Comparative Performance Analysis of Differential Evolution Variants on Engineering Design Problems
Source abstract
Abstract
Because of their superior problem-solving ability, nature-inspired optimization algorithms are being regularly used in solving complex real-world optimization problems. Engineering academics have recently focused on meta-heuristic algorithms to solve various optimization challenges. Among the state-of-the-art algorithms, Differential Evolution (DE) is one of the most successful algorithms and is frequently used to solve various industrial problems. Over the previous 2 decades, DE has been heavily modified to improve its capabilities. Several DE variations secured positions in IEEE CEC competitions, establishing their efficacy. However, to our knowledge, there has never been a comparison of performance across various CEC-winning DE versions, which could aid in determining which is the most successful. In this study, the performance of DE and its eight other IEEE CEC competition-winning variants are compared. First, the algorithms have evaluated IEEE CEC 2019 and 2020 bound-constrained functions, and the performances have been compared. One unconstrained problem from IEEE CEC 2011 problem suite and five other constrained mechanical engineering design problems, out of which four issues have been taken from IEEE CEC 2020 non-convex constrained optimization suite, have been solved to compare the performances. Statistical analyses like Friedman's test and Wilcoxon's test are executed to verify the algorithm's ability statistically. Performance analysis exposes that none of the DE variants can solve all the problems efficiently. Performance of SHADE and ELSHADE-SPACMA are considerable among the methods used for comparison to solve such mechanical design problems.
Source: europepmc · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research · Advanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms · Evolutionary Algorithms and Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (46)
Show source-provided references
1. Pant, M., Zaheer, H., Garcia-Hernandez, L., & Abraham, A. (2020). Differential Evolution: A review of more than two decades of research. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 90, 103479.10.1016/j.engappai.2020.103479 ↗
2. Osman, I. H., & Kelly, J. P. (1996). Meta-Heuristics: An Overview. In I. H. Osman & J. P. Kelly (Eds.), Meta-Heuristics (pp. 1–21). Springer.10.1007/978-1-4613-1361-8 ↗
3. Črepinšek, M., Liu, S.-H., & Mernik, M. (2013). Exploration and exploitation in evolutionary algorithms. ACM Computing Surveys, 45, 1–33.10.1145/2480741.2480752 ↗
4. Wolpert, D. H., & Macready, W. G. (1997). No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 1, 67–82.10.1109/4235.585893 ↗
5. Yildiz, A. R., Abderazek, H., & Mirjalili, S. (2019). A Comparative study of recent non-traditional methods for mechanical design optimization. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 27, 1031–1048.10.1007/s11831-019-09343-x ↗
6. Storn, R., & Price, K. (1997). Differential evolution-a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. Journal of Global Optimization, 11, 341–359.10.1023/A:1008202821328 ↗
7. Das, S., Mullick, S. S., & Suganthan, P. N. (2016). Recent advances in differential evolution—an updated survey. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 27, 1–30.10.1016/j.swevo.2016.01.004 ↗
8. Neri, F., & Tirronen, V. (2010). Recent advances in differential evolution: A survey and experimental analysis. Artificial Intelligence Review, 33, 61–106.10.1007/s10462-009-9137-2 ↗
9. Eiben, A. E., & Smith, J. E. (2003). to evolutionary computing (Vol. 53, p. 18). Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-05094-1 ↗
10. Zamuda, A., Brest, J., Boskovic, B., & Zumer, V. Large scale global optimization using differential evolution with self-adaptation and cooperative co-evolution. In IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence), Hong Kong, China, 2008, 3718–3725.10.1109/CEC.2008.4631301 ↗
11. Krink, T., Filipic, B., & Fogel, G. B. Noisy optimization problems-a particular challenge for differential evolution. In Proceedings of the Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Oregon, Portland, USA, 2004, 332–339.10.1109/CEC.2004.1330876 ↗
12. Nama, S., Saha, A. K., & Ghosh, S. (2015). Parameters optimization of geotechnical problem using different optimization algorithm. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 33, 1235–1253.10.1007/s10706-015-9898-0 ↗
