Soft Computing

, Volume 23, Issue 24, pp 13627–13668 | Cite as

A hybrid evolutionary approach based on the invasive weed optimization and estimation distribution algorithms

  • Erik CuevasEmail author
  • Alma Rodríguez
  • Arturo Valdivia
  • Daniel Zaldívar
  • Marco Pérez
Methodologies and Application


Hybrid evolutionary methods combine approaches extracted from different evolutionary computation techniques to build a single optimization method. The design of such systems represents a current trend in the evolutionary optimization literature. In hybrid algorithms, the objective is to extend the potential advantages of the integrated approaches and eliminate their main drawbacks. In this work, a hybrid method for solving optimization problems is presented. The proposed approach combines (A) the explorative characteristics of the invasive weed optimization method, (B) the probabilistic models of the estimation distribution algorithms and (C) the dispersion capacities of a mixed Gaussian–Cauchy distribution to produce its own search strategy. With these mechanisms, the proposed method conducts an optimization strategy over search areas that deserve a special interest according to a probabilistic model and the fitness value of the existent solutions. In the proposed method, each individual of the population generates new elements around its own location, dispersed according to the mixed distribution. The number of new elements depends on the relative fitness value of the individual regarding the complete population. After this process, a group of promising solutions are selected from the set compound by the (a) new elements and the (b) original individuals. Based on the selected solutions, a probabilistic model is built from which a certain number of members (c) are sampled. Then, all the individuals of the sets (a), (b) and (c) are joined in a single group and ranked in terms of their fitness values. Finally, the best elements of the group are selected to replace the original population. This process is repeated until a termination criterion has been reached. To test the performance of our method, several comparisons to other well-known metaheuristic methods have been made. The comparison consists of analyzing the optimization results over different standard benchmark functions within a statistical framework. Conclusions based on the comparisons exhibit the accuracy, efficiency and robustness of the proposed approach.


Hybrid optimization techniques Invasive weed optimization (IWO) Estimation distribution algorithms (EDAs) 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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


