0 Votes +0 Votes -

2 vues16 pagesMar 30, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

2 vues

© All Rights Reserved

- Solving TSP Using Hopfield Model
- Bub Gb Seswxqphcukc
- 06476566
- Yalcin2019 - Costos Comparativos de Tipos de Muros de Contención.
- Aedas R&D
- 11M1WCE114 - Modeling and Simulation Solution
- Tabu search algorithm Distribution system reconfiguration using a modified Tabu Search algorithm
- BSc Thesis - An Enhanced Communication Discrete Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm for the Travelling Salesman Problem
- CT-4-BCA-601.doc
- Sk 049004012
- G9921R.ps
- Mirjalili2016 Article DragonflyAlgorithmANewMeta-heu 2
- GAPSO.pdf
- InTech-Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm and Its Application to Generalized Assignment Problem
- Ecompass Tr 010
- ECTutorial(Chap5 Found of PSO)
- pillay_2008
- 15.P.sathIYA 2009 Optimization of Friction Welding Parameters Using
- Scia Engineer MOOT 2011 ENG
- An agent-based nurse rostering system under minimal staffing

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 16

James J.Q. Yu, Student Member, IEEE and Victor O.K. Li, Fellow, IEEE

Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering

The University of Hong Kong

Email: {jqyu, vli}@eee.hku.hk

AbstractThe growing complexity of real-world problems has lives without interacting with others of their species. However,

motivated computer scientists to search for efcient problem- among the 35 000 spider species observed and described

solving methods. Metaheuristics based on evolutionary computa- by scientists, some species are social. These spiders live

tion and swarm intelligence are outstanding examples of nature-

inspired solution techniques. Inspired by the social spiders, we in groups, e.g. Mallos gregalis and Oecobius civitas. Based

propose a novel Social Spider Algorithm (SSA) to solve global on these social spiders, this paper formulates a new global

optimization problems. The framework is mainly based on the optimization method to solve optimization problems.

foraging strategy of social spiders, which utilize the vibrations Spiders are air-breathing arthropods. They have eight legs

spread over the spider web to determine the position of preys. and chelicerae with fangs. Spiders have been found worldwide

When tested against benchmark functions, SSA has superior

performance compared with other metaheuristics, including evo- and are one of the most diverged species among all groups of

lutionary algorithms and swarm intelligence algorithms. organisms. They use a wide range of different strategies for

foraging, and most of them detect prey by sensing vibrations.

Index TermsSocial spider algorithm, global optimization,

swarm intelligence, evolutionary computation, meta-heuristic. Spiders have long been known to be very sensitive to vibratory

stimulation, as vibrations on their webs notify them of the

capture of prey. If the vibrations are in a dened range

I. I NTRODUCTION of frequency, spiders attack the vibration source. The social

the fast growing size and complexity of modern spiders can also distinguish vibrations generated by the prey

W ITH

optimization problems, evolutionary computing is at-

tractive as an efcient tool for optimization. Among all the

with ones generated by other spiders [5]. The social spiders

passively receive the vibrations generated by other spiders on

methods devised by the evolutionary computation community, the same web to have a clear view of the web. This is one

the evolutionary algorithms (EAs), which mainly draw inspi- of the unique characteristics which distinguishes the social

ration from nature, are shown to be very successful methods spiders from other organisms as the latter usually exchange

for optimization. Currently several types of EAs have been information actively, which reduces the information loss to

widely employed to solve real world combinatorial or global some degree but increases the energy used for communication

optimization problems, including Genetic Algorithm (GA), [6].

Genetic programming (GP), Evolutionary Strategy (ES) and In this paper, inspired by the social behavior of the social

Differential Evolution (DE). These algorithms demonstrate spiders, especially their foraging behaviour, we propose a

satisfactory performance compared with conventional opti- new metaheuristic for global optimization: the Social Spider

mization techniques, especially when applied to solve non- Algorithm (SSA). The foraging behaviour of the social spider

convex optimization problems [1]. can be described as the cooperative movement of the spiders

In the past decade, swarm intelligence, a new kind of towards the food source position. The spiders receive and

evolutionary computing technique, has attracted much research analyse the vibrations propagated on the web to determine the

interest [2]. Swarm intelligence is mainly concerned with the potential direction of a food source [7]. In this process, the

methodology to model the behaviour of social animals and spiders cooperate with each other to move towards the prey.

insects for problem solving. Researchers devised optimization We utilize this natural behaviour to perform optimization over

algorithms by mimicking the behaviour of ants, bees, bacteria, the search space in SSA.

reies and other organisms. The impetus of creating such The group living phenomenon has been studied intensively

algorithms was provided by the growing needs to solve opti- in animal behaviour ecology. One of the reasons that ani-

mization problems that were very difcult or even considered mals gather and live together is to increase the possibility

intractable. of successful foraging and reduce the energy cost in this

Among the commonly seen animals, spiders have been a process [8]. In order to facilitate the analysis of social for-

major research subject in bionic engineering for many years. aging behaviour, researchers proposed two foraging models:

However, most research related to spiders focused on the information sharing (IS) model [9] and producer-scrounger

imitation of its walking pattern to design robots, e.g. [3]. To (PS) model [10]. The individuals under the IS model perform

the best of our knowledge, no spider-inspired algorithms have individual searching and seek for opportunity to join other

been proposed for solving optimization problems. A possible individuals simultaneously. In the PS model, the individuals

reason for this is that a majority of the spiders observed are divided into leaders and followers. Since there is no leader

are solitary [4], which means that they spend most of their in social spiders [11], it seems the IS model is more suitable,

Technical Report No. TR-2003-004, Dept. of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Oct 2013.

and we use this model to control the searching pattern of SSA. tendency. These two kinds of information correspond to cog-

The contribution of this paper is threefold: nitive learning and social learning, respectively, and lead the

1) We propose a brand new nature-inspired swarm in- population to nd a best way to perform optimization [13].

telligence algorithm based on social spiders. This The above two metaheuristics have been applied to solve a

population-based general-purpose metaheuristic demon- vast range of different problems, e.g. [14][15]. Besides the

strates outstanding performance in the global optimiza- research on these algorithm, swarm intelligence algorithm

tion benchmark tests. design has attracted many researchers and several new al-

2) Our proposed algorithm introduces a new social animal gorithms were devised. The most widely studied organism

foraging model to solve optimization problems. We in swarm intelligence is the bee [2]. Abbass proposed a

also incorporate the information loss schemes in the Marriage in honey Bees Optimization (MBO) in [16] and

algorithm. this algorithm was applied to solve propositional satisability

3) We perform a series of experiments to investigate the problems (3-SAT problems). In MBO, the mating ight of

impact of different parameters and searching schemes the queen bee is represented as the transitions in a state

on the performance of the algorithm. The result of these space (search space), with the queen probabilistically mating

experiments may serve as important inputs for further with the drone encountered at each state. The probability of

research. mating is determined by the speed and energy of the queen,

and the tness of the drone. Karaboga and Basturk proposed

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. We will an Articial Bee Colony optimization (ABC) in [17]. ABC

rst present some related work on swarm intelligence and classies the bees in a hive into three types: scout bees that

bio-inspired metaheuristics in Section II. Then we will for- randomly y without guidance, employed bees that search the

mulate and elaborate on SSA by idealizing and imitating the neighborhood of their positions, and onlooker bees that use the

foraging behaviour of social spiders in Section III. Section population tness to select a guiding solution for exploitation.

IV introduces the benchmark functions we use for testing the The algorithm balances exploration and exploitation by means

performance of SSA, with the experimental settings. Section of using employed and onlooker bees for local search, and the

V presents the simulation results of SSA on the benchmark scout bees for global search.

functions and the comparison with other popular metaheuris-

Besides the bees, other organisms have also been widely

tics. We will then discuss the performance of SSA and the

studied [2]. Krishnanand and Ghose proposed a Glow-worm

difference between SSA and other metaheuristics in Section

Swarm Optimization (GSO) [18] based on the behaviour of

VI. Finally we will conclude this paper in Section VII and

rey. In GSO, each rey randomly selects a neighbor

propose some future work.

according to its luminescence and moves toward it. In general

the reies are more likely to get interested in others that

II. BACKGROUND glow brighter. As the movement is only conducted locally

using selective neighbor information, the rey swarm is able

Swarm intelligence algorithms mimic the methods in na- to divide into disjoint subgroups to explore multiple optima.

ture to drive a search for the optimal solution. At the very Another rey-based technique is proposed by Yang et al.

beginning there are two major methods for this kind of [19]. He reformulated the co-movement pattern of reies

algorithms: ant colony optimization (ACO) [12] and particle and employed it in optimization. Passino devised a Bacterial

swarm optimization (PSO) [13]. Foraging Optimization (BFO) [20] based on the bacterial

ACO is inspired by the group foraging behaviour of ants, chemotaxis. In BFO, possible solutions to the optimization

whose goal is to nd a shortest path from their colony to problem are represented by a colony of bacteria. It consists of

food sources. In this metaheuristic, feasible solutions of the three schemes, i.e., chemotaxis, reproduction, and elimination-

optimization problem to be solved are represented by the paths dispersal. The exploitation task is performed using the rst two

between the colony and food sources. The ants communicate schemes and the last one contributes to exploration.

with and inuence others using pheromone, a volatile chemical

substance. When an ant nds a food source, it deposits certain

III. S OCIAL S PIDER A LGORITHM

amount of pheromone along the path and the amount is

positively correlated with the quality of the food source. The In SSA, we formulate the search space of the optimization

pheromone laid down biases the path selection of other ants, problem as a hyper-dimensional spider web. Each position

providing positive feedback. Using the scheme of positive on the web represents a feasible solution to the optimiza-

feedback, the algorithm leads the ants to nd the shortest path tion problem and all feasible solutions to the problem have

to a best food source [12]. corresponding positions on this web. The web also serves

PSO is motivated by the movement of organisms as a as the transmission media of the vibrations generated by the

group, as in a ock of birds or a school of shes. The spiders. Each spider on the web holds a position and the

group is represented by a swarm of particles and PSO uses quality (or tness) of the solution is based on the objective

their positions in the search space to represent the feasible function, and represented by the potential of nding a food

solutions of the optimization problem. PSO manipulates the source at the position. The spiders can move freely on the

movement of these particles to perform optimization, utilizing web. However, they can not leave the web as the positions

the information of individual experience and socio-cognitive off the web represent infeasible solutions to the optimization

Technical Report No. TR-2003-004, Dept. of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Oct 2013.

problem. When a spider moves to a new position, it generates value, i.e. larger for maximization or smaller for minimization

a vibration which is propagated over the web. Each vibration problem, corresponds to a larger vibration intensity.

holds the information of one spider and other spiders can get

the information upon receiving the vibration. C. Intensity Attenuation

As a form of energy, vibration attenuates over time and

A. Spider distance. This physical phenomenon is accounted for in the

The spiders are the agent of SSA to perform optimization. design of SSA by two equations.

