LMBO-DE: a linearized monarch butterfly optimization algorithm improved with differential evolution
- 2 Downloads
Monarch butterfly optimization (MBO) is a recently developed evolutionary algorithm which has been used in many optimization problems. Migration and adjusting operators of MBO have a significant effect on the performance of it. These two operators change candidate variables of each individual independently. So, they are rotationally variant and this is one of the limitations of MBO which can degrade its performance on non-separable problems. There are interactions among variables in non-separable problems and MBO’s operators have not any consideration to it. In this paper, we propose a linearized version of MBO to overcome the above-mentioned limitation of MBO. In other words, migration and adjusting operators of MBO are linearized. Moreover, DE’s mutation operator is integrated in our proposed algorithm to improve exploration of MBO. Our proposed algorithm which is a linearized and hybrid version of MBO (LMBO-DE) is validated by 18 benchmark functions in different dimensionality and is compared with original MBO, one of recently MBO’s improvements, and three other evolutionary algorithms (jDE, JADE, and CLPSO). Experimental results show that our proposed algorithm significantly outperforms the original MBO and its improvement in terms of solution quality and convergence rate. In comparison with the other three algorithms, LMBO-DE can find more accurate solutions.
KeywordsMonarch butterfly optimization Differential evolution Linearized migration Wilcoxon signed-rank test
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no Conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- Dorigo M (1992) Optimization, learning and natural algorithms Ph.D. Thesis, Politecnico di MilanoGoogle Scholar
- Eberhart R, Kennedy JA (1995) New optimizer using particle swarm theory. In: Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on micro machine and human science, 1995. MHS’95. IEEE, pp 39–43Google Scholar
- Feng Y, Yang J, Wu C, Lu M, Zhao X-J (2016) Solving 0–1 knapsack problems by chaotic monarch butterfly optimization algorithm with Gaussian mutation. Memet Comput 10:1–16Google Scholar
- Ghetas M, Yong CH, Sumari P (2015) Harmony-based monarch butterfly optimization algorithm. In: 2015 IEEE international conference on control system, computing and engineering (ICCSCE). IEEE, pp 156–161Google Scholar
- Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic alogorithms in search optimization & machine learning. Mach Learn 32:95Google Scholar
- Khatib W, Fleming PJ (1998) The stud GA: a mini revolution? In: International conference on parallel problem solving from nature. Springer, pp 683–691Google Scholar
- Liang J, Qu B, Suganthan P (2013) Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for the CEC 2014 special session and competition on single objective real-parameter numerical optimization Computational Intelligence Laboratory, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou China and Technical Report, Nanyang Technological University, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
- Miller JF, Thomson P (2000) Cartesian genetic programming. In: European conference on genetic programming. Springer, pp 121–132Google Scholar
- Wang G-G, Deb S, Zhao X, Cui Z (2016b) A new monarch butterfly optimization with an improved crossover operator. Oper Res 15:1–25Google Scholar