Skip to main content

Locating Potentially Disjoint Feasible Regions of a Search Space with a Particle Swarm Optimizer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Evolutionary Constrained Optimization

Part of the book series: Infosys Science Foundation Series ((ISFSASE))

Abstract

In constraint optimization problems set in continuous spaces, a feasible search space may consist of many disjoint regions and the global optimal solution might be within any of them. Thus, locating these feasible regions (as many as possible, ideally all of them) is of great importance. In this chapter, we introduce niching techniques that have been studied in connection with multimodal optimization for locating feasible regions, rather than for finding different local optima. One of the successful niching techniques was based on the particle swarm optimizer (PSO) with a specific topology, called nonoverlapping topology, where the swarm was divided into several nonoverlapping sub-swarms. Earlier studies have shown that PSO with such nonoverlapping topology, with a small number of particles in each sub-swarm, is quite effective in locating different local optima if the number of dimensions is small (up to 8). However, its performance drops rapidly when the number of dimensions grows. First, a new PSO, called mutation linear PSO, MLPSO, is proposed. This algorithm is effective in locating different local optima when the number of dimensions grows. MLPSO is applied to optimization problems with up to 50 dimensions, and its results in locating different local optima are compared with earlier algorithms. Second, we incorporate a constraint handling technique into MLPSO; this variant is called EMLPSO. We test different topologies of EMLPSO and evaluate them in terms of locating feasible regions when they are applied to constraint optimization problems with up to 30 dimensions. The results of this test show that the new method with nonoverlapping topology with small swarm size in each sub-swarm performs better in terms of locating different feasible regions in comparison to other topologies, such as the global best topology and the ring topology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Note that this selection can be performed by a direct decision (the better solution is selected) or by some analysis to find out the potential of the solutions. However, in either approach, the concept of being better needs to be defined.

  2. 2.

    The term “potentially disjoint feasible regions” refers to disjoint feasible regions and the regions that are connected with narrow passages. Also, note that without information about the topology of the search space, it is not possible to claim that the found solutions are in disjoint feasible regions.

  3. 3.

    In general, personal best can be a set of best positions, but all PSO types listed in this paper use single personal best.

  4. 4.

    These two coefficients control the effect of personal and global best vectors on the movement of particles and they play an important role in the convergence of the algorithm. They are usually determined by a practitioner or by the dynamic of particles’ movement.

  5. 5.

    Alternatively, these two random matrices are often considered as two random vectors. In this case, the multiplication of these random vectors by PI and SI is element-wise.

  6. 6.

    Niching is the ability of the algorithm to locate different optima rather than only one local optima. The niching concept is used usually in the multi-modal optimization.

  7. 7.

    A particle \(i\) is connected to particle \( j \) if it is aware of the personal best location of the particle \( j \).

  8. 8.

    Note that the GCPSO is another variant of PSO (introduced in Sect. 8.3) that does not have the swarm size issue. However, it is not a good choice for niching using the nonoverlapping topology. The reason is that, in GCPSO, the only particle which is able to move after stagnation is the global best particle. All other particles stay unchanged until this particle is improved. As the global best particle is only in one of the sub-swarms (the sub-swarms do not overlap with each other), this particle cannot share its information (personal best) with particles in the other sub-swarms. Thus, all other sub-swarms stay in the stagnation situation and only one of the sub-swarms may continue searching. This leads to ineffective niching behavior, as only one of the sub-swarms converges to a local optimum.

References

  • Bonyadi MR, Michalewicz Z (2014) A locally convergent rotationally invariant particle swarm optimization algorithm. Swarm Intell 8(3):159–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonyadi MR, Li X, Michalewicz Z (2013) A hybrid particle swarm with velocity mutation for constraint optimization problems. In: Genetic and evolutionary computation conference. ACM, pp 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonyadi MR, Michalewicz Z, Li X (2014) An analysis of the velocity updating rule of the particle swarm optimization algorithm. J Heuristics 20(4):417–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brits R, Engelbrecht AP, Van den Bergh F (2002) A niching particle swarm optimizer. In: 4th Asia-Pacific conference on simulated evolution and learning, vol 2. Orchid Country Club, Singapore, pp 692–696

    Google Scholar 

  • Brits R, Engelbrecht AP, Van den Bergh F (2007) Locating multiple optima using particle swarm optimization. Appl Math Comput 189(2):1859–1883

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Clerc M, Kennedy J (2002) The particle swarm—explosion, stability, and convergence in a multidimensional complex space. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(1):58–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dantzig G (1998) Linear programming and extensions. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Engelbrecht AP, Masiye BS, Pampard G (2005) Niching ability of basic particle swarm optimization algorithms. In: Swarm intelligence symposium. IEEE, pp 397–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert JC, Nocedal J (1992) Global convergence properties of conjugate gradient methods for optimization. SIAM J Optim 2(1):21–42