At the beginning of the algorithm, a pre-dened number of 1) Attenuation over Distance: We dene the vibration

spiders are put on the web. Each spider s holds a memory, attenuation over distance as follows. We dene the distance

storing the following individual information: between spider a and b as D(Pa , Pb ), and the maximum

1) The position of s on the web. distance between two points in the search space as Dmax .

2) The tness of the current position of s. The denition of Dmax can be problem-dependent, and we

3) The target vibration of s in the previous iteration. use the following equation for simplicity:

The rst two types of information describe the individual

Dmax = ||x x||p , (2)

situation of s, while the third type of information is involved in

directing s to new positions. The detailed scheme of movement where x is the upper bound of the search space and x is the

will be elaborated in Section III-D. lower bound of the search space. p indicates that we use p-

Based on observations, spiders are found to have very norm as the method to calculate the distance between spiders,

accurate senses of vibration. Furthermore, they can separate i.e.,

different vibrations propagated on the same web and sense D(Pa , Pb ) = ||Pa Pb ||p . (3)

their respective intensities [11]. In SSA, a spider will generate

a vibration when it reaches a new position different from the In this paper we use 1-norm or Manhattan norm in distance

previous one. The intensity of the vibration is correlated with calculation. If the search space is not constrained, x and x

the tness of the position. The vibration will propagate over in Eqn. (2) stand for the upper and lower bound of the initial

the web and other spiders can sense it. In such a way, the solution generation space, respectively.

spiders on the same web share their personal information with With the above denitions, we dene the vibration attenu-

others to form a collective social knowledge. ation over distance as follows:

D(Pa , Pb )

I(Pa , Pb , t) = I(Pa , Pa , t) exp( ). (4)

B. Vibration Dmax ra

Vibration is a very important concept in SSA. It is one In the above formula we introduce a user-controlled param-

of the main characteristics that distinguish SSA from other eter ra (0, 1). This parameter controls the attenuation rate

metaheuristics. In SSA, we use two properties to dene a of the vibration intensity over distance. The larger ra is, the

vibration, namely the source position and the source intensity weaker the attenuation imposed on the vibration.

of the vibration. The source position is dened by the search 2) Attenuation over Time: We also introduce an equation

space of the optimization problem, and we dene the intensity to model vibration attenuation over time. As the vibration

of a vibration in the range [0, +). Whenever a spider moves biases other spiders to move, a non-decaying vibration may

to a new position, it generates a vibration at its current potentially attract other spiders continuously, causing the al-

position. We dene the position of spider a at time t as gorithm to converge pre-maturely. So the inuence of previous

P a (t), or simply as P a if the argument is t. We further use vibrations shall be properly attenuated to prevent pre-mature

I(P a , P b , t) to represent the vibration intensity sensed by a convergence. The vibration attenuation over time is dened as

spider at position P b at time t and the source of the vibration follows:

is at position P a . Thus I(P s , P s , t) denes the intensity of I(P a (t), P a (t), t + 1) = I(P a , P a , t) ra . (5)

the vibration generated by spider s at the source position. This

vibration intensity at the source position is correlated with the In each iteration, all vibrations generated in the previous

tness of this position f (P s ), and we dene the intensity value iteration are attenuated by the factor ra . We use the same

as follows: parameter ra introduced in the vibration attenuation over

distance formula for ease of parameter tuning. At time t + 1,

1/(Cmax f (P s )) for maximization

I(P s , P s , t) = , the position of spider a may change to P a (t + 1), but the

1/(f (P s ) Cmin ) for minimization source position of the vibration remains at P a (t).

(1)

where Cmax is a condently large constant selected such that

all possible tness values of the maximization problem is D. Search Pattern

smaller than Cmax , and Cmin is a condently small constant Here we demonstrate the above ideas in terms of an algo-

such that all possible tness values of the minimization rithm. There are three phases in SSA: initialization, iteration,

problem is larger than Cmin . Equation 1 ensures that the and nal. These three phases are executed sequentially and

possible vibration intensities of any optimization problem are Fig. 1 is a complete ow chart of the algorithm. In each run

all positive values. It further guarantees that a better tness of SSA, we start with the initialization phase, then perform

Technical Report No. TR-2003-004, Dept. of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Oct 2013.

searching in an iterative manner, and nally terminate the The iteration phase loops until the stopping criteria is

algorithm and output the solutions found. matched. The stopping criteria can be dened as the maximum

In the initialization phase, the algorithm denes the ob- iteration number reached, the maximum CPU time used, the

jective function and its solution space. The value for the error rate reached, the maximum number of iterations with no

parameter used in SSA is also assigned. The symbols used improvement on the best tness value, or any other appropriate

in SSA are listed in Table I. After setting the values, the criteria. After the iteration phase, the algorithm outputs the

algorithm proceeds to create an initial population of spiders best solution with the best tness found. The above three

for optimization. As the total number of spiders remains phases constitute the complete algorithm of SSA and its

unchanged during the simulation of SSA, a xed size memory pseudo-code can be found in Algorithm 1.

is allocated to store their information. The positions of spiders

are randomly generated in the search space, with their tness Algorithm 1 S OCIAL S PIDER A LGORITHM

values calculated and stored. The target vibration of each 1: Assign values to the parameters of SSA.

spider in the population is set at its current position, and the 2: Create the population of spiders pop and assign memory

vibration intensity is zero. This nishes the initialization phase for them.

and the algorithm starts the iteration phase, which performs 3: Initialize vtar for each spider.

the search with the articial spiders created. 4: while stopping criteria not met do

In the iteration phase, a number of iterations are performed 5: for each spider s in pop do

by the algorithm. In each iteration, all spiders on the web 6: Evaluate the tness value of s.

move to a new position and evaluate their tness values. 7: Generate a vibration at the position of s.

The algorithm rst calculates the tness values of all the 8: end for

articial spiders on different positions on the web. Then these 9: for each spider s in pop do

spiders generate vibrations at their positions using Equation 1. 10: Calculate the intensity of the vibrations V

After all the vibrations are generated, the algorithm simulates generated by other spiders.

the propagation process of these vibrations using Equation 11: Select the strongest vibration vbest from V .

4. In this process, each spider s will receive popSize 1 12: if The intensity of vbest is larger than vtar then

different vibrations generated by other spiders. The received 13: Store vbest as vtar .

information of these vibrations include the source position of 14: end if

the vibration and its attenuated intensity. We use V to represent 15: Perform a random walk towards vtar .

these popSize 1 vibrations. Upon the receipt of V , s will 16: Generate a random number r from [0,1).

select the strongest vibration vbest from V and compare its 17: if r < pj then

intensity with the intensity of the target vibration vtar stored 18: Assign a random position to s.

in its memory. s will store vbest as vtar if the intensity of vbest 19: end if

is larger, otherwise the original vtar is retained. 20: Attenuate the intensity of vtar .

The algorithm then manipulates s to perform a random 21: end for

walk towards vtar . This random walk is conducted using the 22: end while

following equation: 23: Output the best solution found.

where denotes element-wise multiplication. P tar is the IV. B ENCHMARK P ROBLEMS AND E XPERIMENT S ETTING

vibration source position of the target vibration vtar . R is

a vector of random numbers generated from zero to one In order to benchmark the performance of SSA, we con-

uniformly, whose length is dim, and 1 is a vector of ones duct simulations on 20 different benchmark functions. These

of length dim. The algorithm repeats this process for all the benchmark functions are selected from the benchmark set

spiders in pop. proposed by Yao et al. [21] and the Competition on Real-

To avoid SSA getting stuck in a local optimum, we in- Parameter Single Objective Optimization Problems at CEC

troduce an articial spider jump away process. Each spider in 2013 [22]. The former benchmark set has been adopted for

pop, right after the random walk step, has a small probability to testing performance by a wide range of metaheuristics in

decide not to follow its present target and jump away from its recent years [23][24][25], and the latter one is the latest

current position. The probability is dened using the following benchmark set for the optimization competition organized at

equation: CEC 2013. The benchmark functions are listed in Table II and

rj can be classied into three groups:

pj = , (7)

exp(D(P s , P tar )/Dmax ) 1) Group I: f1 f6 are unimodal minimization functions.

where rj is a user-dened jump away rate parameter. If spider 2) Group II: f7 f14 are multimodal minimization func-

s is chosen to jump away, a new random position in the search tions.

space is generated and assigned as the new position of s. The 3) Group III: f15 f20 are shifted and rotated minimization

last step of the algorithm is to attenuate the intensity of the functions.

stored target vibration using Equation 5 and this concludes the Group I functions are used to test the fast-converging perfor-

iteration phase. mance of SSA. Group II functions all have a large number of

Technical Report No. TR-2003-004, Dept. of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Oct 2013.

local minima points, and can be used to test the ability of SSA are set as recommended by the author. We employ the GSO

to jump out of local optima and avoid pre-mature convergence. implementation provided by the author [37] and the parameters

Group III functions are more complex than other functions and remain unchanged.

can push the searching capability of SSA to a limit. They can The performance comparison among SSA and the above

also test the performance of SSA in solving shifted and rotated seven algorithms are made according to a rigorous non-

optimization problems. parametric statistical framework. All initial solutions in the

All benchmark functions are 30-dimensional minimization populations are generated randomly for each run of the al-

functions and the global minimum values are zero. SSA gorithm on each function. For each function, we rst test

is implemented in Python 2.7 under Microsoft Windows the hypothesis that all algorithms perform equally well by

7 operating system. All simulations are carried out on a adopting the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance test

computer with an Intel Core i7-3770 @ 3.4GHz CPU. In [38]. If this hypothesis is rejected at 95% condence interval,

each run, we use a maximum number of 200 000 function the Kruskal-Wallis test suggests that at least one algorithm

evaluations as the termination criterion of SSA. In order to involved in the comparison is different from others. However,

reduce statistical errors and generate statistically signicant the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance test alone

results, each function is repeated for 100 independent runs. cannot discover which algorithm(s) perform differently from

The mean, standard deviation, best, median, and worst results others. Thus we further pair-wise compare the simulation

of SSA are recorded. results using the Wilcoxon ranksum test with Sidak correction

In order to meet the requirement set by [22], we use one at 95% condence interval. Based on the pair-wise ndings,

xed combination of parameters for SSA in the simulation of we can construct partial orderings of the algorithms.

all groups of functions. The population size popSize is 50,

vibration attenuation rate ra is 0.9, and the jump away rate re V. S IMULATION R ESULTS

is 0.05. We will discuss the sensitivity of the parameters in In this section we present the simulation results of SSA

Section V-B. on the benchmark functions identied in Section IV. We

To evaluate the performance of our proposed algorithm, we perform comparison among SSA and other algorithms and give

compare the simulation results of SSA with seven widely-used statistical analysis on the simulation results. We also conduct

evolutionary algorithms and swarm intelligence algorithms, in- sensitivity analysis on the parameters introduced by SSA.

cluding the Genetic Algorithm (GA) [26], Particle Swarm Op- Finally the inuence of different search schemes incorporated

timizer (PSO) [13], Differential Evolution (DE) [27], Artical in SSA on the performance is demonstrated.

