.; Asgarian, B.; Gharebaghi, SA.; Salido Gregorio, MA.; Giret Boggino, AS. (2019). A New Optimization Algorithm Based on Search and Rescue Operations. Mathematical Problems in Engineering. 2019:1-23. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2482543S1232019Bianchi, L., Dorigo, M., Gambardella, L. M., & Gutjahr, W. J. (2008). A survey on metaheuristics for stochastic combinatorial optimization. Natural Computing, 8(2), 239-287. doi:10.1007/s11047-008-9098-4Holland, J. H. (1992). Genetic Algorithms. Scientific American, 267(1), 66-72. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0792-66Dorigo, M., Maniezzo, V., & Colorni, A. (1996). Ant system: optimization by a colony of cooperating agents. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), 26(1), 29-41. doi:10.1109/3477.484436Manjarres, D., Landa-Torres, I., Gil-Lopez, S., Del Ser, J., Bilbao, M. N., Salcedo-Sanz, S., & Geem, Z. W. (2013). A survey on applications of the harmony search algorithm. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 26(8), 1818-1831. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2013.05.008Karaboga, D., Gorkemli, B., Ozturk, C., & Karaboga, N. (2012). A comprehensive survey: artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm and applications. Artificial Intelligence Review, 42(1), 21-57. doi:10.1007/s10462-012-9328-0Rao, R. V., Savsani, V. J., & Vakharia, D. P. (2011). Teaching–learning-based optimization: A novel method for constrained mechanical design optimization problems. Computer-Aided Design, 43(3), 303-315. doi:10.1016/j.cad.2010.12.015Zhang, C., Lin, Q., Gao, L., & Li, X. (2015). Backtracking Search Algorithm with three constraint handling methods for constrained optimization problems. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(21), 7831-7845. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.05.050Yang, X. S. (2010). Firefly algorithm, stochastic test functions and design optimisation. International Journal of Bio-Inspired Computation, 2(2), 78. doi:10.1504/ijbic.2010.032124Punnathanam, V., & Kotecha, P. (2016). Yin-Yang-pair Optimization: A novel lightweight optimization algorithm. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 54, 62-79. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2016.04.004Zhao, C., Wu, C., Chai, J., Wang, X., Yang, X., Lee, J.-M., & Kim, M. J. (2017). Decomposition-based multi-objective firefly algorithm for RFID network planning with uncertainty. Applied Soft Computing, 55, 549-564. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2017.02.009Zhao, C., Wu, C., Wang, X., Ling, B. W.-K., Teo, K. L., Lee, J.-M., & Jung, K.-H. (2017). Maximizing lifetime of a wireless sensor network via joint optimizing sink placement and sensor-to-sink routing. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 49, 319-337. doi:10.1016/j.apm.2017.05.001Wolpert, D. H., & Macready, W. G. (1997). No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 1(1), 67-82. doi:10.1109/4235.585893Simon, D. (2008). Biogeography-Based Optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 12(6), 702-713. doi:10.1109/tevc.2008.919004Garg, H. (2015). An efficient biogeography based optimization algorithm for solving reliability optimization problems. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 24, 1-10. doi:10.1016/j.swevo.2015.05.001Storn, R., & Price, K. (1997). Journal of Global Optimization, 11(4), 341-359. doi:10.1023/a:1008202821328Das, S., Mullick, S. S., & Suganthan, P. N. (2016). Recent advances in differential evolution – An updated survey. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 27, 1-30. doi:10.1016/j.swevo.2016.01.004Couzin, I. D., Krause, J., Franks, N. R., & Levin, S. A. (2005). Effective leadership and decision-making in animal groups on the move. Nature, 433(7025), 513-516. doi:10.1038/nature03236Gandomi, A. H., & Alavi, A. H. (2012). Krill herd: A new bio-inspired optimization algorithm. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 17(12), 4831-4845. doi:10.1016/j.cnsns.2012.05.010Mirjalili, S., Mirjalili, S. M., & Lewis, A. (2014). Grey Wolf Optimizer. Advances in Engineering Software, 69, 46-61. doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2013.12.007Erol, O. K., & Eksin, I. (2006). A new optimization method: Big Bang–Big Crunch. Advances in Engineering Software, 37(2), 106-111. doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2005.04.005Kaveh, A., & Mahdavi, V. R. (2014). Colliding bodies optimization: A novel meta-heuristic method. Computers & Structures, 139, 18-27. doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2014.04.005Rashedi, E., Nezamabadi-pour, H., & Saryazdi, S. (2009). GSA: A Gravitational Search Algorithm. Information Sciences, 179(13), 2232-2248. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2009.03.004Zheng, Y.-J. (2015). Water wave optimization: A new nature-inspired metaheuristic. Computers & Operations Research, 55, 1-11. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2014.10.008Kaveh, A., & Khayatazad, M. (2012). A new meta-heuristic method: Ray Optimization. Computers & Structures, 112-113, 283-294. doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2012.09.003Glover, F. (1989). Tabu Search—Part I. ORSA Journal on Computing, 1(3), 190-206. doi:10.1287/ijoc.1.3.190Chiang, H.-P., Chou, Y.-H., Chiu, C.-H., Kuo, S.-Y., & Huang, Y.-M. (2013). A quantum-inspired Tabu search algorithm for solving combinatorial optimization problems. Soft Computing, 18(9), 1771-1781. doi:10.1007/s00500-013-1203-7Mousavirad, S. J., & Ebrahimpour-Komleh, H. (2017). Human mental search: a new population-based metaheuristic optimization algorithm. Applied Intelligence, 47(3), 850-887. doi:10.1007/s10489-017-0903-6Karaboga, D., & Basturk, B. (2007). A powerful and efficient algorithm for numerical function optimization: artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm. Journal of Global Optimization, 39(3), 459-471. doi:10.1007/s10898-007-9149-xRao, R. V., Savsani, V. J., & Vakharia, D. P. (2012). Teaching–Learning-Based Optimization: An optimization method for continuous non-linear large scale problems. Information Sciences, 183(1), 1-15. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2011.08.006Digalakis, J. G., & Margaritis, K. G. (2001). On benchmarking functions for genetic algorithms. International Journal of Computer Mathematics, 77(4), 481-506. doi:10.1080/00207160108805080Karaboga, D., & Akay, B. (2009). A comparative study of Artificial Bee Colony algorithm. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 214(1), 108-132. doi:10.1016/j.amc.2009.03.090Lim, T. Y., Al-Betar, M. A., & Khader, A. T. (2015). Adaptive pair bonds in genetic algorithm: An application to real-parameter optimization. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 252, 503-519. doi:10.1016/j.amc.2014.12.030Fleury, C., & Braibant, V. (1986). Structural optimization: A new dual method using mixed variables. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 23(3), 409-428. doi:10.1002/nme.1620230307Derrac, J., García, S., Molina, D., & Herrera, F. (2011). A practical tutorial on the use of nonparametric statistical tests as a methodology for comparing evolutionary and swarm intelligence algorithms. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 1(1), 3-18. doi:10.1016/j.swevo.2011.02.002Gandomi, A. H., Yang, X.-S., & Alavi, A. H. (2011). Cuckoo search algorithm: a metaheuristic approach to solve structural optimization problems. Engineering with Computers, 29(1), 17-35. doi:10.1007/s00366-011-0241-yWang, G. G. (2003). Adaptive Response Surface Method Using Inherited Latin Hypercube Design Points. Journal of Mechanical Design, 125(2), 210-220. doi:10.1115/1.1561044Cheng, M.-Y., & Prayogo, D. (2014). Symbiotic Organisms Search: A new metaheuristic optimization algorithm. Computers & Structures, 139, 98-112. doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2014.03.007CHICKERMANE, H., & GEA, H. C. (1996). STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION USING A NEW LOCAL APPROXIMATION METHOD. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 39(5), 829-846. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0207(19960315)39:53.0.co;2-uChou, J.-S., & Ngo, N.-T. (2016). Modified firefly algorithm for multidimensional optimization in structural design problems. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 55(6), 2013-2028. doi:10.1007/s00158-016-1624-xSonmez, M. (2011). Artificial Bee Colony algorithm for optimization of truss structures. Applied Soft Computing, 11(2), 2406-2418. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2010.09.003Degertekin, S. O. (2012). Improved harmony search algorithms for sizing optimization of truss structures. Computers & Structures, 92-93, 229-241. doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2011.10.022Degertekin, S. O., & Hayalioglu, M. S. (2013). Sizing truss structures using teaching-learning-based optimization. Computers & Structures, 119, 177-188. doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2012.12.011Talatahari, S., Kheirollahi, M., Farahmandpour, C., & Gandomi, A. H. (2012). A multi-stage particle swarm for optimum design of truss structures. Neural Computing and Applications, 23(5), 1297-1309. doi:10.1007/s00521-012-1072-5Kaveh, A., Bakhshpoori, T., & Afshari, E. (2014). An efficient hybrid Particle Swarm and Swallow Swarm Optimization algorithm. Computers & Structures, 143, 40-59. doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2014.07.012Kaveh, A., & Bakhshpoori, T. (2016). A new metaheuristic for continuous structural optimization: water evaporation optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 54(1), 23-43. doi:10.1007/s00158-015-1396-8Jalili, S., & Hosseinzadeh, Y. (2015). A Cultural Algorithm for Optimal Design of Truss Structures. Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures, 12(9), 1721-1747. doi:10.1590/1679-7825154

