International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, April 2012 Vol. 3, No.

4 ISSN: 1837-7823

Review of Particle Swarm Optimization

Narinder Singh and S.B.Singh Department of Mathematics Punjabi University, Patiala-147002, Punjab, INDIA narindersinghgoria@ymail.com & sbsingh69@yahoo.com Abstract Particle Swarm Optimization techniques has undergone many changes. As researchers have learned about the technique, they have derived new versions, developed new applications, and published theoretical studies of the effects of the various parameters and aspects of the algorithm. In this paper a compendious and timely review of the various PSO techniques have been reviewed. Keywords: Global best position, Personal best position, Inertia weight, Random factor, Update position and update velocity. NOMENCLATURE
C1
C2

Self Confidence Factor Swarm Confidence Factor (The parameters C1 and C 2 in equation (2), are not critical for PSOs convergence and alleviation of local minima, C1 than a social parameter C 2 but with C1 + C 2 =4)

Fitness Function Personal Best Position of the Global Best Position of the Old Velocity of the
i th i th i th

yij yij
vij (t )

particle in
j th

th

dimension

particle in
j th

dimension

particle in
th

dimension
th

v (k + 1) ij

New Update Velocity Old Position of the

i th

particle in
j th

dimension

xij (k )
xij (k + 1)

particle in
i th

dimension
j th

New Update Position of the

particle in

dimension

Inertia Weight: - (The role of inertia weight in equation (2), is considered critical for the PSO,s convergence behavior. The inertia weight is employed to control the impact of previous history of velocities on the current one. Constriction Coefficient
33

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, April 2012 Vol. 3, No. 4 ISSN: 1837-7823

Random Number between 0 and 1 (The parameters r1 and r2 are used to maintain the diversity of the population, and they are uniformly distributed in the range [0,1])

Vmax

Maximum velocity (Vmax) parameter. This parameter limits the maximum jump that a particle can make in one step. Real Number Swarm Size :-(Number of particles in the swarm affects the run-time significantly, thus a balance between variety (more particles) and speed (less particles) must be sought) Real Number of n -triples Time Time Increment Uniformly distribution between 0 and 1 Objective Function

s
Rn

k
U (0,1)

1. Introduction
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) is a well known modern heuristic technique of optimization introduced by James Kennedy and Eberhart (1995) on the basis social behavior like bird flocking and fish schooling. A PSO algorithm maintains a swarm of individuals (called particles), where each individual (particle) represents a candidate solution. Particles follow a very simple behavior: emulate the success of neighboring particles, and own successes achieved. The position of a particle is therefore influenced by the best particle in a neighborhood, as well as the best solution found by the particle. Particle position xi are adjusted using xi (t + 1) xi (t ) + vi (t + 1) = New update Position = Previous Position+ New update Velocity where the velocity component, vi (t ) represents the step size. For the basic PSO.
vij (t + 1) vij (t ) + c1r1 j ( yij xij ) + c2 r2 j ( y j xij ) =

(1)

(2)

Shi and Eberhart (1998) proposed to use an inertia weight parameter

vij (= w vij (t ) + c1r1 j ( yij xij ) + c2 r2 j ( y j xij ) t + 1)

(3)
34

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, April 2012 Vol. 3, No. 4 ISSN: 1837-7823

New update Velocity= Inertia + Cognitive + Social Eberhart and Shi suggested to use the inertia weight which is decreasing over time, typically from 0.9 to 0.4. It has the effect of narrowing the search, gradually changing from an exploratory to an exploitative mode. Clerc and Kennedy (2000) suggested a more generalized PSO, where a constriction coefficient is applied to both terms of the velocity formula. Clerc shows that the constriction PSO can converge without using Vmax:
vij = (vij (t ) + c1r1 j ( yij xij ) + c2 r2 j ( y j xij )) (t + 1)

(4)

where the constriction factor set 0.7289 (Clerc and Kennedy 2002). By using the constriction coefficient, the amplitude of the particles oscillation decreases, resulting in its convergence over time.

2. Review of Changes in Particle Swarm Optimization Techniques after 1995

In the standard PSO, a particle with k neighbors selects one to be a source of influence, and ignores the others. Mendes has revised the way particles interact with their neighbors (Kennedy and Mendes, 2002; Mendes et al., 2002). Whereas in the traditional algorithm each particle is affected by its own previous performance and the single best success found in its neighborhood, in Mendes fully informed particle swarm (FIPS), the particle is affected by all its neighbors, sometimes with no influence from its own previous success. Silva et al. (2002) introduced a Predator-Prey PSO in which a predatory particle is attracted to the swarm best particle but repulsed the rest of the swarm, forcing them to disperse and explore other areas of the search space. This approach is tested using high-dimensional test problems and is shown to improve the performance of PSO with a variety of parameter settings. Peram et al. (2003) and Veeramachaneni et al. (2003) introduced a new PSO called Fitness-Distance-Ratio PSO (FDRPSO) which combines the influences of the neighbors like FIPS (Mendes et al. 2002). The proposed new algorithm moves particles towards nearby particles of higher fitness, instead of attracting each particle towards just the best position discovered so far by any particle. This is accomplished by using the ratio of the relative fitness and the distance of other particles to determine the direction in which each component of the particle position needs to be changed. FDRPSO is shown to perform significantly better than the original PSO algorithm and some of its variants. Empirical examination of the evolution of the particles demonstrates that the convergence of the algorithm does not occur at an early phase of particle evolution, unlike PSO. Avoiding premature convergence allows FDRPSO to continue search for global optima in difficult multimodal optimization problems. To avoid stagnation of PSO search process, Van den Bergh, (2006) introduced the Guaranteed Convergence PSO (GCPSO), which uses a different velocity update equation for the global best particle. This equation causes the particle to perform a random search around global best within a radius defined by a scaling factor that adapts to the success of the particle in not stalling at global best. In unimodal problems the GCPSO outperformed the modified PSO but produced similar results when used in multimodal environments.
35

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, April 2012 Vol. 3, No. 4 ISSN: 1837-7823

Qi Kang, Lei Wang and Qi-di Wu et al. (2006) presented FAOPSO (Fuzzy Adaptive Optimization Strategy of Particle Swarm Optimization) algorithm. The proposed approach is validated by function optimization problem from the standard literature. Simulation results indicated that the approach is highly competitive for its better general convergence performance. Yu et al. (2007) proposed a CenterPSO where a center particle is incorporated into linearly decreasing weight particle swarm optimization (LDWPSO). The position of the center particle is updated with the center of swarm that consists of ordinary particles at every iteration. Due to characteristic of swarm activity, all particles oscillate around the center of the swarm and gradually converge toward it. The center particle usually gets good position and often becomes the gbest of the swarm during the run. Therefore, despite only one center particle present, it has more opportunities to guide the search of the whole swarm, and influences the performance greatly. Experimental results showed that CenterPSO achieves better performance than LDWPSO. Zhang and Zhu (2008) modified CentrePSO by introducing tournament selection operator to select the evolved particles. Tests in three benchmark functions showed the algorithm is more steady and rapid than CentrePSO. Wenxin Liu, Li Liu, David A.Cartes, and G.K. Venayagamoorthy et al. (2007) has given modified version known as BPSO algorithm. The proposed algorithm can split a power system into a desired number of islands. Additionally, other requirements can also be realized if constraints can be properly defined. For example, if dynamic response needs to be considered, the generator groups can be found first based on slow coherency, and then the fitness function need to be modified to generate the highest fitness to a solution that can provide the most similarity to the desired generator groups. A heuristic response test is required to ensure reasonable, efficient, and timely solutions. Millie Pant, Radha Thangaraj and Ajith Abraham et al. (2008) derived a modified version of AMPSO1 and AMPSO2 (Adaptive Mutation Particle Swarm Optimization) which, instead of mutating the entire population of potential solution, mutated only the personal and global best particle of the population. Shang and Zhu (2008) modified CentrePSO by introducing tournament selection operator to select the evolved particles. Tests in three benchmark functions showed the algorithm is more steady and rapid than CentrePSO. Chuang et al. (2008) introduced a CatfishPSO by incorporating a catfish particle into LDWPSO. It is inspired from the statement that an active few members of a group can stimulate the performance of a group as a whole. In CatfishPSO, Catfish particles initialize a new search from extremes of the search space when the gbest value has not made progress after a number of iterations. CatfishPSO achieved better performance than LDWPSO and CentrePSO. Kang et al. (2008) proposed an Ecological PSO (EPSO) by using the concept of ecological population density. In EPSO algorithm, the population competition and collaboration based on population density is added to the population organization and evolution; in which population density is controlled by population competition model (Latka-Volterra model). Population size is computed and adjusted dynamically according to Latka-Volterra model, but the evolution of particle individuals in each population is according to the same evolution strategies in the standard version of PSO; in addition, individuals in each population can also obtain the general
36

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, April 2012 Vol. 3, No. 4 ISSN: 1837-7823

information to affect their evolution through population collaboration. Results showed that EPSO is a promising method with good global convergence performance. Wang and Wang (2008), constructed a novel version of PSO, the particle swarm optimization with leader and followers referred as Goose Team Optimization (GTO), by introducing the basic flight mechanism of a goose team, such as division of roles, separate principle, parallel principle and aggregate principle, into the simple social model of the standard PSO. The goose team flight mechanism enables the algorithm to optimize four complicated nonlinear functions very effectively. Wang and Wang (2008) suggested GTO of 10 individuals for satisfactory performance. Kusum Deep and Bansal (2009) proposed MeanPSO which uses linear combination of gbest and pbest in social and cognitive components of velocity update equation instead of gbest and pbest. Different approaches for Multi-Objective PSO (MOPSO) have been proposed e.g. The Dynamic Neighborhood MOPSO, developed by Hu and Eberhart (2002), MOPSO of Coello Coello and Lechuga, (2002), MOPSO by Mostaghim and Teich (2003) and Time Variant Multi-Objective Particle Swarm Optimization (TV-MOPSO) (Tripthi et al. 2007) etc. Arumugam et al. (2009) have used extrapolation technique to update the particles best position along with PSO (ePSO) for solving optimization problems. By retaining the basic concepts of the PSO algorithm, two new extrapolation parameters are introduced along with the extrapolated position equation, ePSO is very deterministic in getting the global optimum value with faster convergence. Ali and Kaelo (2008) have proposed two new particle swarm optimization (PSO) methods. They incorporated a randomized personal best in the cognitive component of the velocity update rule and hybridized the position update rule with the differential evolution trial point generation operators. These new algorithms were tested on a large set of test problems and found to have faster convergence rate than standard PSO. R.Shankar Naik, K.ChandraSekhar, K.Vaisakh derived a modified version of APSO (Adaptive Particle Swarm Optimization) et al (2005-2009). In this method firstly, the controller is designed according to Fuzzy Logic rules such that the systems are fundamentally robust. Secondly, the Fuzzy Logic controller (FLC) used earlier was optimized with PSO so as to obtain adjustment of the membership functions only. The results show that the proposed controller outperforms other schemes. Adel M. Sharaf, Adel A..A. El-Gammal et al (2009) developed a modified version of MOPSO (Multi Objective Multi-Stage Particle Swarm Optimization) to determine optimal capacitor size in a radial distribution system. The main objective functions are: (i) Minimize the feeder current for feeder loss reduction (ii) Minimize voltage deviation at each bus of the distribution system, and (iii) Feeder capacity release. MOPSO approach it allows the operator to find a near optimal good compromise among the proposed goals. Adding capacitor banks to radial distribution feeder results in increased feeder utilization reduced system losses, and enhanced system voltages, release and improved power quality. K.Premalatha and A.M. Natarajan et al (2009) developed a modified Procreant PSO algorithm. This algorithm is a hybrid of PSO and genetic algorithm (GA), a population-based heuristic
37

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, April 2012 Vol. 3, No. 4 ISSN: 1837-7823

search technique. The PPSO can be used to solve combinatorial optimization problems in this paper. Mehdizadesh, S.Sadi-Nezhad and R.Tavakkoli-Moghaddam et al (2008) presented a FPSO (Fuzzy Particle Swarm Optimization) and fuzzy c-mean (FCM) algorithm. These algorithms are used to solve the fuzzy clustering problem, especially or large sizes. When the problem becomes, large, the FCM algorithm may result in uneven distribution of data, making it difficult to find an optimal solution in reasonable amount of time. S.A. Hamdan et al (2008) has given HPSO (Hybrid Particle Swarm Optimization) algorithm, that combines the idea of global best model with the idea of local best model is presented in this paper. The HPSO algorithm finds a better solution without trapping in local minimums models, and to achieve faster convergence rate. The performance of HPSO is compared to other standard models of PSO using variant set of benchmark functions to investigate the improvement. Yun-Won Jeong, Jong-Bae, Ki-Seon Cho. Hyeong-Jung Kim. Joong-Rin Shin et al (2008) presented a new CPSO (Chaotic Particle Swarm Optimization) algorithm. This proposed algorithm outperforms other state-of-the-art algorithms in solving ED problems, which consider value-point and multi-fuels with value-point effects. In order to verify the superiority of the proposed CPSO, two ED problems with nonconvex cost functions are tested and its results are compared with those of previous works. The simulation results clearly show that the proposed CPSO can be used as an optimizer providing satisfactory solutions while satisfying system equality and inequality constraints for the nonconvex ED problems. Sergio Consoli. Jose Andres Moreno-Perez, Kenneth Darby-Downman. Nenad Mladenovie et al (2008) derived JPSO (Jumping Particle Swarm Optimization) algorithm. Its effectiveness is illustrated on the minimum labeling Steiner tree problem and undirected labeled connected graph. The aim of this algorithm is to find a spanning tree covering a given subset of nodes, whose edges the smallest number of distinct labels. Travis Besell, Malik Magdon-Ismail, Boleslaw Szymanski, Carlos Varels, Heidi Newberg and Naithan Cole et al (2009) derived APSO (Asynchronous Particle Swarm Optimization) algorithm. This method is shown to provide faster convergence to optimal results while being less sensitive to its search parameters. The verification strategy presented is shown to be effective for both AGS and APSO and the purposed algorithm is applied to scientific computing problems. Wenxin Liu, Li Liu and David A. Cartes et al (2008) has given a modified version of PSO AMPSO (Angle Modulated Particle Swarm Optimization) algorithm. AMPSO algorithm is find some efficient islanding solutions for large-scale power systems, provided necessary load shedding information and also provide a number of candidate solutions for the check of transmission system capacity constraint. Simulation with power system of different scales demonstrate the accuracy and effectiveness of the proposed algorithm. Behnamian, Fatemi Ghomi and Tang et al. (2010) derived a new hybrid PSO algorithm. The proposed algorithm is inspired by recent improved variant of PSO, called IPSO, which integrates merits of inertia weights and constriction factor approached (IWCFA). A modified simulated annealing approach with strong local-serach power is incorporated to further improvement. The
38

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, April 2012 Vol. 3, No. 4 ISSN: 1837-7823

proposed IPSO-SA approach makes full utilization of the exploration capabilities in IPSO and SA algorithms and offsets the weaknesses of each algorithm. PSO variants are continually being devised in an attempt to overcome this deficiency, see e.g. [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] for a few recent additions. These PSO variants greatly increase the complexity of the original method and we have previously demonstrated that satisfactory performance can be achieved with the basic PSO if only its parameters are properly tuned [59] [60]. Particle swarm optimization is a very useful EA related technique [36] [30] [59], with various variants [46]: 2-D Otsu PSO (TOPSO), Active Target PSO (APSO), Adaptive PSO (APSO), Adaptive Mutation PSO (AMPSO), Adaptive PSO Guided by Acceleration Information (AGPSO), Angle Modulated PSO (AMPSO), Attractive Repulsive Particle Swarm Optimization (ARPSO), Augmented Lagrangian PSO (ALPSO), Best Rotation PSO (BRPSO), Binary PSO (BPSO), Co-evolutionary PSO, Combinatorial PSO (CPSO), Comprehensive Learning PSO (CLPSO), Concurrent PSO (CONPSO), Constrained optimization via PSO (COPSO), Cooperative PSO (CPSO_M), Cooperative PSO (CPSO_S), Cooperatively Coevolving Particle Swarms (CCPSO), Cooperative Multiple PSO (CMPSO), Cultural based PSO (CBPSO), Dissipative PSO (DPSO), Divided range PSO (DRPSO), Dual Similar PSO Algorithm (DSPSOA), Dynamic adaptive dissipative PSO (ADPSO), Dynamic and Adjustable PSO (DAPSO), Dynamic Double Particle Swarm Optimizer (DDPSO), Dual Layered PSO (DLPSO), Dynamic neighborhood PSO (DNPSO), Estimation of Distribution PSO (EDPSO), Evolutionary Iteration PSO (EIPSO), Evolutionary Programming and PSO (EPPSO), Extended Particle Swarms (XPSO), Extended PSO (EPSO), Fitness-to-Distance Ratio PSO (FDRPSO) and so on and so forth. Narinder Singh and S.B. Singh et al. (2011) developed a OHGBPPSO algorithm. The performance of this algorithm has been tested through numerical and graphical results. The results obtained are compared with the standard PSO (SPSO) for scalable and non-scalable problems. Mauro Sebastian Innocente, Johann Sienz et al. (2011) derived a Type I constriction factor. In this paper the convergence studies carried out for the CPSO enabled us to provide equations for the calculation of Type I and Type I constriction factors when there is also inertia weight w 1 in the system. In addition, the equations provided allow for any initially set 0 and for better control over the convergence speed: if complex convergent eigenvalues are ensured, an interval for is calculated where the closer to the lower limit the faster the convergence and the closer to the upper limit the slower the convergence. Since can be greater than one, the proposed constriction factor is in fact a scaling factor. Thus, convergence may be delayed yet still ensured if the initially set ( 0 , w0 ) pair results in too fast in convergence. Juabkeu Zgabgm Chunyan Zhang, Tianguang Chu, and Matjaz Perc at el. (2011) studied the impact of Particle Swarm Optimization on the evaluation of cooperation in the stochastic strategy spatial prisoners dilemma game. The strategy updating was guided by the particle swarm optimization algorithm, using as input the individual memory of every player as well as knowledge gained by the swarm as a whole.
39

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, April 2012 Vol. 3, No. 4 ISSN: 1837-7823

K.Thanushkidi, K.Deeba et al. (2011) proposed a new improved particle swarm optimization and applied to multiprocessor job shop scheduling. This new proposed algorithm helps in partitioning the jobs in the processors by attaining minimum waiting time and finishing time in comparison with the other algorithms, longest processing time, shortest processing time, and particle swarm optimization. The worst component being included along with the best component tends to minimize the waiting time and finishing time, by its cognitive behavior. Thus the proposed algorithm for the same number of generations, has achieved better results. Narinder Singh and S.B.Singh et al. (2012) developed a PBPPSO. The modification of this algorithm has been done by vanishing the global best term in the velocity update equation of SPSO. The performance of the this algorithm has been tested on several benchmark problems. The results indicated that the proposed algorithm performs better than SPSO. Hemlata S. Urade, Rahila Patel (2012) are introduced the concept of dynamic Particle Swarm Optimization. The performance of this technique comparative analysis for Simple PSO and Dynamic PSO which shows the better result for dynamic PSO rather than simple PSO. Bahman Bahmanifirouzi, Mehdi Nafar and Mosoud Jabbari (2012), presented a Modified Particle Swarm Optimization based algorithm for Economic Dispatch. The performance of the proposed method has been demonstrated on one test case with three generating units. L.M.Palanivelu and P.Vijayakumar (2012) investigated the problem of optimizing space for multi application smart card using compression techniques.

3. Conclusion
In this paper we have briefly reviewed the improvements in the particle swarm optimization algorithm with time. It has found that Particle Swarm Optimization is highly effective and adaptable to diverse application requirement, with considerable potential for hybridization and integration into a range of intelligence systems. This paper will help Scientists and Engineers in understanding the relative strengths of Particle Swarm Optimization and their variants.

References
[1] Eberhart, R.C. and Kennedy, J. (1995), A New Optimizer using Particle Swarm Theory, In Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Micromachine and Human Science, pp. 3943.. Kennedy, J., The particle swarm: social adapation of knowledge (1997), Proceeding in IEEE International Conference .Evolutionary Comput., Indianapolis, IN , pp. 303-308. Kennedy, J. and Eberhart, R. (1997), A Discrete Binary version of the particle swarm optimization, International Conference on Neural Network, Vol.4, pp. 4104-4108, Perth, Australia. Shi, Y. and Eberhart, R.C (1998), A modified particle swarm optimizer, Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation. Piscataway, N.J, pp. 69-73.

[2] [3]

[4]

40

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, April 2012 Vol. 3, No. 4 ISSN: 1837-7823

[5]

[6] [7] [8]

[9] [10]

[11] [12] [13]

[14] [15]

[16]

[17]

[18] [19]

[20] [21] [22]

Kennedy, J., Worlds, Small and Minds, Mega (1999), Effects of Neighborhood Topology on Particle Swarm Performance, In Proceedings of the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Vol. 3, pp. 19311938. Shi, Y. and Eberhart, R. (1999), Empirical study of particle swarm optimization, Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC 99, Vol.3, 1999. Shi, Y.H., Eberhart, R.C. (1998), A Modified particle swarm optimizer, IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, Anchorage, Alaska. Angeline, P.J. (1998), Evolutionary Optimization Versus Particle Swarm Optimization: Philosophy and Performance Difference, Evolutionary Programming VII, Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pp. 601-610, Springer. Kennedy, J., Eberhart, R.C. and Shi, Y. (2001), Swarm Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Lovbjerg, M., Rasmussen T., and Krink T., Hybrid Particle Swarm Optimizer with Breeding and Subpopulation, In Proc. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO. Kennedy, J., Eberhart, R. C., and Shi, Y. (2001), Swarm intelligence, San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Seok K.Hwang, Kyungmo Koo, Jin S.Lee, (2001), Homogeneous Particle Swarm Optimizer for Multi-objective Optimization Problem, www.icgst.com,. Eberhart, R. C. and Shi, Y. (2001), Tracking and optimizing dynamic systems with particle swarms In Proc. the 2001 Congress on Evolutionary Computation CEC2001, pp.94100. Deb, K. (2001), Multi-Objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK. Deb, K., Agrawal, S., Pratap, A. and Meyarivan, T. (2002), A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm:NSGA-II, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, Vol. 6, pp. 182-197. Hu, X. and Eberhart, R.( May 12-17, 2002), Multiobjective Optimization Using Dynamic Neighbourhood Particle Swarm Optimization, In Proceedings of the IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence, Hawaii. IEEE Press. Coello, C.A.C. and Lechuga, M.S. (2002), MOPSO: A Proposal for Multiple Objective Particle Swarm Optimization, Proceedings of Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC'2002), Vol. 2, IEEE Press (2002), pp. 1051-1056. Kennedy, J. and Mendes, R. (2002), Population structure and particle swarm performance, in Proc.Congr, Evolutionary Computation (CEC 2002), pp. 1671-1676. Clerc M., Kennedy J. (2002), The Particle Swarm : Explosion, Stability, and Convergence in a Multi-dimensional Complex Space, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, Vol.6, pp. 58-73. Xie, X.F., Zhang, W.J. and Yang, Z.L. (2002), A Dissipative Particle Swarm Optimization, IEEE congress on Evolutionary Computation, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Riget, J., Jakob, and Vesterstrom, S. (2002), A Diversity-Guided Particle Swarm Optimizer-the ARPSO, EVALife. Krink, T., Vesterstrom J.S., and Riget, J.( 2002), Particle swarm optimization with spatial particle extension ,in Proc. IEEE, pp. 1474-1479.

41

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, April 2012 Vol. 3, No. 4 ISSN: 1837-7823

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30] [31] [32]

[33] [34] [35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

Kennedy, J. and Mendes, R. (2002), Population Structure and Particle Performance, In Proceedings of the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pp. 16711676. IEEE Press. Fieldsend, J.E. and Singh, S. (2002), A multi-objective algorithm based upon particle swarm optimization, an efficient data structure and turbulence, In Proc. 2002 U.K. Workshop on Computational Intelligence. Li, X.(2003), A Non-dominated Sorting Particle Swarm Optimizer for Multiobjective Optimization, in Erick Cant-Paz et al. (editors), Genetic and Evolutionary Computation GECCO 2003, Proceedings, Part I, Springer, LNCS ,Vol. 2723, pp.37-48. Mostaghim, S. and Teich, J. (2003), Strategies for finding good local guides in MultiObjective Particle Swarm Optimization (MOPSO, In Proc. 2003 IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symp., Indianapolis, IN, pp. 26-33. Veeramachancni, K., Peram, T., Mohan, C. and Osadciw, L.A.(2003), Optimization using particle swarms with near neighbor interactions, in Proc. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GECCO 2003), Vol. 2723, pp. 110-121. Tasgetiren, M.F., Sevkli, M., Liang, Y.C., and Gencyilmaz, G. ( 2004), Particle swarm optimization algorithm for single machine total weighted tardiness problem, in Proc. Congress on Evolutionary Compution, CEC 2004, Vol.2, pp. 1412-1419. Baskar, S. and Suganthan, P.N. (2004), A novel concurrent particle swarm optimization, in Proc.Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC 2004, Vol.1, pp 792-796. Schutte, J.F. and Groenwold, A.A.(2005), "A Study of Global Optimization Using Particle Swarms," Journal of Global Optimization, Vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 93 - 108. Cervantes, A., lsasi, P. and Galvan, I., Binary particle swarm optimization in classification, Neural Netw. World, vol.15, no. 3, pp. 229-241. Coello, C. A. C., Pulido, G. T. and Lechuga, M.S. (2004), Handling multiple objectives with particle swarm optimization, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., Vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 256 279. Koh, B., George, A.D., Haftka, R.T. and Fregly, B.J.(2006), Parallel asynchronous Particle Swarm Optimization, Int. J. Numer Method Eng., Vol. 67, No.4, pp.578-595. Clerc, M.( 2006), Particle Swarm Optimization, ISTE Ltd. Liu, W., Liu, L., Cartes, D.A. and Venayagamoorthy, G.K. (2006), Binary Particle Swarm Optimization Based Defensive Islanding of Large Scale Systems, International Journal of Computer Science & Applications, Vol.4, No. 3, pp. 69-83. Montes, M.A., Oca., D. (2007), Institut de Recherches Interdisciplinair-es et de Developpements en Intelligence Artificielle, [Online] .http://iridia.ulb.ac. be/~mmontes/slides CIL/slides.pdf. Sabat, S. L., Ali, Layak (2007), " The Combined effect Comprehensive Learning Particle Swarm Optimization", 24th International Symposium on Automation $ Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2007) Construction Automation Group, I.I.T Madras. Holden, N.P. and Freitas, A.A. (2007),A hybrid particle swarm optimization/ACO algorithm for classification, in Proc. GECCO conf. Companion Genetic Evo. Comput., pp. 2745-2750. Mehdizadesh, Nezhad, S.Sadi and Moghaddam, R.Tavakkoli (2008), "Optimization of Fuzzy Clustering Criteria by a hybrid PSO and Fuzzy C-Mean Clustering Algorithm", Iranian Journal of Fuzzy System, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 1-14.
42

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, April 2012 Vol. 3, No. 4 ISSN: 1837-7823

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43] [44]

[45] [46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50] [51] [52] [53]

Jeong, Y.W., Bae, J., Cho., Ki-S., Kim, H.J. and Shin, J.R.(2008), An Improved Particle Swarm Optimization Adopting Chaotic Sequence for Nonconvex Economic Dispatch Problems. Liu, W., Liu, L. and Cartes, David A.(2008), Angle Modulated Particle Swarm Optimization Based Islanding of Large Scale Power Systems, International Journal of Computational Intelligence Research, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 117-127. Yisu, J., Knowles, J., Hongmei, L. Liang yizeng and Douglas B.Kell, (2008), The Landspace adaptive particle swarm optimizer, Applied Soft Computing, Vol.8, pp. 295304. Besell, T., Ismail, M. M., Szymanski, B. Varels, C., Newberg, H. and Naithan, (2009), Robust Asynchronous Optimization for Volunteer Computing Grids. Ghandi, Bashir M., Nagarajan, R. and Desa, H. (2009), Classification of Facial Emotions using Guided Particle Swarm Optimization I, Int. J. Computer and Communication Technology, Vol. 1 No. 1. Deep, K. and Bansal, J.C.(2009), Mean particle swarm optimization for function optimization, Int. J. Computational Intelligence Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1. Sedighizadeh, D. and Masehian, E. (2009), "Particle Swarm Optimization:Methods, Taxonomy and Applications," International Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 5, pp. 1793-8201. Naik, R.S., Sekhar, K.C., Vaisakh, K. (2009), "Adaptive PSO based optimization Fuzzy Controller Design AGC Equipped with SMES and SPSS", Journal of Theoretical and Applied information Technology, Vol. 7. No. 1, pp. 008-017. Cervantes, A., Galvn, I.M. and Isasi, P. (2009), "A New Particle Swarm Method for Nearest Neighborhood Classification", IEEE Transactions on systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part B: Cybernetics. Premalatha, K. and Natarajan, A.M. (2009), "Procreant PSO for fastening the Convergence to optimal solution in the application of document clustering", Current Science, Vol. 96, No.1. Zhan, Z-H., Zhang, J., Li, Y. and Chung, H.S.H.(2009), Adaptive particle swarm optimization, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 1362-1381. Xinchao, Z. ( 2010), A perturbed particle swarm algorithm for numerical optimization, Applied Soft Computing , pp. 119-124. Niknam, T. and Amiri, B. (2010), An efficient hybrid approach based on PSO,ACO and k-means for cluster analysis, Applied Soft Computing, pp. 183- 197. Abda, M. E., Hassan, H. , Anisa, M. , Kamela, M.S. and Elmasry, M. (2010), Discrete cooperative particle swarm optimization for FPGA placement, Applied Soft Computing, pp. 284-295. Chena, M-R., Lia, X., Zhanga, X. and Lu., Y.Z (2010), A novel particle swarm optimizer hybridized with extremal optimization, Applied Soft Computing, pp. 367-373. Tsang, P.W.M. , Yuena, T.Y.F. and Situ, W.C.(2010), Enhanced a_ne invariant matching of broken boundaries based on particle swarm optimization and the dynamic migrant principle, Applied Soft Computing, pp. 432-438.
43

[54] [55]

International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Information Security, April 2012 Vol. 3, No. 4 ISSN: 1837-7823

[56]

Hsua, C.C., Shiehb, W.Y. and Gao, C.H.(2010), Digital redesign of uncertain interval systems based on extremal gain/phase margins via a hybrid particle swarm optimizer, Applied Soft Computing, pp. 606-612. Liua, H., Caia, Z. and Wang, Y., Hybridizing particle swarm Optimization with differential evolution for constrained numerical and engineering optimization, Applied Soft Computing, pp. 629-640. Mahadevana, K. and Kannan, P.S. (2010), Comprehensive learning particle swarm optimization for reactive power dispatch, Applied Soft Computing, pp. 641-652. Pedersen, M.E.H.(2010), Tuning & Simplifying Heuristical Optimization, PhD thesis, School of Engineering Sciences, University of Southampton, England. Pedersen, M.E.H. and Chipper, A.J. (2010), Simplifying particle swarm optimization, Applied Soft Computing, pp. 618-628. Pedersen, M.E.H. and Chipper, A.J. (2010), "Simplifying Particle Swarm Optimization," Applied Soft Computing, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 618-628. Singh, Narinder and Singh, S.B.(2011), One Half Global Best Position Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithn, International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Vol. 2, No. 8. Innocente, M. S. and Sienz, J. (2011), Particle Swarm Optimization with inertia Weight and Constriction Factor, International conference on swarm intelligence, ICSI, id-1 to id-11. Zhang, J., Zhang, C., Chu, T. and Perc, M. (2011), Resolution of the Stochastic Strategy Spatial Prisoners Dilemma by Means of Particle Swarm Optimization, PloS ONE, www.plosone.org, Vol 6, No. 7. Thanushkodi, K. and Deeba, K. (2011), A New Improved Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm for Multiprocessor Job Scheduling, IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issue, Vol. 8, Issue 4, No. 1. Behnamian, J., Fatemi Ghomi, S.M.T., Development of a PSO-SA hybrid metaheuristic for a new comprehensive regression model to time-series forecasting, Expert Systems and Applications, Vol.37, No.2, pp.974-984. Singh, Narinder and Singh, S.B. (2012),Personal Best Position Particle Swarm Optimization, Journal of Applied Computer & Mathematics, Vol 6 , issue 12, pp. 69-76. Urda, Hemlata S. and Patel, R. (2012),Performance Evaluation of Dynamic Particle Swarm Optimization, International Journal of Computer Science and Network, Vol. 1, No.1. Bahmanifirouzi, B., Nafar, M. and Jabbari, M. (2012), Modified Particle Swarm Optimization for Economic Dispatch of Generating Units, J. Basic, Applied Sci., Vol.2, No.1, pp.138-140. Palanivelu, L.M. and Vijayakumar, P. (2012), A Particle Swarm Optimization for Image Segmentation in Multi Application Smart Cards, European Journal of Scientific Research, ISSN 1450-216X, Vol. 70, No. 3.

[57]

[58] [59] [60] [61] [62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67] [68]

[69]

[70]

44