Particle swarm optimization

In computational science, particle swarm optimization (PSO)[1] is

a computational method that optimizes a problem by iteratively
trying to improve a candidate solution with regard to a given
measure of quality. It solves a problem by having a population of
candidate solutions, here dubbed particles, and moving these
particles around in the search-space according to simple
mathematical formula over the particle's position and velocity. Each
particle's movement is influenced by its local best known position,
but is also guided toward the best known positions in the search-
space, which are updated as better positions are found by other A particle swarm searching for the
particles. This is expected to move the swarm toward the best global minimum of a function
solutions.

PSO is originally attributed to Kennedy, Eberhart and Shi[2][3] and was first intended for simulating social
behaviour,[4] as a stylized representation of the movement of organisms in a bird flock or fish school. The
algorithm was simplified and it was observed to be performing optimization. The book by Kennedy and
Eberhart[5] describes many philosophical aspects of PSO and swarm intelligence. An extensive survey of
PSO applications is made by Poli.[6][7] Recently, a comprehensive review on theoretical and experimental
works on PSO has been published by Bonyadi and Michalewicz.[1]

PSO is a metaheuristic as it makes few or no assumptions about the problem being optimized and can
search very large spaces of candidate solutions. Also, PSO does not use the gradient of the problem being
optimized, which means PSO does not require that the optimization problem be differentiable as is required
by classic optimization methods such as gradient descent and quasi-newton methods. However,
metaheuristics such as PSO do not guarantee an optimal solution is ever found.

Algorithm
A basic variant of the PSO algorithm works by having a population (called a swarm) of candidate solutions
(called particles). These particles are moved around in the search-space according to a few simple
formulae.[8] The movements of the particles are guided by their own best-known position in the search-
space as well as the entire swarm's best-known position. When improved positions are being discovered
these will then come to guide the movements of the swarm. The process is repeated and by doing so it is
hoped, but not guaranteed, that a satisfactory solution will eventually be discovered.

Formally, let f:  ℝn   → ℝ be the cost function which must be minimized. The function takes a candidate
solution as an argument in the form of a vector of real numbers and produces a real number as output which
indicates the objective function value of the given candidate solution. The gradient of f is not known. The
goal is to find a solution a for which f(a) ≤ f(b) for all b in the search-space, which would mean a is the
global minimum.

Let S be the number of particles in the swarm, each having a position xi ∈ ℝn in the search-space and a
velocity vi ∈ ℝn . Let pi be the best known position of particle i and let g be the best known position of the
entire swarm. A basic PSO algorithm to minimize the cost function is then:[9]
 for each particle i = 1, ..., S do
Initialize the particle's position with a uniformly distributed random vector:
x i ~ U(b lo, b up)
Initialize the particle's best known position to its initial position: p i ← x i
if f(p i) < f(g) then
update the swarm's best known position: g ← p i
Initialize the particle's velocity: v i ~ U(-|b up-b lo|, |b up-b lo|)
while a termination criterion is not met do:
for each particle i = 1, ..., S do
for each dimension d = 1, ..., n do
Pick random numbers: r p, r g ~ U(0,1)
Update the particle's velocity: v i,d ← w v i,d + φ p r p (p i,d-x i,d) + φ g r g (g d-x i,d)
Update the particle's position: x i ← x i + v i
if f(x i) < f(p i) then
Update the particle's best known position: p i ← x i
if f(p i) < f(g) then
Update the swarm's best known position: g ← p i

The values blo and bup represent the lower and upper boundaries of the search-space respectively. The w
parameter is the inertia weight. The parameters φp and φg are often called cognitive coefficient and social
coefficient.

The termination criterion can be the number of iterations performed, or a solution where the adequate
objective function value is found.[10] The parameters w, φp , and φg are selected by the practitioner and
control the behaviour and efficacy of the PSO method (below).

Parameter selection
The choice of PSO parameters can have a large impact on
optimization performance. Selecting PSO parameters that yield
good performance has therefore been the subject of much
research.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]

To prevent divergence ("explosion") the inertia weight must be

smaller than 1. The two other parameters can be then derived
thanks to the constriction approach,[16] or freely selected, but the
analyses suggest convergence domains to constrain them. Typical Performance landscape showing
values are in . how a simple PSO variant performs
in aggregate on several benchmark
The PSO parameters can also be tuned by using another overlaying problems when varying two PSO
parameters.
optimizer, a concept known as meta-optimization,[20][21][22][23] or
even fine-tuned during the optimization, e.g., by means of fuzzy
logic.[24][25]