Bee Colony Optimization (ABC) [17], Firey Algorithm (FA)

[19], Cuckoo Search (CS) [28], and Group Search Optimizer

(GSO) [23]. All the compared algorithms are best-performing A. Comparison of SSA with other Algorithms

algorithms and give satisfactory performance. They have been The detailed simulation results of SSA on the benchmark

employed to compare the optimization performance of meta- introduced in Section IV are presented in Table III and the box

heuristics [23][24][29]. The benchmark functions are tested for plot of all raw data are shown in Fig. 2. It is worth mentioning

100 independent runs for each algorithm and the termination that although the Group I functions, i.e. unimodal optimization

criteria are also set to be a maximum number of 200 000 func- problems, are relatively easy and can be solved efciently by

tion evaluations. We employ the publicly available source code deterministic algorithms that utilize the gradient information

to implement and test the performance of these algorithms. We of the search space, they can effectively assess the convergence

use the Genetic Algorithm Optimization Toolbox (GAOT) [30] performance of EAs [23].

to test the performance of GA. The GA executed is real-coded The mean and standard deviation values obtained by SSA

with a heuristic crossover algorithm and uniform mutation and other algorithms on different benchmark functions are

strategy. Normalized geometric ranking scheme is employed listed in Table IV, with the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analy-

as the selection scheme. The population size is 50, and all sis of variance test p-value. The mean values in bold font

other parameters are set to be the default as recommended indicate superiority, while the p-values in italic suggest that

in [30]. For PSO, we employ the Particle Swarm Optimizer the Kruskal-Wallis test reject the hypothesis that all eight

toolbox (PSOt) [31] for simulation. The population size is 25, algorithms are performing similarly in the corresponding

acceleration factors c1 and c2 are both 2.0, and the decaying benchmark function. The simulation results indicate that SSA

inertia weight starts at 0.9 and ends at 0.4 after 1500 generally gives very outstanding performance compared with

iterations. These parameters are recommended in [31]. We other algorithms, especially in Group I functions which require

employ the DE source code provided by the author at [32]. a fast convergence speed. The Kruskal-Wallis test results of all

The DE model is DE/rand/1/bin for best adaptability of all algorithms on all the benchmark functions show that there is at

functions [33], NP is 50, F is 0.4717, and CR is 0.8803. The least one algorithm for each function that performs differently

source code for ABC was obtained from the authors webpage from the other algorithms compared. These test results allow

[34]. The population size is 50 and all other parameters are set us to proceed to the pair-wise Wilcoxon ranksum test with

as recommended in the source le. The source codes for FA Sidak correction in order to gure out partial orderings of the

and CS were obtained from MATLAB Central File Exchange algorithms for these benchmark functions.

system [35][36] submitted by the author of the algorithms. The outcomes of the pair-wise statistical comparisons for all

The population sizes are both 50 and all other parameters benchmark functions are shown in Table V with the position

Technical Report No. TR-2003-004, Dept. of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Oct 2013.

of SSA in bold. In this test, the pair-wise ranking values as PSO but the Wilcoxon ranksum test gives the opposite

well as the p-values of all 28 possible algorithm-pairs in each result. After investigation into the raw data of simulation

function are considered. If one of the p-values is larger than the results we found that while PSO gives better statistical

Sidak-corrected signicance value of 1 (95%)1/8 0.0064, result, SSA demonstrates a higher robustness. This can

we consider the two algorithms involved in the calculation also be observed from the standard deviation of these

of this p-value perform similarly on this function. Otherwise, two algorithms. We consider that PSO has a faster con-

the ranking values of the two algorithms are compared. The vergence speed in this function but this hurts its ability of

algorithm with a lower ranking is regarded as the better avoiding pre-mature convergence. This phenomenon is

algorithm in solving the corresponding function. If algorithms reproduced in f8 , f16 , and f17 , where SSA outperforms

A, B, and C perform better than algorithm D, we conclude that other algorithms in robustness but has slightly worse

all of A, B, and C outperform D on the particular benchmark statistical assessment results.

function. However, if A outperforms B but both A and B 3) For Group II functions, SSA shows an outstanding

perform similarly with C, all of A, B, and C are placed in performance compared with other algorithms, with SSA

the same rank. The order of algorithm within one rank is topping the mean value comparison in 4 functions and

alphabetical and has no implication on performance. In Table statistical assessment in 3 functions. It also generates

V, A < B stands for A performs better than B, and C satisfactory results in other functions.

D stands for C and D performs similarly on the specied 4) In Group III functions, SSA still maintains its superior

benchmark function. position in 5 out of the total of 6 functions in sta-

The main reason to adopt this statistical assessment method tistical assessment, ranking the rst or second in the

instead of the canonical mean-comparison method is to reduce comparison. The advantage is enhanced in the mean

the impact of some outliers on the performance assessment. value comparison, where it gets three rst places. This

This impact can be observed from the simulation result of phenomenon again demonstrates the dominant position

SSA and PSO on f1 , where the mean of the simulation results of SSA in terms of both best solution quality and

of SSA was signicantly better than PSO. However, after robustness.

a careful observation of the raw simulation data, we found In order to have a clearer view of the statistical assessment

that despite all SSAs simulation results falling in the range of the simulation results, we further rank the algorithms based

[5.1e-35 3.7e-32], a majority (94%) of the results of PSO on their performance in the Wilcoxon ranksum test. For each

were within a better range [7.96e-132 7.61e-115]. However, an function, the rst algorithm is assigned with a rank value 1, the

outlier point at 8.22e-22 greatly inuenced the overall average second with 2, etc. For the ties, an average rank is given to the

of the results, and this was unfair as we usually conduct a algorithms involved in the tie. Take f19 as an example, DE, FA,

large number of runs in real-world applications and adopt GSO, and PSO shares the same rank, and they are the third to

the best result. This negative impact is greatly reduced in the sixth algorithms in this function. So we assign an average

our adopted statistical assessment method, where the ranking rank value of 4.5 to all these four algorithms. We then sum

information is used in the calculation instead of the real values up the rank values of each algorithm in each group to have

of the results [39]. Another reason of using Wilcoxon rank an overall assessment of the performance of the algorithms

testsum instead of the more commonly employed Students over each category of functions. We nally sum up all rank

t-test is that the former test is a kind of non-parametric values to evaluate the performance of the algorithms in solving

statistical hypothesis tests, which do not make assumptions general optimization problems. Similar evaluation methods has

on the characteristic structure or parameters on the input raw been adopted in previous metaheuristic algorithm tests [24].

data. To the best of our knowledge, there is no theoretical The test results are presented in Table VI.

model designed for the stochastic simulation results generated The rank summary of the statistical assessment result

by evolutionary algorithms or swarm intelligence algorithms, supports our previous observations. In all three groups of

Wilcoxon ranksum test is more suitable than the Students t- functions, SSA is the best performing algorithm. It possesses

test, which assumes that the test population follows a normal a dominating position in the overall comparison as well. From

distribution [40]. Similar statistical assessment methods have Table VI we also notice that no other algorithm can have

been employed to evaluate a number of different optimization as stable a performance as SSA. The performance of DE

algorithms [41][42]. and ABC is satisfactory in Groups I and II, but neither of

From the simulation result comparison in Table IV and the them can catch up with SSA in Group III functions. FA is

statistical assessment results in Table V, the following key comparable to SSA when solving difcult shifted and rotated

points can be observed: multimodal functions, but its performance in unimodal and

1) SSA gives superior performance in the simulation of all original multimodal functions ranks at the bottom of the list.

functions in Group I, where SSA is the best perform- So we conclude that in general SSA has both best optimization

ing algorithm in f2 f6 in terms of both mean value performance and highest stability.

of the results and the Wilcoxon ranksum test result.

This indicates the outstanding capability of SSA in fast

converging to the global optimum while avoiding pre- B. Parameter Sensitivity Analysis

mature convergence. Choosing proper parameter settings of SSA for numerical

2) In f1 , the average result of SSA is better than that of and real-world optimization problems can be time-consuming.

Technical Report No. TR-2003-004, Dept. of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Oct 2013.

The trial-and-error scheme, or a parameter sweep test, may settings. We regard a parameter setting as a signicantly

reveal the best achievable performance over the parameter superior one if it is in the rst rank of all the functions in

space at the expense of high computational cost. In real- one group.

world optimization problems, it may take far more time to The parameter sensitivity analysis results are presented in

evaluate the tness functions than to evaluate our benchmark Table VII. In this table, those parameter settings that lead to

problems. In such cases, one execution run may take days signicantly better performance over others with respect to the

or even months to nish, which makes trial-and-error scheme three groups of benchmark functions are marked with + and

impractical for parameter tuning. As alternatives, researchers the performances corresponding to the three groups are sep-

have proposed some schemes to replace the trial-and-error arated by /. - stands for signicantly worse performance

parameter selection scheme. These schemes can generally be of the parameter settings over the corresponding group. It can

classied into three groups [43]: be observed that medium popSize values (e.g., 40, 50, or 60),

1) Fixed parameter schemes select a parameter combina- large ra values (e.g. 0.9), and small rj values (e.g. 0.05 or 0.1)

tion before the simulation using empirical or theoreti- can lead to signicantly better optimization performance than

cal knowledge of the characteristics of the parameters. other parameter settings in general. It can also be observed

This combination remains constant throughout the whole that the most sensitive parameter is rj , and a small change

search [24][44]. of this parameter may result in a big performance change.

