algorithms

Article
Particle Swarm Optimization Based on a Novel Evaluation
of Diversity
Haohao Zhou and Xiangzhi Wei *

Intelligent Manufacturing and Information Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-159-0191-7804

Abstract: In this paper, we propose a particle swarm optimization variant based on a novel evaluation
of diversity (PSO-ED). By a novel encoding of the sub-space of the search space and the hash
table technique, the diversity of the swarm can be evaluated efficiently without any information
compression. This paper proposes a notion of exploration degree based on the diversity of the swarm
in the exploration, exploitation, and convergence states to characterize the degree of demand for
the dispersion of the swarm. Further, a disturbance update mode is proposed to help the particles
jump to the promising regions while reducing the cost of function evaluations for poor particles. The
effectiveness of PSO-ED is validated on the CEC2015 test suite by comparison with seven popular
PSO variants out of 12 benchmark functions; PSO-ED achieves six best results for both 10-D and 30-D.

Keywords: particle swarm optimization; diversity; swarm intelligence

1. Introduction
Inspired by the emergent motion of the foraging behavior of a flock of birds in nature,



the particle swarm optimization (PSO) was first proposed by Kennedy and Eberhart [1,2] in


1995 to solve the continuous nonlinear optimization problems. Compared with other evo-
Citation: Zhou, H.; Wei, X. Particle
lutionary algorithms, the PSO has attracted much attention since it was proposed because
Swarm Optimization Based on a
of its fewer control parameters and better convergence. Nowadays, PSO has been widely
Novel Evaluation of Diversity.
used in many fields, such as communication networks [3,4], medicine engineering [5–7],
Algorithms 2021, 14, 29.
task scheduling [8,9], energy management [10], linguistics studies [11], supply chain man-
https://doi.org/10.3390/a14020029
agement [12] and neural networks [13,14].
Despite its robustness for solving complex optimization problems, rapid convergence
Received: 14 January 2021
Accepted: 18 January 2021
may cause the swarm to be easily trapped into some local optima when solving multimodal
Published: 20 January 2021
problems via PSO [15–22]. Therefore, reasonably using the swarm’s exploration ability
(global investigation of the search place) and exploitation ability (finer search around a
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
local optimum) is a crucial factor for PSO’s success, especially for complex multimodal
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
problems having a large number of local minima. For this purpose, several PSO variants
published maps and institutional affil- have been reported. In the following, we shall discuss three main types: PSO with adjusted
iations. parameters, PSO with various topology structures, and PSO with hybrid strategies.
PSO with adjusted parameters: It is evident that appropriate control parameters, such
as the inertia weight ω and the acceleration coefficients c1 and c2 , have significant effects
on the exploration and exploitation abilities of the swarm. By increasing the value of
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
ω significantly diversity of the swarm increases while increasing the values of c1 and c2
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
accelerates the particles towards the historical optimal position or the optimal position of
This article is an open access article
the whole swarm. Zhan [15] proposed an adaptive particle swarm optimization (APSO)
distributed under the terms and algorithm in 2009, which updated control parameters (ω, c1 and c2 ) adaptively based
conditions of the Creative Commons on the distribution of positions and fitness of the swarm. Zhang et al. [23] proposed an
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// inertia weight adjustment scheme based on Bayesian techniques to enhance the swarm’s
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ exploitation ability. Tanweer et al. [24] proposed a PSO algorithm (SRPSO) that employed a
4.0/). self-regulating inertia weight strategy to the best particle to enhance the exploration ability.

Algorithms 2021, 14, 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/a14020029 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/algorithms

Algorithms 2021, 14, 29 2 of 16

Taherkhani [25] proposed an adaptive approach which determines the inertia weight in
different dimensions for each particle, based on its performance and distance from its
best position.
PSO with various topology structures: PSO with different topology structures, namely:
improved fixed topology structures, dynamic topology structures, and multi-swarms, have
been shown to be efficient in controlling the exploration and exploitation capabilities [26–28].
Kennedy [29] proposed a small-world social network and studied different topologies’
influences on PSO algorithms’ performances. It was found that sparsely connected net-
works were suitable for complex functions, and densely connected networks were useful
for simple functions.
Suganthan [30] first introduced the concept of dynamic topologies for PSO, where sub-
swarms (each was a particle initially) were gradually merged as the evolution progressed.
Cooren et al. [28] proposed an adaptive PSO called TRIBES, which were multiple sub-
swarms with independent topological structures changing over time. Bonyadi et al. [31]
presented dynamic topologies by growing the sub-swarms’ sizes, merging the sub-swarms.
Zhang [32] proposed DEPSO, which generated a weighted search center based on top-k
elite particles to guide the swarm.
Bergh and Engelbrecht [33] divided a d-dimension swarm into k (k < d) sub-swarms
and made sub-swarms cooperated by exchanging their information (e.g., the best particle).
Blackwell and Branke [34] proposed a multi-swarm PSO for dynamic functions with the op-
timal values changing over time. Liang’s group [35,36] presented a dynamic multi-swarm
PSO with small sub-swarms frequently regrouped using various schedules. Xu et al. [37]
hybridized the dynamic multi-swarm PSO with a new cooperative learning strategy in
which the worst two particles learned from the two better sub-swarms. Chen et al. [21]
proposed a dynamic multi-swarm PSO with a differential learning strategy. It combined
the differential mutation into PSO and employed Quasi-Newton method as a local searcher.
PSO with hybrid strategies: To improve the performances of PSO, combining ex-
cellent strategies into PSO has been shown to be an effective approach. For example,
Mirjalili et al. [38] combined PSO with gravitational search algorithm for efficiently training
feedforward neural networks. Zhang et al. [39] combined PSO with a back-propagation
algorithm to efficiently train the weights of feedforward neural networks. Nagra et al. [40]
developed a hybrid of dynamic multi-swarm PSO with a gravitational search algorithm
for improving the performance of PSO. Zhan et al. [41] combined PSO with orthogonal
experimental design to discover an excellent exemplar from which the swarm can quickly
learn and speed up the searching process. Bonyadi et al. [31] hybridized PSO with a
covariance matrix adaptation strategy to improve the solutions in the latter phases of the
searching process. Garg [42] combined PSO with genetic algorithms (GA): creating a new
population by replacing weak particles with excellent ones via selection, crossover, and
mutation operators. Plevris and Papadrakakis [43] combined PSO with a gradient-based
quasi-Newton SQP algorithm for optimizing engineering structures. N. Singh and S.B.
Singh [44] combined PSO with grey wolf optimizer for improving the convergence rate
of the iterations. Raju et al. [45] combined PSO with a bacterial foraging optimization
for 3D printing parameters of complicated models. Visalakshi and Sivanandam [46] com-
bined PSO and the simulated annealing algorithm for processing dynamic task scheduling.
Kang [47] introduced opposition-based learning (OBL) into PSO to improve the swarm’s
performance in noisy environments. Cao et al. [48] embedded the comprehensive learning
particle swarm optimizer (CLPSO) with local search (CL) to take advantage of both the
exploration ability of CLPSO and the exploitation ability of CL.
Many scholars have conducted intensive research on the theory and applications of the
PSO algorithms. However, there are still some shortcomings. For example, the parameter
adaptive adjustment strategy cannot truly reflect the evolution of the population, and the
particle swarm cannot effectively jump out of local optimal areas. To address these issues,
a particle swarm optimization variant based on a novel evaluation of diversity (PSO-ED) is
proposed in this paper and the major innovation is listed as follows:
Algorithms 2021, 14, 29 3 of 16

1. We propose a novel approach to compute swarm diversity based on the particles’

positions. By a series of encoding operations on the sub-space of the search space
and the aid of hash table, the diversity can be determined in O( Ns D ) time, and
it can reflect the distribution of the swarm without any information compression.
Section 3.2.1 details the related techniques.
2. We proposed a novel notion of exploration degree based on the diversity in the
exploration, exploitation, and convergence states. It reflects the degree of demand for
the swarm’s dispersion, and it can be used to realize adaptive update of the inertial
weight of the PSO’s velocity function. Section 3.2.3 details the related techniques.
3. We proposed a disturbance update mode based on the particles’ fitness. We replace
the positions of the poor particles with new positions obtained by disturbing the best
position. It saves the cost of function evaluations and improves convergence efficiency.
Section 3.5 details the related techniques.

