All Title Author
Keywords Abstract


Convergence Analysis of Particle Swarm Optimizer and Its Improved Algorithm Based on Velocity Differential Evolution

DOI: 10.1155/2013/384125

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

This paper presents an analysis of the relationship of particle velocity and convergence of the particle swarm optimization. Its premature convergence is due to the decrease of particle velocity in search space that leads to a total implosion and ultimately fitness stagnation of the swarm. An improved algorithm which introduces a velocity differential evolution (DE) strategy for the hierarchical particle swarm optimization (H-PSO) is proposed to improve its performance. The DE is employed to regulate the particle velocity rather than the traditional particle position in case that the optimal result has not improved after several iterations. The benchmark functions will be illustrated to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. 1. Introduction Algorithms to tackle optimization problems include not only classical techniques such as dynamic programming, branch-and-bound, and gradient-based methods, but also more recent techniques such as metaheuristics [1]. Among the existing metaheuristic algorithms, the particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm is a population-based optimization technique developed by Kennedy and Eberhart in 1995 [2]. The PSO has resulted in a large number of variants of the standard PSO. Some variants are designed to deal with specific applications [3–6], and others are generalized for numerical optimization [7–10]. A hierarchical version of PSO (H-PSO) has been proposed by Janson and Middendorf [10]. In H-PSO, all particles are arranged in a tree that forms the hierarchy. A particle is influenced by its own best position and the best position particle in its neighborhood. It was shown that H-PSO performed very well compared to the standard PSO on unimodal and multimodal test functions [10, 11]. H-PSO presents the advantage of being conceptually very simple and requiring low computation time. However, the main disadvantage of H-PSO is the risk of a premature search convergence, especially in complex multiple peak search problems. A number of algorithms combined various algorithmic components, often originating from algorithms of other research areas on optimization. These approaches are commonly referred to as hybrid meta-heuristics [12]. The surveys on hybrid algorithms that combine the PSO and differential evolution (DE) [13] were presented recently [14, 15]. These PSO-DE hybrids usually employ DE to adjust the particle position. But the convergence performance is dependent on the particle velocity. Limiting the velocity can help the particle to get out of local optima traps [16, 17]. In this paper, we will combine

References

[1]  C. Zhang, J. Ning, S. Lu, D. Ouyang, and T. Ding, “A novel hybrid differential evolution and particle swarm optimization algorithm for unconstrained optimization,” Operations Research Letters, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 117–122, 2009.
[2]  J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, “Particle swarm optimization,” in Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks, pp. 1942–1948, Perth, Australia, December 1995.
[3]  J. Zhang, J. Wang, and C. Yue, “Small population-based particle swarm optimization for short-term hydrothermal scheduling,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 142–152, 2012.
[4]  R. Bhattacharya, T. K. Bhattacharyya, and R. Garg, “Position Mutated hierarchical particle swarm optimization and its application in synthesis of unequally spaced antenna arrays,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 3174–3181, 2012.
[5]  M. A. Cavuslua, C. Karakuzub, and F. Karakayac, “Neural identification of dynamic systems on FPGA with improved PSO learning,” Applied Soft Computing, vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 2707–2718, 2012.
[6]  M. Han, J. Fan, and J. Wang, “A dynamic feedforward neural network based on gaussian particle swarm optimization and its application for predictive control,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 1457–1468, 2011.
[7]  F. Peng, K. Tang, G. Chen, and X. Yao, “Population-based algorithm portfolios for numerical optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 782–800, 2010.
[8]  X. Li and X. Yao, “Cooperatively coevolving particle swarms for large scale optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 210–224, 2012.
[9]  M. Li, D. Lin, and J. Kou, “A hybrid niching PSO enhanced with recombination-replacement crowding strategy for multimodal function optimization,” Applied Soft Computing Journal, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 975–987, 2012.
[10]  S. Janson and M. Middendorf, “A hierarchical particle swarm optimizer and its adaptive variant,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics B, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 1272–1282, 2005.
[11]  M. G. Epitropakis, D. K. Tasoulis, N. G. Pavlidis, V. P. Plagianakos, and M. N. Vrahatis, “Enhancing differential evolution utilizing proximity-based mutation operators,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 99–119, 2011.
[12]  C. Blum, J. Puchinger, G. R. Raidl, and A. Roli, “Hybrid metaheuristics in combinatorial optimization: a survey,” Applied Soft Computing Journal, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 4135–4151, 2011.
[13]  K. V. Price, R. Storn, and J. Lampinen, Differential Evolution: A Practical Approach to Global Optimization, Springer, Berin, Germany, 2005.
[14]  M. G. Epitropakis, V. P. Plagianakos, and M. N. Vrahatis, “Evolving cognitive and social experience in particle swarm optimization through differential evolution: a hybrid approach,” Information Sciences, vol. 216, pp. 50–92, 2012.
[15]  B. Xin and J. Chen, “A survey and taxonomy on hybrid algorithms based on particle swarm optimization and differential evolution,” Journal of Systems Science and Mathematical Sciences, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 1130–1150, 2011.
[16]  H. Liu, X. Wang, and G. Tan, “Convergence analysis of particle swarm optimization and its improved algorithm based on chaos,” Control and Decision, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 636–645, 2006.
[17]  S. Jiang, Q. Wang, and J. Jiang, “Particle swarm optimization algorithm based on velocity differential evolution,” in Proceedings of the Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC '09), pp. 1860–1865, Guilin, China, June 2009.
[18]  S. Ghosh, S. Das, D. Kundu, K. Suresh, and A. Abraham, “Inter-particle communication and search-dynamics of lbest particle swarm optimizers: an analysis,” Information Sciences, vol. 182, no. 1, pp. 156–168, 2012.
[19]  X. F. Xie, W. J. Zhang, and Z. L. Yang, “A dissipative particle swarm optimization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC '02), pp. 1456–1461, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, May 2002.
[20]  W. Gao, S. Liu, and L. Huang, “Particle swarm optimization with chaotic opposition-based population initialization and stochastic search technique,” Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 4316–4327, 2012.
[21]  S. Janson and M. Middendorf, “A hierarchical particle swarm optimizer for noisy and dynamic environments,” Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 329–354, 2006.
[22]  F. Neri and V. Tirronen, “Recent advances in differential evolution: a survey and experimental analysis,” Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 33, no. 1-2, pp. 61–106, 2010.
[23]  I. C. Trelea, “The particle swarm optimization algorithm: convergence analysis and parameter selection,” Information Processing Letters, vol. 85, no. 6, pp. 317–325, 2003.

Full-Text

comments powered by Disqus