Neural Processing Letters

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 3045–3057 | Cite as

Projection Recurrent Neural Network Model: A New Strategy to Solve Weapon-Target Assignment Problem

  • Alireza Shojaeifard
  • Ali Nakhaei Amroudi
  • Amin MansooriEmail author
  • Majid Erfanian


In the present research, we are going to obtain the solution of the Weapon-Target Assignment (WTA) problem. According to our search in the scientific reported papers, this is the first scientific attempt for resolving of WTA problem by projection recurrent neural network (RNN) models. Here, by reformulating the original problem to an unconstrained problem a projection RNN model as a high-performance tool to provide the solution of the problem is proposed. In continuous, the global exponential stability of the system was proved in this research. In the final step, some numerical examples are presented to depict the performance and the feasibility of the method. Reported results were compared with some other published papers.


Weapon-target assignment problem Nonlinear optimization problem Projection recurrent neural network Global exponential stability Projection function 



  1. 1.
    denBroeder GG Jr, Ellison RE, Emerling L (1959) On optimum target assignments. Oper Res 7(3):322–326MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Soland RM (1987) Optimal terminal defense tactics when several sequential engagements are possible. Oper Res 35(4):537–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meter AW, Preston FL (1990) A suite of weapon assignment algorithms for a SDI mid-course battle manager: AT&T bell laboratoriesGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lloyd SP, Witsenhausen HS (1986) Weapon allocation is NP-complete. In: IEEE summer simulation conference, Reno, NV, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bjorndal AMH et al (1995) Some thoughts on combinatorial optimization. Eur J Oper Res 83(2):253–270MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hammer PL (1965) Some network flow problems solved with pseudo-boolean programming. Oper Res 13:388–399MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Merz P, Freisleben B (2000) Fitness landscape analysis and memetic algorithms for quadratic assignment problem. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 4:337–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee Z-J, Lee C-Y, Su S-F (2000) A fuzzy-genetic based decision-aided system for the naval weapon-target assignment problems. In: Proceedings of 2000 R.O.C. automatic control conference, pp 163–168Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee Z-J, Su S-F, Lee C-Y (2003) Efficiently solving general weapon-target assignment problem by genetic algorithms with greedy eugenics. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B Cybern 33(1):113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hopfield JJ, Tank DW (1985) Neural computation of decisions in optimization problems. Biol Cybern 52:141–152zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tank DW, Hopfield JJ (1986) Simple ’neural’ optimization networks: an A/D converter, signal decision circuit, and a linear programming circuit. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst 33:533–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hu X (2009) Applications of the general projection neural network in solving extended linear-quadratic programming problems with linear constraints. Neurocomputing 72:1131–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sun J, Chen J-S, Ko C-H (2012) Neural networks for solving second-order cone constrained variational inequality problem. Comput Optim Appl 51:623–648MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eshaghnezhad M, Effati S, Mansoori A (2017) A neurodynamic model to solve nonlinear pseudo-monotone projection equation and its applications. IEEE Trans Cybern 47(10):3050–3062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Effati S, Mansoori A, Eshaghnezhad M (2015) An efficient projection neural network for solving bilinear programming problems. Neurocomputing 168:1188–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    He X, Huang T, Yu J, Li C, Li C (2017) An inertial projection neural network for solving variational inequalities. IEEE Trans Cybern 47(3):809–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mansoori A, Erfanian M (2018) A dynamic model to solve the absolute value equations. J Comput Appl Math 333:28–35MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mansoori A, Eshaghnezhad M, Effati S (2018) An efficient neural network model for solving the absolute value equations. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst II Express Briefs 65(3):391–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cheng L, Hou Z-G, Tan M (2008) A neutral-type delayed projection neural network for solving nonlinear variational inequalities. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst II Express Briefs 55(8):806–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eshaghnezhad M, Rahbarnia F, Effati S, Mansoori A (2018) An artificial neural network model to solve the fuzzy shortest path problem. Neural Process Lett. CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu D, Hu S, Wang J (2004) Global output convergence of a class of continuous-time recurrent neural networks with time-varying thresholds. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst II Express Briefs 51(4):161–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mohammadi M, Mansoori A (2018) A projection neural network for identifying copy number variants. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mansoori A, Effati S (2019) An efficient neurodynamic model to solve nonlinear programming problems with fuzzy parameters. Neurocomputing 334:125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mansoori A, Eshaghnezhad M, Effati S (2019) Recurrent neural network model: a new strategy to solve fuzzy matrix games. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhang Y, Chen S, Li S, Zhang Z (2018) Adaptive projection neural network for kinematic control of redundant manipulators with unknown physical parameters. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 65(6):4909–4920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang Y, Li S (2018) Time-scale expansion-based approximated optimal control for underactuated systems using projection neural networks. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 48(11):1957–1967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chen D, Zhang Y (2017) A hybrid multi-objective scheme applied to redundant robot manipulators. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng 14(3):1337–1350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chen D, Zhang Y, Li S (2018) Zeroing neural-dynamics approach and its robust and rapid solution for parallel robot manipulators against superposition of multiple disturbances. Neurocomputing 275:845–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chen D, Zhang Y (2018) Robust zeroing neural-dynamics and its time-varying disturbances suppression model applied to mobile robot manipulators. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst 29(9):4385–4397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hosein PA (1989) Class of dynamic non linear resource allocation problems. In: Ph.D Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bazaraa MS, Shetty C, Sherali HD (1979) Nonlinear programming, theory and algorithms. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Facchinei F, Pang J (2003) Finite-dimensional variational inequalities and complementarity problems. Springer, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nagurney A (2002) Variational inequalities, Isenberg School of Management University of MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Miller RK, Michel AN (1982) Ordinary differential equations. Academic Press, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gen M, Cheng R (1997) Genetic algorithms and engineering design. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Khalil HK (1996) Nonlinear systems. Prentice-Hall, MichiganGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsImam Hossein Comprehensive UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Applied MathematicsFerdowsi University of MashhadMashhadIran
  3. 3.Department of Science, School of Mathematical SciencesUniversity of ZabolZabolIran

Personalised recommendations