  1. Alba E (2005) Parallel metaheuristics: a new class of algorithms. Wiley, New YokzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alba E, Dorronsoro B (2005) The exploration/exploitation tradeoff in dynamic cellular genetic algorithms. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 9(3):126–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arora JS (2012) Chapter 12—numerical methods for constrained optimum design. In: Introduction to optimum design, pp 491–531Google Scholar
  4. Bäck T (1996) Evolutionary algorithms in theory and practice. Oxford University Press, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Basak A, Maity D, Das S (2013) A differential invasive weed optimization algorithm for improved global numerical optimization. Appl Math Comput 219:6645–6668MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Beigvand D, Abdi H, La Scala M (2017) Hybrid gravitational search algorithm-particle swarm optimization with time varying acceleration coefficients for large scale CHPED problem. Energy 126:841–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertoin J (1996) Lévy processes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Blum C, Blesa MJ, Roli A Sampels M (2008) Hybrid metaheuristics—an emerging approach to optimization, volume 114 of Studies in Computational Intelligence. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  9. Blum C, Puchinger J, Raidl G, Roli A (2011) Hybrid metaheuristics in combinatorial optimization: a survey. Appl Soft Comput 11:4135–4151zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cartwright A, Whitworth AP (2012) Four-parameter fits to the initial mass function using stable distributions. Mon Not R Astron Soc 423(2):1018–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chellapilla K (1998) Combining mutation operators in evolutionary programming. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 2(3):91–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen C-H, Chen YP (2007) Real-coded ECGA for economic dispatch. In: Genetic and evolutionary computation conference, GECCO-2007, pp 1920–1927Google Scholar
  13. Cuevas E, González M, Zaldivar D, Pérez-Cisneros M, García G (2012) An algorithm for global optimization inspired by collective animal behaviour. Discrete Dyn Nat Soc 2012:638275. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cuevas E, Cienfuegos M, Zaldívar D, Pérez-Cisneros M (2013) A swarm optimization algorithm inspired in the behavior of the social-spider. Expert Syst Appl 40(16):6374–6384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cuevas E, Echavarría A, Ramírez-Ortegón M (2014a) An optimization algorithm inspired by the States of Matter that improves the balance between exploration and exploitation. Appl Intell 40(2):256–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cuevas E, Gálvez J, Hinojosa S, Avalos O, Zaldívar D, Pérez-Cisneros MA (2014b) Comparison of evolutionary computation techniques for IIR model identification, vol 2014Google Scholar
  17. Das S, Suganthan P (2011) Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for CEC 2011 competition on testing evolutionary algorithms on real world optimization problems, Technical ReportGoogle Scholar
  18. Ducheyne E, De Baets B, De Wulf R (2004) Probabilistic models for linkage learning in forest management. In: Jin Y (ed) Knowledge incorporation in evolutionary computation. Springer, Berlin, pp 177–194Google Scholar
  19. Ehrgott M, Gandibleux X (2008) Hybrid metaheuristics for multi-objective combinatorial optimization, vol 114 of Blum et al. [14], pp 221–259 (Chapter 8)Google Scholar
  20. Garcia S, Molina D, Lozano M, Herrera F (2008) A study on the use of non-parametric tests for analyzing the evolutionary algorithms’ behavior: a case study on the CEC’2005 Special session on real parameter optimization. J Heurist. CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Garg H (2016) A hybrid PSO–GA algorithm for constrained optimization problems. Appl Math Comput 274:292–305MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Geem ZW, Kim JH, Loganathan GV (2001) A new heuristic optimization algorithm: harmony search. Simulations 7:60–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goldberg DE, Korb B, Deb K (1989) Messy genetic algorithms: motivation, analysis, and first results. Complex Syst 3(5):493–530MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Grosan C, Abraham A (2007) Hybrid evolutionary algorithms: methodologies, architectures, and reviews. Stud Comput Intell (SCI) 75:1–17Google Scholar
  25. Han M, Liu Ch, Xing J (2014) An evolutionary membrane algorithm for global numerical optimization problems. Inf Sci 276:219–241MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holland JH (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  27. Holland JH (1992) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an introductory analysis with applications to biology. Control and artificial intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge, ISBN 0262082136Google Scholar
  28. James JQ, Li VOK (2015) A social spider algorithm for global optimization. Appl Soft Comput 30:614–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ji Y, Zhang K-C, Qu S-J (2007) A deterministic global optimization algorithm. Appl Math Comput 185:382–387MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Kennedy J, Eberhart RC (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference neural networks, vol 4, pp 1942–1948Google Scholar
  31. Li Z, Wang W, Yan Y, Li Z (2015) PS–ABC: a hybrid algorithm based on particle swarm and artificial bee colony for high-dimensional optimization problems. Expert Syst Appl 42(22):8881–8895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Li D, Zhao H, Weng XW, Han T (2016) A novel nature-inspired algorithm for optimization: virus colony search. Adv Eng Softw 92:65–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liang JJ, Qu B-Y, Suganthan PN (2015) Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for the CEC 2015 special session and competition on single objective real parameter numerical optimization, Technical Report 201311, Computational Intelligence Laboratory, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou China and Nanyang Technological University, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  34. Lipinski P (2007) ECGA vs. BOA in discovering stock market trading experts. In: Genetic and evolutionary computation conference, GECCO-2007, pp 531–538Google Scholar
