Advertisement

Recent Advances of Nature-Inspired Metaheuristic Optimization

  • Ahmed Mohamed Helmi
  • Mohammed Elsayed LotfyEmail author
Chapter
  • 22 Downloads
Part of the Springer Tracts in Nature-Inspired Computing book series (STNIC)

Abstract

Metaheuristic approaches receive a great interest in the area of optimization, especially when exact methods are missing, or the cost is extremely high. Besides the possibility to report good solutions in reasonable time, metaheuristic techniques are widely applicable. There are diverse categories of techniques that differ in number of search agents (or solutions), solution representation, and movement mechanism in search space. Just mentioned ingredients are determined according to the motivation or inspiration philosophy behind the technique. Nature-inspired optimization category is very popular and has proven high efficiency in many problems. It contains famous subclasses like evolutionary algorithms, swarm intelligence, and single-based techniques. Famous and classical examples of each subclass are genetic algorithm, particle swarm, and ant colony optimization, and simulated annealing, respectively. Nature-inspired optimization family grows so fast, and many members have joined it recently, for example, emperor penguin colony (2019), seagull optimization algorithm (2019), sailfish optimizer (2019), pity beetle algorithm (2018), emperor penguin optimizer (2018), multi-objective artificial sheep algorithm (2018), salp swarm algorithm (2017), electromagnetic field optimization (2016), sine cosine algorithm (2016), moth-flame optimization (2015), grey wolf optimizer (2014), flower pollination algorithm (2012), bat algorithm (2010), cuckoo search algorithm (2009), firefly algorithm (2008), and many others. There are many proposed hybridization and cooperation methods between techniques to produce improved versions of original ones. Nature-inspired techniques have been used in many application areas like theoretical computer science, engineering and control, forecasting, medical field, finance, management, operation research, and others. Also, new scientific disciplines like renewable energy, robotics, and navigation are feasible areas to make use of nature-inspired techniques. This chapter sheds light on six so recently new techniques that belong to nature-inspired optimization class.

References

  1. 1.
    Dey N (2018) Advancements in applied metaheuristic computing. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, 978-1Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Khosravy M, Gupta N, Patel N, Senjyu T, Duque CA (2020) Particle swarm optimization of morphological filters for electrocardiogram baseline drift estimation. In: Dey N, Ashour AS, Bhattacharyya S (eds) Applied nature-inspired computing: algorithms and case studies. Springer, Singapore, pp 1–21Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moraes CA, De Oliveira, EJ, Khosravy, M, Oliveira, LW, Honório, LM, Pinto MF (2020) A hybrid bat-inspired algorithm for power transmission expansion planning on a practical Brazilian network. In: Dey N, Ashour AS, Bhattacharyya S (eds) Applied nature-inspired computing: algorithms and case studies. Springer, Singapore, pp 71–95Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sedaaghi MH, Khosravi M (2003) Morphological ECG signal preprocessing with more efficient baseline drift removal. In: Proceedings of the 7th IASTED international conference, ASC, pp 205–209Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khosravi M, Sedaaghi MH (2004) Impulsive noise suppression of electrocardiogram signals with mediated morphological filters. In: The 11th Iranian conference on biomedical engineering, Tehran, Iran, pp 207–212Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Khosravy M, Asharif MR, Sedaaghi MH (2008) Medical image noise suppression: using mediated morphology. IEICE technical report, IEICE, pp 265–270Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Khosravy M, Gupta N, Marina N, Sethi IK, Asharif MR (2017) Perceptual adaptation of image based on Chevreul-Mach bands visual phenomenon. IEEE Signal Process Lett 24(5):594–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khosravy M, Gupta N, Marina N, Sethi IK, Asharif MR (2017) Brain action inspired morphological image enhancement. Nature-inspired computing and optimization. Springer, Cham, pp 381–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gutierrez CE, Alsharif MR, Cuiwei H, Khosravy M, Villa R, Yamashita