Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Flow-chart for the proposed technique.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Summary of the properties of FEIW function.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

The parameters and properties of six variations of FEIW.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 2.

Six variations of Flexible Exponential Inertia Weight (FEIW) strategy.

(A) FEIW-1. (B) FEIW-2. (C) FEIW-3. (D) FEIW-4. € FEIW-5. (F) FEIW-6.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 3.

Benchmark functions for simulation.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Benchmark functions formula.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Comparison of success rate, average and minimum number of iterations of successful runs for considered PSO variants with condition 2, Imax = 1000, D = 10, ε = 10−1 for f2, f3, f4, f10 functions and ε = 10−10 for others (υ > Imax).

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Comparison of success rate, average and minimum number of iterations of successful runs for considered PSO variants with condition 2, Imax = 1000, D = 10, ε = 5 for f15 and f20 functions, ε = 10−1 for f19, f21, f24, f25 functions and ε = 10−10 for others (υ > Imax).

More »

Table 6 Expand

Table 7.

Comparison of average, minimum and standard deviation of error for considered PSO variants with condition 1, Imax = 1000 and D = 10.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Table 8.

Comparison of average, minimum and standard deviation of error for considered PSO variants with condition 1, Imax = 1000 and D = 10.

More »

Table 8 Expand

Table 9.

Comparison of average, minimum and standard deviation of error for considered PSO variants with condition 1, Imax = 1000 and D = 10.

More »

Table 9 Expand

Table 10.

Comparison of average, minimum and standard deviation of error for considered PSO variants with condition 1, Imax = 1000 and D = 10.

More »

Table 10 Expand

Table 11.

Comparison of average, minimum and standard deviation of error for considered PSO variants with condition 1, Imax = 500 and D = 50.

More »

Table 11 Expand

Table 12.

Comparison of average, minimum and standard deviation of error for considered PSO variants with condition 1, Imax = 500 and D = 50.

More »

Table 12 Expand

Table 13.

Comparison of average, minimum and standard deviation of error for considered PSO variants with condition 1, Imax = 1000 and D = 50.

More »

Table 13 Expand

Table 14.

Comparison of average, minimum and standard deviation of error for considered PSO variants with condition 1, Imax = 1000 and D = 50.

More »

Table 14 Expand

Table 15.

Best and worst IW strategies for each benchmark function in terms of success rate, average and minimum number of iterations of successful runs according to Table 5.

More »

Table 15 Expand

Table 16.

Best and worst IW strategies for each benchmark function in terms of success rate, average and minimum number of iterations of successful runs according to Table 6.

More »

Table 16 Expand

Table 17.

Best and worst IW strategies for each benchmark function in terms of success rate, average and minimum number of iterations of successful runs according to Table 6.

More »

Table 17 Expand

Table 18.

Best and worst IW strategies for each benchmark function in terms of average, minimum and standard deviation of error according to Tables 7 and 8.

More »

Table 18 Expand

Table 19.

Best and worst IW strategies for each benchmark function in terms of average, minimum and standard deviation of error according to Table 9.

More »

Table 19 Expand

Table 20.

Best and worst IW strategies for each benchmark function in terms of average, minimum and standard deviation of error according to Table 10.

More »

Table 20 Expand

Table 21.

Best and worst IW strategies for each benchmark function in terms of average, minimum and standard deviation of error according to Tables 11 and 12.

More »

Table 21 Expand

Table 22.

Best and worst IW strategies for each benchmark function in terms of average, minimum and standard deviation of error according to Tables 13 and 14.

More »

Table 22 Expand

Table 23.

Summary of results of Tables 1522.

More »

Table 23 Expand

Table 24.

Wilcoxon-ranks and p-value on the average and minimum number of iterations of successful runs according to Table 5.

More »

Table 24 Expand

Table 25.

Wilcoxon-ranks and p-value on the average and minimum number of iterations of successful runs according to Table 6.

More »

Table 25 Expand

Table 26.

Wilcoxon-ranks and p-value on the average and minimum error according to Tables 7 and 8.

More »

Table 26 Expand

Table 27.

Wilcoxon-ranks and p-value on the average and minimum error according to Tables 9 and 10.

More »

Table 27 Expand

Table 28.

Wilcoxon-ranks and p-value on the average and minimum error according to Tables 11 and 12.

More »

Table 28 Expand

Table 29.

Wilcoxon-ranks and p-value on the average and minimum error according to Tables 13 and 14.

More »

Table 29 Expand

Table 30.

Friedman test based on Table 5.

More »

Table 30 Expand

Table 31.

Friedman test based on Table 6.

More »

Table 31 Expand

Table 32.

Friedman test based on Tables 7 and 8.

More »

Table 32 Expand

Table 33.

Friedman test based on Tables 9 and 10.

More »

Table 33 Expand

Table 34.

Friedman test based on Tables 11 and 12.

More »

Table 34 Expand

Table 35.

Friedman test based on Tables 13 and 14.

More »

Table 35 Expand

Fig 3.

Bonferroni-Dunn bar chart.

(A) Average iterations based on Table 5. (B) Average iterations based on Table 6. (C) Minimum iterations based on Table 5. (D) Minimum iterations based on Table 6. (E) Success rate based on Table 5. (F) Success rate based on Table 6.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Bonferroni-Dunn bar chart.

(A) Average error based on Tables 7 and 8. (B) Average error based on Tables 9 and 10. (C) Minimum error based on Tables 7 and 8. (D) Minimum error based on Tables 9 and 10. (E) Standard deviation of error based on Tables 7 and 8. (F) Standard deviation of error based on Tables 9 and 10.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Bonferroni-Dunn bar chart.

(A) Average error based on Tables 11 and 12. (B) Average error based on Tables 13 and 14. (C) Minimum error based on Tables 11 and 12. (D) Minimum error based on Tables 13 and 14. (E) Standard deviation of error based on Tables 11 and 12. (F) Standard deviation of error based on Tables 13 and 14.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Boxplots of considered PSO variants.

(A) Average iterations based on Table 5. (B) Average iterations based on Table 6. (C) Minimum iterations based on Table 5. (D) Minimum iterations based on Table 6. (E) Success rate based on Table 5. (F) Success rate based on Table 6.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Boxplots of considered PSO variants.

(A) Average error based on Tables 7 and 8. (B) Average error based on Tables 9 and 10. (C) Minimum error based on Tables 7 and 8. (D) Minimum error based on Tables 9 and 10. (E) Standard deviation of error based on Tables 7 and 8. (F) Standard deviation of error based on Tables 9 and 10.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Boxplots of considered PSO variants.

(A) Average error based on Tables 11 and 12. (B) Average error based on Tables 13 and 14. (C) Minimum error based on Tables 11 and 12. (D) Minimum error based on Tables 13 and 14. (E) Standard deviation of error based on Tables 11 and 12. (F) Standard deviation of error based on Tables 13 and 14.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Convergence graph for some PSO variants.

(A) Sphere Function with ε = 10−20. (B) Griewank Function with ε = 10−1. (C) Ackley Function with ε = 10−15. (D) Zakharov Function with ε = 10−200. (E) Schwefel's Problem 2.22 with ε = 10−20. (F) Weierstrass Function with ε = 10−30.

More »

Fig 9 Expand