Cluster Computing

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 929–951 | Cite as

Benchmarking based search framework

  • A. S. XieEmail author


Most of the issues in science, engineering, and management can be turned into optimization problems by modeling. However, for most of which, the operations research methods based on rigid mathematical logic can do nothing, intelligent methods are helpful. Traditionally, the so-called intelligent methods, whose “intelligence” is mainly dependent on the probability rules of their operators. Thus there are always some probability equations or mathematical formulations that need to be updated. This paper proposed a new framework for intelligent optimization/search, which is based on artful organizing tactics rather than “intelligent” probability rules. Thus it needs no probability equations. In addition, it is helpful to balance the exploration and the exploitation, keep the population diversity and avoid useless and ineffective repetitious operations. The mentioned above had been proved by theoretical analyses and simulation experiments. Of course, any method has its disadvantages, the defects and the possible improvement measures of this framework were summarized in the conclusion part.


Optimization problems Intelligent optimization Optimization algorithm Evolutionary computation Swarm intelligence Artificial intelligence Encoding scheme Benchmarking philosophy 



This research is supported by the research fund [grant number 16JDGH048] from “Collaborative innovation center for Transformation and Upgrading of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Zhejiang University of Technology”, “Zhejiang Provincial New Key Professional Think Tank - China Institute for SMEs, Zhejiang University of Technology”. The mentors of my student times provided me with good edification. The colleagues of my department have provided me with a favorable environment, and I would like to express my gratitude.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

There are not any potential conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This research involved no human participants and/or animals. So this article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

This article has only one author, and there is no such thing as informed consent.


