Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

CEO election optimization algorithm and its application in constrained optimization problem

  • Optimization
  • Published:
Soft Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, a novel metaheuristic optimization algorithm, called chief executive officer election optimization algorithm (CEOA), is proposed, which is inspired by the process of electing a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in a company. CEOA simulates three stages of electing a CEO, namely the mass-election stage, election stage and authorization stage. The list of candidates is confirmed during the mass-election stage. In the election stage, each candidate has its own public relation team, and all the employees are divided into three different groups. The loyalist group always supports the candidate of their own faction, which enhances the exploitation ability of the algorithm. The speculator group tries to seize the CEO’s position directly by taking advantage of the current candidates through a variety of behaviors, which enhance the exploration ability of the algorithm. The neutralist group takes its own interests as the priority, supports the candidate who meet its own interests by comparing the candidate teams and improves the exploitation and exploration ability of the algorithm at the same time. The final CEO is confirmed in the authorization stage. In addition, a precocity judgment rule is introduced to ensure the effectiveness and rationality of the election process and improve the ability of the algorithm to escape from the local optimal region. The performance of CEOA is evaluated through twenty-one classical test functions, twenty-nine CEC2017 test functions, six real-world engineering optimization problems and three date clustering problems. The average value, standard deviation, Friedman mean rank and Wilcoxon signed rank are used as criteria. The above experiments are compared with the well-studied and recent optimizers, such as GA, PSO, DE, EO, MPA, AEFA, SHADE, ISOS, mSSA and PO. For the twenty-one classical test functions, in both cases of function shifting and without shifting, CEOA can gain the first rank, and its performance in high-dimensional search space also outperforms other algorithms. For the twenty-nine CEC2017 test functions, CEOA gain the third rank, only slightly behind SHADE and LSHADE-SPACMA. However, in the twenty-one classical test functions without shifting, Friedman mean rank of CEOA is 2.4762, while SHADE and LSHADE-SPACMA are only 4.5952 and 6.0476, respectively. The experimental results show that CEOA outperforms most of optimizers and is competitive compared with high-performance methods. In addition, CEOA ranks first on all six constrained engineering optimization problems and has good performance on three real-life datasets clustering problems, proving its applicability on real-world optimization problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All authors make sure that all data and materials as well as software application or custom code support their published claims and comply with field standards.

References

  • Abualigah L, Diabat A (2022) Improved multi-core arithmetic optimization algorithm-based ensemble mutation for multidisciplinary applications. J Intell Manuf 2022:1–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Abualigah L, Yousri D, Elaziz MA, Ewees AA, Al-qaness MAA, Gandomi AH (2021) Aquila optimizer: a novel meta-heuristic optimization algorithm. Comput Ind Eng 157:107250

    Google Scholar 

  • Akbulut M, Sarac A, Ertas AH (2020) An investigation of non-linear optimization methods on composite structures under vibration and buckling loads. Adv Comput Des 5(3):209–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Akhtar S, Tai K, Ray TA (2002) socio-behavioural simulation model for engineering design optimization. Eng Optim 34(4):341–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Anita YA (2019) AEFA: artificial electric field algorithm for global optimization. Swarm Evol Comput 40:93–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora S, Singh S (2019) Butterfly optimization algorithm: a novel approach for global optimization. Soft Comput 23(3):715–734

    Google Scholar 

  • Asghari K, Masdari M, Gharehchopogh FS et al (2021) Multi-swarm and chaotic whale-particle swarm optimization algorithm with a selection method based on roulette wheel. Expert Syst 38(8):e12779

    Google Scholar 

  • Askari Q, Younas I, Saeed M (2020) Political Optimizer: A novel socio-inspired meta-heuristic for global optimization. Knowl-Based Syst 195:105709

    Google Scholar 

  • Baykasoglu A, Ozsoydan FB (2015) Adaptive firefly algorithm with chaos for mechanical design optimization problems. Appl Soft Comput 36:152–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.06.056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borji A, Hamidi M (2009) A new approach to global optimization motivated by parliamentary political competitions. Int J Innov Comput Inform Control 5(6):1643–1653

    Google Scholar 

  • Botzheim J, Cabrita C, Koczy LT, Ruano AE (2009) Fuzzy rule extraction by bacterial memetic algorithms. Int J Intell Syst 24(3):312–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.20338

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Celik E (2020) A powerful variant of symbiotic organisms search algorithm for global optimization. Eng Appl Artif Intel 87:103294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.103294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celik E, Ozturk N, Arya Y (2021) Advancement of the search process of salp swarm algorithm for global optimization problems. Expert Syst Appl 182:115292

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng MY, Prayogo D (2014) Symbiotic Organisms Search: a new metaheuristic optimization algorithm. Comput Struct 139:98–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Chickermane H, Gea HC (1996) Structural optimization using a new local approximation method. Int J Numer Meth Eng 39(5):829–846

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Coello C (2000) Use of a self-adaptive penalty approach for engineering optimization problems. Comput Ind 41(2):113–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-3615(99)00046-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coello CAC, Mezura EM (2002) Constraint-handling in genetic algorithms through the use of dominance-based tournament selection. Adv Eng Inform 16:193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-0346(02)00011-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorigo M, Birattari M, Stutzle T (2006) Ant colony optimization. IEEE Comput Intell Mag 1(4):28–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertas AH (2012) Optimization of fiber reinforced laminates for maximum fatigue life using particle swarm optimization. Procedia Eng 38:473–478

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertas AH (2013a) Optimization of fiber-reinforced laminates for a maximum fatigue life by using the particle swarm optimization. Part II. Mech Compos Mater 49(1):107–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertas AH (2013b) Optimization of fiber-reinforced laminates for a maximum fatigue life by using the particle swarm optimization. Part I. Mech Compos Mater 48(6):705–716

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertas AH, Sonmez FO (2011) Design optimization of composite structures for maximum strength using direct simulated annealing. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part C-J Mech Eng Sci 225(C1):28–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberhart R, Kennedy, J (1995) A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. In: MHS’95. Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on micro machine and human science. IEEE, pp 39–43

  • Faramarzi A, Heidarinejad M, Mirjalili S, Gandomi AH (2020a) Marine predators algorithm: a nature-inspired metaheuristic. Expert Syst Appl 152:113377

    Google Scholar 

  • Faramarzi A, Heidarinejad M, Stephens B, Mirjalili S (2020b) Equilibrium optimizer: a novel optimization algorithm. Knowl-Based Syst 191:105190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2019.105190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gandomi AH, Yang XS, Alavi AH (2013) Cuckoo search algorithm: a metaheuristic approach to solve structural optimization problems. Eng Comput 29(1):17–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-011-0241-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geem ZW, Kim JH, Loganathan GV (2001) A new heuristic optimization algorithm: harmony search. SIMULATION 76(2):60–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Gu S, Cheng R, Jin Y (2018) Feature selection for high-dimensional classification using a competitive swarm optimizer. Soft Comput 22:811–822

    Google Scholar 

  • Hashim FA, Houssein EH, Mabrouk MS, Al-Atabany W, Mirjalili S (2019) Henry gas solubility optimization: a novel physics-based algorithm. Futur Gener Comput Syst 101:646–667

    Google Scholar 

  • He Q, Ling W (2007) An effective co-evolutionary particle swarm optimization for constrained engineering design problems. Eng Appl Artif Intell 20(1):89–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidari AA, Mirjalili S, Faris H, Aljarah I, Mafarja M, Chen H (2019) Harris hawks optimization: algorithm and applications. Futur Gener Comput Syst 97:849–872

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland JH (1992) Genetic algorithms. Sci Am 267(1):66–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Huy NQ, Soon OY, Hiot LM, Krasnogor N (2014) Adaptive cellular memetic algorithms. Evol Comput 17(2):231–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain M, Singh V, Rani A (2019) A novel nature-inspired algorithm for optimization: squirrel search algorithm. Swarm Evol Comput 44:148–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.swevo.2018.02.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jing L, Ashraf MA (2018) Face recognition method based on GA-BP neural network algorithm. Open Phys 16(1):1056–1065

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamboj VK, Nandi A, Bhadoria A, Sehgal S (2020) An intensify Harris Hawks optimizer for numerical and engineering optimization problems. Appl Soft Comput 89:106018

    Google Scholar 

  • Kannan BK, Kramer SN (1994) An augmented lagrange multiplier based method for mixed integer discrete continuous optimization and its applications to mechanical design. Trans Asme J Mech Des 116(2):405–411

    Google Scholar 

  • Karim SA, Kasihmuddin MSM, Sathasivam S et al. (2022) A novel multi-objective hybrid election algorithm for higher-order random satisfiability in discrete hopfield neural network. Mathematics, 10(12):1963

  • Kasihmuddin MSM, Jamaludin SZM, Mansor MA et al (2022) Supervised learning perspective in logic mining. Mathematics 10(6):915

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaveh A, Khayatazad M (2012) A new meta-heuristic method: ray optimization. Comput Struct 112–113:283–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaveh A, Mahdavi VR (2014) Colliding bodies optimization: a novel meta-heuristic method. Comput Struct 139:18–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD, Vecchi MP (1983) Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220(4598):671–680

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Krasnogor N, Smith J (2001) Emergence of profitable search strategies based on a simple inheritance mechanism. In: Spector L (ed) Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference (GECCO 2001). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 432–439

