4.6 Article

Improving Metaheuristic Algorithms With Information Feedback Models

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CYBERNETICS
卷 49, 期 2, 页码 542-555

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TCYB.2017.2780274

关键词

Benchmark; evolutionary algorithms (EAs); evolutionary computation; information feedback; metaheuristic algorithms; optimization algorithms; swarm intelligence

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61503165, 61673025, 61375119, 61673196]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK20150239]
  3. Beijing Natural Science Foundation [4162029]
  4. National Key Basic Research Development Plan (973 Plan) Project of China [2015CB352302]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In most metaheuristic algorithms, the updating process fails to make use of information available from individuals in previous iterations. If this useful information could be exploited fully and used in the later optimization process, the quality of the succeeding solutions would be improved significantly. This paper presents our method for reusing the valuable information available from previous individuals to guide later search. In our approach, previous useful information was fed back to the updating process. We proposed six information feedback models. In these models, individuals from previous iterations were selected in either a fixed or random manner. Their useful information was incorporated into the updating process. Accordingly, an individual at the current iteration was updated based on the basic algorithm plus some selected previous individuals by using a simple fitness weighting method. By incorporating six different information feedback models into ten metaheuristic algorithms, this approach provided a number of variants of the basic algorithms. We demonstrated experimentally that the variants outperformed the basic algorithms significantly on 14 standard test functions and 10 CEC 2011 real world problems, thereby, establishing the value of the information feedback models.

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

4.6
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