Parameters have also been tuned for various optimization scenarios.[26][27]

Neighbourhoods and topologies

The topology of the swarm defines the subset of particles with which each particle can exchange
information.[28] The basic version of the algorithm uses the global topology as the swarm communication
structure.[10] This topology allows all particles to communicate with all the other particles, thus the whole
swarm share the same best position g from a single particle. However, this approach might lead the swarm
to be trapped into a local minimum,[29] thus different topologies have been used to control the flow of
information among particles. For instance, in local topologies, particles only share information with a subset
of particles.[10] This subset can be a geometrical one[30] – for example "the m nearest particles" – or, more
often, a social one, i.e. a set of particles that is not depending on any distance. In such cases, the PSO
variant is said to be local best (vs global best for the basic PSO).

A commonly used swarm topology is the ring, in which each particle has just two neighbours, but there are
many others.[10] The topology is not necessarily static. In fact, since the topology is related to the diversity
of communication of the particles,[31] some efforts have been done to create adaptive topologies (SPSO,[32]
APSO,[33] stochastic star,[34] TRIBES,[35] Cyber Swarm,[36] and C-PSO[37])

Inner workings
There are several schools of thought as to why and how the PSO algorithm can perform optimization.

A common belief amongst researchers is that the swarm behaviour varies between exploratory behaviour,
that is, searching a broader region of the search-space, and exploitative behaviour, that is, a locally oriented
search so as to get closer to a (possibly local) optimum. This school of thought has been prevalent since the
inception of PSO.[3][4][12][16] This school of thought contends that the PSO algorithm and its parameters
must be chosen so as to properly balance between exploration and exploitation to avoid premature
convergence to a local optimum yet still ensure a good rate of convergence to the optimum. This belief is
the precursor of many PSO variants, see below.

Another school of thought is that the behaviour of a PSO swarm is not well understood in terms of how it
affects actual optimization performance, especially for higher-dimensional search-spaces and optimization
problems that may be discontinuous, noisy, and time-varying. This school of thought merely tries to find
PSO algorithms and parameters that cause good performance regardless of how the swarm behaviour can
be interpreted in relation to e.g. exploration and exploitation. Such studies have led to the simplification of
the PSO algorithm, see below.

Convergence

In relation to PSO the word convergence typically refers to two different definitions:

Convergence of the sequence of solutions (aka, stability analysis, converging) in which all
particles have converged to a point in the search-space, which may or may not be the
optimum,
Convergence to a local optimum where all personal bests p or, alternatively, the swarm's
best known position g, approaches a local optimum of the problem, regardless of how the
swarm behaves.

Convergence of the sequence of solutions has been investigated for PSO.[15][16][17] These analyses have
resulted in guidelines for selecting PSO parameters that are believed to cause convergence to a point and
prevent divergence of the swarm's particles (particles do not move unboundedly and will converge to
somewhere). However, the analyses were criticized by Pedersen[22] for being oversimplified as they
assume the swarm has only one particle, that it does not use stochastic variables and that the points of
attraction, that is, the particle's best known position p and the swarm's best known position g, remain
constant throughout the optimization process. However, it was shown[38] that these simplifications do not
affect the boundaries found by these studies for parameter where the swarm is convergent. Considerable
effort has been made in recent years to weaken the modelling assumption utilized during the stability
analysis of PSO,[39] with the most recent generalized result applying to numerous PSO variants and utilized
what was shown to be the minimal necessary modeling assumptions.[40]
Convergence to a local optimum has been analyzed for PSO in[41] and.[42] It has been proven that PSO
needs some modification to guarantee finding a local optimum.

This means that determining convergence capabilities of different PSO algorithms and parameters still
depends on empirical results. One attempt at addressing this issue is the development of an "orthogonal
learning" strategy for an improved use of the information already existing in the relationship between p and
g, so as to form a leading converging exemplar and to be effective with any PSO topology. The aims are to
improve the performance of PSO overall, including faster global convergence, higher solution quality, and
stronger robustness.[43] However, such studies do not provide theoretical evidence to actually prove their
claims.

Adaptive mechanisms

Without the need for a trade-off between convergence ('exploitation') and divergence ('exploration'), an
adaptive mechanism can be introduced. Adaptive particle swarm optimization (APSO) [44] features better
search efficiency than standard PSO. APSO can perform global search over the entire search space with a
higher convergence speed. It enables automatic control of the inertia weight, acceleration coefficients, and
other algorithmic parameters at the run time, thereby improving the search effectiveness and efficiency at
the same time. Also, APSO can act on the globally best particle to jump out of the likely local optima.
However, APSO will introduce new algorithm parameters, it does not introduce additional design or
implementation complexity nonetheless.

