A method of data path allocation by pattern matching on the data flow graph

Hirakawa, Yusuke; Yoshida, Maki; Harashima, Katsumi; Fukunaga, Koichi

doi:10.1109/vlsisp.1995.527497

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using traditional methods to find optimal solutions for certain optimisation problems are time consuming and computationally expensive, whereas using heuristic search algorithms, such as the genetic algorithm (GA), take much less time and computational resources. However, heuristic algorithms cannot guarantee the optimality of the solutions obtained (Hirakawa et al, 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive multi-crossover evolutionary algorithm for real-world optimisation problems

Moh'

Shambour

2019

IJRIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) have been extensively used since their invention. EAs are considered as a powerful tool to solve numerous optimisation problems in various fields. Their search mechanisms have been actively developed to improve their search efficiency toward global optima solutions. This study aims to investigate the effects of using different types of recombination (crossover) schemes. It introduces an adaptive version of EA called adaptive multi-crossover evolutionary algorithm (AMCEA). The proposed AMCEA offers multiple forms of heuristic crossover operators based on genetic algorithm (GA) and harmony search algorithm (HSA). The proposed technique improves the search attitude by allowing the effective utilisation of exploration and exploitation strategies during the evolution process. The quality of the proposed AMCEA is evaluated on six real-world numerical optimisation problems (IEEE-CEC2011), and results are compared with those obtained with five variants of GA and HSA. Results demonstrate the superiority of the AMCEA over previously improved algorithms in terms of solution quality; it achieves the lowest mean results and lowest best results in 75% and 66% of the total experiment cases, respectively.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%