13. Kashani, A. R., Chiong, R., Mirjalili, S., & Gandomi, A. H. (2020). Particle swarm optimization variants for solving geotechnical problems: Review and comparative analysis. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 28, 1871–1927.10.1007/s11831-020-09442-0 ↗
14. Foroutan, F., Mousavi Gazafrudi, S. M., & Shokri-Ghaleh, H. (2020). A comparative study of recent optimization methods for optimal sizing of a green hybrid traction power supply substation. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 28, 2351–2370.10.1007/s11831-020-09456-8 ↗
15. Thakur, K., & Kumar, G. (2020). Nature inspired techniques and applications in intrusion detection systems: Recent progress and updated perspective. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 28, 2897–2919.10.1007/s11831-020-09481-7 ↗
16. Patel, V. K., Raja, B. D., Savsani, V. J., & Desai, N. B. (2021). Performance of recent optimization algorithms and its comparison to state-of-the-art differential evolution and its variants for the economic optimization of cooling tower. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 28, 4523–4535.10.1007/s11831-021-09529-2 ↗
17. Kunakote, T., Sabangban, N., Kumar, S., Tejani, G. G., Panagant, N., Pholdee, N., Bureerat, S., & Yildiz, A. R. (2022). Comparative performance of twelve metaheuristics for wind farm layout optimization. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 29, 717–730.10.1007/s11831-021-09586-7 ↗
18. Nama, S., Saha, A. K., & Ghosh, S. (2017). Improved backtracking search algorithm for pseudo dynamic active earth pressure on retaining wall supporting c-Ф backfill. Applied Soft Computing, 52, 885–897.10.1016/j.asoc.2016.09.037 ↗
19. Demirci, E., & Yıldız, A. R. (2019). A new hybrid approach for reliability-based design optimization of structural components. Materials Testing, 61, 111–119.10.3139/120.111291 ↗
20. Yıldız, B. S., Yıldız, A. R., Pholdee, N., Bureerat, S., Sait, S. M., & Patel, V. (2020). The henry gas solubility optimization algorithm for optimum structural design of automobile brake components. Materials Testing, 62, 261–264.10.3139/120.111479 ↗
21. Champasak, P., Panagant, N., Pholdee, N., Bureerat, S., & Yildiz, A. R. (2020). Self-adaptive many-objective meta-heuristic based on decomposition for many-objective conceptual design of a fixed wing unmanned aerial vehicle. Aerospace Science and Technology, 100, 105783.10.1016/j.ast.2020.105783 ↗
22. Sharma, S., & Saha, A. K. (2020). m-MBOA: A novel butterfly optimization algorithm enhanced with mutualism scheme. Soft Computing, 24, 4809–4827.10.1007/s00500-019-04234-6 ↗
23. Yıldız, B. S., Yıldız, A. R., Albak, E. İ, Abderazek, H., Sait, S. M., & Bureerat, S. (2020). Butterfly optimization algorithm for optimum shape design of automobile suspension components. Materials Testing, 62, 365–370.10.3139/120.111492 ↗
24. Nama, S., Saha, A. K., & Sharma, S. (2020). A novel improved symbiotic organisms search algorithm. Computational Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1111/coin.1229010.1111/coin.12290 ↗
25. Yıldız, A. R., Özkaya, H., Yıldız, M., Bureerat, S., Yıldız, B. S., & Sait, S. M. (2020). The equilibrium optimization algorithm and the response surface-based metamodel for optimal structural design of vehicle components. Materials Testing, 62, 492–496.10.3139/120.111509 ↗
26. Yıldız, A. B. S., Pholdee, N., Bureerat, S., Yıldız, A. R., & Sait, S. M. (2020). Sine-cosine optimization algorithm for the conceptual design of automobile components. Materials Testing, 62, 744–748.10.3139/120.111541 ↗
27. Panagant, N., Pholdee, N., Bureerat, S., Kaen, K., Yıldız, A. R., & Sait, S. M. (2020). Seagull optimization algorithm for solving real-world design optimization problems. Materials Testing, 62, 640–644.10.3139/120.111529 ↗
28. Dhiman, G., Singh, K. K., Slowik, A., Chang, V., Yildiz, A. R., Kaur, A., & Garg, M. (2021). EMoSOA: A new evolutionary multi-objective seagull optimization algorithm for global optimization. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 12, 571–596.10.1007/s13042-020-01189-1 ↗
29. Chakraborty, S., Saha, A. K., Sharma, S., Mirjalili, S., & Chakraborty, R. (2021). A novel enhanced whale optimization algorithm for global optimization. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 153, 107086.10.1016/j.cie.2020.107086 ↗
30. Yildiz, B. S., Pholdee, N., Bureerat, S., Yildiz, A. R., & Sait, S. M. (2021). Robust design of a robot gripper mechanism using new hybrid grasshopper optimization algorithm. Expert Systems, 38, e12666.10.1111/exsy.12666 ↗
