Dynamic Selection Parameter Based Differential Evolution Algorithm

1
Avjeet Singh,

Research Scholar, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology Allahabad, Allahabad

1
avijeet.mnnit.cs@gmail.com

Abstract: Differential evolution is a standout amongst the most effective nature-inspired algorithm which is utilized to
solve the complex problems. In DE algorithm, start the maximum generation of function evaluation so increase the
computation cost. In this paper, dynamic selection based parameter has been utilized for enhancing the execution of
differential evolution algorithms. Proposed selection parameter enhances the convergence speed. Comparisons with other
DE variants such as DE-F, JADEb, DE, DEAE, DEb, DE-PAL, CMAES, MVDE establishes that the proposed dynamic selection
parameter can enhance the execution of differential evolution algorithm.

Index term- Differential evolution algorithm, Endocrine, COCO Platform

I. INTRODUCTION Algorithm 1 Basic Differential Evolution:

Worldwide optimization problem-solving methods 1: procedure DEA

are appropriate for each complex problem and 2: Population initialization
provide the best test solution in terms of true Evaluate the fitness value
3: Apply Mutation Strategy
minimum optimum, fast convergence rate, a
4: Generate a doner vector:
minimum number of control parameters, which are
γi, G = {γ1,i, G , γ 2i, G,……… γ D, i, G }
easy to use for the real application. In 1995, Storn and 5: Apply crossover Strategy
Price introduced the “Differential Evolution” 6: Generate a trial vector:
algorithm in 1995, which is a population-based ̃ i, G +1 = ( ⃗1i, G+1, ⃗2i, G+1……., ⃗Di, G+1, )
stochastic search algorithm for constraint and 7: Apply Selection Strategy
unconstrained persistent optimization problems. 8: A better Solution schema is used
DE is a preferred optimization technique due to 9: If the condition meets then termination
10: end procedure
following reasons [1, 14]:

 DE has only three parameters to i.e. F

(Mutation), Cr (Crossover) and NP (Population
Size) to control the algorithm and to be
controlled for improving the performance of
DE.
 DE has the reduce computation cost.
 DE is easy to implement for different
application such as engineering and statics.
The essential differential evolution algorithm is
depicted in algorithm 1. Fundamentally, DE searches
for a goes through four steps i. e. initialization,
mutation, crossover and selection.
Dynamic selection parameter to prevent solutions on
converging local and global optimal solutions, new
parameter schema are proposed in this paper of DE is
designed. This variant is named as Dynamic Selection
parameter Based on Differential Evolution Algorithm
(DSPDE) because this variant initiate to maintain the
same environment which was created during initial
generations. To check the performance of proposed
dynamic selection based parameter, these algorithms
are compared with other standard DE algorithms.
Performance analysis shows that these variants
outperform other variants of DE.

