Advertisement

Soft Computing

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 1–18 | Cite as

Majority voting for discrete population-based optimization algorithms

  • Sedigheh Mahdavi
  • Shahryar RahnamayanEmail author
  • Abbas Mahdavi
Foundations
  • 83 Downloads

Abstract

Population-based metaheuristic algorithms have been extensively applied to solve discrete optimization problems. Generally speaking, they work with a set of candidate solutions in the population which evolve during generations using variant reproduction and selection operations to find the optimal solution(s). The population is similar to a small society having several individuals which seek a common goal/solution. This study is motivated from the election systems of societies which can be applied in the population-based algorithms. We propose utilizing the majority voting for discrete population-based optimization algorithms which uses the information of all candidate solutions in the current generation to create a new trial candidate solution, called a president candidate solution. During optimization process, after applying the evolutionary operations, all candidate solutions vote collectively to determine the values of the president’s variables. In the proposed method, a majority voting is utilized to choose a value for each variable (gene) of the president candidate solution. This method keeps untouched all other steps of population-based algorithms; therefore, it can be used with any kind of population-based algorithm. As case studies, the discrete differential evolution (DDE) algorithm and the discrete particle swarm optimization (DPSO) are used as the parent algorithms to develop majority voting-based discrete DE (MVDDE) and majority voting-based discrete PSO (MVDPSO). These two algorithms are evaluated on the fifteen discrete benchmark functions with the dimensions of D = 10, 30, 50, 100, 200 and 500. Simulation results confirm that majority voting-based discrete optimization algorithms obtain a promising performance on the majority of the benchmark functions. In addition, we have conducted some tests on large-scale 0–1 knapsack problems with large scales as a real-world application.

Keywords

Election Majority voting Evolutionary algorithms Differential evolution (DE) Population-based algorithms President Particle swarm optimization (PSO) Metaheuristics Discrete optimization Collective intelligence 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alkoot FM, Kittler J (1999) Experimental evaluation of expert fusion strategies. Pattern Recognit Lett 20(11):1361–1369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beheshti Z, Shamsuddin SM, Hasan S (2015) Memetic binary particle swarm optimization for discrete optimization problems. Inf Sci 299:58–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bengoetxea E (2002) Inexact graph matching using estimation of distribution algorithms. Ecole Natl Supér Télécommun Paris 2:4Google Scholar
  4. Blanche EE (1946) The mathematics of gambling. School Sci Math 46(3):217–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boiangiu C-A, Ioanitescu R (2013) Voting-based image segmentation. J Inf Syst Oper Manag 7:211–220Google Scholar
  6. Boiangiu C-A, Boglis P, Simion G, Ioanitescu R (2014) Voting-based layout analysis. J Inf Syst Oper Manag 8:39–47Google Scholar
  7. BoussaiD I, Lepagnot J, Siarry P (2013) A survey on optimization metaheuristics. Inf Sci 237:82–117MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Burman R, Chakrabarti S, Das S (2016) Democracy-inspired particle swarm optimizer with the concept of peer groups. Soft Comput 21:3267–3286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cho S-B, Kim JH (1995a) Combining multiple neural networks by fuzzy integral for robust classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 25(2):380–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cho S-B, Kim JH (1995b) Multiple network fusion using fuzzy logic. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 6(2):497–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Das S, Suganthan PN (2011) Differential evolution: a survey of the state-of-the-art. IEEE Tran Evolut Comput 15(1):4–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Das S, Mullick SS, Suganthan PN (2016) Recent advances in differential evolution—an updated survey. Swarm Evolut Comput 27:1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Datta D, Figueira JR (2013) A real–integer–discrete-coded differential evolution. Appl Soft Comput 13(9):3884–3893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dorigo M, Stützle T (1999) Ant colony optimization: a new meta-heuristic. In: Proceedings of the congress on evolutionary computation, IEEE Press, p 1470–1477Google Scholar
  15. Forestier G, Gançarski P, Wemmert C (2010) Collaborative clustering with background knowledge. Data Knowl Eng 69(2):211–228CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Gantovnik VB, Anderson-Cook CM, Gürdal Z, Watson LT (2003) A genetic algorithm with memory for mixed discrete-continuous design optimization. Comput Struct 81(20):2003–2009MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gao J, Li H, Jiao Y-C (2009) Modified differential evolution for the integer programming problems. In: International conference on artificial intelligence and computational intelligence, 2009. AICI’09. IEEE, vol 1, pp 213–219Google Scholar
  18. Ghaemi R, Sulaiman Md N, Ibrahim H, Mustapha N et al (2009) A survey: clustering ensembles techniques. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 50:636–645Google Scholar
  19. Grabisch M, Nicolas J-M (1994) Classification by fuzzy integral: performance and tests. Fuzzy Sets Syst 65(2–3):255–271MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grim J, Kittler J, Pudil P, Somol P (2001) Information analysis of multiple classifier fusion? In: International workshop on multiple classifier systems, Springer, pp 168–177Google Scholar
  21. Ho TK, Hull JJ, Srihari SN (1994) Decision combination in multiple classifier systems. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 16(1):66–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Inza I, Larrañaga P, Sierra B (2001) Feature subset selection by bayesian networks: a comparison with genetic and sequential algorithms. Int J Approx Reason 27(2):143–164CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaveh A, Zolghadr A (2014) Democratic pso for truss layout and size optimization with frequency constraints. Comput Struct 130:10–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kennedy J, Eberhart R C (1997) A discrete binary version of the particle swarm algorithm. In: Systems, man, and cybernetics, 1997. IEEE international conference on computational cybernetics and simulation. IEEE, vol 5, pp 4104–4108Google Scholar
  25. Kittler J, Hatef M, Duin RBW, Matas J (1998) On combining classifiers. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 20(3):226–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krause J, Cordeiro J, Parpinelli R S, Lopes H S (2013) A survey of swarm algorithms applied to discrete optimization problems. Swarm intelligence and bio-inspired computation: theory and applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 169–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuncheva LI (2001) Using measures of similarity and inclusion for multiple classifier fusion by decision templates. Fuzzy Sets Syst 122(3):401–407MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Kuncheva LI (2002) Switching between selection and fusion in combining classifiers: an experiment. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B (Cybern) 32(2):146–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kuncheva LI (2002b) A theoretical study on six classifier fusion strategies. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 24(2):281–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuncheva LI, Bezdek JC, Duin RPW (2001) Decision templates for multiple classifier fusion: an experimental comparison. Pattern Recognit 34(2):299–314CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Li H, Zhang L (2014) A discrete hybrid differential evolution algorithm for solving integer programming problems. Eng Optim 46(9):1238–1268MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lu Y (1996) Knowledge integration in a multiple classifier system. Appl Intell 6(2):75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moslah O, Hachaïchi Y, Lahbib Y (2016) Democratic inspired particle swarm optimization for multi-robot exploration taskGoogle Scholar
  34. Nearchou AC (2008) A differential evolution approach for the common due date early/tardy job scheduling problem. Comput Oper Res 35(4):1329–1343CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Pan Q-K, Tasgetiren MF, Liang Y-C (2008) A discrete particle swarm optimization algorithm for the no-wait flowshop scheduling problem. Comput Oper Res 35(9):2807–2839MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Pugh J, Martinoli A (2006) Discrete multi-valued particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of IEEE swarm intelligence symposium, number SWIS-CONF-2006–2004, pp 103–110Google Scholar
  37. Rahnamayan S, Tizhoosh H R, Salama M MA (2006) Weighted voting-based robust image thresholding. In: 2006 international conference on image processing. IEEE, pp 1129–1132Google Scholar
  38. Rogova G (1994) Combining the results of several neural network classifiers. Neural Netw 7(5):777–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ruta D, Gabrys B (2005) Classifier selection for majority voting. Inf Fusion 6(1):63–81CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Strehl A, Ghosh J (2002) Cluster ensembles—a knowledge reuse framework for combining multiple partitions. J Mach Learn Res 2(Dec):583–617MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Tasgetiren M F, Liang Y-C, Sevkli M, Gencyilmaz G (2004) Differential evolution algorithm for permutation flowshop sequencing problem with makespan criterion. In: Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on intelligent manufacturing systems (IMS 2004), Citeseer, Sakarya, pp 442–452Google Scholar
  42. Tax D MJ, Van Breukelen M, Duin R PW, Kittler J (2000) Combining multiple classifiers by averaging or by multiplying? Pattern Recognit 33(9):1475–1485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thorp EO (1984) The mathematics of gambling. Gambling TimesGoogle Scholar
  44. Williams RJ, Connolly D (2006) Does learning about the mathematics of gambling change gambling behavior? Psychol Addict Behav 20(1):62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wolpert D H, Macready W G (1997) No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 1(1):67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wu S-J, Pei-Tse C (1994) Genetic algorithms for solving mixed-discrete optimization problems. J Frankl Inst 331(4):381–401CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. Zaharie D (2003) Control of population diversity and adaptation in differential evolution algorithms. Proc MENDEL 9:41–46Google Scholar
  48. Zaheer H, Pant M (2015) A differential evolution approach for solving integer programming problems. In: Proceedings of fourth international conference on soft computing for problem solving, Springer, pp 413–424Google Scholar
  49. Zheng LM, Zhang SX, Tang KS, Zheng SY (2017) Differential evolution powered by collective information. Inf Sci 399:13–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zou D, Gao L, Li S, Wu J (2011) Solving 0–1 knapsack problem by a novel global harmony search algorithm. Appl Soft Comput 11(2):1556–1564CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sedigheh Mahdavi
    • 1
  • Shahryar Rahnamayan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Abbas Mahdavi
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Electrical, Computer, and Software EngineeringUniversity of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT)OshawaCanada
  2. 2.Department of Statistics, Faculty of Mathematical SciencesVali-e-Asr University of RafsanjanRafsanjanIran

Personalised recommendations