  1. 1.
    Abdi, H., Coefficient, TKrc: The Kendall Rank Correlation Coefficient. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Casanovas, J.M., Montserrat, M.: A new Minkowski distance based on induced aggregation operators. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 2011(2), 123–133 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Castro, L.N.D., José, F.: Artificial immune systems: Part I—basic theory and application. In: Paper presented at the Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Dezembro de, Tech. Rep, p. 210 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castro, L.N.D., Zuben, F.J.V.: The clonal selection algorithm with engineering applications. In: Paper presented at the Proceedings of GECCO, (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Creutz, M.: Microcanonical Monte Carlo simulation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 50(19), 1411–1414 (1983)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dorigo, M., Maniezzo, V., Colorni, A.: Ant system: an autocatalytic optimizing process technical report 91-016. Clustering 3(12), 340 (1991)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eberhart, R., Kennedy, J.: A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. In: International Symposium on MICRO Machine and Human Science, pp. 39–43. (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Erol, O.K., Eksin, I.: A new optimization method: big Bang-Big Crunch. Adv. Eng. Softw. 37(2), 106–111 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eusuff, M.M., Lansey, K.E.: Water distribution network design using the shuffled frog leaping algorithm. In: Paper Presented at the World Water and Environmental Resources Congress (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fogel, D.: Artificial Intelligence Through Simulated Evolution, pp. 227–296. Wiley, Oxford (1966)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Formato, R.A.: Central force optimization: a new metaheuristic with applications in applied electromagnetics. Prog. Electromagn. Res. 77, 425–491 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gandomi, A.H., Alavi, A.H.: Krill herd: a new bio-inspired optimization algorithm. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 17(12), 4831–4845 (2012). MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Glover, F.: Future paths for integer programming and links to artificial intelligence. Comput. Oper. Res. 13(5), 533–549 (1986)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gordon, N., Wagner, I.A., Brucks, A.M.: Discrete bee dance algorithms for pattern formation on a grid. In: Paper presented at the IEEE/Wic International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hatamlou, A.: Black hole: a new heuristic optimization approach for data clustering. Inf. Sci. 222(3), 175–184 (2013)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hauke, J., Kossowski, T.: Comparison of values of Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation coefficients on the same sets of data. Quaest. Geogr. 30(2), 87–93 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Havens, T.C., Spain, C.J., Salmon, N.G., Keller, J. M.: Roach infestation optimization. In: Paper presented at the Swarm Intelligence Symposium (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Helwig, S., Wanka, R.: Theoretical analysis of initial particle swarm behavior. In: Paper presented at the International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hillis, W.D.: Co-evolving parasites improve simulated evolution as an optimization procedure. Phys. D 42(1–3), 228–234 (1990)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Holland, J.H.: Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an introductory analysis with applications to biology, control and artificial intelligence. Control Artif. Intell. Univ. Michigan Press 6(2), 126–137 (1975)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ingo, R.: Evolution strategy: optimization of technical systems by means of biological evolution. Fromman-Holzboog Stuttgart 104, 15–16 (1973)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Godden, Jeffrey W., Xue, L., Bajorath, J.: Combinatorial preferences affect molecular similarity/diversity calculations using binary fingerprints and Tanimoto coefficients. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40(1), 163–166 (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jung, S.H.: Queen-bee evolution for genetic algorithms. Electron. Lett. 39(6), 575–576 (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karaboga, D.: An idea based on honey bee swarm for numerical optimization. Technical Report—TR06. (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kaveh, A., Khayatazad, M.: A new meta-heuristic method: ray optimization. Comput. Struct. 112–113(4), 283–294 (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kaveh, A., Talatahari, S.: A novel heuristic optimization method: charged system search. Acta Mech. 213(3), 267–289 (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kennedy, J., Eberhart, R.C.: A discrete binary version of the particle swarm algorithm. In: Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Computational Cybernetics and Simulation, (1997)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt, C.D., Vecchi, M.P.: Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220(4598), 671–680 (1983)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Koza, J.R.: Genetic programming: on the programming of computers by means of natural selection. Complex Adapt. Syst. 4, 87–112 (1992)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Krishnanand, K.N., Ghose, D.: Detection of multiple source locations using a glowworm metaphor with applications to collective robotics. In: Proceedings of the Paper Presented at the Swarm Intelligence Symposium, (2005)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Krivulin, N.: Algebraic solutions to multidimensional minimax location problems with Chebyshev distance. WSEAS Trans. Math. 10(6), 191–200 (2012)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lavoie, T., Merlo, E.: An accurate estimation of the Levenshtein distance using metric trees and Manhattan distance. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on the Paper presented at the Software Clones (IWSC), (2012)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Li, X.: An optimizing method based on autonomous animats: fish-swarm algorithm. Syst. Eng. Theory Pract. 22(11), 32–38 (2002). (In Chinese) Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Linhares, A.: Preying on optima: a predatory search strategy for combinatorial problems. In: Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (1998)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lučić, P., Teodorović, D.: Computing with bees: attacking complex transportation engineering problems. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools 12(3), 375–394 (2003)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Meng, X., Liu, Y., Gao, X., Zhang, H.: A New Bio-inspired Algorithm: Chicken Swarm Optimization. Springer, Cham (2014)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Meng, X.B., Gao, X.Z., Lu, L., Liu, Y., Zhang, H.: A new bio-inspired optimisation algorithm: bird swarm algorithm. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 28, 673–687 (2015)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mirjalili, S., Mirjalili, S.M., Lewis, A.: Grey wolf optimizer. Adv. Eng. Softw. 69(3), 46–61 (2014)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mladenovic, N.: A variable neighborhood algorithm-a new metaheuristic for combinatorial optimization. In: Papers Presented at Optimization Days, p. 112 (1995)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Moghaddam, F. F., Moghaddam, R. F., & Cheriet, M.: Curved space optimization: a random search based on general relativity Theory. Comput. Sci. (2012)