Variants
Numerous variants of even a basic PSO algorithm are possible. For example, there are different ways to
initialize the particles and velocities (e.g. start with zero velocities instead), how to dampen the velocity,
only update pi and g after the entire swarm has been updated, etc. Some of these choices and their possible
performance impact have been discussed in the literature.[14]

A series of standard implementations have been created by leading researchers, "intended for use both as a
baseline for performance testing of improvements to the technique, as well as to represent PSO to the wider
optimization community. Having a well-known, strictly-defined standard algorithm provides a valuable
point of comparison which can be used throughout the field of research to better test new advances."[10]
The latest is Standard PSO 2011 (SPSO-2011).[45]

Hybridization

New and more sophisticated PSO variants are also continually being introduced in an attempt to improve
optimization performance. There are certain trends in that research; one is to make a hybrid optimization
method using PSO combined with other optimizers,[46][47][48] e.g., combined PSO with biogeography-
based optimization,[49] and the incorporation of an effective learning method.[43]

Alleviate premature convergence

Another research trend is to try and alleviate premature convergence (that is, optimization stagnation), e.g.
by reversing or perturbing the movement of the PSO particles,[19][50][51][52] another approach to deal with
premature convergence is the use of multiple swarms[53] (multi-swarm optimization). The multi-swarm
approach can also be used to implement multi-objective optimization.[54] Finally, there are developments in
adapting the behavioural parameters of PSO during optimization.[44][24]

Simplifications

Another school of thought is that PSO should be simplified as much as possible without impairing its
performance; a general concept often referred to as Occam's razor. Simplifying PSO was originally
suggested by Kennedy[4] and has been studied more extensively,[18][21][22][55] where it appeared that
optimization performance was improved, and the parameters were easier to tune and they performed more
consistently across different optimization problems.

Another argument in favour of simplifying PSO is that metaheuristics can only have their efficacy
demonstrated empirically by doing computational experiments on a finite number of optimization problems.
This means a metaheuristic such as PSO cannot be proven correct and this increases the risk of making
errors in its description and implementation. A good example of this[56] presented a promising variant of a
genetic algorithm (another popular metaheuristic) but it was later found to be defective as it was strongly
biased in its optimization search towards similar values for different dimensions in the search space, which
happened to be the optimum of the benchmark problems considered. This bias was because of a
programming error, and has now been fixed.[57]

Initialization of velocities may require extra inputs. The Bare Bones PSO variant[58] has been proposed in
2003 by James Kennedy, and does not need to use velocity at all.

Another simpler variant is the accelerated particle swarm optimization (APSO),[59] which also does not
need to use velocity and can speed up the convergence in many applications. A simple demo code of APSO
is available.[60]

Multi-objective optimization

PSO has also been applied to multi-objective problems,[61][62][63] in which the objective function
comparison takes Pareto dominance into account when moving the PSO particles and non-dominated
solutions are stored so as to approximate the pareto front.

Binary, discrete, and combinatorial

As the PSO equations given above work on real numbers, a commonly used method to solve discrete
problems is to map the discrete search space to a continuous domain, to apply a classical PSO, and then to
demap the result. Such a mapping can be very simple (for example by just using rounded values) or more
sophisticated.[64]

However, it can be noted that the equations of movement make use of operators that perform four actions:

computing the difference of two positions. The result is a velocity (more precisely a
displacement)
multiplying a velocity by a numerical coefficient
adding two velocities
applying a velocity to a position
Usually a position and a velocity are represented by n real numbers, and these operators are simply -, *, +,
and again +. But all these mathematical objects can be defined in a completely different way, in order to
cope with binary problems (or more generally discrete ones), or even combinatorial ones.[65][66][67][68]
One approach is to redefine the operators based on sets.[69]

See also
Artificial bee colony algorithm
Bees algorithm
Derivative-free optimization
Multi-swarm optimization
Particle filter
Swarm intelligence
Fish School Search
Dispersive flies optimisation