2. Related Work
2.1. Standard PSO
PSO is a population-based stochastic optimization algorithm introduced in 1995 by
Kennedy and Eberhart without inertia weight [1,2]. Since the introduction of inertia weight
was introduced by Shi and Eberhart [49] in 1998, it has shown its power in controlling the
exploration and exploitation processes of evolution (Equations (1) and (2)).
   
vid (t + 1) = ωvid (t) + c1 r1 Pid (t) − xid (t) + c2 r2 Pgd (t) − xid (t) (1)

xid (t + 1) = xid (t) + vid (t + 1) (2)

When
 1 searching in a D-dimensional  1 i has
hyperspace, each particle a velocity vector
vi (t) = vi (t), vi (t), · · · , vi (t) and a position vector xi (t) = xi (t), xi (t), · · · , xiD (t) for
2 D 2
 

the t-th iteration. Pi is the historically best position of particle i, and Pg is the position
of the globally best particle. Acceleration coefficients c1 and c2 are commonly set in the
range [0.5, 2.5] ([50,51]). r1 and r2 are two randomly generated values within range [0, 1],
ω typically decreases linearly from 0.9 to 0.4 [49].

2.2. Existing Diversity Evaluation Strategies

Diversity, a parameter for evaluating the degree of dispersion in a swarm, is widely
used to improve the PSO’s performance by adaptively balancing the swarm’s exploration
and exploitation capabilities [17,52–55]. When diversity is small, the swarm can explore
more accurate solutions; on the other hand, it can explore a large space to avoid premature
convergence when the diversity is large. Therefore, it is suggested to maintain a large
diversity in the early stage of evolution to explore a vast space where the optimal solution
may exist, and reduce the swarm’s diversity near the end of the evolution to refine the
result locally.
A proper diversity value should reflect the real characteristics of the swarm. If the
diversity value is incorrectly evaluated, it may mislead the swarm’s movement. However,
measuring the diversity of the swarm is a somewhat challenging problem.
At present, a lot of researchers have proposed different diversity evaluation schemes,
which can be divided into two categories: distance-based diversity evaluation schemes [56]
and information entropy-based diversity evaluation schemes [57–62].
The distance-based diversity evaluation methods can be further divided into two
categories: (1) the average distance between each pair of particles in the swarm [63]; (2) the
average distance between each particle and geometric center of the particle swarm [64].
The information entropy-based diversity evaluation scheme is developed from the
information theory proposed by Shannon in 1948 [65]. After that, many scholars introduced
this concept into particle swarm optimization algorithm. For example, Pires [60] proposed
an entropy-based index to measure the diversity of the swarm. The basic idea of this
method is as follows: (1) evenly dividing the search space into Q subspace; (2) counting
Algorithms 2021, 14, 29 4 of 16

the number Zq of particles in each subspace; (3) calculating the probability in the subspace
by Equation (3); (4) evaluating the diversity (the information entropy) by Equation (4).

Zq
pq = (3)
Ns
Q
E=− ∑ pq logn pq (4)
q =1

where Ns represents the total number of particles, q represents the q-th subspace, and E
represents the information entropy and is taken as the value of diversity.

3. PSO-ED
This section presents the technical details of PSO-ED. Section 3.1 introduces the main
idea of PSO-ED; Section 3.2 presents our evaluation strategy of computing the exploration
degree; Section 3.3 presents an adaptive update of inertia weight based on the exploration
degree; Section 3.4 presents the swarm reinitialization mechanism that helps the swarm
escape local traps; Section 3.5 presents two update modes, i.e., normal update mode
and disturbance update mode, for saving function evaluations (FEs) on poor-performed
particles.

3.1. The Main Idea of PSO-ED

Given a dimension D (D = 10 or 30 for CEC2015), the flowchart of the PSO-ED is
shown in Figure 1. PSO-ED has four main modules: exploration degree evaluation, an
adaptive update of inertia weight, normal and disturbance update modes, and swarm
reinitialization.
As mentioned above, the core problem of particle swarm optimization algorithm is
how to balance the exploration and exploitation abilities of the swarm. To address this
problem, in Module 1, we develop a technique of exploration degree based on the diversity
of the swarm in the exploration, exploitation, and convergence states. In module 2, with
the help of exploration degree, we adaptively update the inertial weight of the swarm
to ensure that the swarm has a larger exploration degree in the exploration state and a
smaller one in the convergence state. In Module 3, we give two update modes (normal and
disturbance update modes) for each particle according to its fitness, so as to achieve the
global optimum quickly. In Module 4, to help the swarm escape from local traps, a novel
swarm reinitialization scheme is proposed.
For ease of description, we summarize the parameters used in the rest of the paper
in Table 1. The definition of each critical parameter is also given when it first appears in
the context.
Table 1. Nomenclature.

Symbol Quantity
t The index of the current iteration
xi The position of particle i, and xi ∈ [ xlb , xub ] where xlb and xub are lower and upper bounds of the position
vi The velocity of particle i, and vi ∈ [−vub , vub ] where vub is the upper bound of the velocity
ω, c1 , c2 , c3 The inertial weight and accelerations for PSO respectively, and c3 is defined in Section 3.4
Pi , Pg , Pt The position of Pbest, Gbest and Tbest, where Tbest denotes the best position over all historical rounds of evolutions
Ns The size of the swarm
D The dimension of the problem space
Ntotal The total number of iterations
The evolution state of the swarm, and S e {er , ei , ec } where er , ei , ec represents the Exploration state, the
S
Exploitation state, and the Convergence state, respectively.
The number of generations of state maintenance, and Nstate ∈ [ Nsmin , Nsmax ] where Nsmin and Nsmax are the
Nstate
minimum and maximum generations of state maintenance
Er The average evolution rate
The number of undeveloped generations, and Nud < Numax where Nuamx is the Maximum consecutive undeveloped
Nud
generations
Algorithms 2021, 14, 29 5 of 16

Table 1. Cont.

Symbol Quantity
ci The ID of subspace where the i-th particle is located and will be discussed in Section 3.2.1
E The information entropy of swarm position
The exploration degree of the swarm, and Ed ∈ [ Edlb , Edub ] where Edlb and Edub are the lower and upper bounds of
Ed
the Ed
Nw the number of weak particles that require the disturbance update mode
Algorithms 2021,The
14, x FOR PEER
update modeREVIEW 5 of 18
of particle i, and mi ∈ {mnor , mdis } where mnor and mdis are the Normal and Disturbance update
mi
modes

Figure 1. Flowchart of the particle swarm optimization variant based on a novel evaluation of di-
Figure 1. Flowchart of the particle swarm optimization variant based on a novel evaluation of
versity (PSO-ED).
diversity (PSO-ED).
Table
3.2. 1. Nomenclature.
Evaluation of the Exploration Degree
3.2.1. A
Symbol Novel Diversity Evaluation Scheme
Quantity
𝑡 As mentioned The above,
index the distance-based
of the current iteration diversity is evaluated by computing the
distances between The position of particle i, and 𝑥 ∈scheme
particles. The essence of this [𝑥 , 𝑥 is] space
wherecompression,
𝑥 and 𝑥 are which
𝑥
compresses the D-dimensional space features into one-dimensional space. For example,
lower and upper bounds of the position
assume that there are three particles in the three-dimensional space, their positions are
The velocity of particle 𝑖, and 𝑣 ∈ [−𝑣 , 𝑣 ] where 𝑣 is the upper
p1 𝑣= {1,0,0}, p2 = {0,1,0} and p3 = {0,0,1}, then the mutual distance between any two particles
bound of the velocity
is {(p1 , p2 ) = 20.5 , (p1 , p3 ) = 20.5 , (p2 , p3 ) = 20.5 }, which has only one dimension. Observe that
The inertial weight and accelerations for PSO respectively, and 𝑐 is
ω, 𝑐 , 𝑐 , 𝑐
defined in Section 3.4
The position of Pbest, Gbest and Tbest, where Tbest denotes the best
𝑃,𝑃 ,𝑃
position over all historical rounds of evolutions
𝑁 The size of the swarm
Algorithms 2021, 14, 29 6 of 16

the three points are separated by a distance of 20.5 , but they are regarded as being aggre-
gated together since the information entropy of the distance information is 0 (Equations (3)
and (4)). Therefore, the information entropy based on distance cannot reflect the swarm
diversity very well. On the other hand, if space is divided into multiple small subspaces,
the complexity of traversing all subspaces is fairly high. For example, in the D-dimensional
space, if each dimension is divided into K equal parts, then the complexity of traveling all
subspaces is (O K D ), which is formidable when D is larger than 10.

