4 views

Uploaded by baalaajee

Constraint Handling techniques

- Classification Rule Construction Using Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm for Breast Cancer Data Sets
- AI_PSO
- Notes on PSO
- Piping System
- 194753
- paper on CSP.pdf
- CAMES_19_3_3.pdf
- Study on the application of particle swarm optimization
- B.tech Project Thesis Saikishan Das(10603062)
- 15.P.sathIYA 2009 Optimization of Friction Welding Parameters Using
- pso-review.pdf
- i Jsc 040201
- P_4_Khaled _new
- Self Accelerated Smart Particle Swarm Optimization for multimodal Optimization Problems
- Reprint of GECCO Paper
- Mine Blast Algorithm
- UT Dallas Syllabus for math1325.5u1.08u taught by (xxx)
- 23Vol95No16.pdf
- Ch01 Introduction design of thermal system
- Rekha 2013

You are on page 1of 7

.Genevieve Coath and Saman K. Halgamuge

Mechatronics and Manufacturing Research Grolip

Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering

University of Melhourne

. .

,[gcoath. sam]@mame.mu.oz.au

I

. .

,

, A j

. .

constraint-handling methods used in the application of

particle swarm optimization (PSO) to constrained nonlinear optimization problems (CNOPs). A brief review

of constraint-handling techniques for evolutionary algorithms (EAs) is given, followed by a direct comparison

of two existing methods of enforcing constraints using

PSO. The two methods considered are the application

of non-stationary multi-stage penalty functions and the

preservation of feasible solutions.'Fivebenchmark functions are used for the comparison. and the results are

examined to'assess'the performance of eacti,method in

terms of accuracy and rate of convergenfe. Conclusions

are drawn and suggestions for the applicability of each

method to real-world CNOPs are given:.

.*

1 Introduction

..

, <

was ahle to. find better solutions than, the EAs considered.

Hu and Eberhart 121, [41 implemented a PSO strategy of

tracking only feasible solutions, p i t h excellent results when

compared to GAS. This paper will attempt to provide an

assessment of these 2 'constraint-handling methods, as to

date there has been no direci comparison of their application using PSO. It should be noted that the literature is generally in agreement that in order for EAs, including PSO. to

be successfully applied to real-world problems in this area.

they must first prove their ability to solve highly complex

CNOPs.

I'

,

The optimizatibn of constrained functiqns, is a n area of par. * ,

, : . I

* .

.,

ticular importance in applications of engineering. mathematics and economics. among others. Constraints can he

hard or soft in nature:rrepr&enting physical limits of systems or preferred operating ranges. Hence, the rigidity with

which these constraints are enforced should reflect the nature of the constraints themselves..

Stochastic methods of solving constrained nonlinear optimization problems (CNOPs) are becoming popular due io

the success of evolutionary algorithms (EAs) in solving unconstrained optimization problems. EAs zomprise a family of computational techniques which. in general. simulate the evolutionary process [I]. Within this family. techniques may utilise population-based methods which rely on

stochastic variation and selection. When'applying EA techniques to CNOPs, constraints can he effectively removed

via penalty functions. and the problem can then he tackled

as an unconstrained optimization task.

Nonlinear optimization represents difficult challenges,

as noted in [2]. due to its incompatibility with general deterministic solution methods. Among many EAs investigated

for solving CNOPs, particle swarm optimization (PSO) has

been given considerable attention in the literature due to

its speed and efficiency as an optimization technique. For

real-timc CNOPs, which are common in many facets of engineering for example. genetic algorithms (GAS) may he

inefficient and slow, and thus PSO may provide a viable

alternative. Recently, PSO has been applied to CNOPs

with very encouraging results. Parsopoulos et a1 131 compared the ability of PSO to solve CNOPs with the use of

non-stationary multi-stage penalty functions'to that of other

as follows [ 5 ] :

Minimize or maximize f ( X ) .

subject to the linear and nonlinear constraints:

g~(.r)>o.i=l:..:~m~

g < ( r ) . r 0 : ; = ml i

1. ....r n . where z E R"

and the bound;: .zr. 5

i.5 s.

.

Where f and 91: ...:y, are continuously differentiable

functions.

Nonlinear optimization is complex and unpredictable,

and therefore deterministic approaches may he impossible

or inappropriate due to the assumptions made ahout the continuity and differentiability of the objective function [6]. (31.

Recently, there has'heen considerable interest in employing

stochastic methods to overcome CNOPs. and this has highlighted the need for solid EA strategies for coping with infeasible solutions.

Particie swarm 'optimization' was introduced by Kennedy

and Eberhart in 1995 [TI, IS]. It is'an evolutionary computation technique which is stochastic'in nature. and models

itself on flocking behaviour; such as that of birds. A random initialization process provides a population of possible

solutions, and through successive generations the optimum

result is found. Throughihese generations, each'"partic1e".

or potential solution, evolves. In the global version of PSO.

each particle knows its best position so far (pBest), and the

best position so far-among the entire group (@Best). The

basic equations utilised during this evolutionary process are

given below:

'.' , :

K d

21:

x Kd

+C2l'lllld

+ Clrand x (P<d - Z j d ) t

X (pgd

- .Cid)

2419

Authorized licensed use limited to: Zhejiang University. Downloaded on June 19,2010 at 08:15:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

(1)

Z,d

Z;d

+ V;d

(2)

is the inertia weight, and is set to j0.5 (ran,d/Z.O)];p,dis

the position at which the particle has achieved its hest fitness

so far, and pg,j is the position at which the hest global fitness has been achieved so far. The acceleration coefficients

ci and c2 are both set to 1.49445; and V,,, is set to the

dynamic range of the particle on each dimension (problemspecific). From Equation ( 2 ) , x;,j is the particle's next position, based on its previous position and new velocity, 1':d.

The above numeric'al parameters, as suggested in [41. are

used for all experiments in this paper. Population sizes of

30 are also used (for all hut one test case, which uses 50),

with the maximum number of generations being set to either 500 or 5000 depending on the complexity of the prohlem. PSO also has a local version, where each particle has

a knowledge of the hest position obtained within its own

neighhourhood (IBest) instead of the best position obtained

globally. This version of PSO is often used to overcome

problems associated with the swarm petting trapped in local

optima, which can occur in the global version of PSO when

applied to certain types of problems. The references 171 and

(81 provide a further explanation of PSO operation.

The application of PSO to various optimization problems

has been reported extensively in the literature [7], [9]. [IO],

with some excellent results. Whilst PSO has the advantages

of speed and simplicity when applied to a wide range of

problems. it is yet to he proven as a practical technique to

solve CNOPs. according to 121. Hence, the ability of PSO

in dealing with constrained problems needs a thorough investigation.

iteration number. Penalty functions lace the difficulty of

maintaining a balance between obtaining feasibility whilst

finding optimality. In the case of GAS. i t has been noted in

[6] that too high a penalty will force the CA to find a feasible solution even it is not optimal. Conversely, if the penalty

is small, the emphasis on feasibility is thereby reduced, and

the system may never converge.

The rejection of infeasible solutions is distinct from the

penalty function approach. Solutions are discarded if they

do not satisfy the constraints of the problem. This approach

has its drawbacks in that the decision must he made as to

whether to consider that some infeasible solutions may he

"better" than some feasible one [ I I ] ; or to distinguish between the hest infeasible solutions and the worst feasible

ones. This method is incorporated in evolutionary strategies

(ESs), whereby infeasible membersof a population are simply rejected. Recently, this method has been applied with

PSO, as discussed later.

Repair algorithms seek to restore feasibility to the solution space. They have been employed widely in GAS,

however it has been stated in [6] that the restoration process itself can represent a task similar in complexity to the

optimization problem itself.

3.1.1 Preservation of Feasible Solutions Method

constraint handling with PSO was adapted from [I21 by Hu

and Eberhart in [2]. When implementing this technique into

the global version of PSO, the initialisation process involves

3 Constraint-Handling Methods for Evolution- forcing all particles into the feasible space before any evalary Algorithms

uation of the objective function has begun. Upon evaluation

of the objective function, only particles which remain in the

Several methods in overcoming constraints associated with feasible space are counted for the new pBest and gBest valCNOPs with EAs have been reported. According to [I I]. ues (or IBest for the local version). The idea here is to acthese strategies fall into several distinct areas, some of celerate the iterative process of tracking feasible solutions

which are listed below:

hy forcing the search space to contain only solutions that

Methods based on penalty functions;

d o not violate any constraints. The obvious drawback of

Methods based on the rejection of infeasible solu- this method is that for CNOPs with extremely small feasible

space, the initialization process may he impractically long,

tions;

or almost impossible. Hence, no search can begin until the

Methods based on repair algorithms;

solution space is completely initialized.

Methods hased on specialized operators;

Methods hased on behavioural memory.

3.1.2 Penalty Function Method

The focus of this paper is on the first two methods, which

A non-stationary, multi-stage penalty function method

have already shown some potential when implemented with

(PFM) for constraint handling with PSO was implemented

PSO. Penalty functions are a traditional means for solving

CNOPs. When using this approach, the constraints are ef- by Parsopoulos and Vrahatis in [31. Penalty function methfectively removed, and a penalty is added to the objective ods require the fine-tuning of the penalty function paramfunction value (in a minimization problem) when a violation eters, to discourage premature convergence, whilst maintaining an emphasis on optimality. This penalty function

occurs. Hence, the optimization problem becomes one 01

method,

when implemented with PSO, requires a rigorous

minimizing the objective function and the penalty together,

Penalty functions can he stationary or non-stationary. Sta- checking process after evaluation of the objective function

to ascertain the extent of any constraint,violationIs, followed

tionary penalty functions add a fixed penalty when a viola.

by

the assignment and summation of any penalties applied.

tion occurs, as opposed to non-stationary penalty functions

which add a penalty proportional to the amount with which

2420

Authorized licensed use limited to: Zhejiang University. Downloaded on June 19,2010 at 08:15:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

was:

F ( z )= f(:r) + h(k)H(z).

z ES

c R"

(3)

Where f ( 2 ) is the original objective function to be optimized. h ( k ) is a penalty value which is modified according

to the algorithm's current iteration number, and H ( s ) is a

penalty factor. also from [ 3 ] ,and is defined as:

rn

H ( 2 ) = cB(yi(z))qi(z)yiq,(5))

(4)

i=l

constraints, yj(c) is a relative violated function of the conis

straints: B ( q i ( r ) )is an assignment function, and -/(qi(i))

the power of the penalty function [ 3 ] . As per [3], for the

experiments in this paper a violation tolerance was implemented, meaning that a constraint was only considered violated if gz(z)> lo-'. and the following values were used

for the penalty function in all cases except Test Problem 5 :

I f q , ( s ) < 1,~ ( y i ( 2 ) =

) 1. else ;,(qi(z)) = 2:

-40792.141

Subject to:

0 5 85.334407 0 . 0 0 5 t i 5 8 ~ 2 ~ 5o.onn6ztiz~12,-0.002205523r5 5 92.

90 5 80.51249 0 . 0 0 i ~ 3 ~ i x ~ 0x .j 0 0 2 9 9 5 ~ ~ : ~ ~ +

+0.002181~; 5 110.

20 5 9.30096i+ 0.004i026~:3z5 0 . 0 0 1 2 5 4 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ +

o.nni9n8R.l:3.1., 5 25.

and the hounds: i X 5 z1 5 102.33 5 r2 5 45,

27 5 i : j 5 45. where i = 3 . 4 . 5

Best known solution: .f* = -3OtiB5.53867

+

+

= 10. else i f q i ( r ) 5 0.1,

=.io.else if q t ( z ) 5 1, B(qi(.r)) = 100,

otherwise B(qi(z))

= 300:

The penalty value h ( k ) was set to h ( k ) = 4 for

Test Problem I and h ( k ) = k& for the remaining

test problems.

For Test Problem 5. a significantly larger value of S(q,(z))

was used. This was established only by trial and error, due 4.5 Test Problem 5 :

to the inability of the previous value of Q(qi(x))to encourage any convergence.