References
1. Bonyadi, M. R.; Michalewicz, Z. (2017). "Particle swarm optimization for single objective
continuous space problems: a review". Evolutionary Computation. 25 (1): 1–54.
doi:10.1162/EVCO_r_00180 (https://doi.org/10.1162%2FEVCO_r_00180). PMID 26953883
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26953883). S2CID 8783143 (https://api.semanticscholar.or
g/CorpusID:8783143).
2. Kennedy, J.; Eberhart, R. (1995). "Particle Swarm Optimization". Proceedings of IEEE
International Conference on Neural Networks. Vol. IV. pp. 1942–1948.
doi:10.1109/ICNN.1995.488968 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2FICNN.1995.488968).
3. Shi, Y.; Eberhart, R.C. (1998). "A modified particle swarm optimizer". Proceedings of IEEE
International Conference on Evolutionary Computation. pp. 69–73.
doi:10.1109/ICEC.1998.699146 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2FICEC.1998.699146).
4. Kennedy, J. (1997). "The particle swarm: social adaptation of knowledge". Proceedings of
IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation. pp. 303–308.
doi:10.1109/ICEC.1997.592326 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2FICEC.1997.592326).
5. Kennedy, J.; Eberhart, R.C. (2001). Swarm Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann. ISBN 978-1-
55860-595-4.
6. Poli, R. (2007). "An analysis of publications on particle swarm optimisation applications" (htt
ps://web.archive.org/web/20110716231935/http://cswww.essex.ac.uk/technical-reports/200
7/tr-csm469.pdf) (PDF). Technical Report CSM-469. Archived from the original (http://csww
w.essex.ac.uk/technical-reports/2007/tr-csm469.pdf) (PDF) on 2011-07-16. Retrieved
2010-05-03.
7. Poli, R. (2008). "Analysis of the publications on the applications of particle swarm
optimisation" (http://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/2008/685175.pdf) (PDF). Journal of
Artificial Evolution and Applications. 2008: 1–10. doi:10.1155/2008/685175 (https://doi.org/1
0.1155%2F2008%2F685175).
8. Zhang, Y. (2015). "A Comprehensive Survey on Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm and
Its Applications" (http://www.hindawi.com/journals/mpe/2015/931256). Mathematical
Problems in Engineering. 2015: 931256.
9. Clerc, M. (2012). "Standard Particle Swarm Optimisation" (http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/doc
s/00/76/49/96/PDF/SPSO_descriptions.pdf) (PDF). HAL Open Access Archive.
10. Bratton, Daniel; Kennedy, James (2007). "Defining a Standard for Particle Swarm
Optimization". 2007 IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium (http://www.cil.pku.edu.cn/resourc
es/pso_paper/src/2007SPSO.pdf) (PDF). pp. 120–127. doi:10.1109/SIS.2007.368035 (http
s://doi.org/10.1109%2FSIS.2007.368035). ISBN 978-1-4244-0708-8. S2CID 6217309 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:6217309).
11. Taherkhani, M.; Safabakhsh, R. (2016). "A novel stability-based adaptive inertia weight for
particle swarm optimization". Applied Soft Computing. 38: 281–295.
doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2015.10.004 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.asoc.2015.10.004).
12. Shi, Y.; Eberhart, R.C. (1998). "Parameter selection in particle swarm optimization".
Proceedings of Evolutionary Programming VII (EP98). pp. 591–600.
13. Eberhart, R.C.; Shi, Y. (2000). "Comparing inertia weights and constriction factors in particle
swarm optimization" (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3865142). Proceedings of the
Congress on Evolutionary Computation. Vol. 1. pp. 84–88.
14. Carlisle, A.; Dozier, G. (2001). "An Off-The-Shelf PSO" (https://web.archive.org/web/2003050
3203304/http://antho.huntingdon.edu/publications/Off-The-Shelf_PSO.pdf) (PDF).
Proceedings of the Particle Swarm Optimization Workshop. pp. 1–6. Archived from the
original (http://antho.huntingdon.edu/publications/Off-The-Shelf_PSO.pdf) (PDF) on 2003-
05-03.
15. van den Bergh, F. (2001). An Analysis of Particle Swarm Optimizers (http://bee22.com/resour
ces/Bergh%202006.pdf) (PDF) (PhD thesis). University of Pretoria, Faculty of Natural and
Agricultural Science.
16. Clerc, M.; Kennedy, J. (2002). "The particle swarm - explosion, stability, and convergence in
a multidimensional complex space". IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation. 6 (1):
58–73. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.460.6608 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.
1.1.460.6608). doi:10.1109/4235.985692 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2F4235.985692).
17. Trelea, I.C. (2003). "The Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm: convergence analysis and
