Immune Algorithm Versus Differential Evolution: A Comparative Case Study Using High Dimensional Function Optimization

  • Vincenzo Cutello
  • Natalio Krasnogor
  • Giuseppe Nicosia
  • Mario Pavone
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4431)

Abstract

In this paper we propose an immune algorithm (IA) to solve high dimensional global optimization problems. To evaluate the effectiveness and quality of the IA we performed a large set of unconstrained numerical optimisation experiments, which is a crucial component of many real-world problem-solving settings. We extensively compare the IA against several Differential Evolution (DE) algorithms as these have been shown to perform better than many other Evolutionary Algorithms on similar problems. The DE algorithms were implemented using a range of recombination and mutation operators combinations. The algorithms were tested on 13 well known benchmark problems. Our results show that the proposed IA is effective, in terms of accuracy, and capable of solving large-scale instances of our benchmarks. We also show that the IA is comparable, and often outperforms, all the DE variants, including two Memetic algorithms.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cutello, V., Nicosia, G., Pavone, M., Narzisi, G.: Real Coded Clonal Selection Algorithm for Unconstrained Global Numerical Optimization using a Hybrid Inversely Proportional Hypermutation Operator. In: 21st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC), vol. 2, pp. 950–954 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cutello, V., Morelli, G., Nicosia, G., Pavone, M.: Immune Algorithms with Aging Operators for the String Folding Problem and the Protein Folding Problem. In: Raidl, G.R., Gottlieb, J. (eds.) EvoCOP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3448, pp. 80–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yao, X., Liu, Y., Lin, G.M.: Evolutionary programming made faster. IEEE Transaction on Evolutionary Computation 3(2), 82–102 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Noman, N., Iba, H.: Enhancing Differential Evolution Performance with Local Search for High Dimensional Function Optimization. In: Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO), pp. 967–974 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Versterstrøm, J., Thomsen, R.: A Comparative Study of Differential Evolution, Particle Swarm Optimization, and Evolutionary Algorithms on Numerical Benchmark Problems. In: Congress on Evolutionary Computing (CEC), vol. 1, pp. 1980–1987 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mezura–Montes, E., Velázquez–Reyes, J., Coello Coello, C.: A Comparative Study of Differential Evolution Variants for Global Optimization. In: Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO), vol. 1, pp. 485–492 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goldberg, D.E., Voessner, S.: Optimizing Global-Local Search Hybrids. In: Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO), pp. 220–228 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Storn, R., Price, K.V.: Differential Evolution a Simple and Efficient Heuristic for Global Optimization over Continuos Spaces. Journal of Global Optimization 11(4), 341–359 (1997)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Price, K.V., Storn, M., Lampien, J.A.: Differential Evolution: A Practical Approach to Global Optimization. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincenzo Cutello
    • 1
  • Natalio Krasnogor
    • 2
  • Giuseppe Nicosia
    • 1
  • Mario Pavone
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Catania, Viale A. Doria 6, 95125 CataniaItaly
  2. 2.Automated Scheduling, Optimisation and Planning Research Group, School of Computer Sciences and IT, Jubilee Campus, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG81BBUK

Personalised recommendations