Advertisement

Journal of Computer Science and Technology

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 1035–1055 | Cite as

Differential Evolution with Adaptive Mutation and Parameter Control Using Lévy Probability Distribution

  • Ren-Jie He
  • Zhen-Yu YangEmail author
Regular Paper

Abstract

Differential evolution (DE) has become a very popular and effective global optimization algorithm in the area of evolutionary computation. In spite of many advantages such as conceptual simplicity, high efficiency and ease of use, DE has two main components, i.e., mutation scheme and parameter control, which significantly influence its performance. In this paper we intend to improve the performance of DE by using carefully considered strategies for both of the two components. We first design an adaptive mutation scheme, which adaptively makes use of the bias of superior individuals when generating new solutions. Although introducing such a bias is not a new idea, existing methods often use heuristic rules to control the bias. They can hardly maintain the appropriate balance between exploration and exploitation during the search process, because the preferred bias is often problem and evolution-stage dependent. Instead of using any fixed rule, a novel strategy is adopted in the new adaptive mutation scheme to adjust the bias dynamically based on the identified local fitness landscape captured by the current population. As for the other component, i.e., parameter control, we propose a mechanism by using the Lévy probability distribution to adaptively control the scale factor F of DE. For every mutation in each generation, an F i is produced from one of four different Lévy distributions according to their historical performance. With the adaptive mutation scheme and parameter control using Lévy distribution as the main components, we present a new DE variant called Lévy DE (LDE). Experimental studies were carried out on a broad range of benchmark functions in global numerical optimization. The results show that LDE is very competitive, and both of the two main components have contributed to its overall performance. The scalability of LDE is also discussed by conducting experiments on some selected benchmark functions with dimensions from 30 to 200.

Keywords

differential evolution global optimization Lévy distribution parameter adaptation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

11390_2012_1283_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
(DOC 16.1 kb)

References

  1. [1]
    Storn R, Price K. Differential evolution — A simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. Journal of Global Optimization, 1997, 11(4): 341–359.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Price K, Storn R, Lampinen J. Differential Evolution: A Practical Approach to Global Optimization. Springer-Verlag, 2005.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Chakraborty (ed.) U K. Advances in Differential Evolution. Springer-Verlag, 2008.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Das S, Suganthan P N. Differential evolution: A survey of the state-of-the-art. IEEE Trans. Evolutionary Computation, 2011, 15(1): 4–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Das S, Abraham A, Chakraborty U K, Konar A. Differential evolution using a neighborhood-based mutation operator. IEEE Trans. Evolutionary Computation, 2009, 13(3): 526–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Zhang J, Sanderson A C. JADE: Adaptive differential evolution with optional external archive. IEEE Trans. Evolutionary Computation, 2009, 13(5): 945–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Qin A K, Huang V L, Suganthan P N. Differential evolution algorithm with strategy adaptation for global numerical optimization. IEEE Trans. Evolutionary Computation, 2009, 13(2): 398–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Yang Z, Tang K, Yao X. Self-adaptive differential evolution with neighborhood search. In Proc. the 2008 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, June 2008, pp.1110–1116.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Gämperle R, Müller S D, Koumoutsakos P. A Parameter study for differential evolution. In Proc. WSEAS International Conference on Advances in Intelligent Systems, Fuzzy Systems, Evolutionary Computation, 2002, pp.293–298.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Wang Y, C Z, Zhang Q. Differential evolution with composite trial vector generation strategies and control parameters. IEEE Trans. Evolutionary Computation, 2011, 15(1): 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Brest J, Greiner S, Boskovic B, Mernik M,·Žumer V. Self-adapting control parameters in differential evolution: A comparative study on numerical benchmark problems. IEEE Trans. Evolutionary Computation, 2006, 10(6): 646–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Das S, Konar A, Chakraborty U K. Two improved differential evolution schemes for faster global search. In Proc. the 2005 Conf. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, June 2005, pp.991–998.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Abbass H A. The self-adaptive Pareto differential evolution algorithm. In Proc. the 2002 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, May 2002, pp.831–836.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Salman A, Engelbrecht A, Omran M (2007) Empirical analysis of self-adaptive differential evolution. European Journal of Operational Research 183(2):785–804zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Yang Z, He J, Yao X. Making a difference to differential evolution. In Advances in Metaheuristics for Hard Optimization, Michalewicz, Z, Siarry P (eds.), Springer, 2008, pp.397–414.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Bäck T, Schwefel HP (1993) An overview of evolutionary algorithms for parameter optimization. Evolutionary Computation 1(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Yao X, Liu Y, Lin G (1999) Evolutionary programming made faster. IEEE Trans Evolutionary Computation 3(2):82–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Lee CY, Yao X (2004) Evolutionary programming using mutations based on the Lévy probability distribution. IEEE Trans Evolutionary Computation 8(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Storn R (1999) System design by constraint adaptation and differential evolution. IEEE Trans Evolutionary Computation 3(1):22–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Yang Z, Tang K, Yao X (2011) Scalability of generalized adaptive differential evolution for large-scale continuous optimization. Soft Computing 15(11):2141–2155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Wang Y, Cai Z, Zhang Q (2012) Enhancing the search ability of differential evolution through orthogonal crossover. Information Sciences 185(1):153–177MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Lévy P. Théorie de l’addition des variables aléatoires. Gauthier-Villars Paris, 1937.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Gnedenko B, Kolmogorov A. Limit Distribution for Sums of Independent Random Variables. Cambridge, MA, USA: Addition-Wesley, 1954.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Qin A K, Suganthan P N. Self-adaptive differential evolution algorithm for numerical optimization. In Proc. the 2005 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Vol.2, September 2005, pp.1785–1791.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Peng F, Tang K, Chen G, Yao X (2010) Population-based algorithm portfolios for numerical optimization. IEEE Trans Evolutionary Computation 14(5):782–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Shen L, He J. A mixed strategy for evolutionary programming based on local fitness landscape. In Proc. the 2010 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, July 2010, pp.1–8.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Yao X, Lin G, Liu Y. An analysis of evolutionary algorithms based on neighbourhood and step sizes. In Proc. the 6th International Conference on Evolutionary Programming VI, April 1997, pp.297–307.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Schwefel H P. Evolution and Optimum Seeking. John Wiley & Sons, 1995.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Suganthan P N, Hansen N, Liang J J, Deb K, Chen Y P, Auger A, Tiwari S. Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for the CEC 2005 special session on real-parameter optimization. Technical Report, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, 2005.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Yang Z, Tang K, Yao X (2008) Large scale evolutionary optimization using cooperative coevolution. Information Sciences 178(15):2985–2999MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Hansen N, Auger A, Finck S, Ros R. Real-parameter black-box optimization benchmarking 2010: Experimental setup. Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA), 2010.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Hansen N. Compilation of results on the 2005 CEC bench-mark function set. Technical Report, Computational Laboratory, Institute of Computational Science, ETH Zurich, 2005.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Liu Y, Yao X, Zhao Q, Higuchi T. Scaling up fast evolutionary programming with cooperative coevolution. In Proc. the 2001 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, May 2001, pp.1101–1108.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    van den Bergh F, Engelbrecht AP (2004) A cooperative approach to particle swarm optimization. IEEE Trans Evolutionary Computation 8(3):225–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    Li X, Yao X (2012) Cooperatively coevolving particle swarms for large scale optimization. IEEE Trans Evolutionary Computation 16(2):210–224MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York & Science Press, China 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management Science and Engineering, College of Information System and ManagementNational University of Defense TechnologyChangshaChina

Personalised recommendations