parameter selection". Information Processing Letters. 85 (6): 317–325. doi:10.1016/S0020-
0190(02)00447-7 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0020-0190%2802%2900447-7).
18. Bratton, D.; Blackwell, T. (2008). "A Simplified Recombinant PSO" (http://downloads.hindaw
i.com/archive/2008/654184.pdf) (PDF). Journal of Artificial Evolution and Applications. 2008:
1–10. doi:10.1155/2008/654184 (https://doi.org/10.1155%2F2008%2F654184).
19. Evers, G. (2009). An Automatic Regrouping Mechanism to Deal with Stagnation in Particle
Swarm Optimization (http://www.georgeevers.org/publications.htm) (Master's thesis). The
University of Texas - Pan American, Department of Electrical Engineering.
20. Meissner, M.; Schmuker, M.; Schneider, G. (2006). "Optimized Particle Swarm Optimization
(OPSO) and its application to artificial neural network training" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pmc/articles/PMC1464136). BMC Bioinformatics. 7 (1): 125. doi:10.1186/1471-2105-7-125
(https://doi.org/10.1186%2F1471-2105-7-125). PMC 1464136 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pmc/articles/PMC1464136). PMID 16529661 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16529661).
21. Pedersen, M.E.H. (2010). Tuning & Simplifying Heuristical Optimization (https://web.archive.
org/web/20200213130101/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a5d2/8c26a2e2824170d67b69f1
4120cf67cabe26.pdf) (PDF). University of Southampton, School of Engineering Sciences,
Computational Engineering and Design Group. S2CID 107805461 (https://api.semanticscho
lar.org/CorpusID:107805461). Archived from the original (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a5
d2/8c26a2e2824170d67b69f14120cf67cabe26.pdf) (PhD thesis) on 2020-02-13.
22. Pedersen, M.E.H.; Chipperfield, A.J. (2010). "Simplifying particle swarm optimization".
Applied Soft Computing. 10 (2): 618–628. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.149.8300 (https://citeseerx.ist.ps
u.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.149.8300). doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2009.08.029 (https://doi.
org/10.1016%2Fj.asoc.2009.08.029).
23. Mason, Karl; Duggan, Jim; Howley, Enda (2018). "A Meta Optimisation Analysis of Particle
Swarm Optimisation Velocity Update Equations for Watershed Management Learning".
Applied Soft Computing. 62: 148–161. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2017.10.018 (https://doi.org/10.10
16%2Fj.asoc.2017.10.018).
24. Nobile, M.S; Cazzaniga, P.; Besozzi, D.; Colombo, R.; Mauri, G.; Pasi, G. (2018). "Fuzzy
Self-Tuning PSO: a settings-free algorithm for global optimization". Swarm and Evolutionary
Computation. 39: 70–85. doi:10.1016/j.swevo.2017.09.001 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.swe
vo.2017.09.001). hdl:10446/106467 (https://hdl.handle.net/10446%2F106467).
25. Nobile, M.S; Pasi, G.; Cazzaniga, P.; Besozzi, D.; Colombo, R.; Mauri, G. (2015). "Proactive
particles in swarm optimization: a self-tuning algorithm based on fuzzy logic". Proceedings
of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE 2015), Istanbul
(Turkey). pp. 1–8. doi:10.1109/FUZZ-IEEE.2015.7337957 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2FFUZZ
-IEEE.2015.7337957).
26. Cazzaniga, P.; Nobile, M.S.; Besozzi, D. (2015). "The impact of particles initialization in
PSO: parameter estimation as a case in point, (Canada)". Proceedings of IEEE Conference
on Computational Intelligence in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology.
doi:10.1109/CIBCB.2015.7300288 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2FCIBCB.2015.7300288).
27. Pedersen, M.E.H. (2010). "Good parameters for particle swarm optimization". Technical
Report HL1001. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.298.4359 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?
doi=10.1.1.298.4359).
28. Kennedy, J.; Mendes, R. (2002). "Population structure and particle swarm performance".
Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC'02 (Cat.
No.02TH8600). Evolutionary Computation, 2002. CEC'02. Proceedings of the 2002
Congress on. Vol. 2. pp. 1671–1676 vol.2. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.114.7988 (https://citeseerx.ist.p
su.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.114.7988). doi:10.1109/CEC.2002.1004493 (https://do
i.org/10.1109%2FCEC.2002.1004493). ISBN 978-0-7803-7282-5. S2CID 14364974 (https://
api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14364974).
29. Mendes, R. (2004). Population Topologies and Their Influence in Particle Swarm
Performance (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d224/80b09d1f0759fb20e0fb0bd2de205457c