Metaheuristic optimization of power and energy systems: underlying principles and main issues of the 'rush to heuristics'

In the power and energy systems area, a progressive increase of literature contributions containing applications of metaheuristic algorithms is occurring. In many cases, these applications are merely aimed at proposing the testing of an existing metaheuristic algorithm on a specific problem, claiming that the proposed method is better than other methods based on weak comparisons. This 'rush to heuristics' does not happen in the evolutionary computation domain, where the rules for setting up rigorous comparisons are stricter, but are typical of the domains of application of the metaheuristics. This paper considers the applications to power and energy systems, and aims at providing a comprehensive view of the main issues concerning the use of metaheuristics for global optimization problems. A set of underlying principles that characterize the metaheuristic algorithms is presented. The customization of metaheuristic algorithms to fit the constraints of specific problems is discussed. Some weaknesses and pitfalls found in literature contributions are identified, and specific guidelines are provided on how to prepare sound contributions on the application of metaheuristic algorithms to specific problems

Metaheuristic Optimization of Power and Energy Systems: Underlying Principles and Main Issues of the `Rush to Heuristics'

In the power and energy systems area, a progressive increase of literature contributions that contain applications of metaheuristic algorithms is occurring. In many cases, these applications are merely aimed at proposing the testing of an existing metaheuristic algorithm on a specific problem, claiming that the proposed method is better than other methods that are based on weak comparisons. This ‘rush to heuristics’ does not happen in the evolutionary computation domain, where the rules for setting up rigorous comparisons are stricter but are typical of the domains of application of the metaheuristics. This paper considers the applications to power and energy systems and aims at providing a comprehensive view of the main issues that concern the use of metaheuristics for global optimization problems. A set of underlying principles that characterize the metaheuristic algorithms is presented. The customization of metaheuristic algorithms to fit the constraints of specific problems is discussed. Some weaknesses and pitfalls that are found in literature contributions are identified, and specific guidelines are provided regarding how to prepare sound contributions on the application of metaheuristic algorithms to specific problems