K, Miyagi H (2013) Uncover news dynamic by principal component analysis. ICIC Express Lett 7(4):1245–1250Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gutierrez CE, Alsharif MR, Khosravy M, Yamashita K, Miyagi H, Villa R (2014) Main large data set features detection by a linear predictor model. In: AIP conference proceedings, vol 1618, no 1, pp 733–737Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gutierrez CE, Alsharif MR, Yamashita K, Khosravy M (2014) A tweets mining approach to detection of critical events characteristics using random forest. Int J Next-Gener Comput 5(2):167–176Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khosravy M, Alsharif MR, Guo B, Lin H, Yamashita K (2009) A robust and precise solution to permutation indeterminacy and complex scaling ambiguity in BSS-based blind MIMO-OFDM receiver. In: International conference on independent component analysis and signal separation. Springer, Berlin, pp 670–677Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Asharif F, Tamaki S, Alsharif MR, Ryu HG (2013) Performance improvement of constant modulus algorithm blind equalizer for 16 QAM modulation. Int J Innovative Comput Inf Control 7(4):1377–1384Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khosravy M, Alsharif MR, Yamashita K (2009) An efficient ICA based approach to multiuser detection in MIMO OFDM systems. Multi-carrier systems & solutions. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khosravy M, Alsharif MR, Khosravi M, Yamashita K (2010) An optimum pre-filter for ICA based multi-input multi-output OFDM system. In: 2010 2nd international conference on education technology and computer, vol 5. IEEE, pp V5-129Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Khosravy M, Patel N, Gupta N, Sethi IK (2019) Image quality assessment: a review to full reference indexes. Recent trends in communication, computing, and electronics. Springer, Singapore, pp 279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khosravy M, Asharif MR, Sedaaghi MH (2008) Morphological adult and fetal ECG preprocessing: employing mediated morphology (医用画像). 電子情報通信学会技術研究報告. MI, 医用画像 107(461):363–369Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sedaaghi MH, Daj R, Khosravi M (2001) Mediated morphological filters. In: Proceedings 2001 international conference on image processing (Cat. No. 01CH37205), vol 3. IEEE, pp 692–695Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khosravy M, Gupta N, Marina N, Sethi IK, Asharif MR (2017) Morphological filters: an inspiration from natural geometrical erosion and dilation. Nature-inspired computing and optimization. Springer, Cham, pp 349–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khosravy M, Asharif MR, Yamashita K (2009) A PDF-matched short-term linear predictability approach to blind source separation. Int J Innovative Comput Inf Control (IJICIC) 5(11):3677–3690Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Khosravy M, Alsharif MR, Yamashita K (2009) A PDF-matched modification to stone’s measure of predictability for blind source separation. In: International symposium on neural networks. Springer, Berlin, pp 219–228Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Khosravy M, Asharif MR, Yamashita K (2011) A theoretical discussion on the foundation of Stone’s blind source separation. Signal Image Video Process 5(3):379–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Khosravy M, Asharif M, Yamashita K (2008) A probabilistic short-length linear predictability approach to blind source separation. In: 23rd international technical conference on circuits/systems, computers and communications (ITC-CSCC 2008), Yamaguchi, Japan, pp 381–384Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Khosravy M, Kakazu S, Alsharif MR, Yamashita K (2010) Multiuser data separation for short message service using ICA (信号処理). 