Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Guided golden jackal optimization using elite-opposition strategy for efficient design of multi-objective engineering problems

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Multi-objective optimization (MOO) issues that are encountered in the realm of real engineering applications are characterized by the curse of economically or computationally expensive objectives, which can strike insufficient performance evaluations for optimization methods to converge to Pareto optimal front (POF). To address these concerns, this paper develops a guided multi-objective golden jackal optimization (MOGJO) to promote the coverage and convergence capabilities toward the true POF while solving MOO issues. MOGJO embeds four reproduction stages during the seeking process. Firstly, the population of golden jackals is initialized according to the operational search space and then the updating process is performed. Secondly, an opposition-based learning scheme is adopted to improve the coverage of the Pareto optimal solutions. Thirdly, an elite-based guiding strategy is incorporated to guide the leader golden jackal toward the promising areas within the search space and then promote the convergence propensity. Finally, the crowding distance is also integrated to provide a better compromise among the diversity and convergence of the searched POF. To evaluate the MOGJO’s performance, it is analyzed against sixteen frequently utilized unconstrained MOO issues, five complex constrained problems, four constrained engineering designs, and real dynamic economic-emission power dispatch (DEEPD) problem. The experimental results are performed using the generational distance (GD), hypervolume (HV), spacing (SP) metrics to validate the efficacy of the proposed methods, which affirms the progressive and competitive performance compared to thirteen state-of-the-art methods. Finally, the results of the Wilcoxon rank sum test with reference to GD and HV exhibited that the proposed algorithm is significantly better than the compared methods, with a 95% significance level. Furthermore, the results of the nonparametric Friedman test were performed to detect the significant of average ranking among the compared algorithm, where the results confirmed that the proposed MOGJO outperforms the best algorithm among thirteen state-of-the-art algorithms by an average rank of Friedman test greater than 41% while outperforming the worst one, MOALO, by 84% for ZDT and DTLZ1 suits. Additionally, the proposed algorithm saved the overall energy cost and total emission of the DEEPD problem by 1.89%, and 1.48%, respectively, compared with the best existing results and thus, it is commended to adopt for new applications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rizk-Allah RM, El-Sehiemy RA, Deb S, Wang GG (2017) A novel fruit fly framework for multi-objective shape design of tubular linear synchronous motor. J Supercomput 73(3):1235–1256

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rizk-Allah RM, El-Sehiemy RA, Wang GG (2018) A novel parallel hurricane optimization algorithm for secure emission/economic load dispatch solution. Appl Soft Comput 63:206–222

    Google Scholar 

  3. Miettinen K (2012) Nonlinear multiobjective optimization. Springer

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Deb K (2011) Multi-objective optimisation using evolutionary algorithms: an introduction. Multi-objective evolutionary optimisation for product design and manufacturing. Springer, London, pp 3–34

    Google Scholar 

  5. Steuer RE (1986) Multiple criteria optimization: theory, computation and application. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Perić T, Babić Z, Matejaš J (2018) Comparative analysis of application efficiency of two iterative multi objective linear programming methods (MP method and STEM method). CEJOR 26(3):565–583

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Kumar S, Jangir P, Tejani GG, Premkumar M (2022) MOTEO: a novel physics-based multiobjective thermal exchange optimization algorithm to design truss structures. Knowl-Based Syst 242:108422