To calculate the information entropy of the swarm efficiently and evaluate the degree of
dispersion of the swarm as accurately as possible, we propose a novel diversity Evaluation
scheme. The crucial steps of our approach are as follows:
For each particle in the swarm, compute the index (ID) of the subspace where the
particle is located. First of all, each dimension of the search space is divided into K equal
parts. Then the ID of a subspace is a string of D numbers, each of which represents the7 index
Algorithms 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 18
of the part of the dimension occupied by the subspace. For example, in the 3-dimensional
space in Figure 2, the ID of the blue subspace is {2, 3, 1}.

Therelation
Figure2.2.The
Figure relationof
ofthe
theID
IDof
ofthe
theblue
bluesubspace
subspaceand
andthe
thedimensions
dimensionsof
ofthe
thesearch
search space.
space.

Denote ci = c1i , c2i , . . . , ciD as the ID of subspace where the i-th particle is located,

Denote 𝑐 = {𝑐 , 𝑐 , … , 𝑐 } as the ID of subspace where the i-th particle is located,
where cd is obtained from Equation (5):
where 𝑐i is obtained from Equation (5):
& '
x𝑥id −−x𝑥lb
Ci𝐶= =
d (5)
(5)
((𝑥
xub −−x𝑥lb )/K)⁄𝐾
Build a hash table h by traversing the IDs obtained in the Step (1). h is composed of
Build a hash table h by traversing the IDs obtained in the Step (1). h is composed of
key-value pairs {key, value}, where key is the ID of the subspace, and value is the number
key-value pairs {key, value}, where key is the ID of the subspace, and value is the number
of particles in the subspace. We traverse the IDs of the subspaces obtained by the above
of particles in the subspace. We traverse the IDs of the subspaces obtained by the above
steps,
steps,ififaakey
keyccexists
existsin
inhhits
itsvalue
valueh(c)
h(c)isisincreased
increasedby by1,1,else
elseaanew
newkey-value
key-value pair
pair {c,1}
{c,1} is
is
inserted
insertedinto
intoh.h.
Determine
Determinethe theinformation
informationentropy
entropyEEof ofthe
theswarm
swarmbasedbasedon on h.
h. Note
Notethat
thatthe
theempty
empty
subspace without any particle contributes 0 to the calculation of information
subspace without any particle contributes 0 to the calculation of information entropy entropy since
the probability p of particles falling into this subspace is 0 by Equations (3)
since the probability p of particles falling into this subspace is 0 by Equations (3) and (4). and (4). There-
fore, only the
Therefore, subspace
only corresponding
the subspace to a key
corresponding to aofkey
h can
of hcontribute
can contributeto thetoinformation
the informationen-
tropy.
entropy.𝑝 pinq
Equation
in Equation (3) represents
(3) represents the
the probability
probability ofoffalling
falling into
into the
the subspace
subspace q,
q, and
and
h(c)⁄/N
𝑝pi ==ℎ(𝑐) 𝑁 .s Therefore,
. Therefore,EEcan
canbe beobtained
obtainedby byEquations
Equations(3) (3)and
and(4)(4)based
basedon onthe
thekeys
keys ofof hh
and can be used in evaluating the exploration degree in
and can be used in evaluating the exploration degree in Equation (8). Equation (8).
The time complexity of the above procedure is analyzed as follows: in step 1, we need
to calculate the 𝑐 of each particle i in each dimension d, so its time complexity is 𝑂(𝑁 𝐷),
where 𝑁 is the size of the swarm, and D is the dimension of the search space; in step 2,
inserting a key-value pair into hash table h can be done in O(1) time, the time of traversing
the IDs to establish hash table h is 𝑂(𝑁 ); in the last step, because only the key of the hash
table h needs to be traversed, and the number of IDs is no more than 𝑁 , the time com-
Algorithms 2021, 14, 29 7 of 16

The time complexity of the above procedure is analyzed as follows: in step 1, we

need to calculate the cid of each particle i in each dimension d, so its time complexity is
O( Ns D ), where Ns is the size of the swarm, and D is the dimension of the search space;
in step 2, inserting a key-value pair into hash table h can be done in O(1) time, the time of
traversing the IDs to establish hash table h is O( Ns ); in the last step, because only the key
of the hash table h needs to be traversed, and the number of IDs is no more than Ns , the
time complexity is also O( Ns ). In summary, the running time of the above procedures is
O( Ns D ), which is significantly smaller than O Ns D .

3.2.2. Switch of Evolutionary States

A conventional state transition of PSO simply set the initial state, the middle state and
the last state of evolution as Exploration, Exploitation and Convergence, respectively. We
are more flexible in switching the evolution states, and we allow multiple state switches
during the whole evolution process. The swarm starts with the Exploration state, and its
switching circle is Exploration→Exploitation→Convergence→Exploration. The process
terminates as the maximum number of FEs is invoked.
As for the conditions of state switches, let Nud be the number of consecutive gener-
ations when the result of the swarm evolution has not been improved, if Nud > Numax ,
the state should be switched at this time to enhance the chance of achieving better results
(exploration→exploitation, exploitation→convergence) or jumping out of the local trap
(convergence→exploration). However, if the state switches too frequently, it may not lead
to any promising result while wasting time in state switch. To address this issue, let Nstate
be the number of generations the current state has been maintained, depending on whether
when Nud > Numax , we constraint Nstate in a range of generations (i.e., [Nsmin , Nsmax ]) to
control the switching frequency as follows:
• Nstate ≤ Nsmin : No switch
• Nsmin < Nstate ≤ Nsmax : Switch only when Nud > Numax
• Nsmax < Nsate : Switch
Note that the state S shall be used in the Section 3.2.3 to determine the upper and
lower bound of the exploration degree.
Since the swarm may not evolve in every iteration during the evolution process,
we use the notion of average evolution rate to judge whether the current iteration has
evolved. As shown in Equation (6), the average evolution rate of consecutive K generations
is obtained as the total evolution rate of these K generations divided by K. When the
evolution rate is less than a user-defined threshold α, we increase Nud by 1, otherwise, we
set Nud as 0.
F (t − K ) − F (t)
Er (t) = (6)
K ∗ F (t − K )
where the F(t) is the best result obtained in t-generation.
(
Nud (t) + 1 Er (t) < α
Nud (t + 1) = (7)
0 otherwise

3.2.3. Exploration Degree

Let Ed denote the exploration degree, which characterizes the degree of demand for
the dispersion of the swarm. By trial and error, the relationship of the upper and lower
bounds of Ed . The three evolutionary states can lead to fairly fine results if set, as shown in
Figure 3.
 3.2.3. Exploration Degree
Let 𝐸 denote the exploration degree, which characterizes the degree of demand for
the dispersion of the swarm. By trial and error, the relationship of the upper and lower
Algorithms 2021, 14, 29 bounds of 𝐸 . The three evolutionary states can lead to fairly fine results if set, as shown
8 of 16
in Figure 3.

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

Figure3.3.The
Figure Therelationship
relationshipbetween
betweenEEdand
andState.
State.
d

Weuse
We usethe
thediversity
diversityE(t)
E(t)totodetermine
determinethe theexact valueofofE𝐸
exactvalue d . .When
WhenE(t)
E(t)isishigh,
high,itit
indicatesthat
indicates thatthe
theswarm
swarmmaymaystill
still explore
explore a wider
a wider area
area andand
thethe corresponding
corresponding valuevalue
of Eof
d
𝐸 should be larger, and vice versa. To mimic this, we develop a linear function to
should be larger, and vice versa. To mimic this, we develop a linear function to express the express
the relationship
relationship between
between 𝐸 E(t)
Ed and andinE(t) in Equation
Equation (8). (8).

Ed (t) = Edlb + ( Edub − Edlb ) E(t) (8)

In the following, we show how to realize an adaptive update of the inertial weight
and, therefore, the balance of the exploration and exploitation by Ed (t).

3.3. Adaptive Update of Inertia Weight

The inertia weight plays a critical role in balancing the swarm’s exploration and
exploitation capabilities, and it also significantly affects the result’s accuracy [23–25]. There-
fore, we adaptively adjust the swarm’s inertia weight to ensure that the swarm has a larger
exploration degree in the exploration stage and a smaller one in the convergence stage.
Finally, we use a sigmoid-like mapping that decreases from 0.9 to 0.4 [66,67] to characterize
our inertia weight adjustment (Equation (9)). It is evident from this formula that when
the exploration degree Ed of the population is large (close to 1.0), the inertia weight ω
will also be large (close to 0.9) to ensure that the swarm can continue to explore a wider
space. In contrast, when Ed becomes small, the inertia weight is also reduced to enhance
the swarm’s convergence ability.

