2018
DOI: 10.1007/s40430-017-0927-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A modified butterfly optimization algorithm for mechanical design optimization problems

Abstract: This paper presents a modified butterfly optimization algorithm (MBOA) for solving mechanical design optimization problems. The modification is focused on an additional intensive exploitation phase which provides more chance to solutions to improve itself. The performance of the proposed algorithm is validated on fifteen benchmark test functions and three engineering design problems which have different natures of objective functions, constraints and decision variables. The experimental results are analyzed in… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
45
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 69 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 61 publications
1
45
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Table 3 Comparison of the proposed algorithm MICA with respect to OICA [19] , SAEA [9] , SMES [16] , RCEA [17] , ISEA [26] on 13 benchmark functions. "NA" presents not results Methods Function Optimal Status OICA [19] SAEA [9] SMEA [16] RCEA [17] ISEA [26] MICA The compared results in Table 2 verifies that MICA has the capability in convergence rate, and the compared results in Table 3 reflects the fact that our algorithm is capable of performing a robust and stable search. Furthermore, feasible solutions are consistently found for all test problems in Table 1.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Table 3 Comparison of the proposed algorithm MICA with respect to OICA [19] , SAEA [9] , SMES [16] , RCEA [17] , ISEA [26] on 13 benchmark functions. "NA" presents not results Methods Function Optimal Status OICA [19] SAEA [9] SMEA [16] RCEA [17] ISEA [26] MICA The compared results in Table 2 verifies that MICA has the capability in convergence rate, and the compared results in Table 3 reflects the fact that our algorithm is capable of performing a robust and stable search. Furthermore, feasible solutions are consistently found for all test problems in Table 1.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, the global and local search is not effectively controlled due to the use of a simple probability switch [31]. Thus, two other studies introduced limited improvement by including an additional search phase [32] and chaotic maps [31]. The chaotic maps improve the global search slightly; however, adding the extra search step increases the computation time of the algorithm.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Note that the MSE does not reflect the original error because the error is squared (32). To avoid the scaling problem associated with MSE, the root MSE (RMSE) is suggested because it does not treat each error in the same manner.…”
Section: ) Parametric Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mostly often, constraint handling optimization algorithm used in classical optimization methods can be classified into two types: one is generic methods that do not exploit the mathematical structure of the constraint, such as the penalty function method [5], lagrange multiple method [6], and some intelligence optimization search heuristic algorithms, e.g., enhanced grey wolf optimization algorithm [7], surrogate-assisted evolutionary optimization method [8], modified butterfly optimization algorithm [9] chaotic grey wolf optimization algorithm [10], and enhanced grey wolf optimisation algorithm [11] and the other is special methods that used to solve these problems with specific types of constraints, such as the cutting place method [12] the gradient projection method [13] the quasi-Newton method [14] and the steepest descent method [15].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Comparison of the proposed algorithm MICA with respect to OICA[19], SAEA[9], SMES[16], RCEA[17], ISEA[26] on 13 benchmark functions. "NA" presents not results.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%