8bc.pdf) (PhD thesis). Universidade do Minho.
30. Suganthan, Ponnuthurai N. "Particle swarm optimiser with neighbourhood operator (https://i
eeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/785514/)." Evolutionary Computation, 1999. CEC 99.
Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on. Vol. 3. IEEE, 1999.
31. Oliveira, M.; Pinheiro, D.; Andrade, B.; Bastos-Filho, C.; Menezes, R. (2016).
Communication Diversity in Particle Swarm Optimizers (https://semanticscholar.org/paper/4a
4bf82f6152d81a83a695fd7e063248f8d42e83). International Conference on Swarm
Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 9882. pp. 77–88. doi:10.1007/978-3-
319-44427-7_7 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-319-44427-7_7). ISBN 978-3-319-44426-
0. S2CID 37588745 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:37588745).
32. SPSO Particle Swarm Central (http://www.particleswarm.info)
33. Almasi, O. N. and Khooban, M. H. (2017). A parsimonious SVM model selection criterion for
classification of real-world data sets via an adaptive population-based algorithm. Neural
Computing and Applications, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-017-2930-y (https://link.spri
nger.com/article/10.1007/s00521-017-2930-y)
34. Miranda, V., Keko, H. and Duque, Á. J. (2008). Stochastic Star Communication Topology in
Evolutionary Particle Swarms (EPSO) (https://repositorio.inesctec.pt/bitstream/123456789/1
561/1/PS-05818.pdf). International Journal of Computational Intelligence Research (IJCIR),
Volume 4, Number 2, pp. 105-116
35. Clerc, M. (2006). Particle Swarm Optimization. ISTE (International Scientific and Technical
Encyclopedia), 2006
36. Yin, P., Glover, F., Laguna, M., & Zhu, J. (2011). A Complementary Cyber Swarm Algorithm (h
ttp://leeds-faculty.colorado.edu/glover/fred%20pubs/428%20-%20A_complementary_cyber_
swarm_algorithm_pub%20version%20w%20pen%20et%20al.pdf). International Journal of
Swarm Intelligence Research (IJSIR), 2(2), 22-41
37. Elshamy, W.; Rashad, H.; Bahgat, A. (2007). "Clubs-based Particle Swarm Optimization" (htt
ps://web.archive.org/web/20131023025232/http://people.cis.ksu.edu/~welshamy/pubs/ieee_
sis07.pdf) (PDF). IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium 2007 (SIS2007). Honolulu, HI.
pp. 289–296. Archived from the original (http://people.cis.ksu.edu/~welshamy/pubs/ieee_sis
07.pdf) (PDF) on 2013-10-23. Retrieved 2012-04-27.
38. Cleghorn, Christopher W (2014). "Particle Swarm Convergence: Standardized Analysis and
Topological Influence". Swarm Intelligence Conference. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science. 8667: 134–145. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09952-1_12 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F97
8-3-319-09952-1_12). ISBN 978-3-319-09951-4.
39. Liu, Q (2015). "Order-2 stability analysis of particle swarm optimization". Evolutionary
Computation. 23 (2): 187–216. doi:10.1162/EVCO_a_00129 (https://doi.org/10.1162%2FEV
CO_a_00129). PMID 24738856 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24738856).
S2CID 25471827 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:25471827).
40. Cleghorn, Christopher W.; Engelbrecht, Andries. (2018). "Particle Swarm Stability: A
Theoretical Extension using the Non-Stagnate Distribution Assumption". Swarm
Intelligence. 12 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1007/s11721-017-0141-x (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs117
21-017-0141-x). hdl:2263/62934 (https://hdl.handle.net/2263%2F62934). S2CID 9778346 (h
ttps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:9778346).
41. Van den Bergh, F. "A convergence proof for the particle swarm optimiser" (https://repository.u
p.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/17262/VanDenBergh_Convergence(2010).pdf?sequence=1)
(PDF). Fundamenta Informaticae.
42. Bonyadi, Mohammad reza.; Michalewicz, Z. (2014). "A locally convergent rotationally
invariant particle swarm optimization algorithm" (https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:39
6054/ERAUQ396054.pdf) (PDF). Swarm Intelligence. 8 (3): 159–198. doi:10.1007/s11721-
014-0095-1 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11721-014-0095-1). S2CID 2261683 (https://api.se
manticscholar.org/CorpusID:2261683).
43. Zhan, Z-H.; Zhang, J.; Li, Y; Shi, Y-H. (2011). "Orthogonal Learning Particle Swarm
Optimization" (http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/44801/1/44801.pdf) (PDF). IEEE Transactions on
Evolutionary Computation. 15 (6): 832–847. doi:10.1109/TEVC.2010.2052054 (https://doi.or
g/10.1109%2FTEVC.2010.2052054).
44. Zhan, Z-H.; Zhang, J.; Li, Y; Chung, H.S-H. (2009). "Adaptive Particle Swarm Optimization"