2) Deterministic parameter schemes use some pre-dened popSize and ra have relatively less impact but still control the

rules to change the parameter values throughout the performance of the algorithm. This conclusion gives the rules

search [24][25]. of thumb of selecting parameters for different optimization

3) Adaptive parameter schemes change the parameter val- problems. Note that we are not claiming that the provided

ues by adaptively learning the impact of changing pa- parameter settings can generate the best performance on any

rameters on the searching performance throughout the problems. The provided settings may act as a guideline when

search [45]. Some schemes encode the parameters into one starts selecting parameters for SSA. However, a proper

the solution and evolve the parameters together with the parameter tuning process is still necessary in order to get the

population [46]. best achievable performance.

the performance of SSA compared with other algorithms. C. Investigation of the Effect of other Schemes

We also use this scheme to perform a parameter sensitivity

analysis in order to deduce some rules of thumb on choosing Apart from the proper parameter selection, the search-

parameters that can consistently lead to satisfactory results on ing schemes incorporated into SSA also contribute to its

a wide range of functions with different characteristics. This superior performance. In order to investigate the effect of

test can also discover some of the features of the parameters these schemes, we also perform simulations with the SSA-

when solving different kinds of optimization problems. We variant algorithms without these schemes and compare the

carry out extensive simulations on our benchmark functions, results with the SSA result. The two most important schemes

which cover a wide range of optimization problems. Thus, the that distinguish SSA from other evolutionary algorithms and

derived rules of thumb can be expected to give generally good swarm intelligence algorithms (the detailed differences will be

performance on unknown problems. discussed in Section VI) are the vibration propagation scheme

and the spider jump away scheme. Thus we have three versions

There are three parameters for SSA, namely popSize, ra ,

of SSA for comparison:

and rj . We perform a parameter sweep test on all 20 bench-

mark functions presented in Section IV using 144 different 1) SSA is the original version of the proposed algorithm

parameter combinations: [popSize, ra , rj ][20, 30, 40, 50, with both the vibration propagation scheme and the

60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 150, 200, 300][0.1, 0.5, 0.9][0.01, 0.05, spider jump away scheme.

0.1, 0.3]. For each parameter combination, 100 independent 2) SSA-vbr is an SSA-variant algorithm which removes

runs are conducted for each function. In order to reduce the the vibration propagation scheme. In this algorithm the

impact of the stochastic process of SSA on the performance vibration (individual information) will not attenuate. In

of different combinations, we use the same 100 random seeds this scheme, the social knowledge is complete.

to generate random numbers for all the tests. This issue was 3) SSA-jmp is an SSA-variant algorithm which removes the

also addressed in [43]. spider jump away scheme. In this algorithm the spiders

In order to have a statistically signicant conclusion, we also will always be cooperative no matter how closely they

use the statistical assessment method introduced in Section are located.

V-A. All the raw data will go through the Kruskal-Wallis We perform simulations of these three algorithms on all the

one-way analysis of variance test to see whether there are benchmark functions. The simulation results will be processed

combinations that perform signicantly differently from others using a similar statistical assessment method as in Section

at a 95% condence interval. If so, the Wilcoxon ranksum test V-A. In this test, as we are more interested in the performance

is employed to discover the signicantly different parameter improvement of SSA compared with SSA-vbr and SSA-

settings at a 95% condence interval. With the processed jmp, we will only perform the Wilcoxon ranksum test on

information we can construct partial orderings of the parameter SSA/SSA-vbr and SSA/SSA-jmp algorithm pairs. This simple

Technical Report No. TR-2003-004, Dept. of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Oct 2013.

statistical test alone allows us to conclude whether there is any jump away scheme, which contributes to the capability of SSA

improvements or not. to jump out of local optimum in the search space.

The simulation results of SSA, SSA-vbr, and SSA-jmp are

presented in Table VIII. We can see that SSA outperforms Although both SSA and ACO draw their inspiration from

SSA-vbr and SSA-jmp in all 20 benchmark functions in terms the social animal foraging strategy, there are still some obvious

of mean values obtained (SSA and SSA-vbr ties in f4 , where differences. The foraging frameworks adopted by the two

all the 200 runs generate the global optimum at zero). The algorithms are quite different: ACO utilize the ant foraging

Wilcoxon ranksum test result also supports this conclusion. features to perform optimization. Ants nd food by laying

All p-values except for SSA/SSA-vbr pair on f4 are smaller down pheromone trails and collectively establish positive

than the signicant level of 0.05, which indicates that SSA feedbacks which bias the later path selection, while spiders

signicantly outperforms SSA-vbr and SSA-jmp statistically. sense the vibration propagated by the spider web to locate

At the same time, we can observe that the performance of the prey. Another difference is the presentation of feasible

SSA-vbr is better than SSA-jmp. This phenomenon is strong solutions. In SSA we use the positions on the spider web

evidence of the conclusion we made in Section V-B that the to represent feasible solutions. Similar representations have

parameter rj is relatively more sensitive than ra . This result also been widely adopted in the swarm intelligence algorithm.

reveals the necessity of introducing of these two important Meanwhile, ACO uses the path between the ant hive and food

schemes into SSA. sources to represent solutions to the optimization problems.

Additionally, ACO was originally designed to solve combi-

natorial problems. Although in recent years there are ACO-

VI. D ISCUSSION variant algorithms designed mainly to solve continuous prob-

A number of swarm intelligence algorithms have been lems [47], the performance is not as good as the performance

proposed in the past few decades. Among them, PSO and ACO of the original ACO in solving combinatorial problems like the

are the two most widely employed and studied algorithms. Travelling Salesman Problem. There are also the information

Although SSA also belongs to the scope of swarm intelligence propagation and searching pattern differences between SSA

algorithms, it has many differences from the previous ones. and ACO as described above.

PSO, like SSA, was originally proposed for solving con-

There are also some other swarm intelligence algorithms

tinuous optimization problems. It was also inspired by animal

proposed to solve continuous problems, and SSA has some

behaviour. However, a most important difference between SSA

unique characteristics. In most swarm intelligence algorithms,

and PSO is due to their different biology backgrounds. PSO

e.g., ABC and GSO, the populations are structured into

was designed based on the model of coordinated group animal

different types. Different types of individuals perform different

motions of ocks of birds or schools of shes. This model

jobs and the whole population cooperates to search the solution

serves as the design metaphor of PSO. SSA is inspired by the

space. However in SSA, all individuals (spiders) are equal.

social spider foraging strategy, which belongs to the scope of

Each performs all the tasks that would be executed by multiple

general social animal searching behaviour. We use a general

types of the populations in other algorithms. If we put SSA

IS model (see Section I) as the designing framework. This

into the conventional framework, it has the feature that the

difference is also a major distinguishing feature of SSA from

different types of individuals can shift very smoothly and

other proposed algorithms. A second difference between SSA

without the guidance of the user, which may potentially

and PSO is the information propagation method. In PSO, the

contribute to the performance improvement.

information propagation method is neglected, and each particle

is assumed to be aware of all the information of the system Despite that EAs like GA and ES are also population-based

without loss. In SSA we carefully model the information prop- algorithms, which inevitably share some similarities with the

agation process through the vibrations on the spider web. This population-based SSA, they are quite different general-purpose

process forms a general knowledge system with information metaheuristics. They are inspired by completely different

loss. Although there is still no research on how the information biology disciplines. EAs usually employ different recombina-

loss will impact the social foraging strategy employed in tion and decomposition operators to manipulate the solutions,

optimization, it is possible that this information loss system which imitate the regeneration of an organism.

partially contributes to the performance improvement of SSA

over PSO. Another difference is that in PSO, the common The above comparison between SSA and some other swarm

knowledge of the group is all about the best particle in the intelligence algorithms and EAs may potentially reveal the

system. All remaining particles in the system do not constitute reason of the superior performance of SSA. As stated above,

the shared information of the group, which may lead to although we still do not know the exact impact of information

neglecting some valuable information of the population. In loss on the optimization process, this feature of SSA may

SSA, each spider generates a new piece of information and contribute to the optimum search in some complex multimodal

propagates the information to the whole population. Last but optimization problems. The uniform structure of the popula-

not least, the searching behaviour of SSA and PSO are quite tion is another potential advantage of SSA. Also, the unique

different. Although they both employ random walk, the target searching pattern and its underlying social animal foraging

of the movement is generated using very different methods. strategy as well as the IS foraging model contribute to the

Besides the random walk scheme, SSA also have an additional overall performance improvement of SSA.

Technical Report No. TR-2003-004, Dept. of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Oct 2013.

VII. C ONCLUSION SSA to control the parameters and reduce the effort in tuning

parameters. Last but not least, it would be interesting to

In this paper we proposed a novel social spider algorithm to identify real-world applications which can be addressed using

solve global optimization problems. This algorithm is based on SSA effectively and efciently.

the foraging behaviour of social spiders and the information-

sharing foraging strategy. SSA is conceptually simple and

relatively easy to implement. SSA can tackle a wide range R EFERENCES

of different continuous optimization problems and has the [1] E.-G. Talbi, Metaheuristics: From Design to Implementation. Wiley,

potential to be employed to solve real-world problems. 2009.

In order to evaluate the performance of SSA, we adopted [2] R. S. Parpinelli and H. S. Lopes, New inspirations in swarm intelli-

gence: a survey, Int. J. Bio-Inspired Computation, vol. 3, no. 1, pp.

a set of 20 benchmark functions which cover a large variety 116, Jan. 2011.

of different optimization problem types. We compared SSA [3] M. Yim, Y. Zhang, and D. Duff, Modular robots, IEEE Spectrum,

with some widely used particle swarm intelligence algorithms vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 3034, Aug. 2002.

[4] R. Foelix, Biology of Spiders. 198 Madison Ave. NY, New York, 10016:

and EAs, namely GA, PSO, DE, ABC, FA, CS, and GSO. Oxford University Press, 1996.

These algorithms have been employed to solve a large set [5] C. F. Schaber, S. N. Gorb, and F. G. Barth, Force transformation

of different benchmark optimization functions and real-world in spider strain sensors: White light interferometry. J. Royal Society

Interface, vol. 9, no. 71, pp. 12541264, Jun. 2012.

problems, and demonstrated outstanding performance. To get [6] R. Cocroft, The public world of insect vibrational communication,

statistically signicant conclusions, we applied the Kruskal- Molecular Ecology, vol. 10, pp. 20412043, May 2011.