  • Lee KS, Geem ZW (2005) A new meta-heuristic algorithm for continuous engineering optimization: harmony search theory and practice. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 194:3902–3933

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Li L, Huang Z, Liu F, Wu QH (2007) A heuristic particle swarm optimizer for optimization of pin connected structures. Comput Struct 85(7–8):340–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2006.11.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li CY, Li J, Chen HL et al (2021a) Enhanced Harris hawks optimization with multi-strategy for global optimization tasks. Expert Syst Appl 185:115499

    Google Scholar 

  • Li LG, Sun LJ, Xue Y et al (2021b) Fuzzy multilevel image thresholding based on improved coyote optimization algorithm. IEEE Access 9:33595–33607

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang J, Qu B, Suganthan P, Chen Q (2014) Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for the Cec 2015 competition on learning-based real-parameter single objective optimization. Technical Report2014a11A, Computational intelligence laboratory, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou China and Technical Report, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

  • Linda O, Wijayasekara D, Manic M, Mcqueen M (2014) Optimal placement of phasor measurement units in power grids using memetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international symposium on industrial electronics (ISIE 2014). IEEE Press, Istanbul, pp 2035–2041

  • Liu H, Cai Z, Wang Y (2010) Hybridizing particle swarm optimization with differential evolution for constrained numerical and engineering optimization. Appl Soft Comput 10(2):629–640

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu S, Kim HM (2010) A regularized inexact penalty decomposition algorithm for multidisciplinary design optimization problems with complementarity constraints. J Mech Des 132(4):041005. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4001206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lv W, Xie Q, Tang P et al (2010) An experimental study of benchmarking functions for election campaign algorithm. In: 2010 International conference on measuring technology and mechatronics automation. IEEE, pp 468–474

  • Lv W, He C, Li D et al (2010) Election campaign optimization algorithm. Procedia Comput Sci 1(1):1377–1386

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahdavi M, Fesanghary M, Damangir E (2007) An improved harmony search algorithm for solving optimization problems. Appl Math Comput 188(2):1567–1579

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Melvix J (2014) Greedy politics optimization: Metaheuristic inspired by political strategies adopted during state assembly elections, In: 2014 IEEE international advance computing conference (IACC). IEEE.

  • Mezura-Montes E, Coello C, Landa-Becerra R (2003) Engineering optimization using simple evolutionary algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE international conference on tools with artificial intelligence, pp 149–156

  • Mezura-Montes E, Coello C (2008) An empirical study about the usefulness of evolution strategies to solve constrained optimization problems. Int J Gen Syst 37(4):443–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081070701303470

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Mirjalili S (2015) Moth-flame optimization algorithm: a novel nature-inspired heuristic paradigm. Knowl-Based Syst 89:228–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirjalili S (2016) SCA: a sine cosine algorithm for solving optimization problems. Knowl-Based Syst 96:120–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirjalili S, Lewis A (2016) The whale optimization algorithm. Adv Eng Softw 95:51–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirjalili S, Mirjalili SM, Lewis A (2014) Grey wolf optimizer. Adv Eng Softw 69:46–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirjalili S, Mirjalili SM, Hatamlou A (2016) Multi-verse optimizer: a nature inspired algorithm for global optimization. Neural Comput Appl 27(2):495–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-015-1870-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirjalili S, Gandomi AH, Mirjalili SZ, Saremi S, Faris H, Mirjalili SM (2017) Salp swarm algorithm: a bio-inspired optimizer for engineering design problems. Adv Eng Softw 114:163–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2017.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moghdani R, Salimifard K (2018) Volleyball premier league algorithm. Appl Soft Comput 64:161–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.11.043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montiel O, Castillo O, Melin P, Diaz AR, Sepulveda R (2007) Human evolutionary model: a new approach to optimization. Inf Sci 177(10):2075–2098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2006.09.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ong YS, Keane AJ (2004) Meta-Lamarckian learning in memetic algorithms. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 8(2):99–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozcan E, Drake JH, Altintas C, Asta S (2016) A self-adaptive multimeme memetic algorithm co-evolving utility scores to control genetic operators and their parameter settings. Appl Soft Comput 49:81–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2016.07.032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragsdell KM, Phillips DT (1976) Optimal design of a class of welded structures using geometric programming. J Eng Ind 98(3):1021–1025

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao RV, Savsani VJ, Vakharia DP (2011) Teaching-learning-based optimization: a novel method for constrained mechanical design optimization problems. Comput Aided Des 43(3):303–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Rashedi E, Nezamabadi-Pour H, Saryazdi S (2009) GSA: a gravitational search algorithm. Inf Sci 179(13):2232–2248

