A New Particle Swarm Optimization and Differential Evolution Technique for Constrained Optimization Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Real-world problems are often complex and may need to deal with constrained optimization problems (COPs). This has led to a growing interest in optimization techniques that involve more than one objective function to be simultaneously optimized. Accordingly, at the end of the multi-objective optimization process, there will be more than one solution to be considered. This enables a trade-off of high-quality solutions and provides options to the decision-maker to choose a solution based on qualitative preferences. Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithms are increasingly being used to solve NP-hard and constrained optimization problems that involve multi-objective mathematical representations by finding accurate and robust solutions. PSOs are currently used in many real-world applications, including (but not limited to) medical diagnosis, image processing, speech recognition, chemical reactor, weather forecasting, system identification, reactive power control, stock exchange market, and economic power generation. In this paper, a new version of Multi-objective PSO and Differential Evolution (MOPSO-DE) is proposed to solve constrained optimization problems (COPs). As presented in this paper, the proposed MOPSO-DE scheme incorporates a new leader(s) updating mechanism that is invoked when the system is under the risk of converging to premature solutions, parallel islands mechanism, adaptive mutation, and then integrated to the DE in order to update the particles’ best position in the search-space. A series of experiments are conducted using 12 well-known benchmark test problems collected from the 2006 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC2006) to verify the feasibility, performance, and effectiveness of the proposed MOPSO-DE algorithm. The simulation results show the proposed MOPSO-DE is highly competitive and is able to obtain the optimal solutions for the all test problems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".