Wallis one-way analysis of variance test and the Wilcoxon [7] F. Fernndez Campn, Group foraging in the colonial spider parawixia

bistriata (araneidae): effect of resource levels and prey size, Animal

ranksum test to process the simulation data. The results show Behaviour, vol. 74, no. 5, pp. 15511562, Nov. 2007.

that the performance of SSA is outstanding compared with [8] J. House, K. Landis, and D. Umberson, Social relationships and health,

the above listed algorithms in all three different groups of Science, vol. 241, no. 4865, pp. 540545, 1988.

[9] C. W. Clark and M. Mangel, Foraging and ocking strategies: Informa-

functions including unimodal, multimodal, and shifted-rotated tion in an uncertain environment, The American Naturalist, vol. 123,

multimodal optimization problems. This conclusion was sup- no. 5, pp. 626641, 1984.

ported by both the simulation results and the statistics of the [10] C. Barnard and R. Sibly, Producers and scroungers: A general model

and its application to captive ocks of house sparrows, Animal Be-

simulation data. haviour, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 543550, May 1981.

We also conducted a parameter sensitivity analysis to reveal [11] G. Uetz, Foraging strategies of spiders, Trends in Ecology and Evo-

the impact of different parameters on the performance of SSA. lution, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 155159, 1992.

[12] M. Dorigo, Optimization, learning and natural algorithms, Ph.D.

In this test we selected 144 parameter combinations for SSA dissertation, Politecnico di Milano, Italie, 1990.

and perform simulations with these combinations individually. [13] J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, Particle swarm optimization, in Proc.

The results indicate that a medium population size, a large IEEE Int. Conf. Neural Networks, Perth, WA, U.S., Nov. 1995, pp. 1942

1948.

vibration attenuation rate, and a small jump away rate can [14] T. Liao, D. Molina, T. Stutzle, M. Oca, and M. Dorigo, An ACO

potentially generate satisfactory performance on a majority of algorithm benchmarked on the bbob noiseless function testbed, in Proc.

the optimization problems. This conclusion provides guide- 14th Int. Conf. GECCO, Philadelphia, U.S., Jul. 2012, pp. 221228.

[15] C. Voglis, G. S. Piperagkas, K. E. Parsopoulos, D. G. Papageorgiou, and

lines on the algorithm design in other applications. We also I. E. Lagaris, MEMPSODE: comparing particle swarm optimization

discover the different sensitivity levels of the three parameters and differential evolution within a hybrid memetic global optimization

on the nal performance. In addition, we investigated the framework, in Proc. 14th Int. Conf. GECCO, Philadelphia, U.S., Jul.

2012, pp. 253260.

performance inuence of different schemes incorporated in

[16] H. A. Abbass, MBO: marriage in honey bees optimization-a hap-

SSA. The test results verify the contribution of these schemes lometrosis polygynous swarming approach, in Proc. IEEE Congress on

on the superior performance of SSA. Evolutionary Computation (CEC), Seoul, Korea, May 2001, pp. 207

214.

Future research on SSA can be divided into three cate- [17] D. Karaboga and B. Basturk, A powerful and efcient algorithm for

gories: scheme research, algorithm research, and real-world numerical function optimization: articial bee colony, J. Global Optim.,

application. The random walk scheme and the jump away vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 459471, Nov. 2007.

[18] K. Krishnanand and D. Ghose, Detection of multiple source locations

scheme in the current SSA may be further improved using using a glowworm metaphor with applications to collective robotics, in

advanced optimization techniques and hybrid algorithms with Proc. IEEE Swarm Intell. Symposium, Pasadena, CA, U.S., Jun. 2005,

deterministic heuristics or local search algorithms. The jump pp. 8491.

[19] X.-S. Yang, Nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithms. Luniver Press,

away scheme incorporated in SSA now is a reallocation 2008, ch. 10. Firey Algorithm, pp. 8196.

scheme. However, research on how to manipulate the new [20] K. M. Passino, Biomimicry of bacterial foraging for distributed op-

positions of the jump away spiders is also an interesting timization and control, IEEE Control Syst. Mag., vol. 22, no. 3, pp.

topic. New schemes can also be applied in the searching 5267, Jun. 2002.

[21] X. Yao, Y. Liu, and G. Lin, Evolutionary programming made faster,

process of SSA for performance improvement. In terms of IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 82102, Aug. 1999.

algorithm research, SSA has the potential to be applied to [22] J. J. Liang, B.-Y. Qu, P. N. Suganthan, and A. G. Hernndez-Daz,

solve combinatorial problems. We note that some other swarm Problem denitions and evaluation criteria for the CEC 2013 special

session and competition on real-parameter optimization, Computational

intelligence algorithms like PSO and ABC originally designed Intelligence Laboratory, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou China and

to solve continuous optimization problems have been suc- Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Technical Report 201212,

cessfully modied to solve combinatorial problem [48][49]. 2013.

[23] S. He, Q. H. Wu, and J. R. Saunders, Group search optimizer: An

Although SSA only has three parameters, it is still very optimization algorithm inspired by animal searching behavior, IEEE

interesting to develop adaptive or self-adaptive schemes for Trans. Evol. Comput., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 973990, Aug. 2009.

Technical Report No. TR-2003-004, Dept. of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Oct 2013.

10

[24] A. Y. S. Lam, V. O. K. Li, and J. J. Q. Yu, Real-coded chemical reaction James J.Q. Yu Biography here.

optimization, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 339353,

2012.

[25] W.-N. Chen, J. Zhang, Y. Lin, N. Chen, Z.-H. Zhan, H. S.-H. Chung,

Y. Li, and Y.-H. Shi, Particle swarm optimization with an aging leader PLACE

and challengers, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 241 PHOTO

258, Apr. 2013. HERE

[26] J. H. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Articial Systems. University

of Michigan Press, 1975.

[27] R. Storn and K. Price, Differential evolution: A simple and efcient

heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces, J. Global

Optim., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 341359, Dec. 1997.

[28] X.-S. Yang and S. Deb, Engineering optimisation by cuckoo search,

International Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Opti-

misation, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 330343, 2009.

[29] W. Gong, Z. Cai, C. X. Ling, and H. Li, A real-coded biogeography-

based optimization with mutation, Appl. Math. Comput., vol. 216, no. 9,

pp. 27492758, Jul. 2010.

[30] C. H. North, J. A. Joines, and M. G. Kay, A genetic algorithm for

function optimization: A MATLAB implementation, North Carolina

State Univ., Raleigh, NC, Technical Report NCSU-IE-TR-95-09, 1995.

[31] B. Birge, PSOt - a particle swarm optimization toolbox for use with

MATLAB, in Proc. IEEE Swarm Intell. Symposium, Indianapolis,

Indiana, USA, Apr. 2003, pp. 182186.

[32] R. Storn, Differential evolution homepage, accessed 1-July-2013.

[Online]. Available: http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/storn/code.html

[33] E. Mezura-Montes, J. Velazquez-Reyes, and C. A. C. Coello, A com-

parative study of differential evolution variants for global optimization,

in Proc. 8th Int. Conf. GECCO, Seattle, WA, U.S., Jul. 2006, pp. 485

492.

[34] D. Karaboga, Articial bee colony homepage, accessed 1-July-2013.

[Online]. Available: http://mf.erciyes.edu.tr/abc/

[35] X.-S. Yang, Firey algorithm, accessed 1-July-2013. [On-

line]. Available: http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/leexchange/

29693-rey-algorithm

[36] , Cuckoo algorithm, accessed 1-July-2013. [On-

line]. Available: http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/leexchange/

29809-cuckoo-search-cs-algorithm

[37] S. He, Group search optimizer, accessed 1-July-2013. [Online].

Available: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/szh/software.xhtml

[38] M. Hollander and D. A. Wolfe, Nonparametric Statistical Methods.

Victor O.K. Li Biography here.

Wiley, 1999.

[39] Y. Maesono, Competitors of the wilcoxon signed rank test, Annals

of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 363375,

1987. PLACE

[40] J. F. Reed, III, Contributions to two-sample statistics, Journal of PHOTO

Applied Statistics, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 3744, 2005. HERE

[41] D. Shilane, J. Martikainen, S. Dudoit, and S. J. Ovaska, A general

framework for statistical performance comparison of evolutionary com-

putation algorithms, Information Sciences, vol. 179, pp. 28702879,

2008.

[42] R. Wang, R. C. Purshouse, and P. J. Fleming, Preference-inspired co-

evolutionary algorithms for many-objective optimisation, IEEE Trans.

Evol. Comput., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 474494, 2013.

[43] A. K. Qin and X. Li, Differential evolution on the CEC-2013 single-

objective continuous optimization testbed, in Proc. IEEE Congress

on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), Cancun, Mexico, Jun. 2013, pp.

10991106.

[44] K. Price, R. M. Storn, and J. A. Lampinen, Differential Evolution - A

Practical Approach to Global Optimization. Springer, 2005.

[45] A. Qin, V. Huang, and P. Suganthan, Differential evolution algorithm

with strategy adaptation for global numerical optimization, IEEE Trans.

Evol. Comput., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 398417, 2009.

[46] J. Vrugt, B. Robinson, and J. Hyman, Self-adaptive multimethod search

for global optimization in real-parameter spaces, IEEE Trans. Evol.

Comput., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 243259, 2009.

[47] K. Socha and M. Dorigo, Ant colony optimization for continuous

domains, European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 185, no. 3,

pp. 11551173, 2008.

[48] J. Kennedy and R. C. Eberhart, A discrete binary version of the particle

swarm algorithm, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Syst. Man Cyber., Orlando,

FL, U.S., Oct. 1997, pp. 41044108.

[49] Q.-K. Pan, M. F. Tasgetiren, P. Suganthan, and T. J. Chua, A discrete

articial bee colony algorithm for the lot-streaming ow shop scheduling

problem, Information Sciences, vol. 181, no. 12, pp. 24552468, 2011.

Technical Report No. TR-2003-004, Dept. of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Oct 2013.

11

Initialize parameters

START

and the population

values of the population

Generate vibrations at

the spiders' positions

Propagate the

vibrations over the web

vibrations

the previous target?

Yes No

vibration as new target target vibration

to the target vibration

from others?

Yes No

position

best vibration

No

Stopping criteria met?

Yes

Technical Report No. TR-2003-004, Dept. of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Oct 2013.

