Solving 0–1 Knapsack Problem using Cohort Intelligence Algorithm

Original Article

Abstract

An emerging technique, inspired from the natural and social tendency of individuals to learn from each other referred to as Cohort Intelligence (CI) is presented. Learning here refers to a cohort candidate’s effort to self supervise its own behavior and further adapt to the behavior of the other candidate which it intends to follow. This makes every candidate improve/evolve its behavior and eventually the entire cohort behavior. This ability of the approach is tested by solving an NP-hard combinatorial problem such as Knapsack Problem (KP). Several cases of the 0–1 KP are solved. The effect of various parameters on the solution quality has been discussed.The advantages and limitations of the CI methodology are also discussed.

Keywords

Cohort Intelligence Self Supervised Learning Knapsack Problem Combinatorial Optimization 

References

  1. 1.
    Deb K (2000) An efficient constraint handling method for genetic algorithms. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng 186:311–338CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ray T, Tai K, Seow KC (2001) Multiobjective design optimization by an evolutionary algorithm. Eng Optim 33(4):399–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on neural networks, pp 1942–1948 (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dorigo M, Birattari M, Stitzle T (2006) Ant colony optimization: artificial ants as a computational intelligence technique. IEEE Comput Intell Mag 1:28–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pham DT, Ghanbarzadeh A, Koc E, Otri S, Rahim S, Zaidi M (2005) The Bees algorithm, technical note. Manufacturing Engineering Centre, Cardiff UniversityGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feng Y, Jia K, He Y (2014) An improved hybrid encoding cuckoo search algorithm for 0–1 Knapsack Problems. Comput Intell Neurosci 2014:1–9Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kulkarni AJ, Durugkar IP, Kumar MR (2013) Cohort intelligence: a self supervised learning behavior. In: Proc. of IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics, pp 396–400Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liu L, Zhong WM, Qian F (2010) An improved chaos-particle swarm optimization algorithm. J East China Univ Sci Technol (Nat Sci Ed) 36:267–272Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Xu W, Geng Z, Zhu Q, Gu X (2013) A piecewise linear chaotic map and sequential quadratic programming based robust hybrid particle swarm optimization. Inf Sci 218:85–102MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kennedy J (2003) Bare bones particle swarms. In: Proceedings of the IEEE swarm intelligence symposium (SIS’03), pp 80–87Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mendes R, Kennedy J, Neves J (2004) The fully informed particle swarm: simpler. Maybe better. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 8(3):204–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen L, Sun H, Wang S (2009) Solving continuous optimization using ant colony algorithm. In: Second international conference on future information technology and management engineering, pp 92–95Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dorigo M, Maniezzo V, Colorni A (1996) Ant system: optimization by a colony of cooperating agents. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B Cybern 26(1):29–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krishnasamy G, Kulkarni AJ, Paramesran R (2014) A hybrid approach for data clustering based on modified cohort intelligence and K-means. Exp Syst Appl 41(3):6009–6016Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hernández PR, Dimopoulos NJ (2005) A new heuristic for solving the multichoice multidimensional Knapsack Problem. In: Proc. of IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics—part A : systems and humans, vol 35, no 5, pp 708–717Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martello S, Toth P (1990) Knapsack Problems: algorithms and computer implementations. Wiley, New York, pp 1–296 (1990)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tavares J, Pereira FB, Costa E (2008) Multidimensional Knapsack Problem: a fitness landscape analysis. In: Proc. of IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics—part B. Cybernetics 38(3):604–616Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moser M (1996) Declarative scheduling for optimally graceful QoS degradation. In: Proc. IEEE international conference multimedia computing systems, pp 86–93 (1996)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khan MS (1998) Quality adaptation in a multisession multimedia system: model, algorithms and architecture. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Warner D, Prawda J (1972) A mathematical programming model for scheduling nursing personnel in a hospital. Manag Sci (Application Series Part 1) 19(4):411–422Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Psinger D (1995) Algorithms for Knapsack Problems. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark (1995)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Laporte G (1992) The vehicle routing problem: an overview of exact and approximate algorithms. Eur J Oper Res 59:345–358CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Granmo OC, Oommen BJ, Myrer SA, Olsen MG (2007) Learning automata-based solutions to the nonlinear fractional Knapsack Problem with applications to optimal resource allocation. Proc IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B Cybern 37(1):166–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zou D, Gao L, Li S, Wu J (2011) Solving 0–1 Knapsack Problem by a Novel Global Harmony Search algorithm. Appl Soft Comput 11:1556–1564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Layeb A (2013) A hybrid Quantum Inspired Harmony Search algorithm for 0–1 optimization problems. J Comput Appl Math 253:14–25MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Layeb A (2011) A novel Quantum Inspired Cuckoo Search for Knapsack Problems. Int J Bio-Inspired Comput 3(5):297–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Geem ZW, Kim JH, Loganathan GV (2001) A new heuristic optimization algorithm: harmony search. Simulation 76(2):60–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mahdavi M, Fesanghary M, Damangir E (2007) An Improved Harmony Search algorithm for solving optimization problems. Appl Math Comput 188:1567–1579MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Deb K (2000) An efficient constraint handling method for genetic algorithms. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng 186:311–338CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kulkarni AJ, Tai K (2011) Solving constrained optimization problems using probability collectives and a penalty function approach. Int J Comput Intell Appl 10(4):445–470CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kulkarni AJ, Tai K (2011) A probability collectives approach with a feasibility-based rule for constrained optimization. Appl Comput Intell Soft Comput 2011, Article ID 980216Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ma W, Wang M, Zhu X (2014) Improved particle swarm optimization based approach for bilevel programming problem-an application on supply chain model. Int J Mach Learn Cybernet 5(2):281–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chen CJ (2012) Structural vibration suppression by using neural classifier with genetic algorithm. Int J Mach Learn Cybernet 3(3):215–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wang XZ, He Q, Chen DG, Yeung D (2005) A genetic algorithm for solving the inverse problem of support vector machines. Neurocomputing 68:225–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang XZ, He YL, Dong LC, Zhao HY (2011) Particle swarm optimization for determining fuzzy measures from data. Inf Sci 181(19):4230–4252CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Odette School of BusinessUniversity of WindsorWindsorCanada
  2. 2.Optimization and Agent Technology (OAT) Research LabMaharashtra Institute of TechnologyPuneIndia

Personalised recommendations