See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/278665541

An effective hybrid cuckoo search algorithm for constrained global

optimization

Article  in  Neural Computing and Applications · September 2014

DOI: 10.1007/s00521-014-1577-1

CITATIONS READS

47 304

4 authors, including:

Wen Long
Guizhou University of Finance and Economics
14 PUBLICATIONS   271 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Wen Long on 23 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Neural Comput & Applic (2014) 25:911–926
DOI 10.1007/s00521-014-1577-1
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
An effective hybrid cuckoo search algorithm for constrained
global optimization
Wen Long • Ximing Liang • Yafei Huang •
Yixiong Chen
Received: 17 August 2013 / Accepted: 15 March 2014 / Published online: 5 April 2014
Ó Springer-Verlag London 2014
Abstract As a novel evolutionary computation, cuckoo
search (CS) algorithm has attracted much attention and
wide applications, owing to its easy implementation. CS as
most population-based algorithm is good at identifying
promising area of the search space, but less good at fine-
tuning the approximation to the minimization. To the best
of our knowledge, the hybridization of augmented
Lagrangian method, cuckoo search and Solis and Wets
local search has not been attempted yet. In this paper, an
effective hybrid cuckoo search algorithm based on Solis
and Wets local search technique is proposed for con-
strained global optimization that relies on an augmented
Lagrangian function for constraint-handling. Numerical
results and comparisons with other state-of-the-art sto-
chastic algorithms using a set of benchmark constrained
test functions and engineering design optimization prob-
lems are provided.
Keywords Constrained optimization problem  Cuckoo
search algorithm  Augmented Lagrangian method  Solis
and Wets local search  Engineering optimization
W. Long (&)
Guizhou Key Laboratory of Economics System Simulation,
Guizhou University of Finance and Economics,
Guiyang 550004, Guizhou, People’s Republic of China
e-mail: lw084601012@gmail.com
X. Liang
School of Science, Beijing University of Civil Engineering and
Architecture, Beijing 100044, People’s Republic of China
Y. Huang  Y. Chen
School of Information Science and Engineering,
Central South University, Changsha 410083, Hunan,
People’s Republic of China
1 Introduction
Constrained global optimization problems are the most
important and ubiquitous type of engineering optimization
problems [1]. The general constrained global optimization
problem with inequality, equality, lower bound, and upper
bound constraints is defined as
min f ðxÞ
s.t. gj ðxÞ ¼ 0; j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; p;
ð1Þ
gj ðxÞ  0; j ¼ p þ 1; . . .; m;
l i  x i  ui ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; n:
where f ðxÞ is the objective function, gj ðxÞ ¼ 0 are the
equality constraints, gj ðxÞ  0 are inequality constraints, li
and ui are the lower bound and the upper bound of xi ,
respectively.
As a search and optimization technique inspired by
nature, evolutionary algorithms (EAs) have been broadly
applied to solve unconstrained and constrained global
optimization problems during the past decade [2–8].
Recently, the cuckoo search (CS) algorithm, which is a
population-based stochastic global search method, has been
proposed by Yang and Deb [9]. This algorithm is based on
the obligate brood parasitic behavior of some cuckoo
species in combination with the L evy flight behavior of
some birds and fruit flies. The preliminary studies show
that the CS algorithm is very promising and could out-
perform existing algorithms such as genetic algorithm
(GA) and particle swarm optimization (PSO) [9]. More-
over, CS algorithm has shown good performance both on
benchmark unconstrained functions [9] and on real-world
problems, including manufacturing scheduling [10], struc-
tural optimization [11], and so on. Although the CS algo-
rithm is good at exploring the search space and locating the
123
912
region of global minimum, it is slow at exploiting the
solutions [12].
It is necessary to note that EAs are unconstrained
optimization methods that need additional mechanisms to
deal with constraints when solving constrained global
optimization problems [13]. As a result, a variety of
constraint-handling techniques targeted at EAs have been
developed [4]. A common technique in global optimiza-
tion literature transforms the constrained problem into an
unconstrained one, by adding a penalty term to the
objective function that aims to penalize constraint viola-
tion and depends on a penalty parameter [14]. The
implementation of this technique is not easy, since the
selection of appropriate penalty parameters for the prob-
lem at hand is not a straightforward issue. The augmented
Lagrangian is an interesting penalty function that avoids
the side-effects associated with ill-conditioning of simple
penalty and barrier functions [6]. Therefore, the aug-
mented Lagrangian methods have received a large atten-
tion in the recent past for solving constrained global
optimization problems [15–19].
Recently, hybridization of population-based algorithms
with either deterministic or random local search have
appeared in the literature, for instance, the hybrid electro-
magnetism-like mechanism algorithm and Solis and Wets
local search method by Alikhani et al. [20], the hybrid-
ization of differential evolution algorithm and the cross-
over-based adaptive local search operation proposed in
[21], the hybrid Nelder-Mead simplex search and particle
swarm optimization by Zahara and Kao [22], the hybrid-
izing harmony search algorithm with sequential quadratic
programming by Fesanghary et al. [23], and the hybrid-
ization of genetic algorithm and pattern search method
presented in [6]. Thus, we propose an effective hybrid
cuckoo search algorithm based on Solis and Wets local
search [24] that relies on an augmented Lagrangian func-
tion for constraint-handling. Experiments using 13 bench-
mark functions and four engineering design problems are
presented and compared with the best known solutions
reported in the literature. The comparison results with other
evolutionary optimization methods demonstrate that
cuckoo search with the embedded local search strategy
proves to be extremely effective and efficient at locating
optimal solutions.
This paper is organized as follows: Sect. 2 describes the
hybrid algorithm. It introduces the augmented Lagrangian
method for constraint-handling and provides details con-
cerning the cuckoo search algorithm and the Solis and
Wets local search method. The experimental results and the
comparisons on 13 constrained global optimization test
functions and four engineering design optimization prob-
lems are presented in Sect. 3. Finally, the conclusions are
proposed in Sect. 4.
123
Neural Comput & Applic (2014) 25:911–926
2 The proposed hybrid algorithm
2.1 Augmented Lagrangian method
An augmented Lagrangian method solves a sequence of
very simple subproblems where the objective function
penalizes all or some of the constraint violation. This
objective function is an augmented Lagrangian that
depends on a penalty parameter and the multiplier vectors
[6]. In this work, using the ideas in [25], the herein
implemented augmented Lagrangian function is
Xp  
1
Pðx; k; rÞ ¼ f ðxÞ  kj gj ðxÞ  rj ðgj ðxÞÞ2
2
j¼1
ð2Þ
Xm
 ~
Pj ðx; k; rÞ
j¼pþ1
where k is the Lagrangian multiplier vector, r is the pen-
alty parameter vector, P~j ðx; k; rÞ is defined as follows:
8
> 1
< kj gj ðxÞ  rj ðgj ðxÞÞ2 ; if kj  rj gj ðxÞ [ 0
P~j ðx; k; rÞ ¼ 2