電子情報通信学会技術研究報告. SIP, 信号処理: IEICE Tech Rep 109(435):113–117Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Khosravy M, Gupta N, Marina N, Asharif MR, Asharif F, Sethi IK (2015) Blind components processing a novel approach to array signal processing: a research orientation. In: 2015 international conference on intelligent informatics and biomedical sciences (ICIIBMS), IEEE, pp 20–26Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Khosravy M, Punkoska N, Asharif F, Asharif MR (2014) Acoustic OFDM data embedding by reversible Walsh-Hadamard transform. In: AIP conference proceedings, vol 1618, no 1, pp 720–723Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Holland J (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Reading, MA: Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Beyer HG, Schwefel HP (2002) Evolution strategies—a comprehensive introduction. Nat Comput 1(1):3–52CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gupta N, Patel N, Tiwari BN, Khosravy M (2018) Genetic algorithm based on enhanced selection and log-scaled mutation technique. In: Proceedings of the future technologies conference. Springer, Cham, pp 730–748Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Singh G, Gupta N, Khosravy M (2015) New crossover operators for real coded genetic algorithm (RCGA). In: 2015 international conference on intelligent informatics and biomedical sciences (ICIIBMS), IEEE, pp 135–140Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gupta N, Khosravy M, Patel N, Senjyu T (2018) A bi-level evolutionary optimization for coordinated transmission expansion planning. IEEE Access 6:48455–48477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gupta N, Khosravy M, Patel N, Sethi IK (2018) Evolutionary optimization based on biological evolution in plants. Procedia Comput Sci 126:146–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gupta N, Khosravy M, Mahela OP, Patel N (2020) Plants biology inspired genetics algorithm: superior efficiency to firefly optimizer. In: Applications of firefly algorithm and its variants, from springer tracts in nature-inspired computing (STNIC). Springer International Publishing, in pressGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Blum C, Roli A (2003) Metaheuristics in combinatorial optimization: overview and conceptual comparison. ACM Comput Surv (CSUR) 35(3):268–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fleischer M (2003) The measure of Pareto optima applications to multi-objective metaheuristics. In: International conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization. Springer, Berlin, pp 519–533Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Talbi EG (2009) Metaheuristics: from design to implementation, vol 74. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Blum C, Roli A (2008) Hybrid metaheuristics: an introduction. Hybrid metaheuristics. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–30CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dixit A, Kumar S, Pant M, Bansal R (2018) Hybrid nature-inspired algorithms: methodologies, architecture, and reviews. In: International proceedings on advances in soft computing, intelligent systems and applications. Springer, Singapore, pp 299–306Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yang XS (2014) Nature-inspired optimization algorithms. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD, Vecchi MP (1983) Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220(4598):671–680CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Storn R, Price K (1997) Differential evolution—a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J Global Optim 11(4):341–359CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dorigo M, Caro GD, Gambardella LM (1999) Ant algorithms for discrete optimization. Artif Life 5(2):137–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Haddad OB, Afshar A, Mariño MA (2008) Honey-bee mating optimization (HBMO) algorithm in deriving optimal operation rules for reservoirs. J Hydroinformatics 10(3):257–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Karaboga D (2005) An idea based on honey bee swarm for numerical optimization. Technical report-tr06, vol 200. Erciyes University, Engineering Faculty, Computer Engineering Department, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Karaboga D, Basturk B (2008) On the performance of artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm. Appl Soft Comput 8(1):687–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on neural networks, Piscataway, NJ, USA, pp 1942–1948Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Noller C, Smith VR (1987) Ultraviolet selection pressure on earliest organisms. In: Kingston H, Fulling CP (eds) Natural environment background analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 211–219Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yang XS (2008) Nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithms, 1st edn. Luniver Press, BristolGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yang XS (2012) Bat algorithm for multi-objective optimisation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1203.6571
  51. 51.
