2018
DOI: 10.1007/s12559-018-9554-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Insight into Bio-inspired and Evolutionary Algorithms for Global Optimization: Review, Analysis, and Lessons Learnt over a Decade of Competitions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
40
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 76 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 142 publications
0
40
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this subsection, WFS will be compared with 11 similar classical global optimization algorithms, such as: Genetic Algorithm (GA) [34], Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) [6], Bat Algorithm (BA) [58], Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO) [33], Butterfly Optimization Algorithm (BOA) [1], Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA) [32], Moth Flame Optimization (MFO) [31], Harris Hawks Optimization (HHO) [14], Monarch Butterfly Optimization (MBO) [53], Moth Search (MS) [51], Elephant Herding Optimization (EHO) [52], LSHADE-cnEpSin (later denoted as A1) [3], LSHADE-SPACMA (later denoted as A2) [35] and EBOwithCMAR (later denoted as A3) [22]. It is worth pointing out that last three algorithms performed the best at the recent competition based on CEC 2017 benchmark for global optimization [37]. The choice of algorithms included in the computational study is mainly driven by the availability of code, whether the code was accessible online, or was it provided to us upon request by the courtesy of authors.…”
Section: Comparison Based On Experimental Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this subsection, WFS will be compared with 11 similar classical global optimization algorithms, such as: Genetic Algorithm (GA) [34], Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) [6], Bat Algorithm (BA) [58], Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO) [33], Butterfly Optimization Algorithm (BOA) [1], Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA) [32], Moth Flame Optimization (MFO) [31], Harris Hawks Optimization (HHO) [14], Monarch Butterfly Optimization (MBO) [53], Moth Search (MS) [51], Elephant Herding Optimization (EHO) [52], LSHADE-cnEpSin (later denoted as A1) [3], LSHADE-SPACMA (later denoted as A2) [35] and EBOwithCMAR (later denoted as A3) [22]. It is worth pointing out that last three algorithms performed the best at the recent competition based on CEC 2017 benchmark for global optimization [37]. The choice of algorithms included in the computational study is mainly driven by the availability of code, whether the code was accessible online, or was it provided to us upon request by the courtesy of authors.…”
Section: Comparison Based On Experimental Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, these benchmarks not only allow researchers to compare directly their results, but also give a ranking of the best algorithms for the benchmark (ranking that can be completed by the proposals published in journals). This makes it very easy to identify the current state-of-the-art for any given benchmark, thereby becoming a clear reference algorithm for comparing optimization techniques proposed in the future [317].…”
Section: Benchmarks and Comparison Methodsologiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CEC2010 benchmark was also used to evaluate the performance of HACC-D. Neither of the two algorithms, HDMR and HACC-D, outperformed the existing best results from previous competitions [31].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A comprehensive review and analysis regarding state-ofthe-art evolutionary algorithms participating using the latest CEC benchmarks can be found in [31].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%