12

0

10

10

10

50

10 10

10

20

10

20

10

100

10

30

10 30 0

10 10

FA

FA

FA

SSA

GA

DE

ABC

CS

GSO

PSO

FA

SSA

GA

DE

ABC

CS

GSO

SSA

GA

DE

ABC

CS

GSO

PSO

PSO

SSA

GA

DE

ABC

CS

GSO

PSO

2

10 0

10

0

10

5

10

5

10 5

0 10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10 15

2

10

10

15

10

FA

FA

FA

FA

SSA

GA

DE

ABC

CS

GSO

PSO

SSA

GA

DE

ABC

CS

GSO

PSO

SSA

GA

GA

DE

ABC

CS

GSO

SSA

DE

ABC

CS

GSO

PSO

PSO

(e) f5 (f) f6 (g) f7 (h) f8

0

10

0

10

10 10

10 10 10

10

5

10

20 20 20

10 10 10

10

10

30 30 30

10 10 10

FA

FA

FA

FA

SSA

GA

GA

DE

ABC

CS

GSO

SSA

DE

ABC

CS

GSO

SSA

GA

DE

ABC

GA

CS

GSO

SSA

DE

ABC

CS

GSO

PSO

PSO

PSO

PSO

10

10 0

0 10

10

0

10

5

5 10

10

5 5

10 10 10

10

0

10

15

10

FA

FA

FA

FA

SSA

GA

GA

DE

ABC

CS

GSO

SSA

DE

ABC

CS

GSO

PSO

PSO

SSA

GA

GA

DE

ABC

CS

GSO

SSA

DE

ABC

CS

GSO

PSO

PSO

0

10

8 0

10 10

10

10 6

2 10

10 2

10

20 4

10 10

4

10

2

30 10

10

FA

FA

FA

FA

SSA

GA

GA

DE

ABC

CS

GSO

SSA

DE

ABC

CS

GSO

PSO

PSO

SSA

GA

DE

ABC

CS

GSO

PSO

SSA

GA

DE

ABC

CS

GSO

PSO

Technical Report No. TR-2003-004, Dept. of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Oct 2013.

13

TABLE I

S YMBOLS U SED IN SSA

Function f The objective function to be optimized. The spider web.

Variable dim The dimension of the objective function, i.e. the length The dimension of the articial spider web.

of a feasible solution to the objective function.

pop The population of spiders for optimization.

Parameter popSize The size of the population, or the number of spiders in The number of spiders on the web.

the population.

ra Vibration attenuation rate. Vibration attenuation rate on the spider web.

rj Spider jump away rate. Probability of spiders to jump away from others.

TABLE II

B ENCHMARK F UNCTIONS

n

f1 (x) = x2i [-100 100]n Sphere Model 30 0

i=1n n

f2 (x) = |xi | + |xi | [-10 10]n Schwefels Problem 2.22 30 0

I n

i=1 i=1

f3 (x) = x21 + x2i [-10 10]n Cigar Function 30 0

n i=2

f4 (x) = (xi + 0.5)2 [-100 100]n Step Function 30 0

i=1n

f5 (x) = ix4i + rand() [-1.28 1.28]n Quadratic Function with Noise+ 30 0

i=1n1 2

f6 (x) = [xi + 2x2i+1 0.3 cos(3xi ) 0.4 cos(4xi+1 ) + 0.7] [-100 100]n Bohachevsky Function 30 0

i=1

1 n 1 n

f7 (x) = 20 exp(0.2 x2 ) exp[ cos(2xi )]

n i=1 i n i=1 [-32 32]n Ackley Function 30 0

+ 20 + e

n

1 n xi

f8 (x) = x2i cos( ) + 1 [-600 600]n Griewank Function 30 0

II 4000 i=1

i=1

i

n1

2

f9 (x) = sin (y1 ) + [(yi 1) (1 + 10(sin2 yi+1 ))]+

2

i=1

1 [-10 10]n Levy Function 30 0

(yn 1)2 (1 + sin2 (2yn )), yi = 1 + (xi + 1)

4

1 n1

f10 (x) = [sin2 (3x1 ) + (xi 1)2 (1 + sin2 (3xi+1 ))+

10 i=1

n

(xn 1)2 (1 + sin2 (2xn ))] + u(xi , 5, 100, 4)

i=1

[-50 50]n Penalized Function No. 1 30 0

k(x i a) m for x i >a

u(xi , a, k, m) = 0 for a xi a

k(x a)m for x < a

i i

n1

2

f11 (x) = [10 sin (y1 ) + (yi 1)2 (1 + 10 sin2 (yi+1 ))+

n i=1

n [-50 50]n Penalized Function No. 2 30 0

2 1

(yn 1) ] + u(xi , 10, 100, 4), yi = 1 + (xi + 1)

n i=1 4

f12 (x) = (x2i 10 cos(2xi ) + 10) [-5.12 5.12]n Rastrigin Function 30 0

i=1

n1

f13 (x) = (100(xi+1 x2i )2 + (xi 1)2 ) [-30 30]n Rosenbrock Function 30 0

i=1

n1

f14 (x) = [(n 1) ( yi + sin(50yi0.2 ) yi )]2 , yi = x2i + x2i+1 [-100 100]n Schaffer Function 30 0

n n

i=1

f15 (x) = |zi | + |zi |, z = M (x o) [-10 10]n SR Schwefels Problem 2.22* 30 0

i=1 i=1

n

1 n 2

zi

f16 (x) = z cos( ) + 1, z = M (x o) [-600 600]n SR Griewank Function* 30 0

III 4000 i=1 i i

i=1

n1

f17 (x) = sin2 (y1 ) + [(yi 1)2 (1 + 10(sin2 yi+1 ))]+

i=1

(yn 1)2 (1 + sin2 (2yn )), [-10 10]n SR Levy Function* 30 0

1

yi = 1 + (zi + 1), z = M (x o)

n 4

f18 (x) = (zi2 10 cos(2zi ) + 10), z = M (x o) [-5.12 5.12]n SR Rastrigin Function* 30 0

i=1

n1

f19 (x) = (100(zi+1 zi2 )2 + (zi 1)2 ), z = M (x o) [-30 30]n SR Rosenbrock Function* 30 0

i=1

n1

f20 (x) =[(n 1) ( yi + sin(50yi0.2 ) yi )]2 ,

i=1

[-100 100]n SR Schaffer Function* 30 0

yi = zi2 + zi+12 , z = M (x o)

* SR stands for Shifted and Rotated. o is a shifting vector and M is a transformation matrix. o and M can be optained from [22].

Technical Report No. TR-2003-004, Dept. of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Oct 2013.

14

TABLE III

S IMULATION R ESULTS OF SSA

SSA

Function

Mean Std. Best Median Worst

f1 1.6186e-32 1.0517e-32 5.1057e-35 1.5297e-32 3.7156e-32

f2 1.3793e-17 7.3177e-18 1.1512e-18 1.3011e-17 2.9631e-17

f3 2.3226e-29 1.7107e-29 1.4290e-31 1.9226e-29 5.8041e-29

f4 0.0000e+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000e+00 0.0000e+00 0.0000e+00

f5 4.8837e-03 1.0736e-03 2.4026e-03 5.0144e-03 6.2395e-03

f6 0.0000e+00 0.0000e+00 0.0000e+00 0.0000e+00 0.0000e+00

f7 1.3000e-13 8.3556e-14 1.5399e-14 1.0866e-13 3.3514e-13

f8 1.6209e-19 2.9188e-20 1.0842e-19 1.6263e-19 2.1684e-19

f9 2.1945e-32 5.1712e-33 1.4997e-32 2.1930e-32 3.2715e-32

f10 2.8745e-31 2.2674e-31 1.7195e-32 2.3906e-31 8.1099e-31

f11 4.7916e-30 6.2774e-30 1.8044e-32 2.1485e-30 2.4376e-29

f12 3.2436e+01 4.2338e+00 1.9838e+01 3.2854e+01 3.7810e+01

f13 1.1092e+01 4.7899e+00 1.2542e+00 1.2411e+01 1.7681e+01

f14 4.6586e-03 3.9105e-03 1.8089e-06 3.9915e-03 1.3157e-02

f15 4.4522e+00 7.8705e-01 2.1816e+00 4.5635e+00 5.4082e+00

f16 5.9628e-15 2.0881e-15 1.4640e-15 5.8443e-15 9.5542e-15

f17 5.2174e-24 5.7738e-24 3.3998e-27 3.0967e-24 2.2254e-23

f18 5.7430e+01 8.1881e+00 3.2834e+01 5.9698e+01 6.7658e+01

f19 2.3049e+01 2.1401e+00 1.5032e+01 2.3821e+01 2.5149e+01

f20 2.1660e-02 1.2571e-02 2.7821e-04 2.1166e-02 4.5124e-02

TABLE IV

C OMPARISON OF SSA AND OTHER A LGORITHMS

Mean 1.6186e-32 6.8150e-09 8.1429e-23 5.7379e-23 6.9435e-16 7.6896e-04 3.2867e-09 1.6481e-09

f1 9.2703e-163

Std. Dev. 1.0517e-32 2.6344e-09 8.1835e-23 5.4623e-23 1.2791e-16 1.6383e-04 1.8255e-09 4.1349e-09

Mean 1.3793e-17 5.4192e-02 4.8868e-07 1.1678e-11 1.7334e-15 2.0743e-02 2.2554e-03 9.9347e-06

f2 2.1131e-153

Std. Dev. 7.3177e-18 8.8430e-02 4.9112e-07 5.9390e-12 2.4011e-16 1.4435e-02 1.0986e-03 8.7398e-06

Mean 2.3226e-29 3.7126e-01 1.0779e+03 4.0695e-18 6.8511e-16 9.1086e+01 2.5335e-04 1.6283e+00

f3 4.7705e-160

Std. Dev. 1.7107e-29 7.2797e-01 1.0833e+03 4.3340e-18 1.1948e-16 2.6942e+01 1.4650e-04 3.0962e+00

Mean 0.0000e+00 6.1000e-01 3.3002e-01 0.0000e+00 0.0000e+00 0.0000e+00 0.0000e+00 4.0000e-02

f4 9.8282e-50

Std. Dev. 0.0000e+00 7.8607e-01 3.3166e-01 0.0000e+00 0.0000e+00 0.0000e+00 0.0000e+00 1.9596e-01

Mean 4.8837e-03 1.9698e+00 2.5199e+01 6.3510e-03 1.7375e-01 1.6558e-02 1.7591e-02 6.8862e-02

f5 3.5112e-155

Std. Dev. 1.0736e-03 8.2113e-01 2.5324e+01 1.7256e-03 3.2898e-02 1.4563e-02 4.8188e-03 3.4288e-02

