4.7 Article

Binary artificial algae algorithm for multidimensional knapsack problems

期刊

APPLIED SOFT COMPUTING
卷 43, 期 -, 页码 583-595

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2016.02.027

关键词

Artificial algae algorithm; Multidimensional knapsack problem; Pseudo-utility ratio; Elite local search

资金

  1. Australian Research Council Linkage Program [LP130100451]
  2. Korean Research Foundation, Natural Science Foundation of China [61473326, 61471132]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing [cstc2013jcyjA00029, cstc2013jjB0149]
  4. Australian Research Council [LP130100451] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The multidimensional knapsack problem (MKP) is a well-known NP-hard optimization problem. Various meta-heuristic methods are dedicated to solve this problem in literature. Recently a new meta-heuristic algorithm, called artificial algae algorithm (AAA), was presented, which has been successfully applied to solve various continuous optimization problems. However, due to its continuous nature, AAA cannot settle the discrete problem straightforwardly such as MKP. In view of this, this paper proposes a binary artificial algae algorithm (BAAA) to efficiently solve MKP. This algorithm is composed of discrete process, repair operators and elite local search. In discrete process, two logistic functions with different coefficients of curve are studied to achieve good discrete process results. Repair operators are performed to make the solution feasible and increase the efficiency. Finally, elite local search is introduced to improve the quality of solutions. To demonstrate the efficiency of our proposed algorithm, simulations and evaluations are carried out with total of 94 benchmark problems and compared with other bio-inspired state-of-the-art algorithms in the recent years including MBPSO, BPSOTVAC, CBPSOTVAC, GADS, bAFSA, and IbAFSA. The results show the superiority of BAAA to many compared existing algorithms. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据