    Geem ZW, Kim JH, Loganathan GV (2001) A new heuristic optimization algorithm: harmony search. Simulation 76(2):60–68Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Yang XS (2012) Flower pollination algorithm for global optimization. In: International conference on unconventional computing and natural computation. Springer, Berlin, pp 240–249Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lindfield G, Penny J (2017) Introduction to nature-inspired optimization. Academic Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Dorigo M, Stützle T (2004) Ant colony optimization. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Passino KM (2010) Bacterial foraging optimization. Int J Swarm Intell Res (IJSIR) 1(1):1–16CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Biswas A, Mishra KK, Tiwari S, Misra AK (2013) Physics-inspired optimization algorithms: a survey. J OptimGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Bozorg-Haddad O (ed) (2018) Advanced optimization by nature-inspired algorithms. Springer, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Chu SC, Tsai PW (2007) Computational intelligence based on the behavior of cats. Int J Innovative Comput Inf Control 3(1):163–173Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kashan AH (2009) League championship algorithm: a new algorithm for numerical function optimization. In: 2009 international conference of soft computing and pattern recognition, IEEE, pp 43–48Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ahmadi-Javid A (2011) Anarchic society optimization: a human-inspired method. In: 2011 IEEE Congress of Evolutionary Computation (CEC), IEEE, pp 2586–2592Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Rao RV, Savsani VJ, Vakharia DP (2011) Teaching–learning-based optimization: a novel method for constrained mechanical design optimization problems. Comput Aided Des 43(3):303–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Gandomi AH, Alavi AH (2012) Krill herd: a new bio-inspired optimization algorithm. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 17(12):4831–4845CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Mirjalili S, Mirjalili SM, Lewis A (2014) Grey wolf optimizer. Adv Eng Softw 69:46–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Abedinia O, Amjady N, Ghasemi A (2016) A new metaheuristic algorithm based on shark smell optimization. Complexity 21(5):97–116CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Mirjalili S (2015) The ant lion optimizer. Adv Eng Softw 83:80–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kuo RJ, Zulvia FE (2015) The gradient evolution algorithm: a new metaheuristic. Inf Sci 316:246–265CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Mirjalili S (2015) Moth-flame optimization algorithm: a novel nature-inspired heuristic paradigm. Knowl-Based Syst 89:228–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Mirjalili S (2016) Dragonfly algorithm: a new meta-heuristic optimization technique for solving single-objective, discrete, and multi-objective problems. Neural Comput Appl 27(4):1053–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Askarzadeh A (2016) A novel metaheuristic method for solving constrained engineering optimization problems: crow search algorithm. Comput Struct 169:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Yang XS (ed) (2017) Nature-inspired algorithms and applied optimization, vol 744. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Harifi S, Khalilian M, Mohammadzadeh J, Ebrahimnejad S (2019) Emperor penguins colony: a new metaheuristic algorithm for optimization. Evol Intel 12(2):211–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Atashpaz-Gargari E, Lucas C (2007) Imperialist competitive algorithm: an algorithm for optimization inspired by imperialistic competition. In: 2007 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, IEEE, pp 4661–4667Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Sang HY, Duan PY, Li JQ (2018) An effective invasive weed optimization algorithm for scheduling semiconductor final testing problem. Swarm Evol Comput 38:42–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Derrac J, García S, Molina D, Herrera F (2011) A practical tutorial on the use of nonparametric statistical tests as a methodology for comparing evolutionary and swarm intelligence algorithms. Swarm Evol Comput 1(1):3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Mendenhall W, Beaver RJ, Barbara MB (2012) Introduction to probability and statistics. Cengage Learning, BostonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Dhiman G, Kumar V (2019) Seagull optimization algorithm: theory and its applications for large-scale industrial engineering problems. Knowl-Based Syst 165:169–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Liang JJ, Suganthan PN, Deb K (2005) Novel composition test functions for numerical global optimization. In: Proceedings 2005 IEEE swarm intelligence symposium, SIS 2005, IEEE, pp 68–75Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Chen Q, Liu B, Zhang Q, Liang J (2015) Evaluation criteria for CEC special session and competition on bound constrained single-objective computationally expensive numerical optimization. In: CECGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Dhiman G, Kumar V (2017) Spotted hyena optimizer: a novel bio-inspired based metaheuristic technique for engineering applications. Adv Eng Softw 114:48–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Mirjalili S, Mirjalili SM, Hatamlou A (2016) Multi-verse optimizer: a nature-inspired algorithm for global optimization. Neural Comput Appl 27(2):495–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Mirjalili S (2016) SCA: a sine cosine algorithm for solving optimization problems. Knowl-Based Syst 96:120–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Rashedi E, Nezamabadi-Pour H, Saryazdi S (2009) GSA: a gravitational search algorithm. Inf Sci 179(13):2232–2248CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Wilcoxon F (1992) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Breakthroughs in statistics. Springer, New York, NY, pp 196–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Mann HB, Whitney DR (1947) On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann Math Stat 50–60Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Shadravan S, Naji HR, Bardsiri VK (2019) The sailfish optimizer: a novel nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithm for solving constrained engineering optimization problems. Eng Appl Artif Intell 80:20–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Moosavi SHS, Bardsiri VK (2017) Satin bowerbird optimizer: a new optimization algorithm to optimize ANFIS for software development effort estimation. Eng Appl Artif Intell 60:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Mirjalili S, Gandomi AH, Mirjalili SZ, Saremi S, Faris H, Mirjalili SM (2017) Salp swarm algorithm: a bio-inspired optimizer for engineering design problems. Adv Eng Softw 114:163–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Wang GG (2003) Adaptive response surface method using inherited latin hypercube design points. J Mech Des 125(2):210–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Liu J, Li Y (2012) An improved adaptive response surface method for structural reliability analysis. J Central South Univ 19:1148–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Cheng MY, Prayogo D (2014) Symbiotic organisms search: a new metaheuristic optimization algorithm. Comput Struct 139:98–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Siddall JN (1972) Analytical decision-making in engineering design. Prentice Hall, USAGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Coello CAC (2002) Theoretical and numerical constraint-handling techniques used with evolutionary algorithms: a survey of the state of the art. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 191(11–12):1245–1287CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Ragsdell K, Phillips D (1976) Optimal design of a class of welded structures using geometric programming. ASME J Eng Ind 98:1021–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    He Q, Wang L (2007) An effective co-evolutionary particle swarm optimization for constrained engineering design problems. Eng Appl Artif Intell 20(1):89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Sadollah A, Bahreininejad A, Eskandar H, Hamdi M (2013) Mine blast algorithm: a new population based algorithm for solving constrained engineering optimization problems. Appl Soft Comput 13(5):2592–2612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Liu H, Cai Z, Wang Y (2010) Hybridizing particle swarm optimization with differential evolution for constrained numerical and engineering optimization. Appl Soft Comput 10(2):629–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Ray T, Saini P (2001) Engineering design optimization using a swarm with an intelligent information sharing among individuals. Eng Optim 33(6):735–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Eskandar H, Sadollah A, Bahreininejad A, Hamdi M (2012) Water cycle algorithm—a novel metaheuristic optimization method for solving constrained engineering optimization problems. Comput Struct 110:151–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Kallioras NA, Lagaros ND, Avtzis DN (2018) Pity beetle algorithm—a new metaheuristic inspired by the behavior of bark beetles. Adv Eng Softw 121:147–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Shi Y, Eberhart R (1998) A modified particle swarm optimizer. In: 1998 IEEE international conference on evolutionary computation proceedings. IEEE world congress on computational intelligence (Cat. No. 98TH8360), IEEE, pp 69–73Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Clerc M, Kennedy J (2002) The particle swarm-explosion, stability, and convergence in a multidimensional complex space. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(1):58–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Kennedy J, Mendes R (2002) Population structure and particle swarm performance. In: Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation CEC’02 (Cat. No. 02TH8600), vol 2, IEEE, pp 1671–1676Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Parsopoulos KE (2004) UPSO: a unified particle swarm optimization scheme. Lecture series on computer and computational science, vol 1, pp 868–873Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Mendes R, Kennedy J, Neves J (2004) The fully informed particle swarm: simpler, maybe better. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 8(3):204–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Liang JJ, Qin AK, Suganthan PN, Baskar S (2006) Comprehensive learning particle swarm optimizer for global optimization of multimodal functions. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 10(3):281–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Chen WN, Zhang J, Lin Y, Chen N, Zhan ZH, Chung HSH, Shi YH (2012) Particle swarm optimization with an aging leader and challengers. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 17(2):241–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Chen D, Wang J, Zou F, Hou W, Zhao C (2012) An improved group search optimizer with operation of quantum-behaved swarm and its application. Appl Soft Comput 12(2):712–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Loshchilov I, Stuetzle T, Liao T (2013) Ranking results of CEC’13 special session & competition on real-parameter single objective optimization. In: 2013 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), June, pp 20–23Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Liang JJ, Qu BY, Suganthan PN (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, Singapore, 635Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Preux P, Munos R, Valko M (2014) Bandits attack function optimization. In: 2014 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), IEEE, pp 2245–2252Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Yu C, Kelley L, Zheng S, Tan Y (2014) Fireworks algorithm with differential mutation for solving the CEC 2014 competition problems. In: 2014 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), IEEE, pp 3238–3245Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Hu Z, Bao Y, Xiong T (2014) Partial opposition-based adaptive differential evolution algorithms: evaluation on the CEC 2014 benchmark set for real-parameter optimization. In: 2014 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), IEEE, pp 2259–2265Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Tanabe R, Fukunaga AS (2014) Improving the search performance of SHADE using linear population size reduction. In: 2014 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), IEEE, pp 1658–1665Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Dhiman G, Kumar V (2018) Emperor penguin optimizer: a bio-inspired algorithm for engineering problems. Knowl-Based Syst 159:20–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Chen Q, Liu B, Zhang Q, Liang J, Suganthan P, Qu B (2014) Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for CEC 2015 special session on bound constrained single-objective computationally expensive numerical optimization. Technical report, Computational Intelligence Laboratory, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China and Technical Report, Nanyang Technological UniversityGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Lai X, Li C, Zhang N, Zhou J (2018) A multi-objective artificial sheep algorithm. Neural Comput Appl 1–35Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Wang W, Li C, Liao X, Qin H (2017) Study on unit commitment problem considering pumped storage and renewable energy via a novel binary artificial sheep algorithm. Appl Energy 187:612–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Mirjalili S, Saremi S, Mirjalili SM, Coelho LDS (2016) Multi-objective grey wolf optimizer: a novel algorithm for multi-criterion optimization. Expert Syst Appl 47:106–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Coello CC, Lechuga MS (2002) MOPSO: A proposal for multiple objective particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC’02 (Cat. No. 02TH8600), vol 2. IEEE, pp 1051–1056Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan TAMT (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Zhang Q, Li H (2007) MOEA/D: a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 11(6):712–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Zhang Q, Zhou A, Zhao S, Suganthan PN, Liu W, Tiwari S (2009) Multi-objective optimization test instances for the CEC 2009 special session and competition. University of EssexGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Sierra MR, Coello CAC (2005) Improving PSO-based multi-objective optimization using crowding, mutation and ∈-dominance. In: Evolutionary multi-criterion optimization. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Su YX, Chi R (2017) Multi-objective particle swarm-differential evolution algorithm. Neural Comput Appl 28(2):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Zitzler E, Deb K, Thiele L (2000) Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: empirical results. Evol Comput 8(2):173–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Basu M (2004) An interactive fuzzy satisfying method based on evolutionary programming technique for multiobjective short-term hydrothermal scheduling. Electr Power Syst Res 69(2–3):277–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmed Mohamed Helmi
    • 1
  • Mohammed Elsayed Lotfy
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Computer and Systems Department, Engineering FacultyZagazig UniversityZagazigEgypt
  2. 2.Electrical Power and Machines Department, Engineering FacultyZagazig UniversityZagazigEgypt
  3. 3.Electrical and Electronics Engineering Department, Engineering FacultyUniversity of the RyukyusNishiharaJapan

Personalised recommendations