  41. 41.
    Mucherino, A., Seref, O.: Monkey search: a novel metaheuristic search for global optimization. In: Paper presented at the Data Mining, Systems Analysis & Optimization in Biomedicine (2007)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mühlenbein, H., Paass, G.: From Recombination of Genes to the Estimation of Distributions I. Binary Parameters. Springer, Berlin (1996)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Murase, H.: Finite element inverse analysis using a photosynthetic algorithm. Comput. Electr. Agric. 29(1–2), 115–123 (2000)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nakrani, S., Tovey, C.: On honey bees and dynamic server allocation in internet hosting centers. Adapt. Behav. 12(3–4), 223–240 (2004)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Niedermeier, R., Sanders, P.: On the Manhattan-Distance Between Points on Space-Filling Mesh-Indexings. Univ., Fak. für Informati (1996)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Niwattanakul, S., Singthongchai, J., Naenudorn, E., Wanapu, S.: Using of jaccard coefficient for keywords similarity. Lect. Notes Eng. Comput. Sci. 2202(1), 13–15 (2013)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Moscato, P.: On evolution, search, optimization, genetic algorithms and martial arts: towards memetic algorithms. Caltech concurrent computation program, C3P Report 826 (1989)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pan, W.C.: Using fruit fly optimization algorithm optimized general regression neural network to construct the operating performance of enterprises model. J. Taiyuan Univ. Technol. 4, 002 (2011)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Passino, K.M.: Biomimicry of bacterial foraging for distributed optimization and control. IEEE Control Syst. 22(3), 52–67 (2002)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rajabzadeh, M., Tabibian, S., Akbari, A., Nasersharif, B.: Improved dynamic match phone lattice search using Viterbi scores and Jaro Winkler distance for keyword spotting system. In: Paper Presented at the CSI International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Signal Processing (2012)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rao, R.V., Savsani, V.J., Vakharia, D.P.: Teaching–learning-based optimization: an optimization method for continuous non-linear large scale problems. Inf. Sci. 183(1), 1–15 (2012)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rashedi, E., Nezamabadi-Pour, H., Saryazdi, S.: GSA: a gravitational search algorithm. Inf. Sci. 179(13), 2232–2248 (2009). zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Reynolds, R.G.: An introduction to cultural algorithms. In: Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference on Evolutionary Programming, pp. 131–139 (1994)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Yang, X.S.: New enzyme algorithm, Tikhonov regularization and inverse parabolic analysis. Adv. Comput. Methods Sci. Eng. 4, 1880–1883 (2005)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Shah-Hosseini, H.: Principal components analysis by the galaxy-based search algorithm: a novel metaheuristic for continuous optimisation. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Eng. 6(1–2), 132–140 (2011)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Shi, Y., Eberhart, R.: Modified particle swarm optimizer. In: Paper Presented at the IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation Proceedings, 1998. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence (1998)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Simon, D.: Biogeography-based optimization. Evolut. Comput. IEEE Trans. 12(6), 702–713 (2008)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Srinivasa, K.G., Venugopal, K.R., Patnaik, L.M.: A self-adaptive migration model genetic algorithm for data mining applications. Inf. Sci. 177(20), 4295–4313 (2007). zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Storn, R., Price, K.: Differential evolution—a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J. Glob. Optim. 11(4), 341–359 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Surjanovic, S., Bingham, D.: Virtual Library of Simulation Experiments: Test Functions and Datasets. (2013). From
  61. 61.
    Tero, A., Takagi, S., Saigusa, T., Ito, K., Bebber, D.P., Fricker, M.D., Nakagaki, T.: Rules for biologically inspired adaptive network design. Science 327(5964), 439–442 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Webster, B., Bernhard, P.J., Webster, B., Bernhard, P.J.: A local search optimization algorithm based on natural principles of gravitation. In: Paper Presented at the International Conference on Information and Knowledge Engineering, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, Ike’03, 23–26 June 2003Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wedde, H.F., Farooq, M., Zhang, Y.: BeeHive: an efficient fault-tolerant routing algorithm inspired by honey bee behavior. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 83–94. Springer, Berlin (2004)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Yang, S.X.: PDGA: the primal–dual genetic algorithm. Des. Appl. Hybrid Intell. Syst. 104, 214–223 (2003)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Yang, X.S.: Engineering Optimizations via Nature-Inspired Virtual Bee Algorithms. In: Paper presented at the International Work-Conference on the Interplay Between Natural and Artificial Computation, Berlin Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Yang, X.S.: Firefly algorithms for multimodal optimization. Mathematics 5792, 169–178 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Yang, X.S.: A new metaheuristic bat-inspired algorithm. Comput. Knowl. Technol. 284, 65–74 (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Yang, X.S., Deb, S.: Cuckoo Search via Lévy flights. In: Paper Presented at the World Congress on Nature & Biologically Inspired Computing, NaBIC, (2009)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Yu-Hong, C., Fu-Chun, S., Wei-Jun, W., Chun-Ming, Y.: An improved particle swarm optimization algorithm with search space zoomed factor and attractor. Chin. J. Comput. 34(1), 115–130 (2011)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Zelinka, I., Lampinen, J.: SOMA—Self-Organizing Migrating Algorithm. In: Paper Presented at the 6th International Conference on Soft Computing, Brno, Czech Republic, (2000)Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Zong, W.G., Kim, J.H., Loganathan, G.V.: A new heuristic optimization algorithm: harmony search. Simul. Trans. Soc. Model. Simul. Int. 76(2), 60–68 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.China Institute for SMEsZhejiang University of TechnologyHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations