Xu, S., Ouyang, Z., Feng, J..
2020.
An Improved Multi-objective Particle Swarm Optimization. 2020 5th International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Applications (ICCIA). :19–23.
For solving multi-objective optimization problems, this paper firstly combines a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition (MOEA/D) with good convergence and non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGA-II) with good distribution to construct. Thus we propose a hybrid multi-objective optimization solving algorithm. Then, we consider that the population diversity needs to be improved while applying multi-objective particle swarm optimization (MOPSO) to solve the multi-objective optimization problems and an improved MOPSO algorithm is proposed. We give the distance function between the individual and the population, and the individual with the largest distance is selected as the global optimal individual to maintain population diversity. Finally, the simulation experiments are performed on the ZDT\textbackslashtextbackslashDTLZ test functions and track planning problems. The results indicate the better performance of the improved algorithms.
Cai, L., Hou, Y., Zhao, Y., Wang, J..
2020.
Application research and improvement of particle swarm optimization algorithm. 2020 IEEE International Conference on Power, Intelligent Computing and Systems (ICPICS). :238–241.
Particle swarm optimization (PSO), as a kind of swarm intelligence algorithm, has the advantages of simple algorithm principle, less programmable parameters and easy programming. Many scholars have applied particle swarm optimization (PSO) to various fields through learning it, and successfully solved linear problems, nonlinear problems, multiobjective optimization and other problems. However, the algorithm also has obvious problems in solving problems, such as slow convergence speed, too early maturity, falling into local optimization in advance, etc., which makes the convergence speed slow, search the optimal value accuracy is not high, and the optimization effect is not ideal. Therefore, many scholars have improved the particle swarm optimization algorithm. Taking into account the improvement ideas proposed by scholars in the early stage and the shortcomings still existing in the improvement, this paper puts forward the idea of improving particle swarm optimization algorithm in the future.
Gu, Y., Liu, N..
2020.
An Adaptive Grey Wolf Algorithm Based on Population System and Bacterial Foraging Algorithm. 2020 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Computer Applications (ICAICA). :744–748.
In this thesis, an modified algorithm for grey wolf optimization in swarm intelligence optimization algorithm is proposed, which is called an adaptive grey wolf algorithm (AdGWO) based on population system and bacterial foraging optimization algorithm (BFO). In view of the disadvantages of premature convergence and local optimization in solving complex optimization problems, the AdGWO algorithm uses a three-stage nonlinear change function to simulate the decreasing change of the convergence factor, and at the same time integrates the half elimination mechanism of the BFO. These improvements are more in line with the actual situation of natural wolves. The algorithm is based on 23 famous test functions and compared with GWO. Experimental results demonstrate that this algorithm is able to avoid sinking into the local optimum, has good accuracy and stability, is a more competitive algorithm.
Tousi, S. Mohamad Ali, Mostafanasab, A., Teshnehlab, M..
2020.
Design of Self Tuning PID Controller Based on Competitional PSO. 2020 4th Conference on Swarm Intelligence and Evolutionary Computation (CSIEC). :022–026.
In this work, a new particle swarm optimization (PSO)-based optimization algorithm, and the idea of a running match is introduced and employed in a non-linear system PID controller design. This algorithm aims to modify the formula of velocity calculating of the general PSO method to increase the diversity of the searching process. In this process of designing an optimal PID controller for a non-linear system, the three gains of the PID controller form a particle, which is a parameter vector and will be updated iteratively. Many of those particles then form a population. To reach the PID gains which are optimum, using modified velocity updating formula and position updating formula, the position of all particles of the population will be moved into the optimization direction. In the meanwhile, an objective function may be minimized as the performance of the controller get improved. To corroborate the controller functioning of this method, a non-linear system known as inverted pendulum will be controlled by the designed PID controller. The results confirm that the new method can show excellent performance in the non-linear PID controller design task.
Willcox, G., Rosenberg, L., Burgman, M., Marcoci, A..
2020.
Prioritizing Policy Objectives in Polarized Groups using Artificial Swarm Intelligence. 2020 IEEE Conference on Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Situation Management (CogSIMA). :1–9.
Groups often struggle to reach decisions, especially when populations are strongly divided by conflicting views. Traditional methods for collective decision-making involve polling individuals and aggregating results. In recent years, a new method called Artificial Swarm Intelligence (ASI) has been developed that enables networked human groups to deliberate in real-time systems, moderated by artificial intelligence algorithms. While traditional voting methods aggregate input provided by isolated participants, Swarm-based methods enable participants to influence each other and converge on solutions together. In this study we compare the output of traditional methods such as Majority vote and Borda count to the Swarm method on a set of divisive policy issues. We find that the rankings generated using ASI and the Borda Count methods are often rated as significantly more satisfactory than those generated by the Majority vote system (p\textbackslashtextless; 0.05). This result held for both the population that generated the rankings (the “in-group”) and the population that did not (the “out-group”): the in-group ranked the Swarm prioritizations as 9.6% more satisfactory than the Majority prioritizations, while the out-group ranked the Swarm prioritizations as 6.5% more satisfactory than the Majority prioritizations. This effect also held even when the out-group was subject to a demographic sampling bias of 10% (i.e. the out-group was composed of 10% more Labour voters than the in-group). The Swarm method was the only method to be perceived as more satisfactory to the “out-group” than the voting group.