The Performance of DE relies upon control parameter
so the trouble for changing the parameters in low to a
higher measurement. It is not suitable parameter so
increases the generation in high measurement for
local and global search. The parameter changes the
total execution; it isn't a decent outcome, at that point
changes the parameter. Some related constant value
is not effective in keeping up diversity higher
measurement problem. Utilizing the dynamic
selection parameter, the convergence rate of DE
algorithm can be made strides.
Whatever is left of the paper is sorted out as takes
after; section II gives a basic concept of DE. In
section III related work is given, in section IV
proposed approach using dynamic selection based
parameter is clarified, Section V describes
experimental result and analysis with comparing
variants of DE and in section VI conclusion and
future work of this paper is depicted.
II. Basic Concepts OF DE
 Differential Evolution [17] is a random population-
based algorithm for continuous function optimization.
Basically, a population of NP and D-dimensional
parameter vectors is involved in differential evolution
that encodes candidate solutions that are III.
⃗⃗i, G = { ⃗⃗1i, G, ⃗⃗2i, G …………⃗⃗Di, G}
where { i= 1, 2, 3........NP }, G is the of generation,
D is a dimension and a population consists of NP
parameter vectors ⃗⃗i, G .
Mutation:
This mutation operator to prolificacy a donor vector
⃗⃗i,G with regard to each of individual target vectors
⃗⃗i, G in current population. For each target vector ⃗⃗i, G
at the generation G, it's relating a donor vector is
generated:
⃗⃗i,G = { ⃗⃗⃗ 1, i, G , ⃗⃗ i, G,……… ⃗⃗ D, i, G } can be generated
by
⃗⃗i,G = ⃗⃗ + δ. (⃗⃗ - ⃗⃗ ) which are quickly depicted underneath.
Where r1 ≠ r2 ≠ r3 ≠ i, randomly chosen indexes
r1, r2 , r3 ∈ [1, NP ]. F is a real number (F ∈ [0, 2]) that
controls the addition of the difference vector ⃗⃗
⃗⃗ ).
Crossover:
After completion of mutation phase, crossover is
used to generate trail vector of each pair of target
vector ⃗⃗r,G and its corresponding donor vector ⃗⃗i,G + 1
as follows:
̃ i, G +1 = ( ⃗1i, G+1, ⃗2i, G+1……., ⃗Di, G+1, )
Trail vector:
̃ j, G +1 = ⃗⃗⃗ji,G+1, if r(j) ≤ CR or j = rn(i)
⃗ i,G, if r(j) > CR and j ≠ r n (i)
Where J = 1, 2, 3, 4 ... D, r (j) ϵ [0,1], j the evaluation
of a uniform random generator number, CR is the
crossover constant [0,1], rn(i) ϵ (1,2,...D) is a
arbitrarily picked index which guarantees that ̃ j, G +1
gets at least one element from ⃗ji,G+1,
Selection: Apply better selection scheme:
̃ i, G +1, if f( ̃ i, G +1) < f (⃗⃗i,G ) for main prob.
⃗⃗i,G+1, = ⃗⃗i,G, otherwise
For j = 1, 2, 3, 4….., D. if trail vector ⃗i,G+1, yields a
superior cost function value than target ⃗⃗i,G, then
⃗i,G+1, is set to ⃗⃗i,G+1 ; generally, the old value ⃗⃗i,G is
held.. Till now many variants of DE have been
developed that are detailed in further section 3.
Related Works
Differential evolution performs well in standard
benchmark test functions and true improvement
issues [14] such as multi-objective, non-convex, non-
differential, non-linear constraints and dynamic
components [1, 14, 28]. DE confronted is the
fundamental issues:
Mutation strategies and control parameters need to
be decided well before the application of DE in
problem-solving.
Every optimization problem needs a particular choice
of mutation factor and control parameters [14].
For improving the execution and utilization of DE,
numerous variations of DE for continuous, Single-
objective and Multi-objective optimization problems
and with various decision rules have been produced
Jason Teo [30] proposed (DESAP) two procedures:
Utilize an absolute encoding technique and use
-
relative encoding strategy for population measure.
The proposed algorithm with dynamic self-adjusting
population sizes performed better from regular
differential evolution algorithms with static
populations and furthermore demonstrated that an
absolute encoding strategy for self-adjusting
population delivered a superior outcome from relative
encoding philosophy.
In 2003 [15] Proposed a hybrid PSO termed as
DEPSO with DE operator. This uses bell-shaped
mutation with accord on the population diversity
along with the evolution while retaining the self-
organizing PSO dynamics. To diminish the
computational time and enhance the execution of DE,
Tasoulis et al. [3] proposed its parallelization in a
virtual parallel condition, in 2004. The proposed
model maps an aggregate subpopulation to a
processor, enabling diverse subpopulations to make
autonomously towards a solution.
R. Mallipeddi et al. [31] proposed a utilize a troupe of
mutation procedures and control parameters with the
DE that is (EPSDE). The author demonstrates a pool
of distinct mutation techniques alongside a pool of
qualities for each control parameter exists together all
through the evolution procedure. The execution of
EPSDE is assessed on the arrangement of benchmark
issues and contrasted with the conventional DE and a
few several state-of-the-art parameter versatile DE
variations.
In 2014, Rahul A. Sarkar et al. [33] proposed a
powerfully three arrangements of the parameter:
amplification factor, hybrid rate and population size
of an issue over the span of a solitary run. The
execution of the proposed algorithm is broken down
 to three arrangements of optimization test issues, two diversity. Maintain the diversity so required the
of them are obliged and the third one is an dynamic selection based parameter. The dynamic
unconstrained test issue. The proposed algorithm selection based parameter to randomly choose
spares the computational time by 14.48 percent in constant value according to population size. This
contrast with a DE algorithm with a solitary blend of initial function evaluation (increase or decrease)
parameters. based dynamic selection based parameter. A
10] Proposed DE/current-to-Rand/utilizing number proposed strategy that follows the concept of
juggling recombination, which supplanted binomial
(DSPDE \ rand \ 1), these procedures explain in
crossover methodology with rotationally invariant
algorithm 2.
math line recombination operator that is utilized to
produce the trial vector utilizing a linear combination Algorithm 2 (DSPDE \ rand \ 1)
of the target vector and it’s comparing donor vector.
[32] Proposed the (DynDE) for solving a dynamic
optimization problem using DE and describe random: 1: Procedure Start
F and CR parameters. 2: Population initialization.
Quantum individuals, Brownian individuals, and 3: Dynamic Selection Parameter
entropic differential evolution are compared to each 4: F dynamic selection (0.1 to 2)
other for increasing the diversity during the run. 5: Cr dynamic selection (0.1 to 1)
In 2003[5], Fan and Lampinen, proposed a variant of 6: Evaluate the fitness value.
DE using trigonometric mutation operator with a 7: Mutation Strategy
probability of Mt = 0.05 and the mutation strategy 8: Generate a donor vector:
with a probability of (1-Mt). ⃗⃗i,G = ⃗⃗ + δ. (⃗⃗ - ⃗⃗ )

