Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sara Golyari
Department of Computer
Engineering and Information
Technology
Amirkabir University of Technology
Tehran, Iran
mmeybodi@aut.ac.ir
I.
INTRODUCTION
In water world, fishes can find areas that have more foods,
which it is done with individual or swarm search by fishes.
According to this characteristic, artificial fish model is
represented by prey, free move, swarm movement and follow
behaviors which the problem space is searched by them. The
environment, which artificial fish lives in, substantially is
solution space and other artificial fishes domain. Food
consistence degree in water area is AFSA objective function.
Finally, artificial fishes reach to a point which its food
consistence degree is maximum (global optimum).
As in figure 1 is observed, artificial fish perceive external
concepts with sense of sight. Current situation of artificial fish
is shown by vector X=(x1, x2, , x n). The visual is equal to
sight field of artificial fish and X v is a position in visual where
the artificial fish wants to go there. Then if X v has better food
consistence than current situation, we go one step toward it
which causes change in artificial fish situation from X to X next,
but if the current position is better than X v, we continue
browsing in visual area. The step is equal to maximum length
of the movement, the distance between two artificial fishes
which are in X i and X j positions is shown by d ij=|| Xi-X j||
(Euclidean distance).
Artificial fish model consists of two parts of variables and
functions that variables include X (current artificial fish
situation), step (maximum length step), visual (sight field),
try-number (maximum test interactions and tried) and crowd
factor (0<<1). Also functions consist of prey behavior, free
move behavior, swarm behavior and follow behavior.
In each step of optimization process, artificial fish look for
locations with better fitness values in problem search space by
performing these four behaviors based on algorithm
procedure[6][9][10][12].
Figure 1.
III.
TABLE I.
Test Function
Search Space
2
i 1 i
f1 ( x) x
D
f 3 ( x ) i 1 100 xi 1 x i2
x
2
f 4 ( x) i 1 xi 0.5
n x
n
x
f 5 ( x) i1 i i1 cos i 1
i
4000
0. 2
f 6 ( x ) 20 e 20 e
TABLE II.
Name of Function
[-100,100]
0.01
Sphere
[-5.12,5.12]D
50
Rastrigin
[-50,50]D
100
Rosenbrock
[-100,100]D
Step
[-600,600]D
0.01
Griewank
i 1 xi2
1
n
i 1 cos 2xi
[-32,32]D
0.01
Ackly
COMPARISON OF THE B EST, AVERAGE AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF RESULTS OF 100 PERFORMANCES OF STANDARD AFSA, GPSO, CPSO
AND PROPOSED ALGORITHM OF AFSA-CLA ON SIX T EST F UNCTIONS IN 10-DIMENSIONALL SPACE .
Function
Sphere
Rastrigin
Rosenbrock
Step
Griewank
Ackly
TABLE III.
1
n
Acceptable Result
Criteria
Best
Mean
Std-Dev
Best
Mean
Std-Dev
Best
Mean
Std-Dev
Best
Mean
Std-Dev
Best
Mean
Std-Dev
Best
Mean
Std-Dev
Std-AFSA
0.2354
2.0285
1.5621
0.0033
2.7421
2.1856
9.5455
33.0628
30.9376
0
3.7500
2.7120
0.0359
0.0953
0.0468
0.9329
1.8405
0.4888
GPSO
5.3421e-29
4.2920e-25
1.7007e-24
1.7860e-09
2.6951
1.3950
4.5222e-04
1.6954e+04
5.7883e+04
0
0
0
2.5538e-11
0.0058
0.0235
2.6645e-15
1.2523e-13
1.3657e-13
CPSO
2.4373e-101
1.8709e-96
4.0624e-96
0
0
0
1.1007e-04
27.5790
13.1006
0
0
0
4.8849e-15
0.0720
0.1362
2.6641e-15
5.5067e-15
2.7519e-15
AFSA-CLA
1.3675e-105
2.6440e-105
9.6107e-106
0
0
0
1.9865e-04
4.3539
9.1519
0
0
0
1.1102e-15
0.1031
0.1331
2.6641e-15
4.7501e-15
2.6473e-15
COMPARISON OF THE B EST, AVERAGE AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF RESULTS OF 100 PERFORMANCES OF STANDARD AFSA, GPSO, CPSO
AND PROPOSED ALGORITHM OF AFSA-CLA ON SIX T EST F UNCTIONS IN 30-DIMENSIONALL SPACE.
Function
Sphere
Rastrigin
Rosenbrock
Step
Griewank
Ackly
Criteria
Best
Mean
Std-Dev
Best
Mean
Std-Dev
Best
Mean
Std-Dev
Best
Mean
Std-Dev
Best
Mean
Std-Dev
Best
Mean
Std-Dev
Std-AFSA
410.2043
728.1900
183.2601
77.5419
162.0464
34.2185
8.5567e+04
1.7816e+05
6.6751e+04
383
667.6500
184.6787
4.0010
6.9563
1.5048
5.7284
6.8145
0.5602
GPSO
2.9765e-07
6.3979e-06
1.0412e-05
20.0214
38.4314
12.2041
21.9464
1.2242e+07
3.6004e+07
0
0
0
1.7090e-05
0.0701
0.1258
9.4971e-05
7.9296e-04
7.0334e-04
CPSO
4.7452e-98
3.9427e-94
1.3722e-93
0
0
0
0.0016
29.2735
13.2391
0
0
0
1.1102e-15
0.4278
0.3954
1.3322e-14
2.5401e-14
6.2695e-15
AFSA-CLA
3.1917e-104
5.2775e-104
8.5608e-105
0
0
0
0.0033
9.6354
12.7490
0
0
0
4.4408e-16
0.3500
0.3737
1.3322e-14
2.3092e-14
5.5128e-15
Figure 2. Comparison of results average obtained from 100 performances of standard AFSA, GPSO, CPSO and proposed algorithm of AFSA-CLA on (a) sphere,
(b) rastrigin, (c) Rosenbrock, (d) step, (e) griewank and (f) Ackly functions in 30-dimensional space for 1000 iterations.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
VI.
CONCLUSION
[4]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]