(http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/7645/1/7645.pdf) (PDF). IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics. 39 (6): 1362–1381. doi:10.1109/TSMCB.2009.2015956 (https://doi.org/10.110
9%2FTSMCB.2009.2015956). PMID 19362911 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1936291
1). S2CID 11191625 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:11191625).
45. Zambrano-Bigiarini, M.; Clerc, M.; Rojas, R. (2013). "Standard Particle Swarm Optimisation
2011 at CEC-2013: A baseline for future PSO improvements". 2013 IEEE Congress on
Evolutionary Computation. Evolutionary Computation (CEC), 2013 IEEE Congress on.
pp. 2337–2344. doi:10.1109/CEC.2013.6557848 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2FCEC.2013.655
7848). ISBN 978-1-4799-0454-9. S2CID 206553432 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corpus
ID:206553432).
46. Lovbjerg, M.; Krink, T. (2002). "The LifeCycle Model: combining particle swarm optimisation,
genetic algorithms and hillclimbers" (http://www.lovbjerghome.dk/Morten/EvaLife/TK_PPSN
2002_LifeCycle_PSO_HC_GA.pdf) (PDF). Proceedings of Parallel Problem Solving from
Nature VII (PPSN). pp. 621–630.
47. Niknam, T.; Amiri, B. (2010). "An efficient hybrid approach based on PSO, ACO and k-means
for cluster analysis". Applied Soft Computing. 10 (1): 183–197.
doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2009.07.001 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.asoc.2009.07.001).
48. Zhang, Wen-Jun; Xie, Xiao-Feng (2003). DEPSO: hybrid particle swarm with differential
evolution operator (http://www.wiomax.com/team/xie/paper/SMCC03.pdf). IEEE International
Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMCC), Washington, DC, USA: 3816-3821.
49. Zhang, Y.; Wang, S. (2015). "Pathological Brain Detection in Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Scanning by Wavelet Entropy and Hybridization of Biogeography-based Optimization and
Particle Swarm Optimization" (https://doi.org/10.2528%2Fpier15040602). Progress in
Electromagnetics Research. 152: 41–58. doi:10.2528/pier15040602 (https://doi.org/10.252
8%2Fpier15040602).
50. Lovbjerg, M.; Krink, T. (2002). "Extending Particle Swarm Optimisers with Self-Organized
Criticality" (http://www.lovbjerghome.dk/Morten/EvaLife/ML_CEC2002_SOCPSO.pdf)
(PDF). Proceedings of the Fourth Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC). Vol. 2.
pp. 1588–1593.
51. Xinchao, Z. (2010). "A perturbed particle swarm algorithm for numerical optimization".
Applied Soft Computing. 10 (1): 119–124. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2009.06.010 (https://doi.org/10.
1016%2Fj.asoc.2009.06.010).
52. Xie, Xiao-Feng; Zhang, Wen-Jun; Yang, Zhi-Lian (2002). A dissipative particle swarm
optimization (http://www.wiomax.com/team/xie/paper/CEC02.pdf). Congress on Evolutionary
Computation (CEC), Honolulu, HI, USA: 1456-1461.
53. Cheung, N. J.; Ding, X.-M.; Shen, H.-B. (2013). "OptiFel: A Convergent Heterogeneous
Particle Sarm Optimization Algorithm for Takagi-Sugeno Fuzzy Modeling". IEEE
Transactions on Fuzzy Systems. 22 (4): 919–933. doi:10.1109/TFUZZ.2013.2278972 (http
s://doi.org/10.1109%2FTFUZZ.2013.2278972). S2CID 27974467 (https://api.semanticschol
ar.org/CorpusID:27974467).
54. Nobile, M.; Besozzi, D.; Cazzaniga, P.; Mauri, G.; Pescini, D. (2012). "A GPU-Based Multi-
Swarm PSO Method for Parameter Estimation in Stochastic Biological Systems Exploiting
Discrete-Time Target Series". Evolutionary Computation, Machine Learning and Data
Mining in Bioinformatics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 7264. pp. 74–85.
doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29066-4_7 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-642-29066-4_7).
55. Yang, X.S. (2008). Nature-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithms. Luniver Press. ISBN 978-1-
905986-10-1.
56. Tu, Z.; Lu, Y. (2004). "A robust stochastic genetic algorithm (StGA) for global numerical
optimization". IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation. 8 (5): 456–470.
doi:10.1109/TEVC.2004.831258 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2FTEVC.2004.831258).
S2CID 22382958 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:22382958).
57. Tu, Z.; Lu, Y. (2008). "Corrections to "A Robust Stochastic Genetic Algorithm (StGA) for
Global Numerical Optimization". IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation. 12 (6):
781. doi:10.1109/TEVC.2008.926734 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2FTEVC.2008.926734).
S2CID 2864886 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2864886).
