3.8 Proceedings Paper

Multifactorial Evolutionary Algorithm Enhanced with Cross-task Search Direction

期刊

出版社

IEEE
DOI: 10.1109/cec.2019.8789959

关键词

multifactorial evolutionary; distance vector; knowledge transfer

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61471246, 61603259, 61871272, 51405075, 61672478, 61473241]
  2. Guangdong Special Support Program of Top-notch Young Professionals [2014TQ01X273]
  3. Project of Department of Education of Guangdong Province [2016KTSCX121]
  4. Scientific Research Foundation of Shenzhen University for Newly-introduced Teachers [2019001-2019999]
  5. Shenzhen Fundamental Research Program [JCYJ20170302154328155, JCYJ20170302154227954, JCGG20170414111229388]
  6. National Engineering Laboratory for Big Data System Computing Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently, the multifactorial evolutionary algorithm (MFEA) has achieved remarkable success in multi-task optimization (MTO) and received extensive attention from academia and industry. The key idea of MFEA is to use the inter-task knowledge transfer to produce the mutual promotion effect of all tasks. However, MFEA still has some limitations in accelerating convergence and enhancing global search ability, especially when the optima of different optimization tasks are far away. To relieve this issue, this paper integrates a new cross-task knowledge transfer, which is based on a search direction instead of an individual. The proposed knowledge transfer strategy generates offspring by the sum of an elite individual of one task and a difference vector from another task. As a basic vector, the elite individual is used to speed up the population convergence. Adding the elite individual with a difference vector from another task can enhance the search diversity. The experimental studies have shown the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed cross-task knowledge transfer strategy, compared with the classical MFEA on a set of benchmark problems with different degrees of similarities.

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

3.8
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