Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 15





The difficulties associated with using mathematical optimization on large-scale engineering

problems have contributed to the development of alternative solutions. Linear programming
and dynamic programming techniques, for example, often fail (or reach local optimum) in
solving NP-hard problems with large number of variables and non-linear objective functions.
To overcome these problems, researchers have proposed evolutionary-based algorithms for
searching near-optimum solutions to problems.
Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) are stochastic search methods that mimic the metaphor of
natural biological evolution and/or the social behaviour of species. Examples include how
ants find the shortest route to a source of food and how birds find their destination during
migration. The behaviour of such species is guided by learning, adaptation, and evolution. To
mimic the efficient behaviour of these species, various researchers have developed
computational systems that seek fast and robust solutions to complex optimization problems.
The first evolutionary-based technique introduced in the literature was the genetic algorithms
(Gas). GAs were developed based on the Darwinian principle of the survival of the fittest
and the natural process of evolution through reproduction. Based on its demonstrated ability
to reach near-optimum solutions to large problems, the GAs technique has been used in many
applicationsin science and engineering. Despite their benefits, GAs may require long
processing time for a near optimum solution to evolve. Also, not all problems lend
themselves well to a solution with GAs.


2.1 Definition

Its a procedure to make a system or design as effective, especially involving the

mathematical techniques.
To minimize the cost of production or to maximize the efficiency of production.
Its a technique to:
Find Best Solution
Minimal Cost (Design)
Minimal Error (Parameter Calibration)
Maximal Profit (Management)
Maximal Utility (Economics)

The optimization of systems and processes is veryimportant to the efficiency and economics
of many scienceand engineering domains. Optimization problems aresolved by using
rigorous or approximate mathematical search techniques. Rigorous approaches have
employed linear programming, integer programming, dynamic programming or branch-and-
bound techniques to arrive at the optimum solution for moderate-size problems. However,
optimizing real-life problems of the scale often encountered in engineering practice is much
more challenging because of the huge and complex solution space. Finding exact solutions to
these problems turn out to be NP-hard. This kind of complex problem requires an exponential
amount of computing power and time, as the number of decision variables increases
(Lovbjerg 2002). To overcome theseproblems, researchers have proposed
approximateevolutionary-based algorithms as a means to search for near-optimum solutions.


2.2 Types of Optimization Algorithms

o Mathematical Algorithms
Simplex (LP), BFGS (NLP), B&B (DP)
o Drawbacks of Mathematical Algorithms
LP: Too Ideal (All Linear Functions)
NLP: Not for Discrete Var. or Complex Fn., Feasible Initial
Vector, Local Optima
DP: Exhaustive Enumeration, Wrong Direction
o Meta-Heuristic Algorithms

Existing Nature-Inspired Algorithms

3.1 Definition
The shuffled frog-leaping algorithm is a memetic metaheuristicthat is designed to seek a
global optimal solutionby performing a heuristic search.It is based on the evolutionof memes
carried by individuals and a global exchange ofinformation among the population.
The SFLA (Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm) is presented by Eusuff and Lansey
(2003) is a meta-heuristic iterative method inspired from the memetic evolution of a
group of frogs when seeking for food.
The SFLA is a method which is based on observing, imitating, and modelling the
behaviour of a group of frogs when searching for the location that has the maximum
amount of available food .

The SFL algorithm, in essence, combines the benefits of the genetic-based MAs and the
social behavior-based PSO algorithms. In the SFL, the population consists of a set of frogs
(solutions) that is partitioned into subsets referred to as memeplexes. The different
memeplexes are considered as different cultures of frogs, each performing a local search.
Within each memeplex, the individual frogs hold ideas, that can be influenced by the ideas of
other frogs, and evolve through a process of memetic evolution. After a defined number of
memetic evolution steps, ideas are passed among memeplexes in a shuffling process.The
local search and the shuffling processes continue until defined convergence criteria are

3.2 Pseudocode for SFL algorithm

Generate random population of P solutions (frogs);
For each individual i2P: calculate fitness (i);
Sort the population P in descending order of their

Divide P into m memeplexes;

For each memeplex;
Determine the best and worst frogs;

Improve the worst frog position;
Repeat for a specific number of iterations;
Combine the evolved memeplexes;
Sort the population P in descending order of their
Check if terminationZtrue;

3.3 Conventional shuffled frog leaping algorithm

The SFLA originally developed as a population-based metaheuristic to perform an informed
heuristic search using mathematical functions to find a solution of a combinatorial
optimization problem. Itcombines the benefits of both the genetic-based memetic algorithm
(MA) and the social behavior-basedparticle swarm optimization algorithm.In SFLA, there is
a population of possible solutions defined by a set of frogs that is divided intosubgroups
called memeplexes, each performing a local search. After a defined number of
memeticevolution steps, ideas are passed among memeplexes in a shuffling process. At first,
an initial population of P frogs is created randomly within the feasible space. For an S
variableproblem, ith frog is represented as
Xi = (xi1, xi2, , xiS).
Then, the frogs are sorted in a descending orderaccording to their fitness. Then, the whole of
population (P) is separated into m memeplexes, eachcontaining n frogs. In this procedure, the
first frog moves to the first memeplex, the second frog movesto the second memeplex, frog m
moves to the m-th memeplex, and frog m+1 goes back to the firstmemeplex, etc.

Within each memeplex, position of frogs with the best and worst fitness is determined as Xb
and Xw,respectively. Also position of frog with the global best fitness is determined as Xg.
Then, in eachmemeplex, a process is applied to improve only the frog with the worst fitness
(not all frogs) in eachcycle as follows:

Di = Rand()(Xb Xw) ......(1)

XwNEW Xw= Di......(2)

where Rand() is a random number between 0 and 1. If this process generates a better solution,
the worstfrog will be replaced. Otherwise, the calculations in (1) and (2) are repeated with
replacement of Xbby Xg. If no improvement becomes possible in this case, then a new
solution is randomly generatedwithin the feasible space to replace the worst frog.

3.4 Improvement of conventional Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm

In this section, the presented classic SFLA is improved. As equation (1-2) represents, the
worst frogtries to find a better place by jumping toward the best frog. But as the random
operator is within 0 and1, only the space between the two frogs is searched. However, as the
space beyond the best frog (theother side of the best frog) might be a suitable place of
solution, there should be a possibility so that thefrog could search that area as well. So the
random operator is adjusted to rand (1, 1.75) in order toprovide a chance to search the other
side of the best frog. 1.75 is chosen according to the authorsexperiences in different
The other different of ISFLA from the conventional one is that in conventional SFLA, all the
elementsof Xb-Xw in (28) are multiplied in the same random value. In ISFLA, for each
element of Xb-Xw, arandom value is generated and multiplied in (2). It should be noticed that
ISFLA will come as SFLAin the results of this paper.

3.5 A modified shuffled frog-leaping algorithm

In the SFL algorithm, each memeplex is allowed to evolveindependently to locally search at
different regions of thesolution space. In addition, shuffling all the memeplexesand re-
dividing them again into a new set of memeplexesresults in a global search through changing
the informationbetween memeplexes. As such, the SFL algorithm attemptsto balance between
a wide search of the solution space anda deep search of promising locations that are close to
alocal optimum. As expressed by equation , each individual frog(solution) in a memeplex is
trying to change its positiontowards the best frog within the memeplex or the overallbest
frog. As shown in this equation, when the difference inposition between the worst frog Xw
(i.e. the frog underevolution) and the best frogs (Xb or Xg) becomes small, change in frog
Xws position will be very small, and thus itmight stagnate at a local optimum and lead to
To overcome such an occurrence, this studyproposes that the right-hand side of equation
bemultiplied by a factor C called the search acceleration

factor, as follows:

Change in frog position: (Di) = rand ( ).C. (Xb Xw)

Assigning a large value to the factor C at the beginning of the evolution process will
accelerate the global search byallowing for a bigger change in the frogs position
andaccordingly will widen the global search area. Then, as theevolution process continues
and a promising location isidentified, the search acceleration factor, C, will focus
theprocess on a deeper local search as it will allow the frogs tochange its positions.


4.1 Procedure of SFLA

SFLA is a memetic meta-heuristic and a population-based cooperative search metaphor

inspired by natural memetics. The algorithm contains elements of local search and global
information exchange. The SFLA consists of a set of interacting virtual population of frogs
partitioned into different memeplexes. The virtual frogs act as hosts or carriers of memes
where a meme is a unit of cultural evolution. The algorithm performs simultaneously an
independent local search in each memeplex. The local search is completed using a particle
swarm optimization-like method adapted for discrete problems but emphasizing a local
search. To ensure global exploration, the virtual frogs are periodically shuffled and
reorganized into new memplexes in a technique similar to that used in the shuffled complex
evolution algorithm. In addition, to provide the opportunity for random generation of
improved information, random virtual frogs are generated and substituted in the population.

Steps of SFLA is given as follows:

1) Population consists of a set of frogs
2) Those frogs are partitioned into subsets referred to as memeplexes
3) Each memeplexes performing a local search for the food.
4) After a defined number of evolution steps, ideas are passed among memeplexes in a
shuffling process
5) The local search and the shuffling processes continue until defined convergence
criteria are satisfied.


4.2 Flow chart of SFLA


4.3 Analytical Process

An initial population of P frogs is created randomly. For S-dimensional problems (S

variables), a frog i is represented as XiZ(xi1, xi2,., xiS). Afterwards, the frogs are sorted in a
descending order according to their fitness. Then, the entire population is divided into m
memeplexes, each containing n frogs (i.e. PZm!n). In this process, the first frog goes to the
first memeplex, the second frog goes to the second memeplex, frog m goes to the mth
memeplex, and frog mC1 goes back to the first memeplex, etc.

Within each memeplex, the frogs with the best and the worst fitnesses are identified as Xb
and Xw, respectively. Also, the frog with the global best fitness is identified as Xg. Then, a
process similar to PSO is applied to improve only the frog with the worst fitness (not all
frogs) in each cycle.
Accordingly, the position of the frog with the worst fitness is
adjusted as follows:

Change in frog position (Di)= rand( ) (Xb-Xw)

New position Xw
Current position= Xw+Di; Dmax Di -Dmax

where rand( ) is a random number between 0 and 1; andDmax is the maximum allowed
change in a frogs position. If this process produces a better solution, it replaces the worst
frog. Otherwise, the calculations in Eqs. (8) and (9) are repeated but with respect to the global
best frog (i.e.Xg replaces Xb). If no improvement becomes possible in this case, then a new
solution is randomly generated toreplace that frog. The calculations then continue for
aspecific number of iterations . Accordingly, the mainparameters of SFL are: number of frogs
P; number ofmemeplexes; number of generation for each memeplexbefore shuffling; number
of shuffling iterations; andmaximum step size.



SFLA has been used as appropriate tools to obtain the best solutions with the least total time
and cost by evaluating unlimited possible options. One of the problems of previous research
is that assumptions make them unrealistic in comparison with actual construction projects.
On the other hand, delay events during execution of activities have an important impact on
total time and cost of projects. Therefore, the authors attempt to make the model better
approximate real projects by considering splitting during execution of activities.
Compare non-dominated solutions ofSFLA by applying splitting to previous works in GA
and NSGA-II. Results in both TCO andTCRO models demonstrate improvement of solutions,
convergence ratio, and the processingtime to reach the optimum solution. It confirms that
SFLA improves results, by comparing results before applying. Since in this case, we do not
have any limit for resources, the impact of splitting on concepts of time-cost trade off and
resource allocation has been investigated. The values of improvement demonstrate that
splitting has significant impact on final results.

Benchmarkcomparisons among the algorithms are presented for both continuous and discrete
optimization problems, in terms of processing time,convergence speed, and quality of the
results. Based on this comparative analysis, the performance of EAs is discussed along with
someguidelines for determining the best operators for each algorithm. The study presents

sophisticated ideas in a simplified form that should bebeneficial to both practitioners and
researchers involved in solving optimization problems.
SFLA has been used as appropriate tools to obtain the best solutions with the least total time
and cost by evaluating unlimited possible options. Thevalues of improvement demonstrate
that shuffled frog leaping algorithm has significant impact on efficiency of various aspects.



In this paper a optimization method known as shuffled frog leaping algorithm has been
described. It comes under the type evolutionary algorithms which means those algorithms
which are prepared by observing the typical natural biological evolutions and behaviour of
natural species such as ants, birds, bees, frogs etc.
A brief description of shuffled frog leaping algorithm method is presented along with a
pseudocode to facilitate its implementation. Visual Basic programs were written to
implement each algorithm. Also presented were the comparative results found when a
discrete optimization test problem was solved using all five algorithms. The PSO method was
generally found to perform better than other algorithms in terms of success rate and solution
quality, while being second best in terms of processing time.
Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) are stochastic search methods that mimic the natural
biological evolution and/or the social behavior ofspecies. Such algorithms have been
developed to arrive at near-optimum solutions to large-scale optimization problems, for
which traditionamathematical techniques may fail.

The main contributions of this report are:

Implementation of evolutionary algorithms in various field because of their reliability
and simple implementation.
Introducing and improving a rather recent optimization algorithm known as shuffled
frog leaping algorithm.
Performing a comparison to show the override of SFLA in competition with 4
versions of evolutionary algorithm. Also, SFLAs high quality performance is



[1] Al-Tabtabai H, Alex PA. Using genetic algorithms to solve optimization problems in
construction. EngConstrArchit Manage 19996:12132.
[2] Duan, Q.Y., Gupta, V.K. and Sorooshian, S., Shuffled complex evolution approach
for effective and efficient global minimization. J. Optimization Theory Appns, 1993,
76, 502 521.
[3] Elbeltagi, E., Hegazy, T. and Grierson, D., Comparison among five evolutionary-
based optimization algorithms. J. Adv. Engng. Informatics, 2005, 19, 43 53.
[4] Eusuff, M.M. and Lansey, K.E., Optimization of water distribution network design
using the shuffled frog leaping algorithm. J. Water Resour. Planning Mgmt, 2003,
129, 210 225.
[5] Feng, C., Liu, L. and Burns, S., Using genetic algorithms to solve construction time
cost trade-off problems. J. Comput. Civil Engng, 1997, 11, 184 189.
[6] Hegazy T. Optimization of construction time-cost trade-off analysis using genetic
algorithms. Can J Civil Eng 1999;26:68597.
[7] Hegazy, T., Elbeltagi, E. and Elbehairy, H., Bridge deck management system with
integrated life cycle cost optimization. Transportation.
[8] Holland, J., Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, 1975 (University of
Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI).
[9] Kennedy, J. and Eberhart, R., Particle swarm optimization, in Proceedings IEEE
International Conference on Neural Networks, IEEE Service Center, Piscataway, NJ,
pp. 1942 1948, 1995.