58. Kennedy, James (2003). "Bare bones particle swarms". Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE
Swarm Intelligence Symposium. SIS'03 (Cat. No.03EX706). pp. 80–87.
doi:10.1109/SIS.2003.1202251 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2FSIS.2003.1202251). ISBN 0-
7803-7914-4. S2CID 37185749 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:37185749).
59. X. S. Yang, S. Deb and S. Fong, Accelerated particle swarm optimization and support vector
machine for business optimization and applications (https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.6577), NDT
2011, Springer CCIS 136, pp. 53-66 (2011).
60. "Search Results: APSO - File Exchange - MATLAB Central" (http://www.mathworks.com/mat
labcentral/fileexchange/?term=APSO).
61. Parsopoulos, K.; Vrahatis, M. (2002). "Particle swarm optimization method in multiobjective
problems". Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC). pp. 603–607.
doi:10.1145/508791.508907 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F508791.508907).
62. Coello Coello, C.; Salazar Lechuga, M. (2002). "MOPSO: A Proposal for Multiple Objective
Particle Swarm Optimization" (http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1252327). Congress on
Evolutionary Computation (CEC'2002). pp. 1051–1056.
63. Mason, Karl; Duggan, Jim; Howley, Enda (2017). "Multi-objective dynamic economic
emission dispatch using particle swarm optimisation variants". Neurocomputing. 270: 188–
197. doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2017.03.086 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.neucom.2017.03.086).
64. Roy, R., Dehuri, S., & Cho, S. B. (2012). A Novel Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm for
Multi-Objective Combinatorial Optimization Problem (http://sclab.yonsei.ac.kr/publications/P
apers/IJ/A%20Novel%20Particle%20Swarm%20Optimization%20Algorithm%20for%20Multi
-Objective%20Combinatorial%20Optimization%20Problem.pdf). 'International Journal of
Applied Metaheuristic Computing (IJAMC)', 2(4), 41-57
65. Kennedy, J. & Eberhart, R. C. (1997). A discrete binary version of the particle swarm
algorithm (http://ahmetcevahircinar.com.tr/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/A_discrete_binary_v
ersion_of_the_particle_swarm_algorithm.pdf), Conference on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Service Center, pp. 4104-4109
66. Clerc, M. (2004). Discrete Particle Swarm Optimization, illustrated by the Traveling
Salesman Problem (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-39930-8_8), New
Optimization Techniques in Engineering, Springer, pp. 219-239
67. Clerc, M. (2005). Binary Particle Swarm Optimisers: toolbox, derivations, and mathematical
insights, Open Archive HAL (http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00122809/en/)
68. Jarboui, B.; Damak, N.; Siarry, P.; Rebai, A. (2008). "A combinatorial particle swarm
optimization for solving multi-mode resource-constrained project scheduling problems".
Applied Mathematics and Computation. 195: 299–308. doi:10.1016/j.amc.2007.04.096 (http
s://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.amc.2007.04.096).
69. Chen, Wei-neng; Zhang, Jun (2010). "A novel set-based particle swarm optimization method
for discrete optimization problem". IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation. 14 (2):
278–300. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.224.5378 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=1
0.1.1.224.5378). doi:10.1109/tevc.2009.2030331 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2Ftevc.2009.2030
331). S2CID 17984726 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:17984726).

External links
Particle Swarm Central (http://www.particleswarm.info) is a repository for information on
PSO. Several source codes are freely available.
A brief video (https://vimeo.com/17407010) of particle swarms optimizing three benchmark
functions.
Simulation of PSO convergence in a two-dimensional space (Matlab). (http://www.mathwork
s.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/11559-particle-swarm-optimization-simulation)
Applications (http://www.vocal.com/particle-swarm-optimization/) of PSO.
Liu, Yang (2009). "Automatic calibration of a rainfall–runoff model using a fast and elitist
multi-objective particle swarm algorithm". Expert Systems with Applications. 36 (5): 9533–
9538. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.10.086 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.eswa.2008.10.086).
Links to PSO source code (http://www.adaptivebox.net/research/bookmark/psocodes_link.ht
ml)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Particle_swarm_optimization&oldid=1166978352"