> 1
: k r;2
j otherwise
2 j
ð3Þ
Function Pðx; k; rÞ aims to penalize solutions that violate
only the equality and inequality constraints. Note that we
do not include the simple bounds li  xi  ui in the aug-
mented Lagrangian function. The solution method for
solving the subproblems will ensure that the bound con-
straints are always satisfied. Hence, at the k-th step, assume
that the Lagrange multiplier vector kk and penalty param-
eter vector rk are given, the corresponding subproblem is
formulated as:
min Pðx; kk ; rk Þ
ð4Þ
s.t. l i  x i  ui
The solution x to sub-problem (4) can be obtained by
searching the search space if k is known and r is large
enough.
In our algorithm, the superscript k indicates the k-th
optimization problem for which Lagrangian multipliers kkj
are kept fixed. However, these multipliers are updated at
the end of each optimization task. It is well known that if
the original problem has feasible solution, the multiplier
penalty function method has finite convergence. The
options for initializing the Lagrange multiplier vector
within our algorithm allow two choices. The first is setting
the initialization of the vector of multipliers to any positive
vector, and the second is using the provision of initial
guesses of the multipliers for each constraint explicitly by
the user (e.g., as stored from a previous run of a similar
Neural Comput & Applic (2014) 25:911–926 913

problem). Assuming that the Lagrange multiplier vector kk optimization methods ought to be used when solving the
and penalty parameter vector rk are given and x^k is the subproblems (4). The main differences between augmented
global minimum of sub-problem (4), from the first opti- Lagrangian algorithms are located on the framework used
mality condition of the original problem (1) and the sub- to find an approximation to a global minimizer of the
problem (4), the Lagrange multiplier vector kkj are updated augmented Lagrangian function subject to the bound con-
straints. This study presented a hybrid global optimization
after k-th optimization and kept for the ðk þ 1Þ-th iteration
method based on the modified augmented Lagrangian
as follows:
( k function, where the cuckoo search algorithm with local
kþ1
kj  rkj gj ð^
xk Þ; j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; p Solis and Wets search method is used to find the approx-
kj ¼ ð5Þ
k k
maxfkj  rj gj ð^ k
x Þ; 0g; j ¼ p þ 1; . . .; m imate global solutions to the subproblems (4).

The initial values of penalty parameters are set to any 2.2 Cuckoo search algorithm
arbitrary positive values, where typically r0 ¼
r0 ð1; 1; . . .; 1ÞT and r0 ¼ 10 or r0 ¼ 100. The updating Cuckoo search (CS) algorithm is population-based sto-
scheme is: chastic global search metaheuristics. In CS algorithm,
potential solutions correspond to cuckoo eggs. CS algo-
rkþ1 ¼ crk ð6Þ rithm is introduced in three idealized rules: (1) Each
cuckoo lays one egg at a time and dumps it in a randomly
where c [ 1 and typically c ¼ 10 or c ¼ 100. Instead of
chosen nest. (2) The best nest with high quality of eggs
increasing the values of the components of the penalty
(solutions) will carry over to the next generation. (3) The
parameter vector in every iteration, they may be increased
number of available host nests is fixed, and a host can
only if no sufficient progress is made toward feasibility of
discover an alien egg with a probability Pa 2 ½0; 1. If
the original problem (1) from the previous iteration to the
cuckoo egg is disclosed by the host, it may be thrown
current one. The schemes available to the user are:
    away, or the host may abandon its own nest and commit it
Scheme 1. c ¼ 1 if gðxkþ1 Þ2  fgðxk Þ2 , otherwise
to the cuckoo intruder.
c [ 1, where
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi To make the things even simpler, the last assumption
Xp 2
Xm can be approximated by the fraction of Pa of n nests that
kgðxÞk2 ¼ ðg j ðxÞÞ þ ðminfgj ðxÞ; 0gÞ2
j¼1 j¼pþ1 are replaced by new nests with new random solutions. For
ð7Þ maximization problem, the fitness of a solution can be
proportional to the value of its objective function. Other
is the feasibility norm and 0  f  1 and typically f ¼ 0:25; forms of fitness can be defined in a similar way to the
Scheme 2. fitness function in other evolutionary algorithm. A simple
8 8    
> gj ðx Þ  fgj ðx Þ; representation where one egg in a nest represents a solution
kþ1 k
>
> >
>
> >
< and a cuckoo egg represents a new solution is used here.
>
< rk ; if  for j 2 f1; . . .; pg 
>
 The aim is to use the new and potentially better solutions
rkþ1
j
>  kþ1   k 
j ¼
> > minfgj ðx Þ; 0g  f minfgj ðx Þ; 0g ;
>
: (cuckoos) to replace worse solutions that are in the nests.
>
>
>
> for j 2 fp þ 1; . . .; mg When generating new solutions xðtþ1Þ for, say cuckoo i, a
>
: k 2
max crj ; k ; otherwise: Levy flight is performed
ð8Þ ðtþ1Þ
xi ¼ xti þ a  L
evyðkÞ ð9Þ
It is also noted that, in the above schemes, when the current
feasibility norm is less than the user-required tolerance e, it where aða [ 0Þ represents a step scaling size. This
is useful to restrain increase of e for insignificant values of parameter should be related to the scales of problem the
the norm, which will not be the one determining the dis- algorithm is trying to solve. In most cases, a can be set to
satisfaction of the convergence criteria in this case. In our the value of 1 or some other constant. The product 
algorithm, the user can couple with a strict upper bound eu means entry-wise multiplication. The random step length is
on the values of the penalty parameters, which is a fail-safe drawn from a L evy distribution which has an infinite var-
mechanism for not driving them to an unrealistically large iance with an infinite mean:
value. evy  u ¼ tk
L ð10Þ
The traditional augmented Lagrangian methods are
locally convergent if the subproblems (4) are approxi- where 0  k  3. Here the consecutive jumps/steps of a
mately solved. However, our algorithm aims at converging cuckoo essentially form a random walk process which
to a global solution of problem (1). Thus, global obeys a power-law step-length distribution with heavy tail.

123
914
Fig. 1 Pseudo code of the Cuckoo Search algorithm
Fig. 2 Pseudo code of the Solis and Wets local algorithm
Based on the three rules described above, pseudo code
of the cuckoo search algorithm is presented in Fig. 1.
2.3 Solis and wets local search
The Solis and Wets local search algorithm [24] is a ran-
domized hillclimber with an adaptive step size. Each step
123
Neural Comput & Applic (2014) 25:911–926
starts with a current point x. A deviate d is chosen from a
normal distribution whose standard deviation is given by a
parameter q. If either x þ d or x  d is better, a move is
made to the better point and a ‘‘success’’ is recorded.
Otherwise a ‘‘failure’’ is recorded. After several success in
a row, q is decreased to focus the search. Additionally, a
bias term is included to give the search momentum in
directions that yield success. The pseudo code for our
implementation of Solis and Wets local search algorithm is
given in Fig. 2.
It is worth noting that either x  d or x þ d may fall
outside the feasible solution space, especially when a
sample point is near to the boundaries of the solution space
and q has a big value. In this case even if the new solution
ðx  dÞorðx þ dÞ is a better solution, the movement is not
made to that point and a ‘‘failure’’ is recorded. Recording a
failure leads to reducing the parameter q so that the local
search domain is reduced and the chance of feasible x  d
or x þ d is increased in the next iterations.
An important feature of Solis and Wets local search
algorithm is that it does not rely on gradient information
[20, 24]. However, after some iteration, the algorithm can
estimate the appropriate direction toward the local optima
and can continue the search in that direction (by using the
bias vector). In other words, the Solis and Wets local
search estimates the direction of movement based on the
information obtained on the previous iterations and then
guide the search in that direction [20, 24].
Another important feature of the Solis and Wets local
search is its adaptive length of movement in each step. It
means that this local search estimates if the current point is
far from the local optima or near it. This estimation is
based on the information of the previous iterations. If this
algorithm estimates that the current point is far from the
local optima, the length of movement is increased. On the
other hand, if this algorithm estimates that the current point
is near to the local optima, the length of movement is
decreased and the search is focused on the nearer areas [20,
24].
2.4 Hybrid cuckoo local search and augmented
Lagrangian method
So far, a paradigm based on a hybridization of augmented
Lagrangian with cuckoo search algorithm has not been
attempted. Based on the good results obtained by our
previous work [25] that rely on augmented Lagrangian
multipliers, a very promising framework seems to emerge.
On the other hand, hybridization of global and local opti-
mizers may provide a more effective trade-off between
exploitation and exploration of the search space. Cuckoo
search algorithm is good at identifying promising areas of
the search space (exploration), but less good at fine-tuning
Neural Comput & Applic (2014) 25:911–926
Fig. 3 Pseudo code of the
proposed hybrid algorithm
approximations to the minimum (exploitation) [12]. Solis
and Wets local search method is good at improving
approximations to the minimum [24]. Thus, a promising
idea may provide a combination of global and local opti-
mization techniques.
In this study, an effective hybrid cuckoo search algo-
rithm based on Solis and Wets local search method and
augmented Lagrangian method (HCS-LSAL) is presented.
The Lagrangian multiplier vector and penalty parameter
vector are initialized at first. Then the bound constrained
subproblems (4) are solved by hybrid cuckoo search
algorithm and Solis and Wets local search method, and an
approximate global solution to problem (1) is obtained. If
the feasibility norm of global solution is not less than the
user-specified tolerance, Lagrangian multiplier vector and
penalty parameter vector will be updated according to the
information of global solution. After that, the hybrid
cuckoo search algorithm is run again and a new approxi-
mate global solution to problem (1) will be obtained. This
process is repeated until the feasibility norm of global
915
solution is less than the user-specified tolerance, or the
maximum iteration number has been elapsed. The pseudo
code of hybrid cuckoo local search and augmented
Lagrangian method is proposed in Fig. 3.
3 Experimental results and comparisons
3.1 Constrained benchmark test functions
In this work, to evaluate the performance of the proposed
HCS-LSAL algorithm, 13 constrained benchmark test
functions were considered. The detailed formulation of
these functions is shown in [2]. The main characteristics of
the 13 test functions are summarized in Table 1 that lists
the number of decision variables (n), the type of objective
function, the number of linear inequality constraints (LI),
the number of nonlinear equality constraints (NE), the
number of nonlinear inequality constraints (NI), and the
known optimal value (fglobal ).
123
916 Neural Comput & Applic (2014) 25:911–926

