A hybrid optimization approach based on clustering and chaotic sequences

  • Jorge Gálvez
  • Erik CuevasEmail author
  • Héctor Becerra
  • Omar Avalos
Original Article


Evolutionary computation algorithms represent a class of stochastic methods that can be applied to a wide set of different complex optimization problems. Recently, the combination of approaches extracted from different computation techniques represents one of the most successful trends in evolutionary optimization. With this integration, the idea is to overcome the limitations of each single method and to reach a synergetic effect through their integration. In this paper, a hybrid optimization algorithm for solving optimization problems is introduced. The approach, called cluster–chaotic-optimization, combines the classification characteristics of a clustering method with the randomness of chaotic sequences to conduct its search strategy. Under the proposed method, at each generation, the population is divided into different clusters according to its space distribution. Then, individuals are modified considering two kinds of operators: intra-cluster and extra-cluster. In the intra-cluster operation, individuals of the same cluster are locally adjusted considering the position of the best element of the cluster in terms of its fitness value. On the other hand, in the extra-cluster operation, the best individual of each cluster is globally attracted to the best element of the complete population. In both operations, the adjustment on each individual position is produced by using deterministic rules and chaotic sequences. With such mechanisms, the proposed method efficiently examines the search space based on the spatial associations produced by the individuals during the optimization process. To exhibit the performance and robustness of the proposed method, different comparisons to other well-known evolutionary methods and hybrid approaches are conducted. The comparison considers several standard benchmark functions and real-world engineering problems which are typically found in the literature of evolutionary algorithms. The results suggest a high performance of the proposed methodology.


Hybrid optimization techniques Meta-heuristic Chaos Clustering 



  1. 1.
    Yang X-S (2010) Engineering optimization: an introduction with metaheuristic applications. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pardalos PM, Romeijn HE, Tuy H (2000) Recent developments and trends in global optimization. J Comput Appl Math 124:209–228MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cuevas E, Gálvez J, Hinojosa S, Avalos O, Zaldívar D, Pérez-Cisneros M (2014) A comparison of evolutionary computation techniques for IIR model identification. J Appl Math 2014:1–9Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ji Y, Zhang K-C, Qu S-J (2007) A deterministic global optimization algorithm. Appl Math Comput 185:382–387MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holland JH (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. Univ. Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, BostonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kennedy J, Eberhart RC (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: Proc. IEEE int. conf. neural networks, vol 4, pp 1942–1948Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karaboga D (2005) An idea based on honey bee swarm for numerical optimization. Comput. Eng. Dep. Eng. Fac. Erciyes UnivGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yang X-S, Deb S (2009) Cuckoo search via Lévy flights. In: Proc. world congr. nat. biol. inspired comput. (NABIC’09), pp 210–214Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Birbil SI, Fang S-C (2003) An electromagnetism-like mechanism for global optimization. J Glob Optim 25:263–282MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rashedi E, Nezamabadi-pour H, Saryazdi S (2009) GSA: a gravitational search algorithm. Inf Sci (NY) 179(13):2232–2248zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Storn R, Price K (1997) Differential evolution—a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J Glob Optim 11:341–359MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hansen N (2006) The CMA evolution strategy: a comparing review. In: Lozano JA, Larrañaga P, Inza I, Bengoetxea E (eds) Towards a new evolutionary computation. Springer, Berlin, pp 75–102Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cui L, Li G, Lin Q, Du Z, Gao W, Chen J, Lu N (2016) A novel artificial bee colony algorithm with depth-first search framework and elite-guided search equation. Inf Sci (NY) 367–368:1012–1044Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cui L, Li G, Lin Q, Chen J, Lu N (2016) Adaptive differential evolution algorithm with novel mutation strategies in multiple sub-populations. Comput Oper Res 67:155–173MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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(2):701–713zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alba E, Dorronsoro B (2005) The exploration/exploitation tradeoff in dynamic cellular genetic algorithms. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 9(2):126–142Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paenke I, Jin Y, Branke J (2009) Balancing population- and individual-level adaptation in changing environments. Adapt Behav 17(2):153–174Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cuevas E, Echavarría A, Ramírez-Ortegón MA (2014) An optimization algorithm inspired by the States of Matter that improves the balance between exploration and exploitation. Appl Intell 40(2):256–272Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bittner L (1962) R. Bellman, Adaptive control processes. A guided tour. XVI + 255 S. Princeton, N. J., 1961. Princeton University Press. Preis geb. $ 6.50. ZAMM Z Angew Math Mech 42(7-8):364–365Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bergstra J, Ca Y (2012) Random search for hyper-parameter optimization. J Mach Learn Res 13:281–305MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Blum C, Roli A (2008) Hybrid metaheuristics: an introduction. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–30Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Blum C, Puchinger J, Raidl GR, Roli A (2011) Hybrid metaheuristics in combinatorial optimization: a survey. Appl Soft Comput 11(6):4135–4151zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grosan C, Abraham A (2007) Hybrid evolutionary algorithms: methodologies, architectures, and reviews. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ma H, Simon D, Fei M, Shu X, Chen Z (2014) Hybrid biogeography-based evolutionary algorithms. Eng Appl Artif Intell 30:213–224Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Niknam T, Farsani EA (2010) A hybrid self-adaptive particle swarm optimization and modified shuffled frog leaping algorithm for distribution feeder reconfiguration. Eng Appl Artif Intell 23(8):1340–1349Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lai X, Zhou Y (2017) Success rates analysis of three hybrid algorithms on SAT instances. Swarm Evol Comput 34:119–129Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhong F, Yuan B, Li B (2016) A hybrid evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective variation tolerant logic mapping on nanoscale crossbar architectures. Appl Soft Comput 38:955–966Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kao Y-T, Zahara E (2008) A hybrid genetic algorithm and particle swarm optimization for multimodal functions. Appl Soft Comput 8(2):849–857Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chaurasia SN, Singh A (2017) Hybrid evolutionary approaches for the single machine order acceptance and scheduling problem. Appl Soft Comput 52:725–747Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jin Y, Hao J-K (2016) Hybrid evolutionary search for the minimum sum coloring problem of graphs. Inf Sci (NY) 352–353:15–34zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wu Q, Wang Y, Lü Z (2015) A tabu search based hybrid evolutionary algorithm for the max-cut problem. Appl Soft Comput 34:827–837Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lim ZY, Ponnambalam SG, Izui K (2017) Multi-objective hybrid algorithms for layout optimization in multi-robot cellular manufacturing systems. Knowl Based Syst 120:87–98Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Liu J, Zhang S, Wu C, Liang J, Wang X, Teo KL (2016) A hybrid approach to constrained global optimization. Appl Soft Comput 47:281–294Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mashwani WK, Salhi A, Yeniay O, Jan MA, Khanum RA (2017) Hybrid adaptive evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition. Appl Soft Comput 57:363–378Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lozano M, García-Martínez C (2010) Hybrid metaheuristics with evolutionary algorithms specializing in intensification and diversification: overview and progress report. Comput Oper Res 37(3):481–497MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Guo P, Cheng W, Wang Y (2017) Hybrid evolutionary algorithm with extreme machine learning fitness function evaluation for two-stage capacitated facility location problems. Expert Syst Appl 71:57–68Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dash R, Dash PK (2016) An evolutionary hybrid fuzzy computationally efficient EGARCH model for volatility prediction. Appl Soft Comput 45:40–60Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Illias HA, Chai XR, Abu Bakar AH (2016) Hybrid modified evolutionary particle swarm optimisation-time varying acceleration coefficient-artificial neural network for power transformer fault diagnosis. Measurement 90:94–102Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Verbiest N, Derrac J, Cornelis C, García S, Herrera F (2016) Evolutionary wrapper approaches for training set selection as preprocessing mechanism for support vector machines: experimental evaluation and support vector analysis. Appl Soft Comput 38:10–22Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Xu D, Tian Y (2015) A Comprehensive survey of clustering algorithms. Ann Data Sci 2(2):165–193MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Streichert F, Stein G, Ulmer H, Zell A (2003) A clustering based niching method for evolutionary algorithms. In: Cantú-Paz E et al (eds) Genetic and evolutionary computation GECCO 2003. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Whitley D, Rana S, Heckendorn RB (1998) The island model genetic algorithm: on separability, population size and convergence. J Comput Inf Technol 7(1):33–47Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tasoulis DK, Plagianakos VP, Vrahatis MN (2005) Clustering in evolutionary algorithms to efficiently compute simultaneously local and global minimaGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Liang X, Li W, Zhang Y, Zhou M (2015) An adaptive particle swarm optimization method based on clustering. Soft Comput 19(2):431–448Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Li C, Yang S (2009) A clustering particle swarm optimizer for dynamic optimization. In: 2009 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, pp 439–446Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Weise T, Niemczyk S, Chiong R, Wan M (2011) A framework for multi-model EDAs with model recombination, pp 304–313Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tsou C-S, Fang H-H, Chang H-H, Kao C-H (2006) LNCS 4247—an improved particle swarm Pareto optimizer with local search and clusteringGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Coello CAC, Lechuga MS (2002) MOPSO: a proposal for multiple objective particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the 2002 congress on evolutionary computation. CEC’02 (Cat. No.02TH8600), vol 2, pp 1051–1056Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hua Y, Jin Y, Hao K (2018) A clustering-based adaptive evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization with irregular pareto fronts. IEEE Trans Cybern 49(7):1–13Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yang D, Li G, Cheng G (2007) On the efficiency of chaos optimization algorithms for global optimization. Chaos, Solitons Fractals 34(4):1366–1375MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Gandomi AH, Yang X-S (2014) Chaotic bat algorithm. J Comput Sci 5(2):224–232MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Li B, Jiang W (1998) Optimizing complex functions by chaos search. Cybern Syst 29(4):409–419zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Caponetto R, Fortuna L, Fazzino S, Xibilia MG (2003) Chaotic sequences to improve the performance of evolutionary algorithms. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 7(3):289–304Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Snaselova P, Zboril F (2015) Genetic algorithm using theory of chaos. Proc Comput Sci 51(1):316–325Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sun Y, Liu X, Zhang Z, Wang Z, Yu Y, Zhang T, Zhu Y, Song Z (2016) A sparse probabilistic approach with chaotic artificial bee colony optimization for sea clutter soft computing. Appl Soft Comput 49:108–119Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Huang L, Ding S, Yu S, Wang J, Lu K (2016) Chaos-enhanced Cuckoo search optimization algorithms for global optimization. Appl Math Model 40(5–6):3860–3875MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Dong N, Fang X, Wu A (2016) A novel chaotic particle swarm optimization algorithm for parking space guidance. Math Prob Eng 2016:1–14MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mirjalili S, Gandomi AH (2017) Chaotic gravitational constants for the gravitational search algorithm. Appl Soft Comput 53:407–419Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Murtagh F, Legendre P (2014) Ward’s hierarchical agglomerative clustering method: Which algorithms implement Ward’s criterion? J Classif 31(October):274–295MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ward JH (1963) Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc 58(301):236–244MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Chen L (2010) Web-age information management: 11th international conference, WAIM 2010, Jiuzhaigou, China, July 15–17, 2010: proceedings. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Tatsumi K, Ibuki T, Tanino T (2015) Particle swarm optimization with stochastic selection of perturbation-based chaotic updating system. Appl Math Comput 269:904–929MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lu X, Lei J, Li W, Pan Z (2019) A delayed feedback chaotic encryption algorithm based on polar codes. In: 2018 IEEE international conference on electronics and communication engineering, ICECE 2018, pp 27–31Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Gan H, Xiao S, Zhao Y (2018) A novel secure data transmission scheme using chaotic compressed sensing. IEEE Access 6:4587–4598Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Uchida A, Amano K, Inoue M, Hirano K, Naito S, Someya H, Oowada I, Kurashige T, Shiki M, Yoshimori S, Yoshimura K, Davis P (2008) Fast physical random bit generation with chaotic semiconductor lasers. Nat Photonics 2(12):728–732Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Singh S, Siddiqui TJ, Singh R, Singh HV (2011) DCT-domain robust data hiding using chaotic sequence. In: 2011 International conference on multimedia, signal processing and communication technologies, pp 300–303Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Nozawa H (1992) A neural network model as a globally coupled map and applications based on chaos. Chaos Interdiscip J Nonlinear Sci 2(3):377–386MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Wang L, Smith K (1998) On chaotic simulated annealing. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 9(4):716–718Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Javidi M, Hosseinpourfard R (2015) Chaos Genetic Algorithm instead Genetic Algorithm. Int Arab J Inf Technol 12(2):163–168Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Yang D, Liu Z, Zhou J (2014) Chaos optimization algorithms based on chaotic maps with different probability distribution and search speed for global optimization. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 19(4):1229–1246MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Yuan X, Zhao J, Yang Y, Wang Y (2014) Hybrid parallel chaos optimization algorithm with harmony search algorithm. Appl Soft Comput J 17:12–22Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Li C, Zhou J, Kou P, Xiao J (2012) A novel chaotic particle swarm optimization based fuzzy clustering algorithm. Neurocomputing 83:98–109Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    He D, He C, Jiang L-G, Zhu H-W, Hu G-R (2000) A chaotic map with infinite collapses. In: 2000 TENCON proceedings. Intelligent systems and technologies for the new millennium (Cat. No.00CH37119), vol 2, pp 95–99Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    He Y-Y, Zhou J-Z, Xiang X-Q, Chen H, Qin H (2009) Comparison of different chaotic maps in particle swarm optimization algorithm for long-term cascaded hydroelectric system scheduling. Chaos, Solitons Fractals 42(5):3169–3176zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    González JA, Reyes LI, Suárez JJ, Guerrero LE, Gutiérrez G (2003) From exactly solvable chaotic maps to stochastic dynamics. Phys D Nonlinear Phenom 178(1–2):26–50MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    He D, He C, Jiang LG, Zhu HW, Hu GR (2001) “Chaotic characteristics of a one-dimensional iterative map with infinite collapses. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst I Fundam Theory Appl 48(7):900–906MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Fogarty TC (1989) Varying the probability of mutation in the genetic algorithm. In: Proc. 3rd int’l conf. genet. algorithms, pp 104–109Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Lawnik M (2014) Generation of numbers with the distribution close to uniform with the use of chaotic mapsGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Anescu G (2017) Scalable test functions for multidimensional continuous optimization. U P B Sci Bull Ser C 79:27–42Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Li MD, Zhao H, Weng XW, Han T (2016) A novel nature-inspired algorithm for optimization: virus colony search. Adv Eng Softw 92:65–88Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Askarzadeh A (2016) A novel metaheuristic method for solving constrained engineering optimization problems: crow search algorithm. Comput Struct 169:1–12Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Yu JJQ, Li VOK (2015) A social spider algorithm for global optimization. Appl Soft Comput 30:614–627Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Han M, Liu C, Xing J (2014) An evolutionary membrane algorithm for global numerical optimization problems. Inf Sci (NY) 276:219–241MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Meng Z, Pan J-S (2016) Monkey king evolution: a new memetic evolutionary algorithm and its application in vehicle fuel consumption optimization. Knowl Based Syst 97:144–157MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics 1:80–83MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Kennedy J, Eberhart RC (1995) Particle swarm optimization. Proc IEEE Int Conf. Neural Netw 4:1942–1948Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Yang XS (2010) Nature inspired cooperative strategies for optimization (NISCO 2010). Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Geem ZW, Kim JH, Loganathan GV (2001) A new heuristic optimization algorithm: harmony search. Simulation 76(2):60–68Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Olorunda O, Engelbrecht AP (2008) Measuring exploration/exploitation in particle swarms using swarm diversity. In: 2008 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (IEEE world congress on computational intelligence), pp 1128–1134Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Mortazavi A, Toğan V, Nuhoğlu A (2018) Interactive search algorithm: a new hybrid metaheuristic optimization algorithm. Eng Appl Artif Intell 71:275–292Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de ElectrónicaUniversidad de Guadalajara, CUCEIGuadalajaraMexico

Personalised recommendations