The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evolutionary programming made faster
Abstract
Evolutionary programming (EP) has been applied with success to many numerical and combinatorial optimization problems in recent years. EP has rather slow convergence rates, however, on some function optimization problems. In the paper, a "fast EP" (FEP) is proposed which uses a Cauchy instead of Gaussian mutation as the primary search operator. The relationship between FEP and classical EP (CEP) is similar to that between fast simulated annealing and the classical version. Both analytical and empirical studies have been carried out to evaluate the performance of FEP and CEP for different function optimization problems. The paper shows that FEP is very good at search in a large neighborhood while CEP is better at search in a small local neighborhood. For a suite of 23 benchmark problems, FEP performs much better than CEP for multimodal functions with many local minima while being comparable to CEP in performance for unimodal and multimodal functions with only a few local minima. The paper also shows the relationship between the search step size and the probability of finding a global optimum and thus explains why FEP performs better than CEP on some functions but not on others. In addition, the importance of the neighborhood size and its relationship to the probability of finding a near-optimum is investigated. Based on these analyses, an improved FEP (IFEP) is proposed and tested empirically. This technique mixes different search operators (mutations). The experimental results show that IFEP performs better than or as well as the better of FEP and CEP for most benchmark problems tested.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No free lunch theorems for optimization
Wolpert, D. H., & Macready, W. G. (1997) · IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1109/4235.585893 · Cited by 14,237
Cited by
Mirjalili, S. (2016) · Neural Computing and Applications · doi:10.1007/s00521-015-1920-1 · Cited by 2,765
Platemo: a matlab platform for evolutionary multi-objective optimization [educational forum]
Tian, Y., Cheng, R., Zhang, X., & Jin, Y. (2017) · IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine · doi:10.1109/mci.2017.2742868 · Cited by 2,777
A social learning particle swarm optimization algorithm for scalable optimization
Cheng, R., & Jin, Y. (2015) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2014.08.039 · Cited by 747
Northern Goshawk Optimization: A New Swarm-Based Algorithm for Solving Optimization Problems
Dehghani, M., Hubalovsky, S., & Trojovsky, P. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3133286 · Cited by 574
Chaotic whale optimization algorithm
Kaur, G., & Arora, S. (2018) · Journal of Computational Design and Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.jcde.2017.12.006 · Cited by 533
Metadata
- Authors
- Yao, X., Liu, Y., & Lin, G.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation
- Published
- 1999-07
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 82-102
- ISSN
- 1089-778X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1997600725
- Cited by
- 3,910
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evolutionary programming made faster. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/4235.771163
- The paper
- Yao, X., Liu, Y., & Lin, G. (1999). Evolutionary programming made faster. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation. https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.771163
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.