Mean 0.0000e+00 3.8550e+00 4.6844e-01 0.0000e+00 4.4409e-18 6.3255e-01 5.2528e-01 9.4351e-03

f6 1.6954e-140

Std. Dev. 0.0000e+00 2.0668e+00 6.1064e-01 0.0000e+00 2.1756e-17 7.8789e-01 5.6932e-01 6.5779e-02

Mean 1.3000e-13 5.6722e-05 2.3919e-09 2.3620e-12 5.8371e-14 6.6434e-03 1.0809e+00 9.8148e-06

f7 2.9529e-158

Std. Dev. 8.3556e-14 1.2822e-05 2.4039e-09 1.0608e-12 8.6788e-15 7.6209e-04 8.6267e-01 1.2967e-05

Mean 1.6209e-19 3.7119e-10 8.1129e-03 2.2188e-04 3.2225e-11 1.8924e-03 1.0494e-04 2.6703e-02

f8 8.5670e-126

Std. Dev. 2.9188e-20 2.2458e-10 8.1534e-03 1.2617e-03 2.3664e-10 8.2919e-04 2.0042e-04 2.7549e-02

Mean 2.1945e-32 4.5492e-10 2.9160e-16 2.8334e-25 6.6181e-16 6.1718e-07 1.4246e-03 6.3460e-13

f9 3.3122e-163

Std. Dev. 5.1712e-33 2.2631e-10 2.9305e-16 3.0374e-25 9.3620e-17 1.4538e-07 1.1765e-02 1.1462e-12

Mean 2.8745e-31 7.4230e-03 2.2047e-02 6.1402e-24 2.1855e-12 3.0842e-04 2.2907e-04 6.6592e-04

f10 6.0028e-111

Std. Dev. 2.2674e-31 9.1295e-03 2.2157e-02 5.3827e-24 7.7601e-12 1.5625e-03 2.6535e-04 2.6358e-03

Mean 4.7916e-30 7.2568e-03 4.3000e-01 5.2051e-24 6.6371e-16 3.0179e-06 2.0087e-01 3.0510e-12

f11 3.6750e-162

Std. Dev. 6.2774e-30 2.6451e-02 4.3215e-01 5.0195e-24 1.1808e-16 7.1811e-07 2.3755e-01 7.1578e-12

Mean 3.2436e+01 7.6512e+00 7.5745e+00 1.6225e+02 2.2382e-15 3.2943e+01 6.4983e+01 1.8929e+00

f12 7.2468e-157

Std. Dev. 4.2338e+00 3.0786e+00 7.6123e+00 1.1805e+01 6.9420e-15 1.1565e+01 9.2798e+00 1.5826e+00

Mean 1.1092e+01 1.4781e+01 2.8118e+01 1.6402e+01 1.5035e+00 5.9410e+02 1.2948e+08 5.6297e+01

f13 2.5420e-127

Std. Dev. 4.7899e+00 2.2299e+01 2.8258e+01 1.2695e+01 2.0043e+00 1.6087e+03 1.0120e+09 3.7568e+01

Mean 4.6586e-03 3.1691e-05 6.5088e-02 6.5491e+00 1.8088e-03 8.1934e-03 9.4693e-02 1.1056e-03

f14 2.2519e-126

Std. Dev. 3.9105e-03 6.6392e-05 6.5412e-02 1.1718e+00 1.0109e-03 2.1510e-02 2.8809e-02 2.2111e-03

Mean 4.4522e+00 3.1990e+01 6.5780e-01 2.0712e-09 2.0378e+01 1.9008e-02 6.0074e+00 1.6142e+01

f15 5.7683e-155

Std. Dev. 7.8705e-01 1.2523e+00 9.8808e-01 2.4517e-09 2.0727e+01 1.4320e-02 5.3251e+00 1.4919e+01

Mean 5.9628e-15 2.6692e+00 1.0432e-02 7.3960e-05 7.3583e-11 1.8573e-03 1.0367e-03 8.2177e-03

f16 1.4636e-128

Std. Dev. 2.0881e-15 4.5269e-02 1.6043e-02 7.3590e-04 2.1860e-10 1.3790e-03 1.3265e-03 1.2332e-02

Mean 5.2174e-24 7.0841e+00 2.7163e-02 8.6993e-23 3.5888e+01 6.2336e-07 1.7457e+01 7.2391e-01

f17 3.9711e-160

Std. Dev. 5.7738e-24 7.2264e-05 1.5446e-01 9.9782e-23 5.1643e+00 1.3662e-07 6.8445e+00 1.8788e+00

Mean 5.7430e+01 4.2661e+02 6.5863e+01 1.8324e+02 1.6630e+02 3.0725e+01 1.1532e+02 7.7452e+01

f18 1.1481e-153

Std. Dev. 8.1881e+00 8.3767e+01 2.6207e+01 9.9285e+00 1.4618e+01 1.1185e+01 1.8382e+01 2.0511e+01

Mean 2.3049e+01 1.1908e+06 3.0758e+02 1.1821e+03 2.6697e+01 1.4113e+03 5.1723e+07 8.0138e+02

f19 2.4963e-109

Std. Dev. 2.1401e+00 5.8639e+04 7.0726e+02 3.3350e+03 2.6906e+00 2.8898e+03 4.9086e+08 1.5719e+03

Mean 2.1660e-02 1.7862e+00 2.1125e-01 8.3706e+00 2.6016e-01 8.3555e-03 3.7660e-01 2.9258e-01

f20 2.0179e-138

Std. Dev. 1.2571e-02 5.6554e-01 4.1501e-01 1.3529e+00 9.7776e-02 2.0417e-02 1.3835e-01 3.5404e-01

+ This p-value is generated by the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance.

Technical Report No. TR-2003-004, Dept. of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Oct 2013.

15

TABLE V

PAIR - WISE W ILCOXON S IGNED R ANK T EST R ESULTS

f1 PSO < SSA < DE < ABC < GSO < CS < GA < FA

f2 SSA < ABC < PSO DE < GSO < CS < FA < GA

f3 SSA < DE < ABC < CS < GA < GSO < FA < PSO

f4 ABC CS DE FA SSA GSO PSO < GA

f5 SSA < DE < CS FA < GSO < ABC < GA < PSO

f6 ABC DE SSA < GSO < CS FA PSO < GA

f7 ABC PSO < SSA < DE < GSO < GA < FA < CS

f8 DE < SSA < ABC < GA < CS < FA < PSO < GSO

f9 SSA < PSO < DE < ABC < GSO < GA < FA < CS

f10 SSA < DE < ABC < GSO < FA < CS < GA PSO

f11 SSA < DE < ABC < GSO < GA < FA < CS < PSO

f12 ABC < GSO < GA < FA SSA < PSO < CS < DE

f13 ABC < GA SSA < DE < PSO < GSO < FA < CS

f14 GA < GSO < ABC < FA SSA < PSO < CS < DE

f15 DE < FA < PSO < CS SSA < GSO ABC < GA

f16 DE < SSA < ABC < CS < FA < GSO PSO < GA

f17 PSO < SSA < DE < FA GSO < GA < CS < ABC

f18 FA < PSO SSA < GSO < CS < ABC < DE < GA

f19 SSA < ABC < DE FA GSO PSO < CS < GA

f20 FA < SSA < PSO < ABC GSO < CS < GA < DE

TABLE VI

R ANK S UMMARY OF S TATISTICAL A SSESSMENT R ESULTS

f1 2 7 1 3 4 8 6 5

f2 1 8 3.5 3.5 2 7 6 5

f3 1 5 8 2 3 7 4 6

f4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4

f5 1 7 8 2 6 3.5 3.5 5

f6 2 8 6 2 2 6 6 4

Sum 11 43 30.5 16.5 21 35.5 29.5 29

Order SSA < DE < ABC < GSO < CS < PSO < FA < GA

f7 3 6 1.5 4 1.5 7 8 5

f8 2 4 7 1 3 6 5 8

f9 1 6 2 3 4 7 8 5

f10 1 7.5 7.5 2 3 5 6 4

f11 1 5 8 2 3 6 7 4

f12 4.5 3 6 8 1 4.5 7 2

f13 2.5 2.5 5 4 1 7 8 6

f14 4.5 1 6 8 3 4.5 7 2

Sum 19.5 35 43 32 19.5 47 56 36

Order ABC SSA < DE < GA < GSO < PSO < FA < CS

f15 4.5 8 3 1 6.5 2 4.5 6.5

f16 2 8 6.5 1 3 5 4 6.5

f17 2 6 1 3 8 4.5 7 4.5

f18 2.5 8 2.5 7 6 1 5 4

f19 1 8 4.5 4.5 2 4.5 7 4.5

f20 2 7 3 8 4.5 1 6 4.5

Sum 14 45 20.5 24.5 30 18 33.5 30.5

Order SSA < FA < PSO < DE < ABC < GSO < CS < GA

Total SSA GA PSO DE ABC FA CS GSO

Sum 44.5 123 94 73 70.5 100.5 119 95.5

Order SSA < ABC < DE < PSO < GSO < FA < CS < GA

Technical Report No. TR-2003-004, Dept. of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Oct 2013.

16

TABLE VII

SSA PARAMETER S ENSITIVITY A NALYSIS R ESULTS

Parameter popSize

ra rj 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 150 200 300

0.01 -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/-

0.05 +/-/- +/-/- +/-/+ +/-/+ +/-/+ +/-/+ -/-/+ -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/-

0.1

0.1 -/-/- -/-/- -/+/+ -/-/+ -/+/+ -/-/- -/+/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/-

0.3 -/-/- -/-/- -/+/- -/-/+ -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/-

0.01 -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/-

0.05 +/-/- +/-/- +/-/+ +/+/+ +/-/+ +/-/+ -/-/- -/-/+ -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/-

0.5

0.1 -/-/- -/-/- -/+/+ -/+/+ -/+/+ -/+/- -/+/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/-

0.3 -/-/- -/+/- -/+/- -/-/+ -/+/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/-

0.01 -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- +/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/-

0.05 +/-/- +/+/- +/+/+ +/+/+ +/+/+ +/+/+ -/+/+ -/+/+ -/+/+ -/-/- -/-/- -/-/-

0.9

0.1 +/-/- -/+/- -/+/+ +/+/+ +/+/+ -/+/- -/+/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/-

0.3 -/-/- -/+/- -/+/- -/+/+ -/+/- -/-/- -/-/+ -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/-

TABLE VIII

C OMPARISON OF SSA WITH SSA- VBR AND SSA- JMP

Mean 1.6186e-32 7.5982e-30 1.0247e+04 Mean 4.7916e-30 1.0367e-03 5.1778e+06

f1 Std. Dev. 1.0517e-32 4.8058e-29 3.9729e+03 f11 Std. Dev. 6.2774e-30 1.0315e-02 4.4233e+06

p-value+ - 1.2343e-15 3.8939e-18 p-value+ - 8.7411e-17 3.8941e-18

Mean 1.3793e-17 2.9822e-02 7.1596e+01 Mean 3.2436e+01 4.6690e+01 2.2035e+02

f2 Std. Dev. 7.3177e-18 2.9672e-01 2.1250e+01 f12 Std. Dev. 4.2338e+00 1.0501e+01 3.5697e+01

p-value+ - 5.9886e-17 3.8955e-18 p-value+ - 2.6788e-16 3.8928e-18

Mean 2.3226e-29 3.2121e+00 1.0240e+08 Mean 1.1092e+01 3.8639e+01 1.2318e+09

f3 Std. Dev. 1.7107e-29 5.2661e+00 3.8158e+07 f13 Std. Dev. 4.7899e+00 2.5945e+01 8.6285e+08

p-value+ - 3.8963e-18 3.8933e-18 p-value+ - 1.9045e-16 3.8963e-18

Mean 0.0000e+00 0.0000e+00 1.0359e+04 Mean 4.6586e-03 1.4267e-01 8.1084e+00

f4 Std. Dev. 0.0000e+00 0.0000e+00 3.4085e+03 f14 Std. Dev. 3.9105e-03 2.2850e-01 3.5511e+00

p-value+ - 1.0000e+00 3.8902e-18 p-value+ - 2.3413e-17 3.8966e-18

Mean 4.8837e-03 1.5121e-02 5.4745e+00 Mean 4.4522e+00 9.7472e+00 8.4798e+01

f5 Std. Dev. 1.0736e-03 5.3973e-03 2.9087e+00 f15 Std. Dev. 7.8705e-01 1.2617e+01 1.2918e+01

p-value+ - 4.5308e-18 3.8966e-18 p-value+ - 1.0580e-15 3.8966e-18

Mean 0.0000e+00 8.5475e-03 2.7865e+04 Mean 5.9628e-15 1.0873e-02 9.7567e+01

f6 Std. Dev. 0.0000e+00 5.7840e-02 9.3677e+03 f16 Std. Dev. 2.0881e-15 1.2371e-02 3.4543e+01

p-value+ - 3.1250e-02 3.8933e-18 p-value+ - 7.1167e-18 3.8924e-18

Mean 1.3000e-13 7.2151e-08 1.9004e+01 Mean 5.2174e-24 1.8819e+00 4.6920e+01

f7 Std. Dev. 8.3556e-14 6.2557e-07 1.4653e+00 f17 Std. Dev. 5.7738e-24 4.5739e+00 1.4798e+01

p-value+ - 1.3103e-14 3.8913e-18 p-value+ - 1.3975e-17 3.8950e-18

Mean 1.6209e-19 2.9428e-02 9.2798e+01 Mean 5.7430e+01 1.0433e+02 2.4612e+02

f8 Std. Dev. 2.9188e-20 3.4996e-02 3.2780e+01 f18 Std. Dev. 8.1881e+00 2.1145e+01 3.8021e+01

p-value+ - 1.1166e-15 3.8937e-18 p-value+ - 3.8898e-18 3.8900e-18

Mean 2.1945e-32 1.0441e-29 4.3036e+01 Mean 2.3049e+01 3.1019e+01 1.2359e+09

f9 Std. Dev. 5.1712e-33 7.0947e-29 1.7863e+01 f19 Std. Dev. 2.1401e+00 1.3710e+01 8.8791e+08

p-value+ - 5.1617e-16 3.8948e-18 p-value+ - 2.9509e-15 3.8966e-18

Mean 2.8745e-31 8.0267e-27 2.5753e+07 Mean 2.1660e-02 6.2229e-01 9.2919e+00

f10 Std. Dev. 2.2674e-31 7.5469e-26 2.0365e+07 f20 Std. Dev. 1.2571e-02 6.8248e-01 3.9432e+00

p-value+ - 1.2371e-16 3.8946e-18 p-value+ - 5.9433e-18 3.8966e-18

+ This p-value is generated by the the Wilcoxon signed rank test.

- Solving TSP Using Hopfield ModelTransféré parNAAMI
- Bub Gb SeswxqphcukcTransféré parAlexandruClaudiuDaniel
- 06476566Transféré parashish88bhardwaj_314
- Yalcin2019 - Costos Comparativos de Tipos de Muros de Contención.Transféré parRobert Merino Cardenas
- Aedas R&DTransféré parMohamed Khalid
- 11M1WCE114 - Modeling and Simulation SolutionTransféré parVinita Verma
- Tabu search algorithm Distribution system reconfiguration using a modified Tabu Search algorithmTransféré parcachoelverdulero
- BSc Thesis - An Enhanced Communication Discrete Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm for the Travelling Salesman ProblemTransféré parPeter Popoola
- CT-4-BCA-601.docTransféré paralok gogoi
- Sk 049004012Transféré parNasdap
- G9921R.psTransféré parguidelli
- Mirjalili2016 Article DragonflyAlgorithmANewMeta-heu 2Transféré parZaighamAbbas
- GAPSO.pdfTransféré parPranata Agriawan
- InTech-Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm and Its Application to Generalized Assignment ProblemTransféré parbalaji_446913478
- Ecompass Tr 010Transféré parJagat Kumar Shrestha
- ECTutorial(Chap5 Found of PSO)Transféré parKrishna Reddy
- pillay_2008Transféré parVenkat Krishna
- 15.P.sathIYA 2009 Optimization of Friction Welding Parameters UsingTransféré parSyarif Hidayatullah
- Scia Engineer MOOT 2011 ENGTransféré parConan Edogawa
- An agent-based nurse rostering system under minimal staffingTransféré pardarkennimbus
- Q3Transféré parbadr am
- 1. Analysis of Supply Contracts With Total Minimum CommitmentTransféré parDonnie Praditya Sugiarto
- Tutorial-8.pdfTransféré parAnimesh Choudhary
- unit4 ORTransféré paranishvancha
- OptimaTransféré parMaryam Ahmad
- 04studentpaper01.pdfTransféré parHai Hoang
- A NEW APPROACH FOR SOLVING TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMTransféré parJournal 4 Research
- GATE Mathematics Paper-2005Transféré parRajkumar
- NITK Placement Gyan 2014.pdfTransféré parrajesh jalodiya
- Copy of Simplex-Ver_0.2.6Transféré parAndana Dede

- publist_sciex.pdfTransféré parIT Education
- MetricsTransféré parnithal01
- comments&actions.docxTransféré parnithal01
- FarTransféré parnithal01
- Kmeans Seg ColorTransféré parnithal01
- impact factorTransféré parsptbala
- Two Day Workshop on Introduction to Neural Network Toolbox & MATLAB-17Transféré parnithal01
- MarketTransféré parnithal01
- HRTransféré parnithal01
- My Shape FeatureTransféré parnithal01
- Stop WordsTransféré parnithal01
- TemplateTransféré parnithal01
- Harris DetectorTransféré parnithal01
- SubmissionTransféré parnithal01
- bio_appTransféré parnithal01
- ReferenceTransféré parnithal01
- RefTransféré parnithal01
- InsTransféré parnithal01
- Journal Impact FactorTransféré parnithal01
- Impact FactorTransféré parsasinfotech
- anna university ANNEXURE-2 journal listTransféré parKarthikeyan Vedanandam
- ChildTransféré parnithal01
- Application AreasTransféré parnithal01
- BackgroundTransféré parnithal01
- IrisTransféré parnithal01
- AutomatedTransféré parnithal01
- Impact FactorTransféré parnithal01
- 1Transféré parnithal01

- Dew PointTransféré parObinna E
- Performance of Compression-Ignition Engine MagadanTransféré parJohn Wilrich
- LCD.pdfTransféré parNgocan Huynh
- Chapter9_com.pdfTransféré parSiva Prasad Mamillapalli
- Where to Buy Moisture Barrier BagsTransféré parMolecular Sieves
- Activity Analysis and Linkages for Shelter EfficiencyTransféré parRezelle May Manalo Dagooc
- DVO Training Class Example ReportTransféré parpavan2711
- Employee HandookTransféré parReuben Seno Tsey
- Peddle powered washing machineTransféré parsahilkgupta
- Bonifacio Case DigestTransféré parMay Angelica Manzano-Teneza
- ELSA - Exploded View - Clutch Release MechanismTransféré parbm
- Intro IHS KingdomTransféré parAjendra Singh
- Khadim IPO ProspectusTransféré parVinoth S
- EQ Engineering PowerPoint PresentationTransféré parJunnoKaiser
- DELINEATION OF CADMIUM CONTAMINATED SOILS AROUND BUDDAH NALLAH (LUDHIANA) AND REMEDIAL MEASURES OF AFFECTED SOILSTransféré parGary Bhullar
- 100 OE4626 Case Study 1(1)Transféré parLiladhar Ganesh Dhoble
- Economics 146 Syllabus 033015Transféré parPj Sekhon
- Influence of Additives on the Drain Down Characteristics of Stone Matrix Asphalt MixturesTransféré parInternational Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology
- CEH v8 Labs Module 04 Enumeration.pdfTransféré parMehrdad
- Tda 7313Transféré parClaudiuMaxmiuc
- The Agriculturalist --Nov 2011 IssueTransféré parPatrick Maitland
- A LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODEL TO PREDICT INCIDENT SEVERITY USING TH.pdfTransféré parRabia Almamalook
- 50067260 File Aid TutorialTransféré parkaka_1234
- PROPOSED FINDINGS OR FACT and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ECF.pdfTransféré parWilliam N. Grigg
- ASMF 01-00-2012- APTransféré parRogerio
- WinGuard_X3_2016_20170110_3_Screen_ENTransféré parJuan Manuel Pardal
- Daily WritingTransféré parDennis Savvidis
- Ic3b1igo Notes in Criminal ProcedureTransféré parDominic Sarmen
- Leadership and ManagementTransféré parBilal Ezilmez
- resume updated 10-24-14Transféré parapi-296057161

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.