Similarity in metaheuristics: a gentle step towards a comparison methodology

Abstract

Metaheuristics are found to be efficient in different applications where the use of exact algorithms becomes short-handed. In the last decade, many of these algorithms have been introduced and used in a wide range of applications. Nevertheless, most of those approaches share similar components leading to a concern related to their novelty or contribution. Thus, in this paper, a pool template is proposed and used to categorize algorithm components permitting to analyze them in a structured way. We exemplify its use by means of continuous optimization metaheuristics, and provide some measures and methodology to identify their similarities and novelties. Finally, a discussion at a component level is provided in order to point out possible design differences and commonalities.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Notes

  1. 1.

    We should note that the archiving function may be extended in the sense of distinguishing long-term memory and short-term memory functions, the first accounting for recent solutions or solution attributes and the latter accounting for measures supporting to memorize an overall history of a search, e.g., by using frequency-based memory to count for occurrences of properties of solutions.

  2. 2.

    For this comparison, we rely on Algorithm 3 presented Weyland (2015).

References

  1. Akbari R, Mohammadi A, Ziarati K (2009) A powerful bee swarm optimization algorithm. In: IEEE 13th international multitopic conference (INMIC), pp 1 – 6, https://doi.org/10.1109/INMIC.2009.5383155

  2. Blum C, Roli A (2003) Metaheuristics in combinatorial optimization: overview and conceptual comparison. ACM Computing Surv 35(3):268–308. https://doi.org/10.1145/937503.937505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brooks SH (1958) A discussion of random methods for seeking maxima. Op Res 6(2):244–251. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.6.2.244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Camacho Villalón CL, Stützle T, Dorigo M (2020) Grey wolf, firefly and bat algorithms: three widespread algorithms that do not contain any novelty. In: Dorigo M, Stützle T, Blesa MJ, Blum C, Hamann H, Heinrich MK, Strobel V (eds) Swarm intelligence. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 121–133

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chen T, Wang Y, Li J (2012) Artificial tribe algorithm and its performance analysis. J Softw 7:651–656. https://doi.org/10.4304/jsw.7.3.651-656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cuevas E, González M, Zaldivar D, Pérez-Cisneros M, G G, (2012) An algorithm for global optimization inspired by collective animal behavior. Discrete Dyn Nat Soc 2012638275:24. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/638275

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Duarte A, Laguna M, Martí R (2018) Introduction to spreadsheet modeling and metaheuristics. Springer International Publishing, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68119-1_1

    Google Scholar 

  8. Greistorfer P, Voß S (2005) Controlled pool maintenance for metaheuristics. In: Rego C, Alidaee B (ed) Metaheuristic optimization via memory and evolution. Kluwer, Boston, pp 387−424. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23667-8_18

  9. Hasançebi O, Azad SK (2012) An efficient metaheuristic algorithm for engineering optimization: SOPT. Int J Optim Civ Eng 2:479–487

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hatamlou A (2013) Black hole: a new heuristic optimization approach for data clustering. Inform Sci 222:175–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2012.08.023

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Havens TC, Spain CJ, Salmon NG, Keller JM (2008) Roach infestation optimization. In: IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium, September 21–23, 2008, St. Louis MO, USA, pp 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1109/SIS.2008.4668317

  12. Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: Neural Networks, 1995. Proceedings., IEEE International Conference on, vol 4, pp 1942–1948 vol.4, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICNN.1995.488968

  13. Laguna M (2016) Editor’s note on the MIC 2013 special issue of the Journal of Heuristics (Volume 22, Issue 4, August 2016). J Heuristics 22(5):665–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10732-016-9318-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Li X, Zhang J, Yin M (2014) Animal migration optimization: an optimization algorithm inspired by animal migration behavior. Neural Computing Appl 24:1867–1877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-013-1433-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mehrabian AR, Lucas C (2006) A novel numerical optimization algorithm inspired from weed colonization. Ecol Inform 1:355–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2006.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Piotrowski AP, Napiorkowski JJ, Rowinski PM (2014) How novel is the “novel” black hole optimization approach? Inform Sci 267:191–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rashedi E, Nezamabadi-pour H, Saryazdi S (2009) GSA: a gravitational search algorithm. Inform Sci 179:2232–2248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2009.03.004

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Rastrigin LA (1963) The convergence of the random search method in the extremal control of a many parameter system. Autom Remote Control 24:1337–1342

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sörensen K (2015) Metaheuristics - the metaphor exposed. Int Trans Op Res 22:3–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12001

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Sörensen K, Glover F (2013) Metaheuristics. In: Gass SI, Fu M (eds) Encyclopedia of operations research and management science. Springer, New York, pp 960–970. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1153-7

    Google Scholar 

  21. Swan J, Adriaensen S, Bishr M, Burke EK, Clark JA, De Causmaecker P, Durillo J, Hammond K, Hart E, Johnson CG, et al. (2015) A research agenda for metaheuristic standardization. In: Proceedings of the XI metaheuristics international conference

  22. Voß S, Martello S, Osman I, Roucairol C (eds) (1999) Meta-Heuristics: advances and trends in local search paradigms for optimization. Kluwer, Boston. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5775-3

    Google Scholar 

  23. Watson JP, Howe AE, Whitley LD (2006) Deconstructing Nowicki and Smutnicki’s i-TSAB tabu search algorithm for the job-shop scheduling problem. Computers Op Res 33(9):2623–2644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2005.07.016

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Weyland D (2010) A rigorous analysis of the harmony search algorithm - how the research community can be misled by a “novel” methodology. Int J Appl Metaheuristic Computing 1–2:50–60. https://doi.org/10.4018/jamc.2010040104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Weyland D (2015) A critical analysis of the harmony search algorithm–how not to solve sudoku. Op Res Perspecti 2:97–105

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Whitley D (1994) A genetic algorithm tutorial. Stat Computing 4(2):65–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00175354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Xing B, Gao WJ (2014) Innovative computational intelligence: a rough guide to 134 clever algorithms. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03404-1

    Google Scholar 

  28. Yang C, Tu X, Chen J (2007) Algorithm of marriage in honey bees optimization based on the wolf pack search. In: IEEE International conference on intelligent pervasive computing (IPC), pp 462 – 467, https://doi.org/10.1109/IPC.2007.104

  29. Yang XS (2008) Nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithms. Luniver Press, UK

    Google Scholar 

  30. Yang XS (2010) A new Metaheuristic Bat-Inspired algorithm. In: González JR, Pelta DA, Cruz C, Terrazas G, Krasnogor N (eds) Nature inspired cooperative strategies for optimization (NICSO 2010). Studies in computational intelligence, vol 284. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12538-6_6

    Google Scholar 

  31. Zhang X, Chen W, Dai C (2008) Application of oriented search algorithm in reactive power optimization of power system. In: Third international conference on electric utility deregulation and restructuring and power technologies, DRPT 2008, Nanjing, China, pp 2856 – 2861, https://doi.org/10.1109/DRPT.2008.4523896

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities of the Government of Spain AEI/FEDER through the project RTI2018-095197-B-I00. Surafel Luleseged Tilahun would like to acknowledge the TWAS-DFG Cooperation Visits Programme for the support to visit University of Hamburg for a research collaboration.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eduardo Lalla-Ruiz.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Armas, J., Lalla-Ruiz, E., Tilahun, S.L. et al. Similarity in metaheuristics: a gentle step towards a comparison methodology. Nat Comput (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11047-020-09837-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Metaheuristics design
  • Comparison methodology
  • Pool template
  • Algorithm similarity