Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1 Introduction
Metaheuristics have been considered among the best method for many types of
application especially in the optimization problems such as scheduling, routing,
resource allocating and time tabling. To date, a variety of metaheuristics have been
introduced with different and specific characteristics. Depends on the characteristics,
a metaheuristic can be grouped either as single based(S-metaheuristics) or population
based (P-metaheuristics). Genetic Algorithm (GA) [1], Ant Colony Optimization
(ACO) [2], Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) [3], Bee Colony (BC) [4] and
Differential Evolution (DE) [5] are a few examples of P-metaheuristics. As for the
single based, the common metaheuristics are Simulated Annealing (SA) [6] ,Tabu
Search (TS) [7] and Variable Neighborhood Search (VNS)[8].
Over the last years, many researchers have agreed that relying on sole
metaheuristics was quite restricted in achieving best solution for optimization
problem. Moreover, the “no free lunch theorem” [9] has explained that no single
optimization strategy will be always better than any other. Therefore, hybrid
metaheuristics have been widely accepted as an effective approach compared to the
single implementation.
The numerous implementations of hybrid metaheuristics have attracted many
researchers to cluster hybrid metaheuristics techniques into several classifications
and introduced different taxonomy [10]. The classification schemes however, are not
specifically grouped with regards on the internal structures of P-metaheuristics.
Identification of the internal structures that are suitable for hybridization has been
given in this paper.
The remaining content of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 gives a
brief background about different classification schemes and taxonomies that have
been proposed for hybrid metaheuristics. Then the different hybrid classification is
presented in section 3. Section 4 and 5 provide review and comparison study on
several implementations of LTH respectively. Finally, in section 6, we conclude the
paper with a short summary.
2 Related Works
In this section, the focus is directed towards other research works that tackles relevant
issues in classification, methodology and taxonomy of metaheuristics hybridization.
As introduced in [10], the hybrid metaheurisitics scheme can be divided into three
general forms. There are component exchange among metaheuristics, cooperative
search from different metaheuristics and integration with others methods. The book
however, does not provide detailed explanation on the first category, which mostly
related to metaheuristics internal structure. Many of the implementation examples in
the rest of chapter are rather focused on the third category only.
A more detailed classification can be seen in [11]. The authors primarily
distinguish hybrid metaheuristics according to four criteria namely the kinds of
algorithms, the level of hybridization, the order of execution, and the control strategy.
Although level of hybridization was considered in the classification scheme, it is
however did not involved the elements of internal structure.
Mohammed El-Abd and Mohamed Kamel have introduced new taxomomy for
hybrid metaheuristics [12]. The taxonomy is created according to the algorithms
involved in hybrid and space decomposition. Nevertheless, it is just focus on parallel
implementation of multiple metaheuristics that is not required for internal structure
modifications. On the contrary, a classification scheme that was concentrated with
hybrid evoloutionary algorithms (EAs) has been described in [13]. In this work,
different methodologies and architectures of hybrid EAs has been illustrated with
variation of implementations but all of them were mostly associated with general
combination of algorithms.
In a more detailed view, E. G. Talbi in the Journal of Heuristics [14] have
introduced another taxonomy for hybrid metaheuristics techniques. The classification
has been grouped into hierarchical and flat scheme. Low-level Relay Hybridization
(LRH), Low-level Teamwork Hybridization (LTH), High-level Relay Hybridization
(HRH) and High-level Teamwork hybridization (HTH) are the four classifications
regarding to the hierarchical scheme. Each class from the hierarchy scheme can be
associated to the certain criteria from the flat scheme such homogeneous versus
heterogeneous and global versus partial.
We have gained a lot of inspirations from the Talbi classification scheme
especially to the LTH technique. LTH is a hybrid technique that embedded other
metaheuristics in P-metahaeuristics. It has been shown from a comparative study that
LTH method has sparked the most interest among researchers compared to other
schemes [14]. In term of the hybrid effectiveness, LTH has been proved to
outperform LRH and HRH[15].
The implementation of LTH can be considered as quite complicated. It is
involved directly to the modification of internal structure of the hybridized
algorithms. In fact, choosing a suitable metaheuristics combination at the right
internal structures will contribute to some significant impacts to the hybridization
effectiveness[11].
As to concern with the difficulties, a study should be done to identify and
describes the internal structures of P-metaheuristics that are suitable candidates for
hybridization using LTH. This study can provide some guidance for the LTH
implementation thus make new classification is possible.
In P-metaheuristics, the internal structure that is suitable for LTH can be classified as
population initialization (PI) and population generation (PG).
PI method has some significant influence in the effectiveness of the
metaheuristics. Nevertheless, the determination of PI is often overlooked during the
design phase [16]. In P-metaheuristics, the initial populations are naturally diversified
which benefits in reducing premature convergence problem of P-metaheuristics.
Unfortunately, in some cases, a sole P-metaheuristic are not enough diversified. This
is why hybridization is essential at the population initialization.
In P-metaheuristics, there are two categories of PG strategy have been formed.
One is related to evolution process, involved selection and reproduction using
variation operators, namely as crossover and mutation. Evolutionary algorithms (EAs)
[1] are the most well-known P-metaheuristics in this type. The second category is
associated on utilizing shared memory mechanism which is used as input information
for the next population generation. ACO for example, uses pheromone matrix
information in each population generation while PSO updates particles velocity,
location, personal and global best solutions.
4 A Review of LTH
A review on several LTH has been done based on the internal structure of P-
metaheuristics.
A remarkable result has been achieved from PI hybridization technique that combines
single-parent evolution into GA population initialization [17]. The hybridization has
shown an improvement when applied to the route optimization process for wireless
sensor network. Similarly, an insertion of differential evolution (DE) for PI in genetic
algorithm (GA) has been proved to improve the solution of job shop scheduling
problem [18]. Hybridization between GA, Multiple Phase Neighbourhood Search
GRASP (MPNS-GRASP) and PSO [19] has also produced significant results when
applied to vehicle routing problem (VRP). In this research, the MPNS-GRASP has
been used for the population initialization. Alternatively, ACO has also been applied
with EAs based population initialization like GA [20] as to get high population
quality. Efficiency and effectiveness of the hybridization of tabu search into ACO
has also been achieved when applied to the open vehicle routing problem [21].
5 A Comparative Study
Table 1 illustrates the comparison of LTH according to three different aspects: the
metaheuristics, internal structure and problem applied in the experiment.
It is shown from comparison table that majority of P-metaheuristics hybridization
techniques have been implemented at the population generation (PG). In most cases,
researchers prefer to use benchmark optimization problems such as Ackley, Rastrigin,
Ellipse, Rosenbrock, Sphere, Schaffer, Griewank, Ellipse and Ellipsoida. However, it
has been revealed from various studies that LTH implementation provides effective
and improved solution to the real optimization problems like network design and
course time-tabling.
Table 1. A comparison of LTH
6 Conclusion
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Universiti Teknologi MARA for its financial
support to this project.
References
1. Affenzeller, M., et al., Genetic Algorithms and Genetic Programming - Modern Concepts
and Practical Applications. 2009: CRC Press.
2. Dorigo, M. and T. Stutzle, Ant Colony Optimization. 2004: MIT Press Ltd.
3. Clerc, M., Particle Swarm Optimization. 2006: ISTE.
4. Snodgrass, R.E., Anatomy of Honey Bee. 1953, Ithaca, NY: Comstock Publishing
Associates.
5. Storn, R. and K. Price, Differential evolution: A simple evolution strategy for fast
optimization. Dr. Dobb's Journal, 1997. 22(4): p. 18-24.
6. Laarhoven, P.J.M.V. and E.H.L. Aarts, Simulated Annealing: Theory and Applications
(Mathematics and Its Applications). 1988: Kluwer Academic Publishers Group.
7. Glover, F. and M. Laguna, Tabu Search. 1998, Boston.: Kluwer Academic.
8. Hansen, P., N. Mladenović, and J.A.M. Pérez, Variable neighbourhood search: methods
and applications. Annals of Operations Research, 2009. 175(1): p. 367-407.
9. Wolpert, D. and W. Macready, No free lunch theorems for optimization. EEE Transaction
on Evolutionary Computation, 1997. 1(1): p. 67-82.
10.Blum, C. and A. Roli, Hybrid Metaheuristics: An Introduction, in Hybrid Metaheuristics, C.
Blum, et al., Editors. 2008, Springer. p. 1-30.
11.Raidl, G.R., J. Puchinger, and C. Blum, Metaheuristic Hybrids, in Handbook of
Metaheuristics, Pardalos, et al., Editors. 2010, Springer New York. p. 305-335.
12.El-Abd, M. and M. Kamel, A Taxonomy of Coorperative Search Algorithm, in Hybrid
Metaheuristic 2005, M.J.B.e. al., Editor. 2005, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. p. 32-41.
13.Grosan, C. and A. Abraham, Hybrid Evolutionary Algorithms: Methodologies,
Architectures, and Reviews. Studies in Computation Intelligence (SCI), 2007. 75: p. 1-17.
14.Talbi, E.G., A Taxonomy of Hybrid Metaheuristics. Jounal of Heuristics, 2002. 8: p. 541-
564.
15.Lau, H.C., et al., A software framework for fast prototyping of meta-heuristiccs
hybridization. International Transactions in Operational Research, 2007. 14(2): p. 123-141.
16.Talbi, E.-G., Metaheuristics: From Design to Implementation. 2009: Wiley. 586.
17.Guo, L., B. Wang, and Q. Tang, A Hybrid Genetic Routing Algorithm in Wireless Sensor
Networks, in Advances in Wireless Networks and Information Systems, Q. Luo, Editor. 2010,
Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg. p. 87–92.
18.Zobolas, G., C. Tarantilis, and G. Ioannou, A hybrid evolutionary algorithm for the job shop
scheduling problem. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 2009. 60: p. 221-235.
19.Marinakis, Y. and M. Marinaki, A hybrid genetic - Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm
for the vehicle routing problem. Expert System with Applications, 2010. 37: p. 1446-1455.
20.Guangdong, H., L. Ping, and W. Qu. A Hybrid Metaheuristic ACO-GA with an Application
in Sports Competition Scheduling. in Eighth ACIS International Conference on Software
Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking, and Parallel/Distributed Computing
(SNPD 2007). 2007. Haier International Training Center, Qingdao, China IEEE.
21.Li, X.-Y., P.Tian, and S. Leung, An ant colony optimization metaheuristic hybridized with
tabu search for open vehicle routing problems. Journal of the Operational Research Society,
2009. 60: p. 1010-1025.
22.LaTorre, A., et al. Hybrid Evolutionary Algorithms for Large Scale Continuous Problems. in
GECCO’09, July 8–12, 2009. 2009. Montréal Québec, Canada.
23.Peña, J.M., et al., GA-EDA: Hybrid Evolutionary Algorithm Using Genetic and Estimation
of Distribution Algorithms, in IEA/AIE 2004, R.O.e. al., Editor. 2004, Springer-Verlag
Berlin Heidelberg. p. 361-371.
24.Rodriguez-Tello, E. and J.Torres-Jimenez. ERA: An algorithm for reducing the epistasis of
SAT problems. in Genetic and Evolutinary Computation Conference. 2003: Springer Verlag.
25.Gen, M., L. Lin, and J.-B. Jo, Hybrid Genetic Algorithm for Designing Logistics Network,
VRP and AGV Problems, in Intelligent and Evolutionary Systems. 2009, Springer-Verlag
Berlin Heidelberg p. 123-139.
26.Ahn, Y.K., et al., Optimal Design of Nonlinear Squeeze Film Damper Using Hybrid Global
Optimization Technique. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 2006. 20(8): p.
1125-1138.
27.Caldeira, J.P., F. Melicio, and A. Rosa. Using a Hybrid Evolutionary-Taboo Algorithm to
solve Job Shop Problem. in ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. 2004. Nicosia, Cyprus:
ACM.
28.Juang, F., Hybrid of Genetic Algorithm and Particle Swarm Optimization for Recurrent
Network Design. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS—
PART B: CYBERNETICS, 2004. 34(2).
29.Matthew, S. and S. Terence. Breeding swarms: a GA/PSO hybrid. in Proceedings of the
2005 conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation. 2005. Washington DC, USA:
ACM.
30.You, Z. and T. Ying. Particle swarm optimization with triggered mutation and its
implementation based on GPU. in Proceedings of the 12th annual conference on Genetic
and evolutionary computation. 2010. Portland, Oregon, USA: ACM.
31.Wei, X. and G. Xingsheng. A hybrid particle swarm optimization approach with prior
crossover differential evolution. in Proceedings of the first ACM/SIGEVO Summit on
Genetic and Evolutionary Computation. 2009. Shanghai, China: ACM.
32.Yen, G.G. and L. Wen Fung, Dynamic Multiple Swarms in Multiobjective Particle Swarm
Optimization. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, IEEE
Transactions on, 2009. 39(4): p. 890-911.
33.Shuang, B., J. Chen, and Z. Li, Study on hybrid PS-ACO algorithm. Applied Intelligence,
2009.
34.Lim, K.K., et al., Hybrid ant colony algorithms for path planning in sparse graphs. Soft
Computing, .2007. 12: p. 981–994.
35.Ayob, M. and G. Jaradat. Hybrid Ant Colony systems for course timetabling problems. in
The Second Conference on Data Mining and Optimization, 2009. 2009. Kajang, Malaysia:
IEEE.
36.Pulikanti, S. and A. Singh, An Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm for the Quadratic Knapsack
Problem, in ICONIP 2009, C.S.Leung, M. Lee, and J.H. Chan, Editors. 2009, Springer-
Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. p. 196–205.
37.Aurelio, M., et al., Application of the Bee Swarm Optimization BSO to the Knapsack
Problem, in Soft Comp. for Recogn. Based on Biometrics,, P.M.e. al., Editor. 2010,
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg p. 191–206.
38.Robles, V., et al., Extending the GA-EDA Hybrid Algorithm to Study Diversification and
Intensification in GAs and EDAs, in IDA 2005, A.F.F.e. al, Editor. 2005, Springer-Verlag
Berlin Heidelberg p. 339-350.