Omran et al. [11] presented SDE with a scaling factor 9: Crossover Strategy
parameter (self-versatile) utilizing mutation factor F. 10: Generate a trail vector: Apply the binomial
CR esteem for every person from an ordinary crossover
dissemination N (0.5, 0.15) was created by the self- 11: Selection Strategy
versatile parameter.
In 2008, Zhang, Min et al. [36] proposed (DSS-MDE) 12: Evaluate fitness of ⃗⃗i,G and ⃗i,G+1
dynamic stochastic determination for the structure of 13: if un_improved _solutions ≥ ((5* NP) /5)
multimember differential evolution to take care of the then
compelled issues. The proposed approach 14: counter _index = conter_index + 1
demonstrates dynamic altering settings for 15: end if
examination likelihood, by analyses and experiments 16: if counter _index ≥ 3 then
and the convergence speed up by the dynamic setting. 17: ⃗⃗ i,G = ( rand* rand /2 * ⃗⃗i,G)
18: else if Fitness of ⃗⃗⃗ i,G is better than parent
In 2008, Das et al. [43], has proposed a plan, in which then
by obtaining a vector distinction operator from DE, 19: selection as solution
the execution of PSO has been enhanced regarding 20: end if
solution quality, time to discover the solution 21: Choose best Vectors, but not improve then go to
(convergence speed), the recurrence of discovering dynamic selection parameter.
ideal solution and versatility. 22: If conditions met then termination.
23: end procedure
IV. Proposed Approach

DE performance depends on control parameter and 1) Selection Strategy:

these control parameters have to be changed per time.
Differential evolution suffers from the problem
change of control parameter different dimension. Its
solutions local and global search space as a number
of generation increases, this shows that its control
parameter is not good to handle to increases the
generation on a different dimension. This difficulty
removes by dynamic selection based parameter.
In this approach, this parameter is mutation (F) and
crossover (Cr) change value because it is not a better
solution then apply the dynamic selection based
parameter. DE start solution then increases the
generation of function evaluation where the lost
Find the Better candidate solution and comparing
fitness population. If the counter index becomes
greater than three we use of the vectors and see if
they have better fitness. The better solution saves the
archive and comparing the old solution with a new
solution. After comparing the best candidate solution
and replace the archive in old solution [7]. Explain
the procedure in algorithm 2.
2) Dynamic selection based parameter:
If the total number of vectors is not improved the
convergence rate and improves diversity. So, change
the mutation factor and crossover value. Then apply
 for dynamic parameter such that δ scale factor and
crossover value TABLE II
Benchmark Function
Cr. δ = random/2 + (0.0 to 1). Random value selects
on population size in dimension.
V. Experimental Results Group f# Function name

The COCO stage has been utilized for the Black- Separable
F1 Sphere
Box-Optimization-Benchmarking (BBOB) 24 F2 Ellipsoidal
noiseless test functions [4] and clarifies in table II. F3 Rastrigin
These variants verify in COCO framework with F4 Bache Rastrigin
F5 Linear Slope
respect to given criteria:

1) Comparing proposed variant Dynamic

Selection Parameter Based Differential Low or moderate conditioning F6 Attractive
Evolution Algorithm Using (DSPDE) with DE F7 Step Ellipsoidal
variants DE-PAL, MVDE , DE, DEAE, F8 Rosenbrock, original
F9 Rosenbrock, rotated
CMAES, DE-F, JADEb, DEb on the
dimensions 2D, 3D, 10D, 20D & 40D all Unimodal with high conditioning F10 Ellipsoidal
functions(f1-f24), Multi-model with weak F11 Discus
global (f20-f24) and Multi-model (f15-f19). F12 Bent Cigar
F13 Sharp Ridge
F14 Different Powers
2) Empirical (cumulative) distribution functions
(ECDF) of running length in 20D.

3) Expected running time (ERT) loss ratio of Multi-modal with adequate

proposed variants on 20-dimension. global structure F15 Rastrigin
F16 Weierstrass
F17 Schaffers F7
TABLE 1 F18 Schaffers F7
CONTROL PARAMETERS moderately ill conditioned
F19 Composite Griewank-
Rosenbrock F8F2
S.No. Parameters Types

1. Population Size(NP) 50
2. Mutation(Scale factor) Δ[0 -2] Multi-modal with
Weak global structure F20 Schwefel
3. Crossover Rate Cr[0 - 1] F21 Gallaghers
4. Dimension (Low) [2, 3, & 5] Gaussian 101-me Peaks
5. Dimension(High) [10, 20 & 40] F22 Gallaghers
Gaussian 21-hi Peaks
F23 Katsuura
A. Testing Framework & Benchmark Functions F24 Lunacek bi-Rastrigin

EBDE is tried utilizing COCO structure. The Search

Space is [-5, 5], an i.e. vector can have the donor and
trail vector inside area [-5, 5]. Majority of benchmark
A. Result Analysis
capacities has optima in [-4, 4] space. The issue is
tried for minimization. Fifteen instances of each Proposed variant DSPDE these compared with
function were taken. The terminal conditions are standard DE algorithms JADEb [23], DE [16], DEAE
either work assessments or an accuracy of more [22], DEb [23], DE-PAL [24], CMAES [26], MVDE
than . EBDE-variations utilize the different [25], DE-F[27] on the dimensions 2D, 3D, 5D, 10D,
parameters the estimation of which is clarified as 20D & 40D. These standard DE algorithm available
population measure is taken as 50. The population data set on http://coco.gforge.inria.fr.
estimate is settled. Control parameter clarifies in table
1. The most extreme number of functional
evaluations FE is 10000*D, where D is the
dimension. The analyses were done on a PC with
Intel Core i5 CPU with a speed of 3.40GHz,
introduced memory (RAM) 4 GB, operating system
Windows 10 Pro 64 bit and x64 based processor.
Fig.1. Comparing graph proposed and standard DE in 2-D Fig.4. Comparing graph proposed and standard DE in 20-D

Fig.2. Comparing graph proposed and standard DE in 3-D Fig.5. Comparing graph proposed and standard DE in 40-D

Fig.3. Comparing graph proposed and standard DE in 10-D Fig.6. Comparing graph proposed and standard DE in 2-D
Fig.7. Comparing graph proposed and standard DE in 3-D Fig.10. Comparing graph proposed and standard DE in 40-D

Fig.8. Comparing graph proposed and standard DE in 10-D Fig.11.ECDF convergence graph for achieving target functions in
20-D

Fig.9. Comparing graph proposed and standard DE in 20-D

Fig.12. ERT loss graph for achieving target functions in 20-D
1) Multi-Model with weak global (F20-F24) }
Justify the result analysis for improving the
convergence rate in the multi-model with weak global
structure. To test comparing performance in best
2009 during observed target function proposed
variants explain the better performance are DSPDE
on 2-dimension showing in figure 1, DSPDE on 3-
dimension showing in figure 2, DSPDE on 10-
dimension showing in figure 3, DSPDE on 20-
dimension showing in figure 4, DSPDE on 40-
dimension showing in figure 5.
2) All functions (F1-F24):
Black Box optimization Benchmark function (F1 -
F24) in ERT (Expected Running Time) "best 2009"
line observed during for each single target. To test
comparing performance proposed approach with
standard DE algorithms in best 2009 during observed
target function . Explain in given below
Verify the improve the convergence rate for
proposed variants are DSPDE on 2-dimension
showing in figure 6, DSPDE on 3-dimension showing
in figure 7, DSPDE on 10-dimension showing in
figure 8, DSPDE on 20-dimension showing in figure
9, DSPDE on 40-dimension showing in figure 10.
3) ECDF:
The running time of an ECDF number of function
evaluations partitions search space dimension (D) for
ECDF of the best-accomplished fopt + f with f =
Where n = {1, -1, -4, -8}. These n values mean best-
achieve a target of difficulty on a set of 24 benchmark
function trails for two algorithms best 2009 line and
proposed EBDE variants. Check the ECDF run length
of two algorithms in 20-dimension explains shown in
fig. [11].
4) Expected Run Time performance
ERT (Expected Run Time) of the loss ratios of
achieving the target precision for expected run length
compared to best 2009 line on 20-dimension.
Proposed variants explain in figure [12].
POSITION OF DSPDE VARIANTS ON TEN STANDARD ALGORITHMS OVER BBOB BENCHMARK FUNCTIONS
Group Dimension Proposed DE Variants
All Function (f1-f24) 2 1-DSPDE
3 1-DSPDE
10 1-DSPDE
20 1-DSPDE
40 1-DSPDE
VI. Conclusion
In this paper applying, a dynamic selection based
parameter to improve convergence rate for high
dimension in the search space. In DE algorithm, start
the maximum generation of function evaluation
applies the dynamic selection approach. In this
approach provide the maintain diversity in local and
global search space.
REFERENCES
[1] Das, Swagatam, and Ponnuthurai Nagaratnam Suganthan,
Differential evolution: a survey of the state-of-the-art
Evolutionary Computation, pp. 4-31, IEEE Trans. on
Evolutionary Computation, Vol. 15, No. 1, Feb. 2011.
[2] D. Zaharie, Critical values for the control parameters of
differential evolution algorithms, pp. 62-67, Proc. 8th Int.
Mendel Conf. Soft Comput., 2002.
[3] D. K. Tasoulis, N. G. Pavlidis, V. P. Plagianakos, and M. N.
Vrahatis, Parallel differential evolution, pp. 2023-2029 in
Proc. Congr. Evol. Comput., 2004.
[4] http://coco.gforge.inria.fr/.
[5] H.Y. Fan and J. Lampinen, A trigonometric mutation
operation to differential evolution, pp. 105-129, J. Global
Optimization, vol. 27, no. 1, 2003.
[6] IztokFajfar, JanezPuhan, SaoTomai, and rpdBrmen, On
Selection in Differential Evolution, pp. 275-280,
ELEKTROTEHNI KI VESTNIK , English Edition, 2011.
[7] J. Zhang, A. C. Sanderson, JADE: Adaptive differential
evolution with the optional external archive, pp. 945 IEEE
Trans. on Evol. Comput. 13 (5) 2009.
[8] J. Brest, S. Greiner, B. Bo skovi c, M. Mernik, and V.Zumer,
Self-adapting control parameters in differential evolution: A
comparative study on numerical benchmark problems, pp.
646-657 IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., vol. 10, no. 6, Dec. 2006.
. [9] J. Ronkkonen, S. Kukkonen, and K. V. Price, Real parameter
optimization with differential evolution, pp. 506-513 Proc.
IEEE CEC, vol. 1, 2005.
[10] K. V. Price: An introduction to differential evolution, in New
Ideas in Optimization, D. Corne, M. Dorigo, and V. Glover,
pp. 79-108, Eds. London, U.K.: McGraw-Hill, 1999.
[11] M. G. H. Omran, A. Salman, and A. P. Engelbrecht, Self-
adaptive differential evolution, pp. 192-199, in Proc.
Comput. Intell. Security, Lecture Notes in Artificial
Intelligence 3801. 2005.
[12] N. Noman and H. Iba, Accelerating differential evolution
using an adaptive local search, pp. 107-125, IEEE Trans. Evol.
Comput., vol. 12, no. 1, Feb. 2008.
TABLE III
DE Variants Other Optimization Algorithm
2-DE 5-CMAES
2-DE -PAL 4-CMAES
2-JADEb 4-CMAES
2-DEAE 4-CMAES
2-DEAE 4-CMAES
[13] Qinqin Fan and Xuefeng Yan, Self-adaptive differential
evolution algorithm with discrete mutation control
parameters, pp. 1551-1572, Expert Systems with
Applications: An International Journal, Volume 42 Issue 3,
and February 2015.
[14] [2] Ruhul A. Sarker, Saber M. Elsayed, and Tapabrata Ray,
Differential Evolution With Dynamic Parameters Selection
for Optimization Problems, pp. 689-707, IEEE Transaction on
Evolutionary Computation, VOL. 18, NO. 5, OCTOBER 2014.
[15] [3] Storn, Rainer, and Kenneth Price, Differential
Evolution€”A Simple and Efficient Adaptive Scheme for
Global Optimization Over Continuous Spaces, International
Computer Science Institute, Berkeley. Berkeley, CA (1995),
1995.
[16] [4] [15] W. B. Langdon and R. Poli, Evolving problems to
learn about particle swarm optimizers and other search
algorithms, pp. 561-578, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., vol. 11,
no. 5, Oct. 2007.
[17] W. B. Langdon and R. Poli, Foundations of Genetic
Programming, New York: Springer-Verlag, 2002.
[18] Wenchao Yi, Liang Gao, Xinyu Li and Yinzhi Zhou, A new
differential evolution algorithm with a hybrid mutation
operator and self-adapting control parameters for global
optimization problems, pp. 642-660, ApplIntell (2015) 42,
2015.
[19] Xinyu Zhou, Zhijian Wu, Hui Wang and Shahryar
Rahnamayan, Enhancing differential evolution with role
assignment scheme, pp. 2209-2225, Soft Compute (2014) 18,
2014.
[20] Z. Yang, J. He and X. Yao, Making a difference to differential
evolution, pp. 415-432, in Advances in Metaheuristics for
Hard Optimization, Eds. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2007.
[21] Petr Pok and Vclav Klem, Benchmarking the Differential
Evolution with Adaptive Encoding on Noiseless Functions,
GECCO 12, Philadelphia, PA, USA, July 2012.
[22] Petr Pok and Vclav KlemĄ, "JADE, an Adaptive Differential
Evolution Algorithm, Benchmarked on the BBOB Noiseless
Testbed", GECCO 12, Philadelphia, PA, USA, July 2012.
[23] Lszl PAl, Benchmarking a Hybrid Multi-Level Single Linkage
Algorithm on the BBOB Noiseless Testbed, GECCO 13,
Amsterdam, Netherlands, July 2013.
[24] Vincius Veloso de Melo, "Benchmarking the Multi-View
Differential Evolution on the Noiseless BBOB-2012 Function
Testbed, GECCO 12, Philadelphia, PA, USA, July 2012.
[25] Frank Hutter, Holger Hoos and Kevin Leyton-Brown, An
Evaluation of Sequential Model-Based Optimization for
Expensive Blackbox Functions, GECCO 13, Amsterdam,
Netherlands, July 2013.
[26] Ryoji Tanabe and Alex Fukunaga, Tuning Differential
Evolution for Cheap, Medium, and Expensive Computational
Budgets, CEC-BBOB-2015, 2015.
[27] K. Price, R. Storn, and J. Lampinen, "Differential Evolution€”
A Practical Approach to Global Optimization", Berlin,
Germany: Springer, 2005.
[28] Sarker, Ruhul A., Saber M. Elsayed, and Tapabrata Ray.
"Differential Evolution with Dynamic Parameters Selection
for Optimization Problems." IEEE Trans. Evolutionary
Computation 18.5 (2014).
[29] Bck, Thomas, and Hans-Paul Schwefel. "An overview of
evolutionary algorithms for parameter optimization."
Evolutionary computation 1.1 (1993): 1-23.
[30] Teo, Jason. "Exploring dynamic self-adaptive populations in
differential evolution." Soft Computing-A Fusion of
Foundations, Methodologies, and Applications 10.8 (2005):
673-686.
[31] Mallipeddi, Rammohan, et al. "Differential evolution
algorithm with an ensemble of parameters and mutation
strategies." Applied Soft Computing 11.2 (2011): 1679-1696.
[32] Mendes, Rui, and Arvind S. Mohais. "DynDE: a differential
evolution for dynamic optimization problems." Evolutionary
Computation, 2005. The 2005 IEEE Congress on. Vol. 3. Ieee,
2005.
[33] Sarker, Ruhul A., Saber M. Elsayed, and Tapabrata Ray.
"Differential Evolution with Dynamic Parameters Selection
for Optimization Problems." IEEE Trans. Evolutionary
Computation 18.5 (2014): 689-707.
[34] A. K. Qin, V. L. Huang and P. N. Suganthan, "Differential
Evolution Algorithm With Strategy Adaptation for Global
Numerical Optimization," in IEEE Transactions on
Evolutionary Computation, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 398-417, April
2009.doi: 10.1109/TEVC.2008.927706
[35] Storn, Rainer, and Kenneth Price. "Differential evolution a
simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over
continuous spaces." Journal of global optimization 11.4
(1997): 341-359.
[36] Zhang, Min, Wenjian Luo, and Xufa Wang. "Differential
evolution with dynamic stochastic selection for constrained
optimization." Information Sciences 178.15 (2008)
[37] Brest, Janez, et al. "High-dimensional real-parameter
optimization using self-adaptive differential evolution
algorithm with population size reduction." Evolutionary
Computation, 2008. CEC 2008.IEEE World Congress on
Computational Intelligence). IEEE Congress on. IEEE, 2008.
[38] Islam, Sk Minhazul, et al. "An adaptive differential evolution
algorithm with novel mutation and crossover strategies for
global numerical optimization." IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics) 42.2
(2012): 482-500.
[39] Neri, Ferrante, and Ville Tirronen. "Recent advances in
differential evolution: a survey and experimental analysis."
Artificial Intelligence Review 33.1-2 (2010): 61-106.
[40] Yildiz, Ali R. "A new hybrid differential evolution algorithm
for the selection of optimal machining parameters in milling
operations." Applied Soft Computing 13.3 (2013): 1561-
1566.
[41] Lu, Youlin, et al. "An adaptive hybrid differential evolution
algorithm for dynamic economic dispatch with valve-point
effects." Expert Systems with Applications 37.7 (2010): 4842-
4849.
[42] Brest, Janez, et al. "Dynamic optimization using self-adaptive
differential evolution." Evolutionary Computation, 2009.
CEC'09. IEEE Congress on. IEEE, 2009.
[43] Yuan, Xiaohui, et al. "A hybrid differential evolution method
for dynamic economic dispatch with valve-point effects."
Expert systems with applications 36.2 (2009): 4042-4048.
[44] Das, Swagatam, Ajith Abraham, and Amit Konar. "Particle
swarm optimization and differential evolution algorithms:
technical analysis, applications, and hybridization
perspectives." Advances in computational intelligence in
industrial systems (2008): 1-38.
[45] Lu, Youlin, et al. "Chaotic differential evolution methods for
dynamic economic dispatch with valve-point effects."
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 24.2 (2011):
378-387.