Table 1 Details of the 13 constrained benchmark test functions functions are relatively small except for g10, which reflects
Function n Type of f ðxÞ LI NE NI fglobal
that HCS-LSAL is capable of performing a robust and
stable search. In particular, the standard deviations for test
g01 13 Quadratic 9 0 0 15.00000 functions g08 and g12 are equal to 0. So, the HCS-LSAL is
g02 20 Nonlinear 1 0 1 0.803619 very effective, efficient and robust for solving these con-
g03 10 Nonlinear 0 1 0 1.000500 strained optimization problems.
g04 5 Quadratic 0 0 6 30665.539 Our comparison results against the conventional CS
g05 4 Nonlinear 2 3 0 5126.4967 algorithm with augmented Lagrangian method (denoted as
g06 2 Nonlinear 0 0 2 6961.814 CS-AL) is presented in Table 3. As shown in Table 3,
g07 10 Quadratic 3 0 5 24.3062 compared with CS-AL, the proposed HCS-LSAL obtained
g08 2 Nonlinear 0 0 2 0.095825 similar results for six functions (g01, g03, g06, g08, g11 and
g09 7 Nonlinear 0 0 4 680.6301 g12) and better results for four test functions (g02, g05, g09
g10 8 Linear 3 0 3 7049.248 and g10). With respect to CS-AL, for test functions g04, g07
g11 2 Quadratic 0 1 0 0.749900 and g13, HCS-LSAL found similar best values and better
g12 3 Quadratic 0 0 93 1.000000 mean, worst and worst results. Figure 4 depicts the box
g13 5 Nonlinear 0 3 0 0.0539415 plots of the experimental results with HCS-LSAL and CS-
AL on functions (a) g02, (b) g04, (c) g05, (d) g07, (e) g10,
and (f) g13 over 30 independent runs. Figure 5 illustrates
the convergence graphs of objective values over number of
3.2 Algorithm parameters iterations for the functions g01, g02, g06 and g11.

The following parameters are established experimentally

for the best performance of HCS-LSAL: the population
size of cuckoo search was set to 50 nests,
a ¼ 1; Pa ¼ 0:25, the maximum iteration was 3000
(150,000 evaluations were carried out per independent
run). In Solis and Wets local search, the initial value of q
was 1, and the contraction and expansion factors were,
respectively, 0.5 and 2.0, the lower bound on q was 0.01. In
augmented Lagrangian method, the user-required tolerance
e ¼ 1e  08, the initial Lagrange multiplier vector
k0 ¼ ð1; 1; . . .; 1Þ, the initial penalty parameter vector
r0 ¼ 10; 10; . . .; 10, the maximum allowed penalty
parameter ru ¼ 1e?10, the penalty parameter increasing
factor c ¼ 10, the reduction factor for feasibility norm
f ¼ 0:25. For each test function, 30 independent runs are
performed in Matlab 7.0.
3.3 Experimental results
Table 2 reports the results of the test functions in terms of
the best, the mean, the worst, and the standard deviation of
the objective value of the solutions obtained by HCS-
LSAL. As shown in Table 2, although HCS-LSAL algo-
rithm has found the global minimum of the eight functions
(g01, g02, g04, g06, g07, g08, g09 and g12), HCS-LSAL
was able to find close solutions to global optimum on four
of rest functions (g03, g05, g11 and g13). However, on one
function, g10, a typical result found HCS-LSAL is: x =
[579.30620, 1359.96532, 5109.96530, 182.01860,
295.60139, 217.98140, 286.41721, 395.60139] with f ðxÞ ¼
7049:23681 which is the ‘‘best’’ result reported so far. Note
that the standard deviations over 30 runs for all the
3.4 Comparisons with representative stochastic
methods
To further verify the performances of HCS-LSAL, com-
parisons are carried out with five typical stochastic meth-
ods from the literatures, including Artificial Bee Colony
(ABC) [3] algorithm, Electromagnetism-like Mechanism
(EM) [5] method, Genetic Algorithms (GA) [26], Bioge-
ography-based Optimization (BBO) [27] algorithm, and
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) [28] algorithm. The
parameter values utilized by ABC [3] in all the experiments
were the following: number of solutions SN ¼ 20, maxi-
mum cycle number MCN ¼ 5800; Limit ¼ MCN=ð2 
SNÞ ¼ 145 and the modification rate MR ¼ 0:8. There are
four parameters in EM [5]: the population size N ¼ 10, the
local search parameters b ¼ 0:5; Il ¼ 10 and d ¼ 0:001.
The parameters and settings of the GA [26] used in this
study are as follows. The population size N ¼ 64, cross-
over probability is 0.5, mutation probability is 0.10, and
maximum iteration is 5,000. The parameters values used by
BBO [27] in all the experiments were the following: the
population size is 100, the mutation probability is 0.001,
and the maximum iteration is 3,500. The parameters of
PSO [28] is used: the population size is 50, the value of c is
2, the degree of violation is d ¼ 0:001, the maximum
iteration is 1,000. Table 4 compares the best results
obtained by HCS-LSAL and other existing algorithms with
the global optimums.
From Table 4, Compared with ABC algorithm, HCS-
LSAL obtained a similar ‘‘best’’ result in seven functions:
g01, g03, g04, g06, g08, g11, and g12. In six functions (g02,

123
Neural Comput & Applic (2014) 25:911–926 917

Table 2 Experimental results Function Optimal Best Median Mean Worst Std.
obtained by HCS-LSAL with 30
independent runs on 13 test g01 15.0000 15.0000 15.0000 15.0000 15.0000 1.21E08
functions
g02 0.803619 0.803619 0.786258 0.762088 0.640249 4.10E02
g03 1.000500 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.00E10
g04 30665.539 30665.539 30665.539 30665.539 30665.539 7.20E06
g05 5126.4967 5126.4981 5126.4981 5126.4981 5126.4981 6.36E06
g06 6961.814 6961.814 6961.814 6961.814 6961.814 8.36E06
g07 24.3062 24.3062 24.3062 24.3062 24.3062 4.93E08
g08 0.095825 0.095825 0.095825 0.095825 0.095825 0.00Eþ00
g09 680.6301 680.6301 680.6301 680.6301 680.6301 1.43E05
g10 7049.248 7049.237 7049.237 7099.668 7250.957 8.65Eþ01
g11 0.749900 0.749999 0.750000 0.750000 0.750000 3.70E09
g12 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 0.00Eþ00
g13 0.0539415 0.0539498 0.0539498 0.0539498 0.0539498 1.00E10

Table 3 Comparison results of Function Optimal Algorithm Best Mean Worst Std.
test functions between HCS-
LSAL and CS-AL g01 15.0000 CS-AL 15.0000 15.0000 14.999 3.01E06
HCS-LSAL 15.0000 15.0000 15.0000 1.21E08
g02 0.803619 CS-AL 0.794897 0.738112 0.619743 3.93E02
HCS-LSAL 0.803619 0.762088 0.640249 4.10E02
g03 1.000500 CS-AL 1.000000 0.999996 0.999993 3.02E06
HCS-LSAL 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.00E10
g04 30665.539 CS-AL 30665.539 30634.501 30490.517 5.41Eþ01
HCS-LSAL 30665.539 30665.539 30665.539 7.20E06
g05 5126.4967 CS-AL 5126.4983 5186.1672 5311.5278 6.21Eþ01
HCS-LSAL 5126.4981 5126.4981 5126.4981 6.36E06
g06 6961.814 CS-AL 6961.814 6961.814 6961.814 1.09E04
HCS-LSAL 6961.814 6961.814 6961.814 8.36E06
g07 24.3062 CS-AL 24.3062 24.7987 27.6021 9.95E01
HCS-LSAL 24.3062 24.3062 24.3062 1.27E08
g08 0.095825 CS-AL 0.095825 0.095825 0.095825 3.55E08
HCS-LSAL 0.095825 0.095825 0.095825 0.00Eþ00
g09 680.6301 CS-AL 680.6308 680.6325 680.6342 6.12E03
HCS-LSAL 680.6301 680.6301 680.6301 1.43E05
g10 7049.248 CS-AL 7073.155 8256.458 9739.084 6.95Eþ02
HCS-LSAL 7049.237 7099.668 7250.957 8.65Eþ01
g11 0.749900 CS-AL 0.750000 0.750000 0.750000 1.36E05
CSLSAL 0.749999 0.750000 0.750000 3.70E09
g12 1.00000 CS-AL 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 6.28E08
HCS-LSAL 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 0.00Eþ00
g13 0.0539415 CS-AL 0.0539498 0.1052700 0.4388512 1.31E01
HCS-LSAL 0.0539498 0.0539498 0.0539498 1.00E10

g05, g07, g09, g10, and g13), HCS-LSAL found better
‘‘best’’ results. Regarding the mean value, HCS-LSAL
obtained better ‘‘mean’’ and ‘‘worst’’ solutions in test
functions g05, g07, g09, g10, and g13 and a similar ‘‘mean’’
and ‘‘worst’’ values in rest functions g01, g03, g04, g06,
g08, g11, and g12. ABC in contrast had a better ‘‘mean’’ and
‘‘worst’’ results in function g02. Finally, a better ‘‘std.’’
value was found by HCS-LSAL in functions g03, g05, g07,
g08, g09, g10, g11, and g13. ABC had a better ‘‘std.’’ value
in functions g01, g02, g04, and g06.

123
918 Neural Comput & Applic (2014) 25:911–926

4
x 10
−0.62
−3.05
−0.64
−3.052
−0.66

Objective values

Objective values
−3.054
−0.68
−3.056
−0.7
−3.058
−0.72
−3.06
−0.74
−3.062
−0.76
−0.78 −3.064

−0.8 −3.066

HCS−LSAL CS−AL HCS−LSAL CS−AL

(a) (b)
5320
27.5
5300
5280 27
Objective values

Objective values
5260
26.5
5240
5220 26

5200 25.5
5180
25
5160
5140 24.5
5120
HCS−LSAL CS−AL HCS−LSAL CS−AL

(c) (d)
0.45

9500 0.4
Objective values

0.35
Objective values

9000
0.3
8500 0.25

0.2
8000
0.15
7500
0.1

7000 0.05
HCS−LSAL CS−AL HCS−LSAL CS−AL

(e) (f)
Fig. 4 Box plots of best function values to compare HCS-LSAL and CS-AL, (a) Function g02, (b) Function g04, (c) Function g05, (d) Function
g07, (e) Function g10, (f) Function g13

With respect to EM algorithm, HCS-LSAL provided
better ‘‘best’’ results in functions g02, g03, g04, g05, g07,
g09, and g10 and similar ‘‘best’’ values in functions g01,
g06, g08, g11, and g12. However, the better ‘‘best’’ results
were obtained by EM in function g13. Regarding the
‘‘mean’’ and ‘‘worst’’ result, HCS-LSAL found better
‘‘mean’’ and ‘‘worst’’ values in functions g02, g03, g04,
g05, g07, g09, g10, and g13 and similar ‘‘mean’’ and
‘‘worst’’ results in the remaining functions.
Compared with GA, HCS-LSAL was able to provide
better ‘‘best’’ results in functions g02, g03, g07, g09, and
g10 and similar ‘‘best’’ results in the remaining functions.
Regarding the ‘‘mean’’ and ‘‘worst’’ results, HCS-LSAL
found better ‘‘mean’’ and ‘‘worst’’ solutions in functions
g03, g07, and g09 and similar ‘‘mean’’ and ‘‘worst’’ values
in functions g01, g04, g05, g06, g08, g11. In contrast, GA
reached better ‘‘mean’’ and ‘‘worst’’ results in functions
g02 and g10. In functions g03, g04, g07, and g09 HCS-
LSAL obtained better standard deviation values. In the rest
of test functions (g01, g02, g05, g06, g08, g10, and g11),
the better ‘‘Std.’’ results are found by GA.
In comparison with BBO algorithm, HCS-LSAL pro-
vided better ‘‘best’’ results in three functions (g02, g07, and
g10) and similar ‘‘best’’ results in other nine cases (g01,
g03, g04, g05, g06, g08, g09, g11, and g12). Also, HCS-
LSAL reached better ‘‘mean’’ and ‘‘worst’’ results in

123
Neural Comput & Applic (2014) 25:911–926 919

Fig. 5 Objective values versus 0 −0.1

number of iterations for −2 −0.2
functions g01, g02, g06 and g11 Function g01 Function g02
−4 −0.3

Objective values

Objective values
−6 −0.4

−8 −0.5

−10 −0.6

−12 −0.7

−14 −0.8

−16 −0.9
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Number of iterations Number of iterations
−4500 0.754
0.7535
Function g11
−5000 Function g06 0.753
Objective values

Objective values
0.7525
−5500
0.752
0.7515
−6000
0.751

−6500 0.7505
0.75

−7000 0.7495
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Number of iterations Number of iterations

function g07. A ‘‘similar’’ mean and worst solutions were
obtained in nine functions (g01, g03, g04, g05, g06, g08,
g09, g11, and g12). The BBO algorithm found a better
‘‘mean’’ and ‘‘worst’’ results in functions g02 and g10.
HCS-LSAL obtained better standard deviation values in
three functions (g05, g07, and g08). In the remaining
functions, the better ‘‘Std.’’ values were obtained by BBO
algorithm.
Compared with the PSO algorithm, it can be observed
from Table 3 that the proposed HCS-LSAL found better
‘‘best’’ solutions in five functions (g02, g03, g07, g09,
and g10) and similar ‘‘best’’ values in other six functions
(g01, g04, g06, g08, g11, and g12). Slightly better
‘‘best’’ results were obtained by PSO in two functions
(g05 and g13). HCS-LSAL provided better ‘‘mean’’ and
‘‘worst’’ results in eight functions (g01, g02, g03, g05,
g07, g09, g10, and g13). It also found similar ‘‘mean’’
and ‘‘worst’’ solutions in five functions (g04, g06, g08,
g11, and g12).
As a general remark on the comparison above, HCS-
LSAL shows a very competitive performance with respect
to five state-of-the-art stochastic methods in terms of the
efficiency, the quality, and the robustness of search.
3.5 Influence of the parameter Pa
In this section, a series of experiments using the two test
functions (g02 and g10) are carried out to demonstrate the
rationality of the parameter Pa setting in HCS-LSAL.
The impact of the step size Pa on the behavior of our
algorithm has been studied empirically. We have used five
different value of Pa (i.e., 0.05, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35, and 0.45)
to optimize the two complicated test functions g02 and g10
based on 30 independent runs, with the aim of determining
the more robust value for this parameter.
The results are presented in Fig. 6. It is clear that the
global convergence reliability of HCS-LSAL with Pa ¼
0:25 is higher than that of other algorithms. Although it is
hard to provide a conclusive observation about the optimal
step size Pa for HCS-LSAL, a visual inspection of Fig. 5
allows one to conclude that the setting of Pa ¼ 0:25 for
HCS-LSAL is an appropriate choice with regard to all the
Pa values analyzed.
3.6 Experiment on engineering design optimization
problem
In order to study the performance of solving the real-world
engineering design optimization problems, the proposed
HCS-LSAL algorithm is applied to four well-known
engineering design problems.
3.6.1 Tension/compression spring design problem
The tension/compression spring design problem (as shown
in Fig. 7) is described in Belegundu [29]. The design
optimization problem involves three continuous variables
and four nonlinear inequality constraints.

123
920 Neural Comput & Applic (2014) 25:911–926

Table 4 Comparison of HCS-LSAL with respect to ABC, EM, GA, BBO and PSO on 13 benchmark functions
Func Feature ABC [3] EM [5] GA [26] BBO [27] PSO [28] HCS-LSAL

g01 Best 15 15.000 15.0000 15.000 15 15.0000

Mean 15 15.000 15.0000 15.000 14.7151 15.0000
Worst 15 15.000 15.0000 15.000 12.4531 15.0000
Std. 0.00Eþ00 NA 0.00Eþ00 8.21E14 7.40E01 1.21E08
g02 Best 0.803615 0.623711 0.801119 0.803557 0.803443 0.803619
Mean 0.799336 0.517221 0.785746 0.802774 0.740577 0.762088
Worst 0.777438 0.4522348 0.745329 0.792576 0.631598 0.640249
Std. 6.84E03 NA 1.37E02 2.72E03 4.20E02 4.10E02
g03 Best 1 1.00151 0.99998 1.000 1.0048 1.000000
Mean 1 1.00167 0.99992 1.000 1.0034 1.000000
Worst 1 1.00176 0.99979 1.000 0.9976 1.000000
Std. 4.68E05 NA 6.00E05 6.04E16 1.70E02 1.00E10
g04 Best 30665.539 30665.513 30665.54 30665.539 30665.539 30665.539
Mean 30665.539 30660.649 30665.54 30665.539 30665.539 30665.539
Worst 30665.539 30654.500 30665.54 30665.539 30665.539 30665.539
Std. 2.22E11 NA 2.38E02 0.00Eþ00 0.00Eþ00 7.20E06
g05 Best 5126.736 5126.4842 5126.498 5126.498 5126.4842 5126.4981
Mean 5178.139 5128.6958 5126.498 5126.498 5202.3627 5126.4981
Worst 5317.196 5136.6618 5126.498 5126.498 5520.1467 5126.4981
Std. 5.60Eþ01 NA 0.00Eþ00 2.23E04 1.10Eþ02 6.36E06
g06 Best 6961.814 6961.814 6961.814 6961.814 6961.814 6961.814
Mean 6961.814 6961.814 6961.814 6961.814 6961.814 6961.814
Worst 6961.814 6961.814 6961.814 6961.814 6961.814 6961.814
Std. 0.00Eþ00 NA 0.00Eþ00 4.55E12 0.00Eþ00 8.36E06
g07 Best 24.315 25.11276 24.3294 24.326 24.319 24.3062
Mean 24.415 27.75496 24.4719 24.345 24.989 24.3062
Worst 24.854 29.93511 24.8352 24.378 26.194 24.3062
Std. 1.24E01 NA 1.29E01 1.33E02 5.51E01 4.93E08
g08 Best 0.095825 0.095825 0.095825 0.095825 0.095825 0.095825
Mean 0.095825 0.095825 0.095825 0.095825 0.095825 0.095825
Worst 0.095825 0.095825 0.095825 0.095825 0.095825 0.095825
Std. 4.23E17 NA 0.00Eþ00 2.83E17 0.00Eþ00 0.00Eþ00
g09 Best 680.632 680.8968 680.6303 680.630 680.632 680.6301
Mean 680.647 681.3511 680.6381 680.630 680.653 680.6301
Worst 680.691 680.7680 680.6538 680.630 680.699 680.6301
Std. 1.55E02 NA 6.61E03 4.31E13 1.80E02 1.43E05
g10 Best 7051.706 7049.7581 7049.261 7059.802 7054.1256 7049.237
Mean 7233.882 7154.6709 7049.566 7075.832 7173.2661 7099.668
Worst 7473.109 7292.7241 7051.686 7098.254 73 7250.957
35.2477
Std. 1.10Eþ02 NA 5.70E01 8.54Eþ00 8.40Eþ02 8.65Eþ01
g11 Best 0.75 0.7499 0.750000 0.750 0.749 0.749999
Mean 0.75 0.7499 0.750000 0.750 0.749 0.750000
Worst 0.75 0.7499 0.750000 0.750 0.749 0.750000
Std. 2.30E05 NA 0.00Eþ00 0.00Eþ00 3.90E07 3.70E09

123
Neural Comput & Applic (2014) 25:911–926 921

Table 4 continued
Func Feature ABC [3] EM [5] GA [26] BBO [27] PSO [28] HCS-LSAL

g12 Best 1.000 1.0000 NA 1.00000 1 1.00000

Mean 1.000 1.0000 NA 1.00000 1 1.00000
Worst 1.000 1.0000 NA 1.00000 1 1.00000
Std. 0.00Eþ00 NA NA 0.00Eþ00 0.00Eþ00 0.00Eþ00
g13 Best 0.053985 0.053827 NA NA 0.0538666 0.0539498
Mean 0.158552 0.056314 NA NA 0.552753 0.0539498
Worst 0.442905 0.059852 NA NA 1.856102 0.0539498
Std. 1.72E01 NA NA NA 4.20E01 1.00E10

(a) Function g02 (b) Function g10

−0.6 8500

−0.62
−0.64
−0.66 8000
−0.68
Values

Values
−0.7
−0.72
−0.74 7500
−0.76
−0.78
−0.8
7000
0.05 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.05 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.45
Different values of Pa Different values of Pa

Fig. 6 Box plots of the experimental results with different step sizes on problems (a) g02 and (b) g10 over 30 independent runs

The mathematical model of the spring design problem is design problem were compared with the five best solutions
expressed as: reported in the literature, and are presented in Table 5.
min f ðxÞ ¼ ðx3 þ 2Þx2 x21 Their statistical results are listed in Table 6.
As shown in Tables 5 and 6, the searching quality of the
x32 x3 proposed HCS-LSAL is superior to that of other five
g1 ðxÞ ¼ 1  0
71785x41 methods. Moreover, the standard deviation of the results by
4x22  x1 x2 1 HCS-LSAL is much smaller than that of other five sto-
s.t. g2 ðxÞ ¼ þ  10
12566ðx2 x1  x1 Þ 5108x21
3 4 chastic approaches.
140:45x1
g3 ðxÞ ¼ 1  0 3.6.2 Pressure vessel design problem
x22 x3
x1 þ x2
g4 ðxÞ ¼  10 The pressure vessel design problem (see Fig. 8) is described
1:5 in Sandgren [34] who first proposed this problem. The design
where 0:25  x1  1:3; 0:05  x2  2:0, and 2  x3  15. problem involves four continuous variables and four
This problem has already been solved by several inequality constraints. The problem can be stated as follows:
researchers, including Belegundu [29], who used mathe- f ðxÞ ¼ 0:6224x1 x3 x4 þ 1:7781x2 x23 þ 3:1661x21 x4 þ 19:84x21 x3
matical programming methods (MPM), Coello and Mez- s.t. g1 ðxÞ ¼ x1 þ 0:0193x3  0
ura-Montes [30], who used genetic algorithm (GA),
g2 ðxÞ ¼ x2 þ 0:00954x3  0
Krohling and Coelho [31], who employed an approach of 4
coevolutionary particle swarm optimization (CEPSO), g3 ðxÞ ¼ px23 x4  px33 þ 1296000  0
3
Huang et al. [32] proposed an effective coevolutionary g4 ðxÞ ¼ x4  240  0
differential evolution (CEDE), and Eskandar et al. [33],
who applied a water cycle algorithm (WCA). The best where 0  x1  100; 0  x2  100; 10  x3  200 and
solutions obtained by HCS-LSAL in this work for spring 10  x4  200.

123
922 Neural Comput & Applic (2014) 25:911–926

Ts L Th
P
D
P
R R

Fig. 7 Tension/compression spring design problem

Coello and Mezura-Montes [30] used a GA-based Fig. 8 Pressure vessel design problem
method to solve pressure vessel design problem, Renato
and Leandro [31] applied coevolutionary PSO to solve this and three inequality constraints. The design optimization
problem, The CEDE algorithm is proposed by Huang et al problem can be formulated as follows:
[32]. To solve this problem, in addition, Eskandar [33] pffiffiffi
solved this problem by using WCA algorithm. Table 7 lists min f ðxÞ ¼ ð2 2x1 þ x2 Þ l
pffiffiffi
the optimal solutions that have been determined by GA 2x1 þ x2
s.t. g1 ðxÞ ¼ pffiffiffi 2 P  r  0;
[30], CEPSO [31], CEDE [32], WCA [33], Nonlinear 2x1 þ 2x1 x2
integer and discrete programming (NIDP) [34], as well as x2
g2 ðxÞ ¼ pffiffiffi 2 P  r  0;
the proposed HCS-LSAL in this study, and their statistical 2x1 þ 2x1 x2
results are given in Table 8. 1
From Tables 7 and 8, with respect to GA, CEPSO, g3 ðxÞ ¼ pffiffiffi P  r  0:
x1 þ 2x2
CEDE, and NIDP, HCS-LSAL provided better results for
pressure vessel design problem. Although the best objec- where 0  x1  1; 0  x2  1; l ¼ 100 cm; P ¼ 2 KN=cm2 ,
tive value derived by WCA algorithm is better than those and r ¼ 2 KN=cm2 .
of HCS-LSAL, the reported value is not feasible. This is The proposed HCS-LSAL method was applied to the
because the fourth variable (x4 ðLÞ ¼ 200) is significantly three-bar truss design problem and the optimal solutions
violated in the results of WCA. were compared to earlier results reported by CS [11], WCA
[33], PSO-DE [36], DE-DSS [37], and HEA-ACT [38], as
3.6.3 Three-bar truss design problem shown in Table 9, and their statistical results are listed in
Table 10.
Consider the three-bar truss design shown in Fig. 9, taken As can be seen in Tables 9 and 10 that the best function
from Nowcki [35]. This problem involved two variables value 263.895843 obtained by the proposed HCS-LSAL is

Table 5 Comparison of the MPM [29] GA [30] CEPSO [31] CEDE [32] WCA [33] HCS-LSAL
best solution for tension/
compression spring design x1 ðdÞ 0.05000 0.051989 0.051728 0.051609 0.051689 0.051689
problem found by different
x2 ðDÞ 0.31590 0.363965 0.357644 0.354714 0.356718 0.356718
algorithms
x3 ðPÞ 14.2500 10.890522 11.244543 11.410831 11.288957 11.28896
g1 ðxÞ 0.000014 0.000013 8.25E04 3.90E05 1.65E13 6.41E06
g2 ðxÞ 0.003782 0.000021 2.52E05 1.83E04 7.90E14 3.90E06
g3 ðxÞ 3.938302 1.061338 4.051306 4.048627 4.053399 4.053775
g4 ðxÞ 0.756067 0.722698 0.727085 0.729118 0.727864 0.727729
f ðxÞ 0.0128334 0.0126810 0.012674 0.0126702 0.012665 0.0126652

Table 6 Statistical results of MPM [29] GA [30] CEPSO [31] CEDE [32] WCA [33] HCS-LSAL
different approaches for tension/
compression spring design Best 0.0128334 0.0126810 0.012674 0.0126702 0.012665 0.0126652
problem
Mean NA 0.0127420 0.012730 0.0126703 0.012746 0.0126683
Worst NA 0.0129730 0.012924 0.0126790 0.012952 0.0126764
Std. NA 5.9E05 1.58E05 2.70E05 8.06E06 5.37E07

123
Neural Comput & Applic (2014) 25:911–926 923

Table 7 Comparison of the GAFR [30] CEPSO [31] CEDE [32] WCA [33] NIDP [34] HCS-LSAL
best solution for pressure vessel
design problem found by x1 ðTs Þ 0.8125 0.8125 0.8125 0.7781 1.1250 0.8125
different algorithms
x2 ðTh Þ 0.4375 0.4375 0.4375 0.3846 0.6250 0.4375
x3 ðRÞ 42.097398 42.0913 42.0984 40.3196 48.3807 42.09844
x4 ðLÞ 176.65405 176.7465 176.6376 200.000 11.7449 176.6366
g1 ðxÞ 0.000020 1.37E06 6.67E07 2.95E11 0.1913 2.01E09
g2 ðxÞ 0.035891 3.59E04 3.58E02 7.15E11 0.1634 0.035880
g3 ðxÞ 27.886075 118.7687 3.705123 1.35E06 75.875 0.002495
g4 ðxÞ 63.345953 63.2535 63.3623 40.0000 128.2551 63.36340
f ðxÞ 6059.9463 6061.0777 6059.7340 5885.3327 8048.6190 6059.7143

Table 8 Statistical results of GAFR [30] CEPSO [31] CEDE [32] WCA [33] NIDP [34] HCS-LSAL
different approaches for
pressure vessel design problem Best 6059.9463 6061.0777 6059.7340 5885.3327 8048.6190 6059.7143
Mean 6177.2533 6147.1332 6085.2303 6198.6172 NA 6087.3225
Worst 6469.3220 6363.8041 6371.0455 6590.2129 NA 6137.4069
Std. 130.9297 86.4500 43.0130 213.0490 NA 2.21E02

H H min f ðxÞ ¼ 0:7854x1 x22 ð3:3333x23 þ 14:9334x3  43:0934Þ

 1:508x1 ðx26 þ x27 Þ þ 7:4777ðx36 þ x37 Þ
þ 0:7854ðx4 x26 þ x5 x27 Þ
27
g1 ðxÞ ¼  1  0;
x1 x22 x3
397:5
x2 g2 ðxÞ ¼  1  0;
x1 x1 = x3 x1 x22 x22
H

1:93x34
g3 ðxÞ ¼  1  0;
x2 x46 x3
1:93x35
g4 ðxÞ ¼  1  0;
x2 x57 x3
P ½ð745x4 =x2 x3 Þ2 þ 16:9 106 1=2
g5 ðxÞ ¼  1  0;
Fig. 9 Three-bar truss design problem
110x36
½ð745x5 =x2 x3 Þ2 þ 157:5 106 1=2
g6 ðxÞ ¼  1  0;
85x37
the best and the same as the results by WCA, PSO-DE, DE- x2 x3
g7 ðxÞ ¼  1  0;
DSS, and HEA-ACT. Compared with CS algorithm, HCS- 40
LSAL found better results for three-bar truss design 5x2
g8 ðxÞ ¼  1  0;
problem. x1
x1
g9 ðxÞ ¼  1  0;
12x2
3.6.4 Speed reducer design problem 1:5x6 þ 1:9
g10 ðxÞ ¼  1  0;
x4
This speed reducer design problem (see Fig. 10) is 1:1x6 þ 1:7
g11 ðxÞ ¼  1  0:
described in Mezura-Montes [39] who proposed this x5
problem. This problem involved seven continuous vari-
ables and eleven inequality constraints. The optimization where 2:6  x1  3:6; 0:7  x2  0:8; 17  x3  28; 7:3 
design problem can be formulated as follows: x4  8:3; 7:3  x5  8:3; 2:9  x6  3:9, and 5:0  x7  5:5.

123
924 Neural Comput & Applic (2014) 25:911–926

Table 9 Comparison of the CS [11] WCA [33] PSO-DE [36] DE-DSS [37] HEA-ACT [38] HCS-LSAL
best solution for three-bar truss
design problem found by x1 0.78867 0.788651 0.788675 0.788675 0.78868 0.788675
different algorithms
x2 0.40902 0.408316 0.408248 0.408248 0.40823 0.408248
g1 ðxÞ 0.00029 0.000000 5.29E11 1.77E08 0.000000 7.55E15
g2 ðxÞ 0.26853 1.464024 1.463747 1.464101 1.464118 1.464102
g3 ðxÞ 0.73176 0.535975 0.536252 0.535898 0.535898 0.535898
f ðxÞ 263.9716 263.895843 263.895843 263.895843 263.895843 263.895843

Table 10 Statistical results of CS [11] WCA [33] PSO-DE [36] DE-DSS [37] HEA-ACT [8] HCS-LSAL
different approaches for three-
bar truss design problem Best 263.97156 263.895843 263.895843 263.895843 263.895843 263.895843
Mean 264.0669 263.895903 263.895843 263.895843 263.895865 263.895843
Worst NA 263.896201 263.895843 263.895849 263.896099 263.895843
Std. 9.00E05 8.71E05 4.5E10 9.7E07 4.9E05 6.58E12

The available methods solving this problem include CS

algorithm [11], useful infeasible solutions with evolution-
d2 ary algorithm (IS-EA) [39], a swarm with an intelligent
z l2
information sharing (SIIS) [40], a socio-behavioral simu-
lation model (SBSM) [41], and a simple evolutionary
l1
algorithm (SEA) [42]. The best solutions obtained by these
d1 algorithms are listed in Table 11, and their statistical
results are shown in Table 12.
From Tables 11 and 12, the best results obtained by
HCS-LSAL are superior to the best solutions previously
reported in the literature except for SIIS algorithm.
Fig. 10 Speed reducer design problem
Although the best solutions derived by SIIS algorithm are

Table 11 Comparison of the CS [11] EA [39] SIIS [40] SBSM [41] SEA [42] HCS-LSAL
best solution for speed reducer
design problem found by x1 ðbÞ 3.5015 3.49999 3.514185 3.506122 3.506163 3.500000
different algorithms
x2 ðmÞ 0.70000 0.69999 0.700005 0.700006 0.700831 0.70000
x3 ðzÞ 17.0000 17 17 17 17 17.00000
x4 ðl1 Þ 7.6050 7.3000 7.497343 7.549126 7.460181 7.30000
x5 ðl2 Þ 7.8181 7.8000 7.8346 7.85933 7.962143 7.7153199
x6 ðd1 Þ 3.3520 3.350215 2.9018 3.365576 3.3629 3.3502147
x7 ðd2 Þ 5.2875 5.286683 5.0022 5.289773 5.3090 5.2866545
g1 ðxÞ 0.0743 0.0739 0.0777 0.0755 0.0777 0.073915
g2 ðxÞ 0.1983 0.01980 0.2012 0.1994 0.2013 0.197998
g3 ðxÞ 0.4349 0.49917 0.0360 0.4562 0.4741 0.499172
g4 ðxÞ 0.9008 0.9015 0.8754 0.8994 0.8971 0.904644
g5 ðxÞ 0.0011 0.0000 0.5395 0.0132 0.0110 3.0359E08
g6 ðxÞ 0.0004 0.0000 0.1805 0.0017 0.0125 1.9875E08
g7 ðxÞ 0.7025 0.7025 0.7025 0.7025 0.7022 0.702500
g8 ðxÞ 0.0004 0.00000 0.0040 0.0017 0.0006 0.000000
g9 ðxÞ 0.5832 0.5833 0.5816 0.5826 0.5831 0.583333
g10 ðxÞ 0.0890 0.0513 0.1660 0.0796 0.0691 0.051326
g11 ðxÞ 0.0130 0.0109 0.0552 0.0179 0.0279 6.4806E09
f ðxÞ 3000.9810 2996.3481 2732.9006 3008.08 3025.005 2994.471066

123
Neural Comput & Applic (2014) 25:911–926
Table 12 Statistical results of CS [11] EA [39]
different approaches for speed
reducer design problem Best 3000.9810 2996.3481
Mean 3007.1977 2996.3481
Worst 3009.0000 2996.3481
Std. 4.9634 0.00Eþ00
better than those of HCS-LSAL, the reported results are not
feasible. This is because the fifth and sixth constraints
(g5 ðxÞ; g6 ðxÞ) are significantly violated in the results of
SIIS algorithm.
Based on the aforementioned simulation results and
comparisons, it can be concluded that the proposed HCS-
LSAL sustains competitiveness on solving constrained
numerical optimization and engineering design optimiza-
tion problems.
4 Conclusions
In this paper, we developed an effective hybrid approach
for constrained global optimization that combines the
augmented Lagrangian method for handling the equality
and inequality constraints with a cuckoo search algorithm
as global optimizer and a Solis and Wets search as local
optimizer. Experimental results for a set of benchmark test
functions and engineering design problems seem to show
that hybridization provides a more effective trade-off
between exploitation and exploration of the search space.
The proposed HCS-LSAL algorithm has shown to be
competitive and efficient when compared with the others.
However, further research is required to examine the effi-
ciencies of the proposed algorithm on other real-world
optimization and large-scale optimization problems.
Acknowledgments This research is supported in part by the Sci-
ence and Technology Foundation of Guizhou Province([2013]2082),
in part by the Excellent Science Technology Innovation Talents in
University of Guizhou Province([2013]140) and in part by the Beijing
Natural Science Foundation (4122022).
References
1. Gandomi AH, Yang XS, Alavi AH, Talatahari S (2013) Bat
algorithm for constrained optimization tasks. Neural Comput
Appl 22(6):1239–1255
2. Runarsson TP, Yao X (2000) Stochastic ranking for constrained
evolutionary optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 4(3):
284–294
3. Mezura-Montes E, Cetina-Dominguez O (2012) Empirical ana-
lysis of a modified artificial bee colony for constrained numerical
optimization. Appl Math Comput 218(22):10943–10973
4. Gandomi AH, Yang XS, Alavi AH (2011) Mixed variable
structural optimization using firefly algorithm. Comput Struct
89(23–24):2325–2336
925
SIIS [40] SEA [41] SBSM [42] HCS-LSAL
2732.9006 3008.08 3025.005 2994.471066
2758.8878 3012.1200 3088.7778 2994.471066
2758.3071 3028.2800 3078.5918 2994.471066
NA NA NA 3.88E10
5. Ali MM, Golalikhani M (2010) An electromagnetism-like
method for nonlinearly constrained global optimization. Comput
Math Appl 60(8):2279–2285
6. Costa L, Santo IACPE, Fernandes EMGP (2012) A hybrid
genetic pattern search augmented Lagrangian method for con-
strained global optimization. Appl Math Comput 218(18):
9415–9426
7. Long W, Liang XM, Huang YF, Chen YX (2013) A hybrid dif-
ferential evolution augmented Lagrangian method for constrained
numerical and engineering optimization. Comput Aided Des
45(12):1562–1574
8. Gandomi AH, Alavi AH (2012) Krill herd: a new bio-inspired
optimization algorithm. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul
17(12):4831–4845
9. Yang XS, Deb S (2009) Cuckoo search via L evy flights. In: Proc
World Congress on Nature and Biologically Inspired Computing.
IEEE Press, USA, pp 210–214
10. Burnwal S, Deb S (2013) Scheduling optimization of flexible
manufacturing system using cuckoo search-based approach. Int J
Adv Manuf Tech 64(5–8):951–959
11. Gandomt AH, Yang XS, Alavi AH (2013) Cuckoo search algo-
rithm: a metaheuristic approach to solve structural optimization
problem. Eng Comput 29(1):17–35
12. Li XT, Yin MH (2012) Parameter estimation for chaotic systems
using the cuckoo search algorithm with an orthogonal learning
method. Chin Phys B 21(5):050507
13. Mezura-Montes E, Coello CAC (2005) A simple multimembered
evolution strategy to solve constrained optimization problems.
IEEE Trans Evol Comput 9(1):1–17
14. Coello CAC (2002) Theoretical and numerical constraint-han-
dling techniques used with evolutionary algorithm: a survey of
the state of the art. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 191(11):
1245–1287
15. Birgin EG, Martinez JM (2012) Augmented Lagrangian method
with nonmonotone penalty parameters for constrained optimiza-
tion. Comput Optim Appl 51(3):941–965
16. Jansen PW, Perez RE (2011) Constrained structural design
optimization via a parallel augmented Lagrangian particle swarm
optimization approach. Comput Struct 89(13–14):1352–1366
17. Tahk MJ, Sun BC (2000) Coevolutionary augmented Lagrangian
methods for constrained optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput
4(2):114–124
18. Zhou YY, Yang XQ (2010) Augmented Lagrangian functions for
constrained optimization problems. J Glob Optim 52(1):95–108
19. Rocha AMAC, Martins TFMC, Fernandes EMGP (2011) An
augmented Lagrangian fish swarm based method for global
optimization. J Comput Appl Math 235(16):4611–4620
20. Alikhani MG, Javadian N, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R (2009) A
novel hybrid approach combining electromagnetism-like method
with Solis and Wets local search for continuous optimization
problems. J Glob Optim 44(2):227–234
21. Noman N, Iba H (2008) Accelerating differential evolution using
an adaptive local search. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 12(1):107–125
22. Zahara E, Kao YT (2009) Hybrid Nelder-Mead simplex search
and particle swarm optimization for constrained engineering
design problems. Expert Syst Appl 36(2):3880–3886
123
926
23. Fesanghary M, Mahdavi M, Minary-Jolandan M, Alizadeh Y
(2008) Hybridizing harmony search algorithm with sequential
quadratic programming for engineering optimization problems.
Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 197(33–40):3080–3091
24. Solis FJ, Wets JB (1981) Minimization by random search tech-
nique. Math Oper Res 6(1):19–30
25. Liang XM, Hu JB, Zhong WT, Qian JX (2001) A modified
augmented Lagrange multiplier methods for large-scale optimi-
zation. Dev Chem Eng Miner Proc 9(1–2):115–124
26. Chootinan P, Chen A (2006) Constraint handling in genetic
algorithms using a gradient-based repair method. Comput Oper
Res 33(8):2263–2281
27. Boussaı̈d I, Chatterjee A, Siarry P, Ahmed-Nacer M (2012)
Biogeography-based optimization for constrained optimization
problems. Comput Oper Res 39(12):3293–3304
28. Lu HY, Chen WQ (2008) Self-adaptive velocity particle swarm
optimization for solving constrained optimization problems.
J Glob Optim 41(3):427–445
29. Belegundu AD (1982) A study of mathematical programming
methods for structural optimization. PhD thesis, University of
Iowa, Iowa
30. Coello CAC, Mezura-Montes E (2002) Constraint-handling in
genetic algorithms through the use of dominance-based tourna-
ment selection. Adv Eng Inform 16(3):193–203
31. Krohling RA, Coelho LDS (2006) Coevolutionary particle swarm
optimization using gaussian distribution for solving constrained
optimization problems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 36(6):
1407–1416
32. Huang FZ, Wang L, He Q (2007) An effective coevolutionary
differential evolution for constrained optimization. Appl Math
Comput 186(1):340–356
33. Eskandar H, Sadollah A, Bahreininejad A, Hamdi M (2012)
Water cycle algorithm—a novel metaheuristic optimization
123
View publication stats
Neural Comput & Applic (2014) 25:911–926
method for solving constrained engineering optimization prob-
lems. Comput Struct 110–111:151–166
34. Sandgren E (1988) Nonlinear integer and discrete programming
in mechanical design. In: Proc ASME design technology con-
ference Kissimine, USA, pp 95–105
35. Nowcki H (1974) Optimization in precontract ship design. In:
Fujita Y, Lind K, Williams TJ (eds) Computer applications in the
automation of shipyard operation and ship design, vol 2. North-
Holland, Elsevier, New York, pp 327–338
36. Liu H, Cai ZX, Wang Y (2010) Hybridizing particle swarm
optimization with differential evolution for constrained numerical
and engineering optimization. Appl Soft Comput 10(2):327–338
37. Zhang M, Luo W, Wang XF (2008) Differential evolution with
dynamic stochastic selection for constrained optimization. Inf Sci
178(15):3043–3074
38. Wang Y, Cai ZX, Zhou YR, Fan Z (2009) Constrained optimi-
zation based on hybrid evolutionary algorithm and adaptive
constraint-handling techniques. Struct Multidiscip Optim 37(4):
395–413
39. Mezura-Montes E, Coello CAC (2005) Useful infeasible solu-
tions in engineering optimization with evolutionary algorithms.
MICAI’2005 Lect Notes Artif Int 3789:652–662
40. Ray TK, Saini P (2001) Engineering design optimization using a
swarm with an intelligent information sharing among individuals.
Eng Optim 33(6):735–748
41. Akhtar S, Tai K, Ray T (2002) A socio-behavioural simulation
model for engineering design optimization. Eng Optim 34(4):
341–354
42. Mezura-Montes E, Coello CAC, Ricardo L (2003) Engineering
optimization using a simple evolutionary algorithm. In: Proc 15th
International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence.
CA, USA, pp 149–156