4.7 Article

Evolutionary algorithms, simulated annealing and tabu search: a comparative study

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0952-1976(00)00065-8

关键词

genetic algorithms; simulated annealing; tabu search; fuzzy logic; floorplanning; combinatorial optimization; VLSI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evolutionary algorithms, simulated annealing (SA), and tabu search (TS) are general iterative algorithms for combinatorial optimization. The term evolutionary algorithm is used to refer to any probabilistic algorithm whose design is inspired by evolutionary mechanisms found in biological species. Most widely known algorithms of this category are genetic algorithms (GA). GA? SA, and TS have been found to be very effective and robust in solving numerous problems from a wide range of application domains. Furthermore, they are even suitable for ill-posed problems where some of the parameters are not known before hand. These properties are lacking in all traditional optimization techniques. In this paper we perform a comparative study among GA, SA, and TS. These algorithms have many similarities, but they also possess distinctive features, mainly in their strategies for searching the solution state space. The three heuristics are applied on the same optimization problem and compared with respect to (1) quality of the best solution identified by each heuristic, (2) progress of the search from initial solution(s) until stopping criteria are met: (3) the progress of the cost of the best solution as a function of time (iteration count), and (4) the number of solutions found at successive intervals of the cost function. The benchmark problem used is the floorplanning of very large scale integrated (VLSI) circuits. This is a hard multi-criteria optimization problem. Fuzzy logic is used to combine all objective criteria into a single fuzzy evaluation (cost) function, which is then used to rate competing solutions. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. 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