31. Sharma, S., Saha, A. K., Majumder, A., & Nama, S. (2021). MPBOA-A novel hybrid butterfly optimization algorithm with symbiosis organisms search for global optimization and image segmentation. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 80, 12035–12076.10.1007/s11042-020-10053-x ↗
32. Chakraborty, S., Saha, A. K., Nama, S., & Debnath, S. (2021). COVID-19 X-ray image segmentation by modified whale optimization algorithm with population reduction. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 139, 104984.10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.104984 ↗
33. Qin, A. K., & Suganthan, P. N. Self-adaptive differential evolution algorithm for numerical optimization. In IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Edinburgh, Scotland, 2005, 1785–1791.10.1109/CEC.2005.1554904 ↗
34. Brest, J., Greiner, S., Boskovic, B., Mernik, M., & Zumer, V. (2006). Self-adapting control parameters in differential evolution: a comparative study on numerical benchmark problems. In IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, Vancouver, Canada, 2006, 646–65710.1109/TEVC.2006.872133 ↗
35. Tanabe, R., & Fukunaga, A. Success-history based parameter adaptation for differential evolution. In IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Cancun, Mexico, 2013, 71–78.10.1109/CEC.2013.6557555 ↗
36. Tanabe, R., & Fukunaga, A. S. Improving the search performance of SHADE using linear population size reduction. In IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), Beijing, China, 2014, 1658–1665.10.1109/CEC.2014.6900380 ↗
37. Awad, N. H., Ali, M. Z., Suganthan, P. N., & Reynolds, R. G. An ensemble sinusoidal parameter adaptation incorporated with L-SHADE for solving CEC2014 benchmark problems. In IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), Vancouver, Canada, 2016, 2958–2965.10.1109/CEC.2016.7744163 ↗
38. Awad, N. H., Ali, M. Z., & Suganthan, P. N. (2017). Ensemble sinusoidal differential covariance matrix adaptation with euclidean neighborhood for solving CEC2017 benchmark problems. In IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain, 2017, 372-37910.1109/CEC.2017.7969336 ↗
39. Mohamed, A. W., Hadi, A. A., Fattouh, A. M., & Jambi, K. M. (2017). LSHADE with semi-parameter adaptation hybrid with CMA-ES for solving CEC 2017 benchmark problems. In IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain, 2017, 145-15210.1109/CEC.2017.7969307 ↗
40. Hadi, A. A., Mohamed, A. W., & Jambi, K. M. (2018). Single-objective real-parameter optimization: Enhanced LSHADE-SPACMA algorithm. Heuristics for Optimization and Learning, 906, 103–121.10.1007/978-3-030-58930-1_7 ↗
41. Price, K. V., Awad, N. H., Ali, M. Z., & Suganthan, P. N. (2018). Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for the 100-digit challenge special session and competition on single objective numerical optimization. In Technical Report, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore , 2018, 1-21.
42. Kadavy, T., Pluhacek, M., Viktorin, A., & Senkerik, R. SOMA-CL for competition on single objective bound constrained numerical optimization benchmark: a competition entry on single objective bound constrained numerical optimization at the genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO) 2020. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion, Prague, Czech Republic, 2020, 9–10.10.1145/3377929.3398187 ↗
43. Coello, C. A. C. (2002). Theoretical and numerical constraint-handling techniques used with evolutionary algorithms: A survey of the state of the art. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 191, 1245–1287.10.1016/S0045-7825(01)00323-1 ↗
44. Das, S., & Suganthan, P. N. (2010). Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for CEC competition on testing evolutionary algorithms on real world optimization problems. Jadavpur University, Nanyang Technological University, Kolkata, India, 2010, 341–359.
45. Gu, L., Yang, R. J., Tho, C. H., Makowskit, M., Faruquet, O., & Li, Y. (2001). Optimization and robustness for crashworthiness of side impact. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 26, 348–360.10.1504/IJVD.2001.005210 ↗
46. Osyczka, A., Krenich, S., & Karas, K. Optimum design of robot grippers using genetic algorithms. In Proceedings of the Third World Congress of Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization (WCSMO), New York, USA, 1999, 241–243.