  35. Mallahzadeh AR, Es’haghi S, Alipour A (2009) Design of an E-shaped MIMO antenna using IWO algorithm for wireless application at 5.8 GHz. Progr Electromagn Res PIER 90:187–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mehrabian AR, Lucas C (2006) A novel numerical optimization algorithm inspired from weed colonization. Ecol Inf 1:355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mehrabian AR, Yousefi-Koma A (2007) Optimal positioning of piezoelectric actuators on a smart fin using bio-inspired algorithms. Aerosp Sci Technol 11:174–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meng Z, Jeng-Shyang P (2016) Monkey king evolution: a new memetic evolutionary algorithm and its application in vehicle fuel consumption optimization. Knowl-Based Syst 97:144–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mühlenbein H, Paaß GH (1996) From recombination of genes to the estimation of distributions I. Binary parameters. In: Eiben A, Bäck T, Shoenauer M, Schwefel H (eds) Parallel problem solving from nature. Springer, Berlin, pp 178–187Google Scholar
  40. Mühlenbein H, Schlierkamp-Voosen D (1993) Predictive models for the breeder genetic algorithm I. Continuous parameter optimization. Evol Comput 1(1):25–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nedjah N, Alba E, Macedo M (2008) Parallel evolutionary computations. Computational intelligence & complexity, vol 22. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  42. Ou-Yang C, Utamima A (2013) Hybrid estimation of distribution algorithm for solving single row facility layout problem. Comput Ind Eng 66:95–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Paenke I, Jin Y, Branke J (2009) Balancing population- and individual-level adaptation in changing environments. Adapt Behav 17(2):153–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pardalos PM, Romeijn HE, Tuy H (2000) Recent developments and trends in global optimization. J Comput Appl Math 124:209–228MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Park J-B, Lee K-S, Shin J-R, Lee KY (2005) A particle swarm optimization for economic dispatch with non-smooth cost functions. IEEE Trans Power Syst 20(1):34–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rashedi E, Nezamabadi-pour H, Saryazdi S (2009) GSA: a gravitational search algorithm. Inf Sci 179:2232–2248zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rudolph G (1997) Local convergence rates of simple evolutionary algorithms with Cauchy mutations. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 1:249–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sandgren E (1990) Nonlinear integer and discrete programming in mechanical design optimization. J Mech Des 112(2):223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Santana R, Larrañaga P, Lozano JA (2008) Protein folding in simplified models with estimation of distribution algorithms. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 12:418–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schutte JF, Reinbolt JA, Fregly BJ, Haftka RT, George AD (2004) Parallel global optimization with the particle swarm algorithm. Int J Numer Methods Eng 61(13):2296–2315zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Storn R, Price K (1995) Differential evolution—a simple and efficient adaptive scheme for global optimisation over continuous spaces. Technical Report TR-95–012, ICSI, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  52. Tan KC, Chiam SC, Mamun AA, Goh CK (2009) Balancing exploration and exploitation with adaptive variation for evolutionary multi-objective optimization. Eur J Oper Res 197:701–713zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Trivedi A, Srinivasan D, Biswas S, Reindl T (2016) A genetic algorithm—differential evolution based hybrid framework: case study on unit commitment scheduling problem. Inf Sci 354:275–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Uchaikin VV, Zolotarev VM (1999) Chance and stability: stable distributions and their applications. VSP, UtrechtzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wang Y, Li B (2009) A self-adaptive mixed distribution based uni-variate estimation of distribution algorithm for large scale global optimization. In: Chiong R (ed) Nature-inspired algorithms for optimisation. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol 193. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 171–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics 1:80–83MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wolpert DH, Macready WG (1997) No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 1(1):67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yang XS (2009) Firefly algorithms for multimodal optimization. In: Stochastic algorithms: foundations and applications, SAGA 2009, lecture notes in computer sciences, vol 5792, pp 169–178Google Scholar
  59. Yang X-S (2010) Engineering optimization: an introduction with metaheuristic application. Wiley, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yao X, Liu Y (1996) Fast evolutionary programming. In: Fogel LJ, Angeline PJ, Back T (eds) Proceedings of the fifth annual conference evolutionary programming (EP’96). MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 451–460Google Scholar
  61. Yao X, Liu Y, Liu G (1999) Evolutionary programming made faster. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 3(2):82–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yu T-L, Santarelli S, Goldberg DE (2006) Military antenna design using a simple genetic algorithm and hBOA. In: Pelikan M, Sastry K, Cantú-Paz E (eds) Scalable optimization via probabilistic modeling: from algorithms to applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 275–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhang X, Wang Y, Cui G, Niu Y, Xu J (2009) Application of a novel IWO to the design of encoding sequences for DNA computing. Comput Math Appl 57:2001–2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zhang J, Wu Y, Guo Y, Wang Bo, Wang H, Liu H (2016) A hybrid harmony search algorithm with differential evolution for day-ahead scheduling problem of a microgrid with consideration of power flow constraints. Appl Energy 183:791–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de ElectrónicaUniversidad de Guadalajara, CUCEIGuadalajaraMexico
  2. 2.Desarrollo de SoftwareCentro de Enseñanza Técnica Industrial ColomosGuadalajaraMexico

Personalised recommendations