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen N (2006) The CMA evolution strategy: a comparing review. In: Towards a new evolutionary computation. Springer, Berlin, pp 75–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Helwig S, Wanka R (2007) Particle swarm optimization in high-dimensional bounded search spaces. In: Swarm intelligence symposium. IEEE, pp 198–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Jabr RA (2012) Solution to economic dispatching with disjoint feasible regions via semidefinite programming. IEEE Trans Power Syst 27(1):572–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: International conference on neural networks, vol 4. IEEE, pp 1942–1948

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy J, Mendes R (2002) Population structure and particle swarm performance. In: Congress on evolutionary computation, vol 2. IEEE, pp 1671–1676

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasdon L, Plummer JC (2008) Multistart algorithms for seeking feasibility. Comput Oper Res 35(5):1379–1393

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Li XD (2010) Niching without niching parameters: particle swarm optimization using a ring topology. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 14(4):150–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang JJ, Zhigang S, Zhihui L (2010) Coevolutionary comprehensive learning particle swarm optimizer. In: Congress on evolutionary computation. IEEE, pp 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Michalewicz Z, Schoenauer M (1996) Evolutionary algorithms for constrained parameter optimization problems. Evol Comput 4(1):1–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paquet U, Engelbrecht AP (2007) Particle swarms for linearly constrained optimisation. Fundam Inf 76(1):147–170

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ricardo A, Pérez-aguila R (2004) General n-dimensional rotations

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi Y, Eberhart R (1998) A modified particle swarm optimizer. In: World congress on computational intelligence. IEEE, pp 69–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith L, Chinneck J, Aitken V (2013) Constraint consensus concentration for identifying disjoint feasible regions in nonlinear programmes. Optim Methods Softw 28(2):339–363

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Spears WM, Green DT, Spears DF (2010) Biases in particle swarm optimization. Int J Swarm Intell Res 1(2):34–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suganthan PN, Hansen N, Liang JJ, Deb K, Chen YP, Auger A, Tiwari S (2005) Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for the CEC 2005 special session on real-parameter optimization. KanGAL Report

    Google Scholar 

  • Takahama T, Sakai S (2005) Constrained optimization by \(\varepsilon \) constrained particle swarm optimizer with \(\varepsilon \)-level control. Soft Comput Transdiscipl Sci Tech 1019–1029

    Google Scholar 

  • Takahama T, Sakai S (2010) Constrained optimization by the \(\varepsilon \) constrained differential evolution with an archive and gradient-based mutation. In: Congress on evolutionary computation (CEC). IEEE, pp 1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Trelea IC (2003) The particle swarm optimization algorithm: convergence analysis and parameter selection. Inf Process Lett 85(6):317–325

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Tsang E (1993) Foundations of constraint satisfaction, vol 289. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bergh F, Engelbrecht AP (2002) A new locally convergent particle swarm optimiser. In: Systems, man and cybernetics, vol 3. IEEE, pp 96–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bergh F, Engelbrecht AP (2006) A study of particle swarm optimization particle trajectories. Inf Sci 176(8):937–971

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bergh F, Engelbrecht AP (2010) A convergence proof for the particle swarm optimiser. Fund Inf 105(4):341–374

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wang H, Yang S, Ip WH, Wang D (2010) A particle swarm optimization based memetic algorithm for dynamic optimization problems. Nat Comput 9(3):703–725

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley D, Gordon VS, Mathias K (1994) Lamarckian evolution, the Baldwin effect and function optimization. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 5–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biom Bull 1(6):80–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilke DN, Kok S, Groenwold AA (2007a) Comparison of linear and classical velocity update rules in particle swarm optimization: notes on diversity. Int J Numer Methods Eng 70(8):962–984

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilke DN, Kok S, Groenwold AA (2007b) Comparison of linear and classical velocity update rules in particle swarm optimization: notes on scale and frame invariance. Int J Numer Methods Eng 70(8):985–1008

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was partially funded by the ARC Discovery Grants DP0985723, DP1096053, and DP130104395, as well as by the grant N N519 5788038 from the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education (MNiSW).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Reza Bonyadi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer India

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bonyadi, M.R., Michalewicz, Z. (2015). Locating Potentially Disjoint Feasible Regions of a Search Space with a Particle Swarm Optimizer. In: Datta, R., Deb, K. (eds) Evolutionary Constrained Optimization. Infosys Science Foundation Series(). Springer, New Delhi. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2184-5_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2184-5_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New Delhi

  • Print ISBN: 978-81-322-2183-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-81-322-2184-5

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics