[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/2001858.2001892acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

Comparing the performance of evolutionary algorithms for permutation constraint satisfaction

Published: 12 July 2011 Publication History

Abstract

This paper presents a systematic comparison of canonical versions of two evolutionary algorithms, namely Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) and Genetic Algorithm (GA), for permutation constraint satisfaction (permut-CSP). Permut-CSP is first characterized and a test case is designed. Agents are then presented, tuned and compared. They are also compared with two classic methods (A* and hill climbing). Results show that PSO statistically outperforms all other agents, suggesting that canonical implementations of this technique return the best trade-off between performance and development cost for our test case.

References

[1]
Tsang, E. Foundations of Constraint Satisfaction. Academic Press, London, 1993.
[2]
Solnon, C. Ants Can Solve Constraint Satisfaction Problems. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6, 4 (2002), 347--356.
[3]
Hogg, T., Huberman, B. A. and Williams, C. P. Phase transitions and the search problem. Artificial Intelligence, (811996), 1--15.
[4]
Prosser, P. An empirical study of phase transitions in binary constraint satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence, (811996), 81--109.
[5]
Holland, J. H. Adaptation In Natural and Artificial Systems. The University of Michigan Press, Michigan (USA), 1975.
[6]
Eberhart, R. and Kennedy, J. A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. City, 1995.
[7]
Kennedy, J. and Eberhart, R. Particle swarm optimization. City, 1995.
[8]
Hu, X., Eberhart, R. C. and Shi, Y. Swarm intelligence for permutation optimization: a case study of n-queens problem. IEEE Press, City, 2003.
[9]
Mendes, R., Kennedy, J. and Neves, J. The fully informed particle swarm: simpler, maybe better. Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on, 8, 3 (2004), 204--210.

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)Comparing the performances of six nature-inspired algorithms on a real-world discrete optimization problemSoft Computing10.1007/s00500-022-07466-1Online publication date: 12-Sep-2022

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
GECCO '11: Proceedings of the 13th annual conference companion on Genetic and evolutionary computation
July 2011
1548 pages
ISBN:9781450306904
DOI:10.1145/2001858

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 12 July 2011

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. constraint satisfaction
  2. csp
  3. genetic algorithm
  4. pso

Qualifiers

  • Poster

Conference

GECCO '11
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,669 of 4,410 submissions, 38%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 22 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)Comparing the performances of six nature-inspired algorithms on a real-world discrete optimization problemSoft Computing10.1007/s00500-022-07466-1Online publication date: 12-Sep-2022

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media