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ray T, Saini P (2001) Engineering design optimization using a swarm with an intelligent information sharing among individuals. Eng Optim 33(6):735–748. https://doi.org/10.1080/03052150108940941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rengasamy S, Murugesan P (2021) PSO based data clustering with a different perception. Swarm Evol Comput 64(1):100895

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez L, Castillo O, Garcia M, Soria J (2021) A new meta-heuristic optimization algorithm based on a paradigm from physics: string theory. J Intel Fuzzy Syst 41(1):1657–1675. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-210459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadollah A, Bahreininejad A, Eskandar H, Hamdia M (2013) Mine blast algorithm: a new population based algorithm for solving constrained engineering optimization problems. Appl Soft Comput J 13(5):2592–2612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2012.11.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandgren E (1990) Nonlinear integer and discrete programming in mechanical design optimization. J Mech Des 112(2):223–229. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2912596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saremi S, Mirjalili S, Lewis A (2017) Grasshopper optimisation algorithm: theory and application. Adv Eng Softw 105:30–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2017.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saruhan H, Uygur I (2003) Design optimization of mechanical systems using genetic algorithms. Sakarya Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi 7(2):77–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Selvaraj S, Choi E (2021) Swarm intelligence algorithms in text document clustering with various benchmarks. Sensors 21(9):3196

    Google Scholar 

  • Shabani A, Asgarian B, Gharebaghi SA, Salido MA, Giret A (2019) A new optimization algorithm based on search and rescue operations. Math Probl Eng 2019:2482543. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2482543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shang L, Shang Y, Hu L et al (2020) Performance of genetic algorithms with different selection operators for solving short-term optimized reservoir scheduling problem. Soft Comput 24:6771–6785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04313-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi Y (2011) Brain storm optimization algorithm. Swarm Intelligence. Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp 303–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh T (2020) A novel data clustering approach based on whale optimization algorithm. Expert Syst 38(3):1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Sophia SGG, Sharmila VC, Suchitra S et al (2020) Water management using genetic algorithm-based machine learning. Soft Comput 24(22):17153–17165

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephen SEA, David D, GirishDalvi (2018) Design optimization of weight of speed reducer problem through matlab and simulation using ansys. Int J Mech Eng Technol (IJMET) 9:339–349

    Google Scholar 

  • Storn R, Price K (1997) Differential evolution-A simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J Global Optim 11(4):341–359

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sundaram E, Gunasekaran M, Krishnan R et al (2020) Genetic algorithm based reference current control extraction based shunt active power filter. Int Trans Electr Energy Syst 13(1):1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang D, Dong SB, Jiang Y, Li H, Huang YS (2015) ITGO: Invasive tumor growth optimization algorithm. Appl Soft Comput 36:670–698

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang ZH, Liu JH (2021) Flamingo search algorithm: a new swarm intelligence optimization algorithm. IEEE Access 9:88564–88582. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3090512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolpert DH, Macready WG (1997) No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 1(1):67–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Yildirim AE, Karci A (2018) Application of three bar truss problem among engineering design optimization problems using artificial atom algorithm. In: 2018 International conference on artificial intelligence and data processing (IDAP), pp 1–5

  • Zamani H, Nadimi-Shahraki MH, Gandomi AH (2021) QANA: Quantum-based avian navigation optimizer algorithm. Eng Appl Artif Intell 104(989):104314

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the reviewers for their constructive comments. This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin (No.18JCYBJC19300), the National Natural Science Foundation of China under the Grant Numbers (61873188) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China under the Grant Numbers (32171902).

Funding

This work is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin (No.18JCYBJC19300), the National Natural Science Foundation of China under the Grant numbers (61873188) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China under the Grant numbers (32171902).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tianjin Key Laboratory for Advanced Mechatronic System Design and Intelligent Control, School of Mechanical Engineering, Tianjin University of Technology, Tianjin, 300384, China

    Yun-wei Jia, Xiao-tong Chen, Cheng-bin Yao & Xia Li

  2. National Demonstration Center for Experimental Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Education, Tianjin University of Technology, Tianjin, 300384, China

    Yun-wei Jia, Xiao-tong Chen, Cheng-bin Yao & Xia Li

Authors
  1. Yun-wei Jia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiao-tong Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cheng-bin Yao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xia Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Y-wJ involved in supervision, conceptualization, methodology, validation and writing original draft preparation. X-tC involved in software, visualization, validation and writing original draft preparation. C-bY involved in software, visualization, investigation and writing original draft preparation. XL involved in validation, investigation and writing original draft preparation.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cheng-bin Yao.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Human participants and/or animals

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent is obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jia, Yw., Chen, Xt., Yao, Cb. et al. CEO election optimization algorithm and its application in constrained optimization problem. Soft Comput 27, 7363–7400 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-07974-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-07974-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation