物件導向軟體之架構(Object-Oriented Software Construction)探討

This paper proposes a novel population-based optimization algorithm called Sine Cosine Algorithm (SCA) for solving optimization problems. The SCA creates multiple initial random candidate solutions and requires them to fluctuate outwards or towards the best solution using a mathematical model based on sine and cosine functions. Several random and adaptive variables also are integrated to this algorithm to emphasize exploration and exploitation of the search space in different milestones of optimization. The performance of SCA is benchmarked in three test phases. Firstly, a set of well-known test cases including unimodal, multi-modal, and composite functions are employed to test exploration, exploitation, local optima avoidance, and convergence of SCA. Secondly, several performance metrics (search history, trajectory, average fitness of solutions, and the best solution during optimization) are used to qualitatively observe and confirm the performance of SCA on shifted two-dimensional test functions. Finally, the cross-section of an aircraft's wing is optimized by SCA as a real challenging case study to verify and demonstrate the performance of this algorithm in practice. The results of test functions and performance metrics prove that the algorithm proposed is able to explore different regions of a search space, avoid local optima, converge towards the global optimum, and exploit promising regions of a search space during optimization effectively. The SCA algorithm obtains a smooth shape for the airfoil with a very low drag, which demonstrates that this algorithm can highly be effective in solving real problems with constrained and unknown search spaces. Note that the source codes of the SCA algorithm are publicly available at http://www.alimirjalili.com/SCA.html .

SCA: A Sine Cosine Algorithm for solving optimization problems

Domain-specific languages (DSLs) are languages tailored to a specific application domain. They offer substantial gains in expressiveness and ease of use compared with general-purpose programming languages in their domain of application. DSL development is hard, requiring both domain knowledge and language development expertise. Few people have both. Not surprisingly, the decision to develop a DSL is often postponed indefinitely, if considered at all, and most DSLs never get beyond the application library stage.Although many articles have been written on the development of particular DSLs, there is very limited literature on DSL development methodologies and many questions remain regarding when and how to develop a DSL. To aid the DSL developer, we identify patterns in the decision, analysis, design, and implementation phases of DSL development. Our patterns improve and extend earlier work on DSL design patterns. We also discuss domain analysis tools and language development systems that may help to speed up DSL development. Finally, we present a number of open problems.

/pdf/when-and-how-to-develop-domain-specific-languages-29nvxv3ngp.pdf

When and how to develop domain-specific languages

The Grid 2: Blueprint for a New Computing Infrastructure

This paper presents a novel, optimization algorithm called Equilibrium Optimizer (EO), inspired by control volume mass balance models used to estimate both dynamic and equilibrium states. In EO, each particle (solution) with its concentration (position) acts as a search agent. The search agents randomly update their concentration with respect to best-so-far solutions, namely equilibrium candidates, to finally reach to the equilibrium state (optimal result). A well-defined “generation rate” term is proved to invigorate EO’s ability in exploration, exploitation, and local minima avoidance. The proposed algorithm is benchmarked with 58 unimodal, multimodal, and composition functions and three engineering application problems. Results of EO are compared to three categories of existing optimization methods, including: (i) the most well-known meta-heuristics, including Genetic Algorithm (GA), Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO); (ii) recently developed algorithms, including Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO), Gravitational Search Algorithm (GSA), and Salp Swarm Algorithm (SSA); and (iii) high performance optimizers, including CMA-ES, SHADE, and LSHADE-SPACMA. Using average rank of Friedman test, for all 58 mathematical functions EO is able to outperform PSO, GWO, GA, GSA, SSA, and CMA-ES by 60%, 69%, 94%, 96%, 77%, and 64%, respectively, while it is outperformed by SHADE and LSHADE-SPACMA by 24% and 27%, respectively. The Bonferroni–Dunnand Holm’s tests for all functions showed that EO is significantly a better algorithm than PSO, GWO, GA, GSA, SSA and CMA-ES while its performance is statistically similar to SHADE and LSHADE-SPACMA. The source code of EO is publicly availabe at https://github.com/afshinfaramarzi/Equilibrium-Optimizer , http://built-envi.com/portfolio/equilibrium-optimizer/ and http://www.alimirjalili.com/SourceCodes/EOcode.zip .

Equilibrium optimizer: A novel optimization algorithm

“Exploration and exploitation are the two cornerstones of problem solving by search.” For more than a decade, Eiben and Schippers' advocacy for balancing between these two antagonistic cornerstones still greatly influences the research directions of evolutionary algorithms (EAs) [1998]. This article revisits nearly 100 existing works and surveys how such works have answered the advocacy. The article introduces a fresh treatment that classifies and discusses existing work within three rational aspects: (1) what and how EA components contribute to exploration and exploitation; (2) when and how exploration and exploitation are controlled; and (3) how balance between exploration and exploitation is achieved. With a more comprehensive and systematic understanding of exploration and exploitation, more research in this direction may be motivated and refined.

Exploration and exploitation in evolutionary algorithms: A survey

Every search algorithm needs to address the exploration and exploitation of a search space. Exploration is the process of visiting entirely new regions of a search space, whilst exploitation is the process of visiting those regions of a search space within the neighborhood of previously visited points. In order to be successful a search algorithm needs to establish a good ratio between exploration and exploitation. In this respect Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) [De Jong 2002; Eiben and Smith 2008], such as Genetic Algorithms (GAs) [Michalewicz 1996; Goldberg 2008], Evolutionary Strategies (ES) [Back 1996], Evolutionary Programming (EP) [Fogel 1999], and Genetic Programming (GP) [Koza 1992], to name the more well-known instances, are no exception. Herrera and Lozano [1996] emphasized this by saying “The genetic algorithm behaviour is determined by the exploitation and exploration relationship kept throughout the run.” Many researchers believe that EAs are effective because of their good ratio between exploration and exploitation. Michalewicz [1996] stated that “Genetic Algorithms are a

A Exploration and Exploitation in Evolutionary Algorithms: A Survey

On clarifying misconceptions when comparing variants of the Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm by offering a new implementation

Many domain-specific languages, that try to bring feasible alternatives for existing solutions while simplifying programming work, have come up in recent years. Although, these little languages seem to be easy to use, there is an open issue whether they bring advantages in comparison to the application libraries, which are the most commonly used implementation approach. In this work, we present an experiment, which was carried out to compare such a domain-specific language with a comparable application library. The experiment was conducted with 36 programmers, who have answered a questionnaire on both implementation approaches. The questionnaire is more than 100 pages long. For a domain-specific language and the application library, the same problem domain has been used - construction of graphical user interfaces. In terms of a domain-specific language, XAML has been used and C# Forms for the application library. A cognitive dimension framework has been used for a comparison between XAML and C# Forms.

/pdf/comparing-general-purpose-and-domain-specific-languages-an-1edndh432e.pdf

Matej Črepinšek

Papers

Exploration and exploitation in evolutionary algorithms: A survey

A Exploration and Exploitation in Evolutionary Algorithms: A Survey

On clarifying misconceptions when comparing variants of the Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm by offering a new implementation

Comparing general-purpose and domain-specific languages: An empirical study

Replication and comparison of computational experiments in applied evolutionary computing: Common pitfalls and guidelines to avoid them