1
ω (t) = ∈ [0.4, 0.9] ∀ Ed (t) ∈ [0, 1] (9)
1 + 0.67e−2.67Ed (t)

3.4. Excape Local Trap by Swarm Reintialization

Note that Module 3 (Normal and Disturbance Update Modes) relies on Tbest, which is
equal to Gbest when no reinitialization is conducted, therefore we shall present Module
4 ahead of Module 3 for ease of description. When the swarm falls into the trap of local
optimal and cannot rely on its own to jump out, reinitializing the swarm has been proved
to be an effective method of addressing this issue [68–70].
A crucial issue is how to judge whether the swarm has fallen into a local optimum or
not. In this article, we say that the swarm has fallen into a local optimum if the iterations of
undeveloped generation of the swarm Nud exceeds a maximum allowed number Numax .
Another crucial issue is how to help the swarm jump out of a local optimum. When
the swarm is trapped in a local optimum, the conventional solution is to reinitialize the
swarm. If we abandon the global best (Gbest) by convention, then we waste a lot of early
effort; on the other hand, if we use it, the swarm has a high probability of falling into this
local trap again due to its powerful attraction. To address this issue, let Gbest denote the
Algorithms 2021, 14, 29 9 of 16

best position of the swarm of the current round of evolution (with a single initialization
or reinitialization), and let Tbest denotes the best position of the swarm for all historical
rounds of evolutions, thus Tbest is at least as good as Gbest. Finally, we add the Tbest term
to the particle update in Equation (10), which ensures that the optimal position (Tbest) has
only a moderate effect on the swarm with less attraction power.
 
vid (t + 1) = ωvid (t) + c1 r1 Pid (t) − xid (t)
 
+c2 r2 Pgd (t) − xid (t) (10)
 
d d
+c3 r3 Pt (t) − xi (t)

where Pt is the position of Tbest.

For ease of computation, we fix c1 = c2 = 1.49445 based on a large set of experimental
results of previous PSO variants (e.g., [23,36,71]). As for c3 , since its role is to guide the
swarm to the position of Tbest in a slow manner, we can set it to a very small number c3 =
0.01. In this way, we will update Tbest with this Gbest if the result of Gbest is better than the
current Tbest; otherwise, Tbest still has the power of pulling the swarm to its position after
several evolutionary generations.

3.5. Normal and Disturbance Update Modes

Note that Gbest and Pbest are more likely to be closer to the real global optimal solution
in some dimensions. On the other hand, a poor particle’s current position is far away from
the optimal solution, and it requires more cost (e.g., FEs) to move to a promising region.
Based on this consideration, we use different update modes for particles with excellent
fitness and poor fitness to speed up the search process. We take the worst Nw particles
in each iteration as the particles with poor fitness. As shown in Equation (11), Nw is
proportional to Ed . The larger the value of Ed is, the more dispersed the particles are. In
this way, we force more particles to jump to a promising region to while reducing the waste
of the FEs on poor particles.
Nw = Ns × Ed /2 (11)
(1) For particles with better fitness, the update mode follows the usual manner shown
in Equations (2 and 10). Note that this update mode is slightly different from the
traditional update due to the Tbest term in the velocity update formula.
(2) For particles with poor fitness, we use a disturbance update mode as follows.
Step 1: Select the position of Pbest or Gbest as the seed (denoted as P) for generating
new positions. Refer to Equation (12), the choice of Pbest position (denoted as Pi ) or Gbest
position (denoted as Pg ) depends on the value of Ed . When Ed is large, we tend to choose
Pbest (i.e., self-cognition) to avoid fast convergence to some local optimum; when Ed is
small, we choose Gbest (social-cognition) to achieve a finer result.
(
Pi r < Ed
P= (12)
Pg otherwise

where r is a random number uniformly distributed in [0, 1].

Step 2: Since P is very close to the optimal solution in some dimensions, we can
randomly select a dimension d of P and perturb it into a new position, and keep the other
dimensions remain the same thus to maintain the property of P as much as possible.
(
Pi + rn × ( xub − xlb ) i = d
xi = (13)
Pi otherwise

where rn is a random number and rn ∼ N 0, Ed2 .

Step 3: Replace the position of poor particles with the new position generated by the
disturbance update mode.
Algorithms 2021, 14, 29 10 of 16

4. Experiments and Comparisons

As shown in Table 2, to validate the effectiveness of PSO-ED, we use the same com-
parison set provided by a recent paper on MPSO [72] and choose 12 representative test
functions from CEC2015 benchmark functions [73] as the test suite. The test suite consists of
2 unimodal functions (F1 and F2 ), 3 multimodal functions (F3 , F4 and F5 ), 3 hybrid functions
(F6 , F7 and F8 ) and 4 composition functions (F9 , F10 , F11 and F12 ). All the guidelines of
CEC2015 have been strictly followed for the experiments. For example, every function in
this test suite is conducted for 30 runs independently, the search range of each dimension
is set as [−100, 100], and the maximum function evaluation FEs is equal to 10,000 D. The
fitness value is Fi (x) − Fi (x*) after the maximum iteration is reached, where Fi (x*) is just a
number about the corresponding function for instruction.

Table 2. The 12 CEC2015 benchmark functions.

No. Function Name Fi * = Fi (x*)

1 Rotated High Conditioned Elliptic Function 100
2 Rotated Cigar Function 200
3 Shifted and Rotated Ackley’s Function 300
4 Shifted and Rotated Rastrigin’s Function 400
5 Shifted and Rotated Schwefel’s Function 500
6 Hybrid Function (N = 3) 600
7 Hybrid Function (N = 4) 700
8 Hybrid Function (N = 5) 800
9 Composition Function 1 (N = 3) 900
10 Composition Function 3 (N = 5) 1100
11 Composition Function 6 (N = 7) 1400
12 Composition Function 7 (N = 10) 1500

4.1. Sensitivity Analysis

In this article, two parameters (α and Ns ) are very critical to performance of PSO-ED.
In order to examine the influence of the parameters on precision and efficiency, a sensitivity
analysis was conducted to each parameter.
As shown in Equation (7), α is a user-defined threshold used to judge whether the
swarm is evolving into a better result. A proper value of α can reflect the evolutionary
state of the swarm and help the swarm choose an appropriate evolution strategy. In order
to determine an appropriate value of α, we have selected five values (1.0, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001
and 0.0001) and conducted for 30 runs independently for each value on 12 test functions.
Note that the other parameters are set as follows: Ns = 40, Ntotal = FEs/Ns , Nsmin =
0.01Ntotal , Nsmax = 0.1Ntotal , Numax = 0.01Ntotal , vub = 0.01( xub − xlb ).
As shown in Table 3, the statistical values (Mean and Rank) are listed and it is obvious
that the result is best (smallest average ranking) when α = 0.01.

Table 3. Sensitivity analysis for α.

Alpha 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001

Item Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank
F1 9.12 × 104 4 8.33 × 104 3 3.03 × 105 5 8 × 104 1 8.27 × 104 2
F2 2.07 × 103 4 1.96 × 103 2 2.24 × 102 1 1.97 × 103 3 2.29 × 103 5
F3 2 × 101 1 2 × 101 1 2 × 101 1 2 × 101 1 2 × 101 1
F4 2.02 × 102 5 1.89 × 102 2 1.42 × 102 1 1.99 × 102 4 1.95 × 102 3
F5 3.92 × 103 3 3.91 × 103 2 3.10 × 103 1 3.95 × 103 4 3.99 × 103 5
F6 3.83 × 104 5 3.05 × 104 3 3.05 × 104 3 2.74 × 104 1 2.95 × 104 2
F7 1.22 × 101 3 1.26 × 101 5 1.04 × 101 1 1.16 × 101 2 1.25 × 101 4
F8 1.52 × 104 2 1.77 × 104 3 1.46 × 104 1 1.77 × 104 3 2.29 × 104 5
F9 1.47 × 102 4 1.34 × 102 2 1.04 × 102 1 1.59 × 102 5 1.46 × 102 3
F10 7.72 × 102 2 8.27 × 102 4 3.35 × 102 1 1.01 × 103 5 8.12 × 102 3
F11 3.30 × 104 3 3.14 × 104 2 2.54 × 104 1 3.32 × 104 4 3.35 × 104 5
F12 1 × 102 1 1 × 102 1 1 × 102 1 1 × 102 1 1 × 102 1
AR 3.08 2.50 1.50 2.83 3.25
Algorithms 2021, 14, 29 11 of 16

Another important parameter is the swarm size Ns . We choose five values (20, 30, 40,
50 and 60) to conduct experiments. And the other parameters are set as follows: Ntotal =
FEs/Ns , Nsmin = 0.01Ntotal , Nsmax = 0.1Ntotal , α = 0.01, Numax = 0.01Ntotal , vub =
0.01( xub − xlb ). The results are shown in Table 4. The average ranking shows that PSO-ED
performs best when Ns = 40.

Table 4. Sensitivity analysis for Ns .

SIZE 20 30 40 50 60
Item Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank
F1 8.65 × 104 2 6.97 × 104 1 3.03 × 105 5 1.20 ×105 3 1.27 ×105 4
F2 2.31 × 103 4 2.45 × 103 5 2.24 × 102 1 2.08 × 103 3 1.94 × 103 2
F3 2 × 101 1 2 × 101 1 2 × 101 1 2 × 101 1 2 × 101 1
F4 2.21 × 102 5 1.99 × 102 4 1.42 × 102 1 1.82 × 102 3 1.76 × 102 2
F5 4.01 × 103 3 4.17 × 103 5 3.10 × 103 1 3.96 × 103 2 4.02 × 103 4
F6 2.96 × 104 4 2.28 × 104 1 3.05 × 104 5 2.86 × 104 3 2.78 × 104 2
F7 1.34 × 101 5 1.22 × 101 4 1.04 × 101 1 1.14 × 101 2 1.19 × 101 3
F8 1.84 × 104 3 1.54 × 104 2 1.46 × 104 1 2.15 × 104 4 2.62 × 104 5
F9 2.37 × 102 5 1.57 × 102 2 1.04 × 102 1 1.62 × 102 3 1.95 × 102 4
F10 9.28 × 102 3 9.47 × 102 5 3.35 × 102 1 8.79 × 102 2 9.37 × 102 4
F11 3.29 × 104 2 3.34 × 104 4 2.54 × 104 1 3.35 × 104 5 3.31 × 104 3
F12 1 × 102 1 1 × 102 1 1 × 102 1 1 × 102 1 1 × 102 1
AR 3.17 2.92 1.67 2.67 2.92

4.2. Comparison with Other PSO Variants

We use the same criteria provided by MPSO [72] to compare our PSO-ED with MPSO
and its corresponding comparison algorithms for fair comparison. As shown in on Table 5,
these popular algorithms are GPSO [49], LPSO [26], SPSO [74], CLPSO [75], FIPS [27],
and DMSPSO [35]. The algorithms’ performances are characterized by statistical means
and standard deviations. Note that the results of the seven PSO variants are directly
referenced from literature [72]. For all the algorithms, the swarm size is set to 40, therefore
the maximum number of iterations is 2500 for 10-D and 7500 for 30-D. The statistical results
for the 12 test functions in 10-D and 30-D are summarized in Tables 6 and 7, respectively.
Following conventions, the lowest mean and standard deviation in each line are regarded
as the best results and are highlighted in bold. To validate the significance of the PSO-ED,
Non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test is conducted between PSO-ED and other PSO
variants. The symbol “+”, “0” and “-” means that the statistical mean values of the proposed
PSO-ED are better, equal and worse than those of the compared algorithms.

Table 5. The popular algorithms used for comparison.

No. Algorithms Abbreviation

1 A modified particle swarm optimizer GPSO [49]
2 Population structure and particle swarm performance LPSO [26]
3 Defining a standard for particle swarm optimization SPSO [74]
4 Comprehensive learning particle swarm optimizer CLPSO [75]
5 The fully informed particle swarm FIPS [27]
6 Dynamic multi-swarm particle swarm optimizer with local search DMSPSO [35]
7 Modified particle swarm optimization and its applications MPSO [72]

While conducting the comparison experiments, the crucial control parameters of

our PSO-ED are set as follows: Ns = 40 (same as the setting of MPSO [72]), Ntotal =
FEs/Ns , Nsmin = 0.01Ntotal , Nsmax = 0.1Ntotal , α = 0.01, Numax = 0.01Ntotal , vub =
0.01( xub − xlb ). As shown in Table 6 for the 10-D case, compared with the other 7 algo-
rithms, out of the total of 12 functions, the mean values of our algorithm achieve better
solutions than the other 7 algorithms on 4 functions (F1 , F2 , F6 and F11 ), and achieve exactly
Algorithms 2021, 14, 29 12 of 16

the same best mean values with other 5 algorithms on 2 functions (F9 and F12 ). However,
compared with MPSO on F3 , F4 , F5 , DMSPSO on F8 , FIPS on F7 , CLPSO on F10 , our PSO-ED
is slightly weaker.

Table 6. Comparison of PSO-ED with 7 popular PSO variants for 10-D case.

GPSO LPSO SPSO CLPSO FIPS DMSPSO MPSO PSO-ED

Mean 5.05 × 106 1.17 × 105 2.78 × 104 5.53 × 105 2.51 × 105 9.64 × 104 2.63 × 104 2.03 × 104
F1
Std 2.31 × 107 7.30 × 104 1.01 × 104 7.42 × 104 3.50 × 104 2.46 × 105 6.61 × 103 1.65 × 104
Mean 6.02 × 108 2.94 × 107 6.15 × 103 4.73 × 104 6.49 × 103 1.38 × 104 6.36 × 103 5.80 × 102
F2
Std 1.05 × 109 7.79 × 107 2.83 × 104 8.12 × 104 3.86 × 102 5.47 × 103 2.12 × 102 9.94 × 102
Mean 2.03 × 101 2.02 × 101 2.02 × 101 2.02 × 101 2.03 × 101 2.01 × 101 1.87 × 101 2 × 101
F3
Std 1.12 × 101 4.07 × 102 2.99 × 102 2.41 1.51 × 101 1.64 × 101 1.18 × 10−2 4.34 × 10−3
Mean 1.48 × 101 1.35 × 101 4.87 1.02 × 101 6.75 9.19 3.23 1.58 × 101
F4
Std 1.12 × 101 9.61 4.98 3.73 × 101 1.72 6.16 1.76 × 10−2 5.94
Mean 5.76 × 102 2.91 × 102 4.14 × 102 6.11 × 102 5.14 × 102 3.34 × 102 1.89 × 102 5.48 × 102
F5
Std 9.36 × 101 8.95 × 102 6.49 × 102 1.46 × 102 4.58 × 102 1.76 × 102 8.85 × 101 1.75 × 102
Mean 4.69 × 103 5.83 × 103 1.13 × 103 1.72 × 103 7.11 × 102 1.78 × 103 5.20 × 102 4.11 × 102
F6
Std 6.41 × 103 1.04 × 104 5.75 × 103 3.96 × 102 7.15 × 102 1.38 × 104 3.17 × 102 2.36 × 102
Mean 5.56 3.60 1.34 1.53 8.87 × 10−1 1.96 8.99 × 101 2.04
F7
Std 2.12 4.30 × 101 1.99 × 101 4.24 × 101 2.39 × 101 4.07 × 101 1.23 × 10−1 6.38 × 10−1
Mean 6.53 × 103 1.81 × 103 1.27 × 103 4.87 × 102 6.89 × 102 1.79 × 102 4.46 × 102 3.09 × 102
F8
Std 4.98 × 104 3.51 × 103 2.54 × 103 2.88 × 102 1.67 × 103 6.33 × 101 1.28 × 102 2.23 × 102
Mean 1.07 × 102 1.01 × 102 1 × 102 1 × 102 1 × 102 1 × 102 1 × 102 1 × 102
F9
Std 1.79 × 101 1.01 7.99 × 102 1.39 × 102 1.92 × 101 5.41 × 101 1.06 × 10−2 7.97 × 10−2
Mean 3.14 × 102 2.59 × 102 2.15 × 102 1.62 × 101 4.64 × 101 1.31 × 102 1.90 × 102 7.91 × 102
F10
Std 2.22 × 101 1.11 × 102 5.62 × 102 5.15 1.13 × 102 4.49 × 102 2.66 × 101 8.97 × 102
Mean 6.25 × 103 5.47 × 103 6.19 × 103 2.45 × 103 2.29 × 103 3.17 × 103 2.71 × 103 6.78 × 102
F11
Std 4.37 × 103 6.32 × 103 8.62 × 103 4.51 × 102 1.70 × 103 2.89 × 103 7.25 × 102 1.19 × 103
Mean 1.25 × 102 1.06 × 102 1 × 102 1 × 102 1 × 102 1 × 102 1 × 102 1 × 102
F12
Std 8.43 4.05 × 101 0 0 1.73 × 10+12 2.63 × 10+13 5.68 × 10+19 2.65 × 10−5

Table 7. Comparison of PSO-ED with 7 popular PSO variants for 30-D case.

