TY - JOUR
T1 - An Analysis of the Operation Factors of Three PSO-GA-ED Meta-Heuristic Search Methods for Solving a Single-Objective Optimization Problem
AU - Fozooni, Ali
AU - Kamari, Osman
AU - Pourtalebiyan, Mostafa
AU - Gorgich, Masoud
AU - Khalilzadeh, Mohammad
AU - Valizadeh, Amin
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Ali Fozooni et al.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - In this study, we evaluate several nongradient (evolutionary) search strategies for minimizing mathematical function expressions. We developed and tested the genetic algorithms, particle swarm optimization, and differential evolution in order to assess their general efficacy in optimization of mathematical equations. A comparison is then made between the results and the efficiency, which is determined by the number of iterations, the observed accuracy, and the overall run time. Additionally, the optimization employs 12 functions from Easom, Holder table, Michalewicz, Ackley, Rastrigin, Rosen, Rosen Brock, Shubert, Sphere, Schaffer, Himmelblau's, and Spring Force Vanderplaats. Furthermore, the crossover rate, mutation rate, and scaling factor are evaluated to determine the effectiveness of the following algorithms. According to the results of the comparison of optimization algorithms, the DE algorithm has the lowest time complexity of the others. Furthermore, GA demonstrated the greatest degree of temporal complexity. As a result, using the PSO method produces different results when repeating the same algorithm with low reliability in terms of locating the optimal location.
AB - In this study, we evaluate several nongradient (evolutionary) search strategies for minimizing mathematical function expressions. We developed and tested the genetic algorithms, particle swarm optimization, and differential evolution in order to assess their general efficacy in optimization of mathematical equations. A comparison is then made between the results and the efficiency, which is determined by the number of iterations, the observed accuracy, and the overall run time. Additionally, the optimization employs 12 functions from Easom, Holder table, Michalewicz, Ackley, Rastrigin, Rosen, Rosen Brock, Shubert, Sphere, Schaffer, Himmelblau's, and Spring Force Vanderplaats. Furthermore, the crossover rate, mutation rate, and scaling factor are evaluated to determine the effectiveness of the following algorithms. According to the results of the comparison of optimization algorithms, the DE algorithm has the lowest time complexity of the others. Furthermore, GA demonstrated the greatest degree of temporal complexity. As a result, using the PSO method produces different results when repeating the same algorithm with low reliability in terms of locating the optimal location.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85140345853&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1155/2022/2748215
DO - 10.1155/2022/2748215
M3 - Article
C2 - 36275945
AN - SCOPUS:85140345853
SN - 1687-5265
VL - 2022
JO - Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience
JF - Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience
M1 - 2748215
ER -