B(qi(z))

+

+

+

4 Experimental Methodology

Five well-known CNOP test problems were used in our

experiments, which comprise a selection of.minimization

problems common to those used in [31, [2], [5]and 161 for

comparative purposes. The aim of the experiments was to

directly compare the rate of convergence and accuracy of results of the two constraint-handling methods. in order to assess each method's suitability for application to real-world

problems. The test problems used were as follows:

4.1 Test Problem 1:

Subject to:

21 = 2 z * - I . z ~ / . 1 + z ; - l 5 0

Best known solution: .f* = 1.393.16.51

Subject to:

100 - ( X I - 512 - ( 2 7 - 5)2 5 0:

( I C~ 6)'

(z2 - q2- 82.81 5 0,

and the hounds: 13 5 z1 5 100:O 5 :z2 5 100

Best known solution: f' = 49G1.81381

f ( ~=

)

5 1000. wherej = 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8

Best known solution: f * = 7019.21

Twenty runs of 500 iterations were performed on each

problem, and the average, hest and worst solutions noted.

For all prohlems except Test Problem a population of 30

.particles was used. For Test Problem 5. a population of 50

particles was used in conjunction with 5000 iterations. For

each test problem, the same initialization range was used for

both constraint-handling methods.

5 Results

The two constraint-handling methods, FSM and PFM, were

applied to the above five test problems. Tables I and 2 show

the hest known solutions to the test problems followed hy

the hest snlution obtained by FSM and PFM respectively

over the 20 runs. Tables 3 and 4 show the average optimal

solution obtained by each method, followed in hrackets by

242 1

Authorized licensed use limited to: Zhejiang University. Downloaded on June 19,2010 at 08:15:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

Table 1 : Comparison of hest known solutions and best optimal solutions obtained hy PSO using FSM over 20 runs.

PFM over 20 runs.

1.3934649

problem.

1.3934650

-6961.4960

(0.00000)

(0.00062)

-30648.008

8763.7 184

(0.09383)

(0.274458)

Table 2: Comparison of best known solutions and hest optimal solutions ohtained hy PSO using PFM over 20 runs.

The rate of convergence and accuracy of both methods applied to this prohlem were very competitive. As canhe seen

in Figure 1, a rapid convergence occurs during the first 2-3

iterations. The FSM achieved an optimum result very close

to the hest known solution. however the average optimum

results of the two methods over 20 runs were identical.

set to 5000.

the average maximum attempts (MA) required to initialize a

particle into the feasible space for the FSM, and the average

sum of violated constraints (SVC) for the P F M From the

results, it can he seen that thc accuracy of the techniques at

finding near-optimal solutions is extremely competitive.

It can he seen from Table 3 that the FSM may he inappropriate for CNOPs which have an extremely small feasible

space (such as Test Problem 2, whose relative size of feasible space is < O.OOGG%, [ 2 ] ) . In such cases, it can he

almost impossihle to randomly generate an initial set of feasible solutions. This problem was particularly apparent in

Test Problem 5, where it took an inordinate amount of time

to initialize less than IOW of the particles into the feasible

solution space, hence the FSM was considered impractical

for application to this problem. Graphical results of the convergence of each method on each test problcm are shown

below. It should be noted that for the sake of clarity, the

graphs represent convergence over the number of iterations

for which greatest convergence occurs for each test prohlem. Test Problem I was the only case where the initial

values of each respective method allowed the results to he

This problem is a cuhic function whose relative size of feasible space is 0.0066% 121. The PFM achieved a better optimum result and a better average optimum than the FSM,

with a significantly faster convergence rate. as can he seen

hy comparing Figures 2 and 3.

FSM over 20 runs.

I Test 1 FSM

-6960.4 I55

680.75298

-30665.091

(MA)

(60,267)

(732)

(16)

2422

100 iterations

IO0 iterations

i.

>o

This test problem is a quadratic function which has a comparatively large relative size of feasible space (52.1230%,,

[2]), for which both methods showed convergence over a

similar number of iterations. The PFM outperformed the

FSM in terms of the optimum value found, however the

FSM performed consistently well. achieving the better average optimum.

100 iterations

Both methods showed rapid convergence within the first I O

iterations, however the PFM showed a significantly faster

rate of convergence with a slightly better optimum result. It

didn't perform quite as well as the FSM with its average optimum over 20 runs. The PFM did however, perform better

with this test problem than in 1-11, with its SVC also being

lower. This different result may be attributable to the difference of PSO parameters used.

iterations

100 iterations

iterations

2423

of the accuracy and convergence rate of each method when

selecting which one to apply to real-world CNOPs. These

methods were directly compared using identical swarm parameters through simulations, and the hest, worst ,and average solutions noted. The two methods were found to he

extremely competitive, however the rate of convergence of

the penalty function method (PFM) was found to he significantly faster than that of the feasible solutions method

(FSM) in 2 out of the 4 test problems considered. In the

other 2 test problems. the rates of convergence were comparable. The fifth test problem could not he compared due

to the FSM struggling to satisfy all of the constraints during

the initialization process, hence the FSM was found to he

impractical for this case. The accuracy of the average optimal result found by each method was identical in I out of

the 4 test cases, and of the remaining 3, the FSM found

the hetter average optimum result in 2 of them. Hence,

the choice of constraint-handling method is very problemdependent; some problems may require the rapid convereence characteristic shown by the PFM in some of the test

cases, whereas others may have constraints which are suitable to evaluate during the initialization process. Finetuning of the PFM parameters may result in better average

optimal solutions for the PFM. and implementation of the

local version of PSO with test problems which are inclined

to get stuck in local optima (such as Test Problem 5 ) , may

also improve results.

space with feasible solutions due to the binding constraints.

This test prohlem was hy far the hardest to implement for

both techniques, as can he seen in Tables 2 and 4, where its

optimal solution is good hut, its average optimal solution is

comparatively poor. When implementing the PFM with this

test problem. the penalty values which had worked well for

all of the other test problems were changed to have a larger

penalty for large violations (chosen by trial and error), to

ensure convergence. Convergence did not occur with every

run, hence the poor average optimum result. Proper finetuning of the penalty function parameters may result in a

better average optimum, or implementation of the local version of PSO to overcome problems of the swarm getting

stuck in local optima. Difticulties finding the optimal result

for this particular test problem were also noted in [6], where

GASwere used.

'1'"'

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to greatly acknowledge the Rowden White Foundation for their generous financial support

of this research. The authors would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Asanga Ratnaweera for his helpful

suggestions in preparing this paper.

iterations

6 Applications

Bibliography

with optimization tasks as varied as power system operation

[IO], internal combustion engine design [14], biomedical

applications [ I S ] , design of a pressure vessel and a welded

beam [41. The authors have recently applied PSO using the

PFM in this paper to the optimal power flow problem, which

has shown excellent preliminary results. This is a real-world

CNOP which has both equality and inequality constraints.

In this case, the FSM would he inappropriate and impractical due to the requirement of having to preprocess functional constraints. which would require repeated evaluation

of the objective function itself during the initialization process.

[ I ] T. Back, D. Fogel, and T. Michalewicz, eds.. ELY1urioriar:v Conrputation, vol. I . Institute of Physics,

2000.

optimization problems with particle swarm optimization," in Proceedings of the 6th World Multiconfererice

on Systemics. Cybenietics and Iilforniarics, 2002.

[31 K. Parsopoulos and M. Vrahatis, "Particle swarm optimization method for constrained optimization prohlems:' in Intelligent techirologies - theon and applications: new trends in intelligent technologies. vol. 16

of Frontiers in Artificial lritelligerice andilpplicariorrs,

pp. 214-220.10s Press, 2002.

The purpose of this contribution was to assess the performance of two existing constraint-handling methods when

used with particle swarm optimization (PSO) to solve constrained nonlinear optimization problems (CNOPs). This

141 X. Hu, R. Eherhart. and Y. Shi. "Engineering optimization with particle swarm,'' in Proceedings of the

2003 IEEE Swarni Intelligence Syrposiuni. pp. 5357. 2003.

2424

[51 W. Hock and K. Schittkowski, Test exaniplesfor notilirtear progranimbrg codes, vol. 187 of Lecture mtes

in ecorioniics arid niathemarical s w e n i s . SpringerVerlag, 1981.

penalty functions to solve nonlinear constrained optimization prohlems with CA's," i n Proceedings ofthe

Firsr IEEE Conference on Evolutionay Contputarion,

[7] J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, "Particle swarm optimisation," in-Proceediiigs of the IEEE Itirerttariotial Coirfererice 011 Neural Networks, vol. 4. pp. 1942-1948,

1995.

181 R. Eherhart and I. Kennedy, "A new optimizer using

particle swarm theory:' in Proceedirigs of rlie 6th Irrrernariotial Syntposium on Micro Machine and Huniari

Science, pp. 39-43. 1995.

[91 P. Angeline, "Using selection to improve particle swarm optimization," in Proceedings of the

IEEE World Congress on Conipiitarioiial lritelligettce,

pp. 84-89.1998.

[IO] Y. Fukuyama and H. Yoshida. "Particle swarm

optimization for reactive power and voltage control in electric power systems." Proceedings of the

IEEE Corrgress 011 Evolutionan Conipiitation. vol. 1 ,

pp. 87-93.2001.

II I ] Z. Micha1ewicz;A survey ofconstraint handlingtechniques in evolutionary computation methods," in Proceedirrgs of the 4th Annual Curifererice on Rwltiriori. a n Progranintitig, pp. 135-155, 1995.

[I21 S. Koziel and Z. Michaelewicr, Evolutiotian olgorirlinrs honionrorphous niappirigs arid consrrairied puranteter optinrimion, vol. 7. pp. 19-44. 1999.

I131 I. Yang. Y. Chen, I. Horng. and C . Kao, Applyirigfaniily conipetiriori to evolurion strategies f o r constrained

optinii:atiorr. vol. 1213 of Lecture notes in conipurer

science. Sprinp-Verlag, 1997.

[ 141 A. Ratnaweera. S. Halgamuge, and H. Watson, "Parti-

coefficients," in Proceedings of the 1st International

Conference or1 F t q Systems and Knowledge Disco\,e n , pp. 264-268,2002.

[ 151 R. Eherhart and H. Xiaohui. "Human tremor analysis using particle swarm optimization," in Proceedings

of the 1999 Congress on Evolurionan Computation,

vol. 3 , 1999.

2425

- Classification Rule Construction Using Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm for Breast Cancer Data SetsUploaded bySundaravada
- AI_PSOUploaded byAnonymous s8OrImv8
- Notes on PSOUploaded byAllan Marbaniang
- Piping SystemUploaded bygaurishankar51
- 194753Uploaded byHakanKalaycı
- paper on CSP.pdfUploaded bySridhar Atla
- CAMES_19_3_3.pdfUploaded bydillawer ali naqi
- Study on the application of particle swarm optimizationUploaded byNadia Ahmad
- B.tech Project Thesis Saikishan Das(10603062)Uploaded byVicky Varghese
- 15.P.sathIYA 2009 Optimization of Friction Welding Parameters UsingUploaded bySyarif Hidayatullah
- pso-review.pdfUploaded byIndira Sivakumar
- i Jsc 040201Uploaded byijsc
- P_4_Khaled _newUploaded byKhaled M. Aboalez
- Self Accelerated Smart Particle Swarm Optimization for multimodal Optimization ProblemsUploaded bymishranamit2211
- Reprint of GECCO PaperUploaded byMadhuri Arya
- Mine Blast AlgorithmUploaded bynarottam jangir
- UT Dallas Syllabus for math1325.5u1.08u taught by (xxx)Uploaded byUT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- 23Vol95No16.pdfUploaded byAminudin Jaya
- Ch01 Introduction design of thermal systemUploaded byalzyoud
- Rekha 2013Uploaded bysreekantha
- Chapter 08Uploaded byChaitanya Kotha
- 10.1.1.33Uploaded byAshish Balasaheb Diwate
- 119-667-3-PBUploaded bygkreugineraj
- ScienceUploaded bySivasubramani Shanmugavelu
- 3 4c Simplek MinimasiUploaded bywirda01121993
- mehran 0919-3g.pdfUploaded byMehran
- GuSaCa_CEC2013.pdfUploaded byjauregui
- A survey on Data Mining Optimization TechniquesUploaded byIJSTE
- fireflyalgorithm-150623084319-lva1-app6891.pptxUploaded byMuhannad AbdulRaouf
- Adaptation of PID Controller Using AI Techniques for Speed Control of Isolated Steam TurbineUploaded byJimoh 'toyin Samuel

- Hydrothermal 93Uploaded bySujoy Das
- Vallalaar-PaadalkalUploaded byapi-19968843
- station code index 2Uploaded byABID H
- EE6351 Model QpUploaded bywidepermit
- Swarm IntelligenceUploaded byDheeraj Gopal Dubey
- 01_LoadFlow_R1Uploaded byJohnfinn Caddick
- EDUploaded bybaalaajee
- Improved Particle Swarm Optimization Combined With ChaosUploaded bybaalaajee
- CroUploaded bybaalaajee
- algorithmsUploaded bybaalaajee
- ARPN JournalUploaded bybaalaajee
- evco.1993.1.1Uploaded bybaalaajee
- Electrical Drives and ControlsUploaded bybaalaajee
- MiaoUploaded bybaalaajee
- EDUploaded bybaalaajee
- 3-09-026.docUploaded bybaalaajee
- USA is Commercially Strong Country the People of USA Are Very Hard WorkingUploaded bybaalaajee
- USA is Commercially Strong Country the People of USA Are Very Hard WorkingUploaded bybaalaajee
- Vallalaar-PaadalkalUploaded byapi-19968843
- ModellingUploaded bybaalaajee
- Particle Swarm OptimizationUploaded bybaalaajee
- Neural Networks by HajekUploaded bybaalaajee
- TestUploaded bybaalaajee
- A New Optimizer Using Particle Swarm TheoryUploaded bybaalaajee
- A New Optimizer Using Particle Swarm TheoryUploaded bybaalaajee
- PSOCECUploaded bybaalaajee
- The Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm, Convergence Analysis and Parameter SelectionUploaded bybaalaajee
- Modeling and Simulation of Reduction ZoneUploaded byJarus Ydenap
- Neural NetworksUploaded byrian ngganden

- Skelta Software Corporate PresentationUploaded byWonderware Skelta BPM
- SAP Note 1375656Uploaded byAmon Simelane
- SDH DCN Overview and Principles Rel5Uploaded byVivek
- 1660.pdfUploaded bySamuel Osorio
- ABM - Lecture 02 - Probability DistributionsUploaded byjerry_jed
- nbu_7x_hclUploaded byHo-Lin Cheng
- S5_for_Windows_STEP5_Basics.pdfUploaded byAdrian Purcaroiu
- Embedded Systems Digital Photo AlbumUploaded bydaniel
- Panasonic Th-50px60u Ch Gp9duUploaded byJones Chris
- Guidance for INdustry. Process ValidationUploaded byqfbfabyhola
- Technical ReportUploaded byericperalli
- 7 pillars of stat wisdom.pdfUploaded byreub33
- An ARN 147V Data SheetUploaded byStrawichDaniel
- HP U160 15.6-Inch LED Backlit MonitorUploaded byNilson Soares
- easYgen-34003500-P1P2-Manuel.pdfUploaded byLian Pavon
- dsl_pinoutUploaded bymmrtito
- ex1Uploaded bymsikk
- Hold Em Bot User ManualUploaded byRio Dingoe
- Core Abap Notes With ProgramsUploaded byvbvrk
- t2265_sprintpro.pdfUploaded bySotiris Rentoulis
- qig_320Uploaded byRusbel Espinoza Mendoza
- edtk 2030 graded assignmentsUploaded byapi-302183658
- Comparison between Object Oriented Programming Languages Java and C++Uploaded bystanley umoh
- Clean Energy Trainer Experiment GuideUploaded byengr_afsoomro3147
- R1500N Leaflet en(1)Uploaded byBadri Seetharaman
- Discrete Structure Notes by Samujjwal BhandariUploaded byBijay Nuniya
- STUDENT-ENTREPRENEURSHIP-Dr.WinarnoUploaded byri2fachroe
- dosm.pyUploaded byphanikumar
- Talon Traffic Safety RadarUploaded byad044
- Cloud based data sharing with fine-grained proxy re-encryptionUploaded byhidai