GPSO LPSO SPSO CLPSO FIPS DMSPSO MPSO PSO-ED

Mean 2.72 × 108 3.52 ×107 2.23 ×105 5.56 ×106 4× 106 6.72 ×106 1.79 ×106 3.03 × 105
F1
Std 3.54 × 108 5.92 × 107 2.42 × 105 5.80 × 106 2.42 × 105 1.15 × 107 2.38 × 105 1.47 × 105
Mean 2.23 × 10+10 1.91 × 109 3.70 × 103 4.48 × 103 6.29 × 103 3.37 × 103 1.46 × 103 2.24 × 102
F2
Std 1.96 × 109 2.09 × 109 2.44 × 104 1.70 × 103 1.43 × 104 2.92 × 103 7.28 × 101 4.52 × 102
Mean 2.08 × 101 2.08 × 101 2.09 × 101 2.09 × 101 2.10 × 101 2.05 × 101 2.03 × 101 2 × 101
F3
Std 7.54 × 103 3.58 × 101 8.30 × 102 1.90 × 102 9.90 × 102 1.53 × 101 2.33 × 10−3 7.33 × 10−3
Mean 1.55 × 102 1.03 × 102 3.55 × 101 9.02 × 101 1.54 × 102 8.32 × 101 1.91 × 101 1.42 × 102
F4
Std 8.14 × 101 1.29 × 101 3.38 3.63 4.96 × 101 1.54 × 101 4.06 × 10−1 1.80 × 101
Mean 3.54 × 103 3.19 × 103 3.97 × 103 4.62 × 103 6.31 × 103 3.79 × 103 2.62 × 103 3.10 × 103
F5
Std 3.22 × 102 8.32 × 102 1.39 × 102 6.03 × 102 1.51 × 103 5.40 × 102 1.24 × 102 3.63 × 102
Mean 1 × 107 1.30 × 106 1.14 × 105 3.53 × 105 4.37 × 105 1.70 × 105 4.41 × 104 3.05 × 104
F6
Std 7.16 × 107 5.56 × 105 3.13 × 104 1.71 × 105 5.05 × 105 8.56 × 104 7.17 × 103 1.90 × 104
Mean 4.77 × 101 2.46 × 101 9.20 9.10 1.24 × 101 1.29 × 101 9.98 1.04 × 101
F7
Std 3.55 × 101 3.69 × 101 1.25 8.60 × 101 4.09 9.84 × 10−2 3.15 1.36
Mean 1.73 × 106 2.36 × 105 3.22 × 104 6.36 × 104 4.73 × 104 7.95 × 104 2.64 × 104 1.46 × 104
F8
Std 2.05 × 107 4.11 × 105 2.60 × 104 9.24 × 104 9.13 × 103 1.91 × 105 3.36 × 103 8.03 × 103
Mean 2.15 × 102 1.29 × 102 1.03 × 102 1.04 × 102 1.03 × 102 1.04 × 102 1.03 × 102 1.04 × 102
F9
Std 8.37 × 101 5.08 1.98 × 101 1.81 × 101 8.50 × 102 7 × 102 8.07 × 10−3 2.02 × 10−1
Mean 1.24 × 103 1.04 × 103 5.91 × 102 3.55 × 102 4.39 × 102 5.98 × 102 6.03 × 102 1.81 × 104
F10
Std 3.88 × 102 2.09 × 102 7.22 × 101 4.81 × 101 8.05 × 101 7.56 × 102 1.88 × 101 7.73 × 103
Mean 4.86 × 104 3.85 × 104 3.36 × 104 2.89 × 104 2.73 × 104 3.07 × 104 2.73 × 104 2.54 × 104
F11
Std 4.47 × 104 4.23 × 103 3.82 × 103 3.80 × 102 2.97 × 103 1.27 × 103 9.13 × 102 1.29 × 104
Mean 7.58 × 102 1.22 × 102 1 × 102 1 × 102 1 × 102 1 × 102 1 × 102 1 × 102
F12
Std 3.01 × 103 2.77 × 101 0 1.88 × 10+13 3.50 × 10+10 1.59 × 105 2.12 × 10+10 1.10 × 10−5

As shown in Table 7 for 30-D case, compared to the counterparts, out of the total of
12 functions, our algorithm obtains the best mean values on 6 functions (F2 , F3 , F6 , F8 , F11
and F12 ). However, PSO-ED is slight weaker than MPSO on F4 , F5 , F8 , SPSO on F1 .
As shown in Table 8, in the Non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test of PSO-ED and
Algorithms 2021, 14, 29 13 of 16

other algorithms, PSO-ED have achieved obvious advantages on 10-D and 30-D except
that MPOS and PSO-ED achieved the same optimal result on 10-D.

Table 8. Statistical analysis of Wilcoxon signed-rank test between PSO-ED and other PSO variants.

GPSO LPSO SPSO CLPSO FIPS DMSPSO MPSO

D 10 30 10 30 10 30 10 30 10 30 10 30 10 30
F1 + + + + + - + + + + + + + +
F2 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
F3 + + + + + + + + + + + + - +
F4 - + - - - - - - - + - - - -
F5 + + - + - + + + - + - + - -
F6 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
F7 + + + + + - + - - + - + + -
F8 + + + + + + + + + + - + + +
F9 + + + + 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -
F10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
F11 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
F12 + + + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
+/0/− 10/0/2 11/0/1 9/0/3 10/0/2 7/2/3 6/1/5 8/2/2 7/2/2 6/2/4 9/1/2 5/2/5 8/2/2 6/2/4 6/1/5

In conclusion, although PSO-ED is weak in solving a few test functions, its results are
superior to those of popular PSO variants such as MPSO, DMSPSO, FIPS, CLPSO, SPSO,
LPSO, and GPSO.

5. Conclusions
In this paper, we proposed a novel measure of diversity based on sub-space encoding
for the search space; a notion of exploration degree based on the diversity in the exploration,
exploitation and convergence states, which efficiently evaluates the degree of demand for
the dispersion of the swarm; a technique of disturbance update mode for updating the
poor-performed particles’ positions to save the cost of function evaluations (FEs) on them.
Since the diversity evaluation can reflect the swarm distribution very well, it can provide
a better basis for adaptive parameter adjustment strategy and assist the swarm to jump
out of the local traps. Therefore, this method is more suitable for the complex multimodal
optimization.
The effectiveness of the developed techniques was validated through a set of bench-
mark functions in CEC2015. Compared with 7 popular PSO variants, out of the 12 bench-
mark functions, PSO-ED obtains 6 best results for both the 10-D and 30-D cases.
However, the stability of the developed PSO-ED can be further improved and is
worthy of investigation in the future work. For example, for F12 in 10-D and 30-D, although
PSO-ED and SPSO both achieve the optimal mean, PSO-ED is slightly weaker in the std
term, which means that PSO-ED suffers from risk of falling into some local optimum.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.Z. and X.W.; methodology, H.Z. and X.W.; software,
H.Z.; validation, H.Z. and X.W.; formal analysis, H.Z. and X.W.; investigation, H.Z. and X.W.;
resources, H.Z. and X.W.; data curation, H.Z. and X.W.; writing—original draft preparation, H.Z. and
X.W.; writing—review and editing, H.Z. and X.W.; visualization, H.Z.; supervision, X.W.; project
administration, X.W.; funding acquisition, X.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported in part by the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai
Municipality Fund No. 18510745700.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Algorithms 2021, 14, 29 14 of 16

Acknowledgments: This work was supported in part by the Science and Technology Commission of
Shanghai Municipality Fund No. 18510745700.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Eberhart, R.; Kennedy, J. Particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of the ICNN’95 International Conference on Neural
Networks, Perth, WA, Australia, 27 November—1 December 1995; pp. 1942–1948.
2. Eberhart, R.; Kennedy, J. A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. In Proceedings of the MHS’95 Sixth International
Symposium on Micro Machine and Human Science, Nagoya, Japan, 4–6 October 1995; pp. 39–43.
3. Kuila, P.; Jana, P.K. Energy efficient clustering and routing algorithms for wireless sensor networks: Particle swarm optimization
approach. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2014, 33, 127–140. [CrossRef]
4. Shen, M.; Zhan, Z.H.; Chen, W.N.; Gong, Y.J.; Zhang, J.; Li, Y. Bi-velocity discrete particle swarm optimization and its application
to multicast routing problem in communication networks. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2014, 61, 7141–7151. [CrossRef]
5. Zhang, Y.; Wang, S.; Ji, G.; Dong, Z. An MR Brain Images Classifier System via Particle Swarm Optimization and Kernel Support
Vector Machine. Sci. World J. 2013, 2013, 130–134. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Tan, T.Y.; Zhang, L.; Lim, C.P.; Fielding, B.; Yu, Y.; Anderson, E. Evolving Ensemble Models for Image Segmentation Using
Enhanced Particle Swarm Optimization. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 34004–34019. [CrossRef]
7. Sakri, S.B.; Rashid, N.B.A.; Zain, Z.M. Particle Swarm Optimization Feature Selection for Breast Cancer Recurrence Prediction.
IEEE Access 2018, 6, 29637–29647. [CrossRef]
8. Dhinesh Babu, L.D.; Venkata Krishna, P. Honey bee behavior inspired load balancing of tasks in cloud computing environments.
Appl. Soft. Comput. J. 2013, 13, 2292–2303.
9. Wang, Z.J.; Zhan, Z.H.; Kwong, S.; Jin, H.; Zhang, J. Adaptive Granularity Learning Distributed Particle Swarm Optimization for
Large-Scale Optimization. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 2020, 1–14. [CrossRef]
10. Sharafi, M.; ELMekkawy, T.Y. Multi-objective optimal design of hybrid renewable energy systems using PSO-simulation based
approach. Renew. Energy 2014, 68, 67–79. [CrossRef]
11. Cabrerizo, F.J.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Pedrycz, W. A method based on PSO and granular computing of linguistic information to
solve group decision making problems defined in heterogeneous contexts. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2013, 230, 624–633. [CrossRef]
12. Zhang, X.; Du, K.J.; Zhan, Z.H.; Kwong, S.; Gu, T.L.; Zhang, J. Cooperative Coevolutionary Bare-Bones Particle Swarm
Optimization with Function Independent Decomposition for Large-Scale Supply Chain Network Design with Uncertainties.
IEEE Trans. Cybern. 2019, 50, 4454–4468. [CrossRef]
13. Xue, Y.; Tang, T.; Liu, A.X. Large-Scale Feedforward Neural Network Optimization by a Self-Adaptive Strategy and Parameter
Based Particle Swarm Optimization. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 52473–52483. [CrossRef]
14. Ali, M.H.; Al Mohammed, B.A.D.; Ismail, A.; Zolkipli, M.F. A New Intrusion Detection System Based on Fast Learning Network
and Particle Swarm Optimization. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 20255–20261. [CrossRef]
15. Zhan, Z.H.; Zhang, J.; Li, Y.; Chung, H.S.H. Adaptive particle swarm optimization. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern Part. B Cybern.
2009, 39, 1362–1381. [CrossRef]
16. Gou, J.; Lei, Y.X.; Guo, W.P.; Wang, C.; Cai, Y.Q.; Luo, W. A novel improved particle swarm optimization algorithm based on
individual difference evolution. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 2017, 57, 468–481. [CrossRef]
17. Niu, B.; Zhu, Y.; He, X.; Wu, H. MCPSO: A multi-swarm cooperative particle swarm optimizer. Appl. Math. Comput. 2007, 185,
1050–1062. [CrossRef]
18. Wang, L.; Yang, B.; Chen, Y. Improving particle swarm optimization using multi-layer searching strategy. Inf. Sci. 2014, 274, 70–94.
[CrossRef]
19. Han, F.; Liu, Q. A diversity-guided hybrid particle swarm optimization based on gradient search. Neurocomputing 2014, 137,
234–240. [CrossRef]
20. Zhao, F.; Tang, J.; Wang, J.; Jonrinaldi. An improved particle swarm optimization with decline disturbance index (DDPSO) for
multi-objective job-shop scheduling problem. Comput. Oper. Res. 2014, 45, 38–50. [CrossRef]
21. Chen, Y.; Li, L.; Peng, H.; Xiao, J.; Wu, Q. Dynamic multi-swarm differential learning particle swarm optimizer. Swarm Evol.
Comput. 2018, 39, 209–221. [CrossRef]
22. Lynn, N.; Ali, M.Z.; Suganthan, P.N. Population topologies for particle swarm optimization and differential evolution. Swarm
Evol. Comput. 2018, 39, 24–35. [CrossRef]
23. Zhang, L.; Tang, Y.; Hua, C.; Guan, X. A new particle swarm optimization algorithm with adaptive inertia weight based on
Bayesian techniques. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 2015, 28, 138–149. [CrossRef]
24. Tanweer, M.R.; Suresh, S.; Sundararajan, N. Self regulating particle swarm optimization algorithm. Inf. Sci. 2015, 294, 182–202.
[CrossRef]
25. Taherkhani, M.; Safabakhsh, R. A novel stability-based adaptive inertia weight for particle swarm optimization. Appl. Soft Comput.
J. 2016, 38, 281–295. [CrossRef]
26. Kennedy, J.; Mendes, R. Population structure and particle swarm performance. In Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on
Evolutionary Computation, Honolulu, HI, USA, 12–17 May 2002; pp. 1671–1676.
Algorithms 2021, 14, 29 15 of 16

27. Mendes, R.; Kennedy, J.; Neves, J. The fully informed particle swarm: Simpler, maybe better. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 2004, 8,
204–210. [CrossRef]
28. Cooren, Y.; Clerc, M.; Siarry, P. Performance evaluation of TRIBES, an adaptive particle swarm optimization algorithm. Swarm
Intell. 2009, 3, 149–178. [CrossRef]
29. Kennedy, J. Small worlds and mega-minds: Effects of neighborhood topology on particle swarm performance. In Proceedings
of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation-CEC99 (Cat. No. 99TH8406), Washington, DC, USA, 6–9 July 1999; pp.
1931–1938.
30. Suganthan, P.N. Particle swarm optimiser with neighbourhood operator. In Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary
Computation-CEC99 (Cat. No. 99TH8406), Washington, DC, USA, 6–9 July 1999; pp. 1958–1962.
31. Bonyadi, M.R.; Li, X.; Michalewicz, Z. A hybrid particle swarm with a time-adaptive topology for constrained optimization.
Swarm Evol. Comput. 2014, 18, 22–37. [CrossRef]
32. Zhang, J.; Zhu, X.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, M. Dual-Environmental Particle Swarm Optimizer in Noisy and Noise-Free Environments.
IEEE Trans. Cybern. 2019, 49, 2011–2021. [CrossRef]
33. van den Bergh, F.; Engelbrecht, A.P. A cooperative approach to participle swam optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 2004, 8,
225–239. [CrossRef]
34. Blackwell, T.; Branke, J. Multi-Swarm Optimization in Dynamic Environments. In Workshops on Applications of Evolutionary
Computation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2004; pp. 489–500.
35. Liang, J.J.; Suganthan, P.N. Dynamic multi-swarm particle swarm optimizer with local search. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE
Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Scotland, UK, 2–5 September 2005; pp. 522–528.
36. Zhao, S.Z.; Liang, J.J.; Suganthan, P.N.; Tasgetiren, M.F. Dynamic multi-swarm particle swarm optimizer with local search for
large scale global optimization. In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Hong Kong, China, 1–6
June 2008; pp. 3845–3852.
37. Xu, X.; Tang, Y.; Li, J.; Hua, C.; Guan, X. Dynamic multi-swarm particle swarm optimizer with cooperative learning strategy. Appl.
Soft Comput. J. 2015, 29, 169–183. [CrossRef]
38. Mirjalili, S.; Mohd Hashim, S.Z.; Moradian Sardroudi, H. Training feedforward neural networks using hybrid particle swarm
optimization and gravitational search algorithm. Appl. Math. Comput. 2012, 218, 11125–11137. [CrossRef]
39. Zhang, J.R.; Zhang, J.; Lok, T.M.; Lyu, M.R. A hybrid particle swarm optimization-back-propagation algorithm for feedforward
neural network training. Appl. Math. Comput. 2007, 185, 1026–1037. [CrossRef]
40. Nagra, A.A.; Han, F.; Ling, Q.-H.; Mehta, S. An Improved Hybrid Method Combining Gravitational Search Algorithm with
Dynamic Multi Swarm Particle Swarm Optimization. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 50388–50399. [CrossRef]
41. Zhan, Z.H.; Zhang, J.; Li, Y.; Shi, Y.H. Orthogonal learning particle swarm optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 2011, 15,
832–847. [CrossRef]
42. Garg, H. A hybrid PSO-GA algorithm for constrained optimization problems. Appl. Math. Comput. 2016, 274, 292–305. [CrossRef]
43. Plevris, V.; Papadrakakis, M. A Hybrid Particle Swarm-Gradient Algorithm for Global Structural Optimization. Comput. Civ.
Infrastruct Eng. 2011, 26, 48–68. [CrossRef]
44. Singh, N.; Singh, S.B. Hybrid Algorithm of Particle Swarm Optimization and Grey Wolf Optimizer for Improving Convergence
Performance. J. Appl. Math. 2017. [CrossRef]
45. Raju, M.; Gupta, M.K.; Bhanot, N.; Sharma, V.S. A hybrid PSO–BFO evolutionary algorithm for optimization of fused deposition
modelling process parameters. J. Intell. Manuf. 2019, 30, 2743–2758. [CrossRef]
46. Sivanandam, S.N.; Visalakshi, P. Dynamic task scheduling with load balancing using parallel orthogonal particle swarm
optimization. Int. J. Bio-Inspired Comput. 2009, 1, 276–286. [CrossRef]
47. Kang, Q.; Xiong, C.; Zhou, M.; Meng, L. Opposition-Based Hybrid Strategy for Particle Swarm Optimization in Noisy Environ-
ments. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 21888–21900. [CrossRef]
48. Cao, Y.; Zhang, H.; Li, W.; Zhou, M.; Zhang, Y.; Chaovalitwongse, W.A. Comprehensive Learning Particle Swarm Optimization
Algorithm with Local Search for Multimodal Functions. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 2019, 23, 718–731. [CrossRef]
49. Shi, Y.; Eberhart, R.C. A modified particle swarm optimizer. In Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE International Conference on
Evolutionary Computation Proceedings, IEEE world congress on computational intelligence (Cat. No. 98TH8360), Anchorage,
AK, USA, 4–9 May 1988; pp. 69–73.
50. Chih, M.; Lin, C.J.; Chern, M.S.; Ou, T.Y. Particle swarm optimization with time-varying acceleration coefficients for the
multidimensional knapsack problem. Appl. Math. Model. 2014, 38, 1338–1350. [CrossRef]
51. Ratnaweera, A.; Halgamuge, S.K.; Watson, H.C. Self-organizing hierarchical particle swarm optimizer with time-varying
acceleration coefficients. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 2004, 8, 240–255. [CrossRef]
52. Wu, Y.; Gao, X.Z.; Huang, X.L.; Zenger, K. A hybrid optimization method of Particle Swarm Optimization and Cultural
Algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2010 6th International Conference on Natural Computation, Yantai, China, 10–12 August 2010;
pp. 2515–2519.
53. Xu, M.; You, X.; Liu, S. A Novel Heuristic Communication Heterogeneous Dual Population Ant Colony Optimization Algorithm.
IEEE Access 2017, 5, 18506–18515. [CrossRef]
54. Netjinda, N.; Achalakul, T.; Sirinaovakul, B. Particle Swarm Optimization inspired by starling flock behavior. Appl. Soft. Comput.
J. 2015, 35, 411–422. [CrossRef]
Algorithms 2021, 14, 29 16 of 16

55. Fang, W.; Sun, J.; Chen, H.; Wu, X. A decentralized quantum-inspired particle swarm optimization algorithm with cellular
structured population. Inf. Sci. 2016, 330, 19–48. [CrossRef]
56. Zhu, J.; Lin, Y.; Lei, W.; Liu, Y.; Tao, M. Optimal household appliances scheduling of multiple smart homes using an improved
cooperative algorithm. Energy 2019, 171, 944–955. [CrossRef]
57. Zhang, W.X.; Chen, W.N.; Zhang, J. A dynamic competitive swarm optimizer based-on entropy for large scale optimization.
In Proceedings of the 2016 Eighth International Conference on Advanced Computational Intelligence (ICACI), Chiang Mai,
Thailand, 14–16 February 2016; pp. 365–371.
58. Ran, M.P.; Wang, Q.; Dong, C.Y. A dynamic search space Particle Swarm Optimization algorithm based on population entropy. In
Proceedings of the 26th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (2014 CCDC), Changsha, China, 31 May—2 June 2014; pp.
4292–4296.
59. Tang, K.; Li, Z.; Luo, L.; Liu, B. Multi-strategy adaptive particle swarm optimization for numerical optimization. Eng. Appl. Artif.
Intell. 2015, 37, 9–19. [CrossRef]
60. Solteiro Pires, E.J.; Machado, J.A.T.; de Moura Oliveira, P.B. Entropy diversity in multi-objective particle swarm optimization.
Entropy 2013, 15, 5475–5491. [CrossRef]
61. Solteiro Pires, E.J.; Tenreiro Machado, J.A.; de Moura Oliveira, P.B. Dynamic shannon performance in a multiobjective particle
swarm optimization. Entropy 2019, 21, 1–10.
62. Solteiro Pires, E.J.; Tenreiro Machado, J.A.; de Moura Oliveira, P.B. PSO Evolution Based on a Entropy Metric. Adv. Intell. Syst.
Comput. 2020, 923, 238–248.
63. Olorunda, O.; Engelbrecht, A.P. Measuring exploration/exploitation in particle swarms using swarm diversity. In Proceedings of
the 2008 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Hong Kong, China, 1–6 June 2008; pp. 1128–1134.
64. Riget, J.; Vesterstrøm, J.S. A Diversity-Guided Particle Swarm Optimizer—the ARPSO; Technical Report; (riget: 2002: DGPSO), no. 2
EVA Life; Department of Computer Science, University of Aarhus: Aarhus, Denmark, 2002.
65. Shannon, C.E. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 1948, 27, 379–423. [CrossRef]
66. Eberhart, R.C.; Shi, Y. Comparing inertia weights and constriction factors in particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of the
2000 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, LA Jolla, CA, USA, 16–19 July 2000; pp. 84–88.
67. Xu, G.; Cui, Q.; Shi, X.; Ge, H.; Zhan, Z.H.; Lee, H.P. Particle swarm optimization based on dimensional learning strategy. Swarm
Evol. Comput. 2019, 45, 33–51. [CrossRef]
68. Kaucic, M. A multi-start opposition-based particle swarm optimization algorithm with adaptive velocity for bound constrained
global optimization. J. Glob. Optim. 2013, 55, 165–188. [CrossRef]
69. Zhu, J.; Lauri, F.; Koukam, A.; Hilaire, V. Scheduling optimization of smart homes based on demand response. In IFIP International
Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovations; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; Volume 458, pp.
223–236.
70. Tian, D. Particle swarm optimization with chaos-based initialization for numerical optimization. Intell. Autom. Soft Comput. 2018,
24, 331–342. [CrossRef]
71. Ye, W.; Feng, W.; Fan, S. A novel multi-swarm particle swarm optimization with dynamic learning strategy. Appl. Soft Comput. J.
2017, 61, 832–843. [CrossRef]
72. Tian, D.; Shi, Z. MPSO: Modified particle swarm optimization and its applications. Swarm Evol. Comput. 2018, 41, 49–68.
[CrossRef]
73. Liang, J.J.; Qu, B.; Suganthan, P.; Chen, Q. Problem Definitions and Evaluation Criteria for the CEC 2015 Competition on Learning-Based
Real-Parameter Single Objective Optimization; Technical Report 201411A; Computational Intelligence Laboratory, Zhengzhou
University: Zhengzhou, China; Nanyang Technological University: Singapore, 2014.
74. Bratton, D.; Kennedy, J. Defining a Standard for Particle Swarm Optimization. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Swarm Intelligence
Symposium, Honolulu, HI, USA, 1–5 April 2007; pp. 120–127.
75. Liang, J.J.; Qin, A.K.; Suganthan, P.N.; Baskar, S. Comprehensive learning particle swarm optimizer for global optimization of
multimodal functions. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 2006, 10, 281–295. [CrossRef]