    Google Scholar 

  8. Srinivas N, Deb K (1994) Muiltiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms. Evol Comput 2(3):221–248. https://doi.org/10.1162/evco.1994.2.3.221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Coello CA, Pulido GT, Lechuga MS (2004) Handling multiple objectives with particle swarm optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 8(3):256–279. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2004.826067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mirjalili S, Jangir P, Saremi S (2017) Multi-objective ant lion optimizer: a multi-objective optimization algorithm for solving engineering problems. Appl Intell. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-016-0825-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mirjalili S, Saremi S, Mirjalili SM, dos Coelho LS (2016) Multi-objective grey wolf optimizer: a novel algorithm for multi-criterion optimization. Expert Syst Appl 47:106–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.10.039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hancer E, Xue B, Zhang M, Karaboga D, Akay B (2015) A multi-objective artificial bee colony approach to feature selection using fuzzy mutual information. IEEE Congr Evol Comput 2015:2420–2427. https://doi.org/10.1109/CEC.2015.7257185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sadollah A, Eskandar H, Kim JH (2015) Water cycle algorithm for solving constrained multi-objective optimization problems. Appl Soft Comput 27:279–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.10.042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Premkumar M, Jangir P, Sowmya R, Alhelou HH, Heidari AA, Chen H (2020) MOSMA: Multi-objective slime mould algorithm based on elitist non-dominated sorting. IEEE Access 9:3229–3248

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jangir P, Trivedi IN (2018) Non-dominated sorting moth flame optimizer: a novel multi-objective optimization algorithm for solving engineering design problems. Eng Technol Open Access J 2(1):17–31

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rizk-Allah RM, Hassanien AE (2022) A hybrid equilibrium algorithm and pattern search technique for wind farm layout optimization problem. ISA Trans 132:402

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rizk-Allah RM, Hassanien AE, Slowik A (2020) Multi-objective orthogonal opposition-based crow search algorithm for large-scale multi-objective optimization. Neural Comput Appl 32(17):13715–13746

    Google Scholar 

  18. El-Sehiemy RA, Rizk-Allah RM, Attia AF (2019) Assessment of hurricane versus sine-cosine optimization algorithms for economic/ecological emissions load dispatch problem. Int Trans Electr Energy Syst 29(2):e2716

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mousa AA, Abd El-Wahed WF, Rizk-Allah RM (2011) A hybrid ant colony optimization approach based local search scheme for multiobjective design optimizations. Electr Power Syst Res 81(4):1014–1023

    Google Scholar 

  20. Laumanns M, Thiele L, Deb K, Zitzler E (2002) Combining convergence and diversity in evolutionary multiobjective optimization. Evol Comput 10(3):263–282

    Google Scholar 

  21. Got A, Moussaoui A, Zouache D (2020) A guided population archive whale optimization algorithm for solving multiobjective optimization problems. Expert Syst Appl 141:112972

    Google Scholar 

  22. Liu J, Wang Y, Wang X, Sui X, Guo S, Liu L (2017) An alpha-dominance expandation based algorithm for many-objective optimization. In: 2017 13th international conference on computational intelligence and security (cis) (pp. 6–10). IEEE

  23. Yang S, Li M, Liu X, Zheng J (2013) A grid-based evolutionary algorithm for many-objective optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 17(5):721–736

    Google Scholar 

  24. Batista LS, Campelo F, Guimarães FG, Ramírez JA (2011) Pareto cone ε-dominance: improving convergence and diversity in multiobjective evolutionary algorithms. In: International conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization (pp. 76–90). Springer

  25. He Z, Yen GG, Zhang J (2013) Fuzzy-based Pareto optimality for manyobjective evolutionary algorithms. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 18(2):269–285

    Google Scholar 

  26. Yuan Y, Xu H, Wang B, Yao X (2015) A new dominance relation-based evolutionary algorithm for many-objective optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 20(1):16–37

    Google Scholar 

  27. Beume N, Naujoks B, Emmerich M (2007) Sms-emoa: multiobjective selection based on dominated hypervolume. Eur J Oper Res 181(3):1653–1669

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Brockhoff D, Wagner T, Trautmann H (2015) 2 indicator-based multiobjective search. Evol Comput 23(3):369–395

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sun Y, Yen GG, Yi Z (2018) Igd indicator-based evolutionary algorithm for many-objective optimization problems. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 23(2):173–187

    Google Scholar 

  30. Zhang Q, Li H (2007) Moea/D: a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 11(6):712–731

    Google Scholar 

  31. Deb K, Jain H (2013) An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm using reference-point-based nondominated sorting approach, part I: solving problems with box constraints. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 18(4):577–601

    Google Scholar 

  32. Li K, Deb K, Zhang Q, Kwong S (2014) An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm based on dominance and decomposition. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 19(5):694–716

    Google Scholar 

  33. Li H, Zhang Q (2008) Multiobjective optimization problems with complicated pareto sets, moea/d and nsga-ii. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 13(2):284–302

    Google Scholar 

  34. Yang NC, Mehmood D (2022) Multi-objective bee swarm optimization algorithm with minimum Manhattan distance for passive power filter optimization problems. Mathematics 10(1):133

    Google Scholar 

  35. Bakhshinezhad S, Mohebbi M (2020) Multi-objective optimal design of semi-active fluid viscous dampers for nonlinear structures using NSGA-II. Structures 24:678–689

    Google Scholar 

  36. Liu M, Li Y, Zhao S et al (2022) Multi-objective optimization and test of a tractor drive motor. World Electr Veh J 13(2):43

    Google Scholar 

  37. Marghny MH, Zanaty EA, Dukhan WH et al (2022) A hybrid multi-objective optimization algorithm for software requirement problem. Alex Eng J 61(9):6991–7005

    Google Scholar 

  38. Singh N, Bharti PS (2022) Multi-objective parametric optimization during micro-EDM drilling of Ti-6Al-4V using teaching learning based optimization algorithm. Mater Today Proc 62(1):262–269

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lian L (2022) Reactive power optimization based on adaptive multi-objective optimization artificial immune algorithm. Ain Shams Eng J 13(5):101677

    Google Scholar 

  40. Martinez-Rico J, Zulueta E, de Argandona IR et al (2020) Multi-objective optimization of production scheduling using particle swarm optimization algorithm for hybrid renewable power plants with battery energy storage system. J Mod Power Syst Clean Energy 9(2):285–294

    Google Scholar 

  41. Fox AD, Corne DW, Mayorga Adame CG et al (2019) An efficient multi-objective optimization method for use in the design of marine protected area networks. Front Mar Sci 6:17

    Google Scholar 

  42. Li H, Liu Z, Zhu P (2021) An improved multi-objective optimization algorithm with mixed variables for automobile engine hood lightweight design. J Mech Sci Technol 35(5):2073–2082

    Google Scholar 

  43. Tian C, Niu T, Wei W (2023) Volatility index prediction based on a hybrid deep learning system with multi-objective optimization and mode decomposition. Expert Syst Appl 213:119184

    Google Scholar 

  44. Nakashima RN, Junior SO (2023) Multi-objective optimization of biogas systems producing hydrogen and electricity with solid oxide fuel cells. Int J Hydrog Energy 48(31):11806–11822

    Google Scholar 

  45. Cao C, Liu F, Tan H, Song D, Shu W, Li W, Xie Z (2018) Deep learning and its applications in biomedicine. Genom Proteom Bioinform 16(1):17–32

    Google Scholar 

  46. Chen D, Li X, Li S (2021) A novel convolutional neural network model based on beetle antennae search optimization algorithm for computerized tomography diagnosis. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst 34:1418

    Google Scholar 

  47. Yang Z, Qiu H, Gao L, Chen L, Liu J (2023) Surrogate-assisted MOEA/D for expensive constrained multi-objective optimization. Inf Sci 639:119016

    Google Scholar 

  48. Tariq I, AlSattar HA, Zaidan AA, Zaidan BB, Abu Bakar MR, Mohammed RT, Albahri AS (2020) MOGSABAT: a metaheuristic hybrid algorithm for solving multi-objective optimisation problems. Neural Comput Appl 32:3101–3115

    Google Scholar 

  49. Wolpert DH (2023) The implications of the no-free-lunch theorems for meta-induction. J General Philos Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-022-09609-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Chopra N, Ansari MM (2022) Golden jackal optimization: a novel nature-inspired optimizer for engineering applications. Expert Syst Appl 198:116924

    Google Scholar 

  51. Rizk-Allah RM, Hassanien AE, Bhattacharyya S (2018) Chaotic crow search algorithm for fractional optimization problems. Appl Soft Comput 71:1161–1175

    Google Scholar 

  52. Rizk-Allah RM, Hassanien AE, Song D (2022) Chaos-opposition-enhanced slime mould algorithm for minimizing the cost of energy for the wind turbines on high-altitude sites. ISA Trans 121:191–205

    Google Scholar 

  53. Chou JS, Truong DN (2020) Multiobjective optimization inspired by behavior of jellyfish for solving structural design problems. Chaos Solitons Fractals 135:109738

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  54. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2017.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Das AK, Nikum AK, Krishnan SV et al (2020) Multi-objective Bonobo Optimizer (MOBO): an intelligent heuristic for multi-criteria optimization. Knowl Inf Syst 62:4407–4444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-020-01503-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Wilcoxon F (1992) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Breakthroughs in statistics. Springer, pp 196–202

    Google Scholar 

  57. Khodadadi N, Abualigah L, Al-Tashi Q, Mirjalili S (2023) Multi-objective chaos game optimization. Neural Comput Appl 35:14973

    Google Scholar 

  58. Khodadadi N, Azizi M, Talatahari S, Sareh P (2021) Multi-objective crystal structure algorithm (MOCryStAl): introduction and performance evaluation. IEEE Access 9:117795–117812

    Google Scholar 

  59. Houssein EH, Mahdy MA, Shebl D, Manzoor A, Sarkar R, Mohamed WM (2022) An efficient slime mould algorithm for solving multi-objective optimization problems. Expert Syst Appl 187:115870

    Google Scholar 

  60. Tharwat A, Houssein EH, Ahmed MM, Hassanien AE, Gabel T (2018) MOGOA algorithm for constrained and unconstrained multi-objective optimization problems. Appl Intell 48(8):2268–2283

    Google Scholar 

  61. Nematollahi AF, Rahiminejad A, Vahidi B (2019) A novel multi-objective optimization algorithm based on lightning attachment procedure optimization algorithm. Appl Soft Comput 75:404–427

    Google Scholar 

  62. Sharifi MR, Akbarifard S, Qaderi K, Madadi MR (2021) A new optimization algorithm to solve multi-objective problems. Sci Rep 11(1):20326

    Google Scholar 

  63. 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):3–18

    Google Scholar 

  64. Sundaram A (2022) Multiobjective multi verse optimization algorithm to solve dynamic economic emission dispatch problem with transmission loss prediction by an artificial neural network. Appl Soft Comput 124:109021

    Google Scholar 

  65. Guo CX, Zhan JP, Wu QH (2012) Dynamic economic emission dispatch based on group search optimizer with multiple producers. Electr Power Syst Res 86:8–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2011.11.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by an internal grant project of VSB-Technical University of Ostrava (SGS project, Grant Number SP2023/076).

Funding

There is no funding for this study by any company.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, VŠB-Technical University of Ostrava, 70800, Poruba, Ostrava, Czech Republic

    Václav Snášel & Rizk M. Rizk-Allah

  2. Basic Engineering Science Department, Faculty of Engineering, Menoufia University, Shebin El-Kom, 32511, Egypt

    Rizk M. Rizk-Allah

  3. Faculty of Computers and Information, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

    Aboul Ella Hassanien

  4. Scientific Research Group in Egypt (SRGE), Cairo, Egypt

    Rizk M. Rizk-Allah & Aboul Ella Hassanien

Authors
  1. Václav Snášel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rizk M. Rizk-Allah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aboul Ella Hassanien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aboul Ella Hassanien.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest has been stated by the authors.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Snášel, V., Rizk-Allah, R.M. & Hassanien, A.E. Guided golden jackal optimization using elite-opposition strategy for efficient design of multi-objective engineering problems. Neural Comput & Applic 35, 20771–20802 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-023-08850-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-023-08850-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation