Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 57 references

A New Scope and Domain Measure Comparison Method for Global Convergence Analysis in Evolutionary Computation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A finite-window measure comparison on search scopes is claimed necessary and sufficient for global convergence.

desk verdict The paper's core theorem is false: H5 is not sufficient for global convergence, and the claimed proof misapplies Borel-Cantelli, so the paper should be rejected despite a genuinely useful critique of Markov-chain modeling. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04089 v1 pith:SLDOUJ3P submitted 2025-05-07 cs.NE

Liu-Yue Luo , Zhi-Hui Zhan , Kay Chen Tan , Jun Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NE
keywords globalconvergenceevolutionarycomputationsearchscopedomainmeasurecomparisonanalysisMarkovchaingenetargetinglarge-scaleoptimization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper attempts to replace the standard Markov-chain machinery for proving that an evolutionary algorithm converges to a global optimum with a simpler geometric criterion. It separates two meanings of convergence—stable convergence, where the population settles into a region, and global convergence, where the best solution reaches the optimum with probability 1—and argues they are mutually exclusive. Its proposed scope-and-domain measure comparison (SDMC) condition says: an algorithm satisfying the standard non-worsening assumption (H1) is globally convergent if and only if, from every generation, some finite window of future search scopes has total measure equal to the feasible domain. If correct, this makes global convergence analyzable from population spread alone, without modeling the algorithm as a homogeneous Markov chain.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the search-scope measure comparison expressed as H5. The search scope $M(t)$ is the set of positions the population has a chance to reach at generation $t$, and $v$ is the measure (volume) of subsets of the feasible domain $S$. H5 compares the measure of the finite-horizon union $U_{t,N} = \bigcup_{k=0}^{N-1} M(t+k)$ with $v(S)$; equality for some finite $N$ at every $t$ is the criterion. This identity replaces both the homogeneous-Markov-chain modeling assumption and the requirement that every positive-measure region be sampleable in every generation, converting a probabilistic sampling condition into a geometric covering condition. That conversion is what lets the paper read global convergence off population diversity.

What would settle it

Construct an algorithm that at generation $t$ samples uniformly over the whole feasible domain with probability $2^{-t}$ and otherwise keeps the current best; H1 and H5 both hold, yet for any fixed positive-measure region $A$ the probability of never sampling it is $\prod_{t \ge 0}(1 - 2^{-t} v(A)/v(S)) > 0$, so it does not converge to the global optimum with probability 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that condition (H5) is necessary and sufficient for global convergence among algorithms satisfying (H1). Here $M(t)$ is the search scope at generation $t$, $v$ is the measure (volume) on the feasible domain $S$, and H5 says that for every finite generation $t$ there is a finite $N$ with $v(\bigcup_{k=0}^{N-1} M(t+k)) = v(S)$. Because boundary handling keeps $M(t) \subseteq S$, equality of measures means the search scopes in every $N$-generation window jointly cover the whole domain. The paper concludes that such covering makes the probability of never sampling any positive-measure region zero, so the best-so-far solution reaches the global optimum with probability 1, and conversely that if some window always misses a positive-measure set, a non-convergent algorithm can be built. It applies this criterion to algorithms the Markov-chain route cannot handle and to gene-targeting variants, and uses it to derive design guidance for large-scale optimization.

Load-bearing premise

The proof's crucial inference is that an infinite sequence of chances to sample a region makes missing that region forever impossible; this fails if the chances to sample the region decay fast enough, and the whole equivalence rests on that step.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Algorithms with time-varying parameters, which cannot be modeled as homogeneous Markov chains, become analyzable by tracking search-scope volumes alone.
  • An algorithm whose search scope shrinks to measure zero cannot guarantee global convergence, so a stable-convergence proof cannot stand in for a global-convergence proof.
  • Keeping a positive-measure search component throughout evolution, such as Gaussian perturbations with $\sigma > 0$, is a design rule that satisfies H5 under H1.
  • Under the SDMC analysis, GTDE guarantees global convergence with its original settings, while DE, SLPSO, and GTPSO do not; giving GTPSO's Gaussian perturbation a positive constant $\sigma$ improves it on most tested benchmarks.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The stated equivalence is stronger than the proof supports: infinitely many generations with $M(t) \cap A \neq \emptyset$ do not imply $\prod_t (1-\mu_t(A)) = 0$ when $\mu_t(A)$ decays rapidly, so a repaired sufficient condition would need something like $\sum_t \mu_t(A) = \infty$ for every positive-measure $A$.
  • Read as a covering condition, H5 is a close relative of the standard probability principle that infinitely many events with rapidly decaying probabilities need not occur; the natural strengthened form would require each positive-measure region to be sampled infinitely often with probabilities bounded away from zero. Experiments should distinguish domain coverage from probability of sampling every
  • The paper's use of the standard deviation of population positions to estimate $v(M(t))$ suggests a practical diagnostic, but lifting finite-time diversity measurements to an infinite-time criterion is an extrapolation the paper does not formalize; that gap could be tested by monitoring whether estimated coverage stabilizes or collapses.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a taxonomy of convergence analyses for evolutionary computation, separating 'stable convergence' from 'global convergence,' and claims these two properties are mutually exclusive (Theorem 3, Section II-C). On this basis it introduces a 'scope and domain measure comparison' (SDMC) criterion, condition (H5), which asserts that an algorithm satisfying Solis–Wets condition (H1) guarantees global convergence if and only if, for every generation t, some finite window of N future generations has search-scope union of full domain measure. The authors claim a rigorous proof of this equivalence (Section III-B), illustrate the method on LDIW-PSO and a periodic partitioned sampler (Section IV), and apply it to DE, GTDE, SLPSO, and GTPSO (Section V), concluding that GT improves diversity, that GTDE can guarantee global convergence under its parameter settings, and that a constant-variance modification of GTPSO is beneficial. The paper closes with experiments on twelve benchmark functions comparing the modified GTPSO to the original.

Significance. If the central equivalence were correct, the SDMC criterion would be a genuinely useful tool: it avoids homogeneous-Markov-chain modeling, is easy to state, and could be checked by bounding the support of the sampling distribution. The paper also contains a useful practical observation, namely that a constant positive variance in the GTPSO gene-targeting step (Eq. (43)) improves performance on many benchmarks, and it correctly emphasizes that time-varying algorithms such as LDIW-PSO are not homogeneous Markov chains. However, the load-bearing theoretical claim in Section III-B is false: the sufficiency direction of (H5) rests on an invalid inference about infinite products. The necessity argument is incomplete, and the case-study analyses rely on unproved 'best-case' reductions from algorithm dynamics to search-scope measure. As it stands, the paper does not establish the SDMC method, and the theoretical conclusions about DE, SLPSO, GTDE, and GTPSO are not supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-B, after Eq. (7)] The sufficiency proof of (H5) is invalid. From |T(A)| = infinity the paper concludes that Eq. (7), namely the infinite product over t of (1 - mu_t(A)), equals 0 because it is 'the product of infinitely many values less than 1.' This is false: an infinite product of factors in [0,1] can converge to a positive limit, and it tends to 0 only if the sum of mu_t(A) diverges. Condition (H5) does not imply that divergence. For example, let S = [0,1] and let mu_t be the mixture (1 - 2^{-t}) delta_{1/2} + 2^{-t} U(S), where U(S) is the uniform distribution on S. The support of mu_t is S for every t, so H5 holds with N = 1 for every t. For A = [0,1/2], mu_t(A) = 2^{-(t+1)}, and the product over t of (1 - 2^{-(t+1)}) is strictly positive. With f(x) = x and a best-so-far selection rule satisfying H1, the algorithm has positive probability of never sampling A and hence never reaching the global minimum. Thus H5 is not sufficient for global convergence.
  2. [Section III-B, necessity paragraph] The necessity argument does not establish that failure of H5 yields a fixed positive-measure set A with infinite product of (1 - mu_t(A)) positive. The proposed set A_s = S \ U_{t,N} depends on the window length N; as N grows, A_s shrinks, and after the window the algorithm may sample it with high probability. The proof needs to construct a single Borel set that is missed forever with positive probability, but no such construction is provided. The sentence 'we can always construct a counterexample A_s' is an assertion, not a proof, particularly because H5 requires the covering property for every t and a failure at one t does not by itself preclude later finite windows from covering S.
  3. [Section II-C, Theorem 3] The claimed mutual exclusivity of stable convergence and global convergence does not follow from Eqs. (4)-(5). Stable convergence of individual positions, in the sense lim E|Delta x_i(t)| = delta, does not imply that the support of mu_t, i.e., the search scope M(t), has measure tending to 0; an algorithm can have convergent trajectories while still performing rare global resampling events, and those rare events may keep v(M(t)) equal to v(S). Equation (5) is not derived: it is unclear how the constant delta bounds the measure of the union of individual search scopes, and the factor involving the gamma function appears without explanation. Since Theorem 3 is used to motivate and justify the SDMC analyses in Sections IV and V, this gap is load-bearing.
  4. [Sections IV-A and V-A3] The case-study analyses replace the actual stochastic algorithm by a 'best case' trajectory in which every update is accepted and every pbest improves, and then infer from stable convergence of this idealized dynamics that v(M(t)) tends to 0 and hence H5 fails. This inference is not justified: search-scope measure and trajectory stability are different objects, and the 'best case' construction removes the rare-event sampling that could make M(t) cover S. The same pattern appears in Section V-B4, where the conclusion that GTPSO does not satisfy H5 is based on the standard deviation of a Gaussian tending to 0, with no proof that the support measure vanishes. Consequently, even conditional on H5 being a valid criterion, the conclusions that LDIW-PSO, DE, and SLPSO do not guarantee global convergence are not established by the arguments given.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section I and reference list] The reference numbering is internally inconsistent: citation [21] is used twice for apparently different works, and [35] is used both for Solis and Wets and for Rudolph; the correct citations should be restored before any revision.
  2. [Section V-A4] Reference [44] is cited for the GTDE parameter settings, but reference [44] in the list is a paper on ant colony convergence; the intended citation appears to be [45], the GTDE paper.
  3. [Section III-B, statement of (H5)] The displayed condition (H5) is garbled: 't forall != +infinity, N exists != +infinity' should read 'for every finite t there exists a finite N such that v(U_{t,N}) = v(S)'. The proof also introduces t_N without defining it and switches between t, t_N, and t_s.
  4. [Section IV-B] The text 'B = C \ S is the complement of C in S' should presumably read B = S \ C, and Eq. (15) uses the symbol X_{t-1} without defining it as the previous generation's sample.
  5. [Section V-A4] The sentence 'Actually, (H5) is guaranteed to hold under the parameter setting given in [44] ... Thus, it is possible to have v(U_{t,N}) < v(S) for all t with N = 1' is self-contradictory: if H5 is guaranteed to hold, then v(U_{t,N}) = v(S) for some finite N, not v(U_{t,N}) < v(S) for all N. This sentence should be corrected because it directly concerns the paper's main claim about GTDE.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; the H5 theorem's defect is an unsound inference, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that condition (H5) is necessary and sufficient for global convergence of algorithms satisfying (H1)—is not circular by construction. H5 is defined in terms of the measure of a finite-window union of search scopes, while global convergence is defined through the Solis–Wets product condition ∏(1−μ_t(A))=0 for every positive-measure A; neither definition contains the other, and no parameter in the theorem is fitted to data. The sufficiency proof does contain a genuine mathematical gap: from |T(A)|=∞ it concludes that Eq. (7) equals 0 because it is 'the product of infinitely many values less than 1.' That inference requires the stronger condition ∑ μ_t(A)=∞; a distribution whose support covers the whole domain can still place summable probability on a target region (e.g., μ_t(A)=2^{-t}). This is an invalid inference, not a circular reduction. The necessity argument is also incomplete, since failing H5 at one window does not produce a fixed positive-measure set with T(A)<∞; the complement of U_{t,N} may still be sampled after that window. The paper's application section relies partly on the authors' own GTDE/GTPSO papers for parameter settings and ablation support, but those self-citations are application-level case studies and do not carry the main theorem. The paper also explicitly acknowledges an unproven assumption about comparing the strength of global convergence across algorithms in Section VI; that is a limitation rather than circularity. The benchmark experiments and the proposed GTPSO-σ variants are not predictions derived by fitting the theory's parameters. Overall, the paper has no load-bearing circularity; the main concern is mathematical correctness of the H5 proof, not self-reference.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theorem rests on a false probabilistic inference (infinitely many positive samples imply probability one) and an unproved exclusivity claim. The SDMC condition is not supported as a valid criterion. The experimental sections add hand-set parameters but these are not the load-bearing part.

free parameters (2)
  • sigma in improved GTPSO (Eq. 43) = 0.1, 1, 10
    Hand-set constant standard deviation for the modified GTPSO in Section V-D; used in experiments, not in the central theorem.
  • delta in Theorem 3
    An unspecified 'relatively small constant' in the proof of mutual exclusivity; its value is never defined, making the inequality in Eq. (5) unverifiable.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper If a Borel set A has v(A)>0 and intersects the search scope M(t) at infinitely many generations, then the probability that A is never sampled is 0.
    Used in Section III-B to conclude Eq. (7)=0 from |T(A)|=+infinity; equivalent to requiring sum_t mu_t(A)=infinity, not merely infinitely many positive terms.
  • ad hoc to paper Stable convergence of every individual implies v(M(t)) < v(S) for all sufficiently large t.
    Used in Theorem 3 proof, Section II-C; fails when stable convergence happens at the global optimum, so stable and global convergence are not mutually exclusive.
  • domain assumption With global boundary handling, M(t) is a subset of S and v(U_t,N)=v(S) iff U_t,N=S.
    Invoked before Eq. (7) in Section III-B; acceptable if S has finite measure and complements of measure zero are ignored, but stated too strongly.
  • ad hoc to paper The DE, GTDE, SLPSO, and GTPSO analyses may replace the actual stochastic dynamics by a 'best case' trajectory in which every update is accepted.
    Sections V-A-3 and V-B-3 analyze only the 'best' case where all individuals update; the conclusion that DE and SLPSO do not satisfy H5 is drawn from this optimistic trajectory rather than the full stochastic process.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A New Scope and Domain Measure Comparison Method for Global Convergence Analysis in Evolutionary Computation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SLDOUJ3P

@misc{pith2026250504089,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A New Scope and Domain Measure Comparison Method for Global Convergence Analysis in Evolutionary Computation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SLDOUJ3P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04089}
}
read the original abstract

Convergence analysis is a fundamental research topic in evolutionary computation (EC). The commonly used analysis method models the EC algorithm as a homogeneous Markov chain for analysis, which is not always suitable for different EC variants, and also sometimes causes misuse and confusion due to their complex process. In this article, we categorize the existing researches on convergence analysis in EC algorithms into stable convergence and global convergence, and then prove that the conditions for these two convergence properties are somehow mutually exclusive. Inspired by this proof, we propose a new scope and domain measure comparison (SDMC) method for analyzing the global convergence of EC algorithms and provide a rigorous proof of its necessity and sufficiency as an alternative condition. Unlike traditional methods, the SDMC method is straightforward, bypasses Markov chain modeling, and minimizes errors from misapplication as it only focuses on the measure of the algorithm's search scope. We apply SDMC to two algorithm types that are unsuitable for traditional methods, confirming its effectiveness in global convergence analysis. Furthermore, we apply the SDMC method to explore the gene targeting mechanism's impact on the global convergence in large-scale global optimization, deriving insights into how to design EC algorithms that guarantee global convergence and exploring how theoretical analysis can guide EC algorithm design.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04089 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Venn diagram of global convergence EC algorithms identified by Rudolph’s method in [36] and actual global convergence EC algorithms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Taxonomy for the research in theoretical analysis. all EC Algorithms global convergence EC algorithms that cannot have the probability to sample the global optimum area in every generation global convergence EC Algorithms cannot be modeled as homogeneous Markov chain global convergence EC algorithms recognized by Rudolph s method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Taxonomy for the research in stable convergence analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The value of Z given Δ1 and Δ2 for LDIW-PSO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Showing the evolution direction of individual i of DE in dimension d. 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 1000 2000 3000 standard deviation generation DE GTDE (a) On the early stage 5300 5400 5500 5600 5700 5800 5900 6000 0.00 0.02 0.04 standard deviation genreation DE GTDE 0 1000 200…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The standard deviation of the 1 st dimension of the individuals in DE and GTDE on sphere function with DIM=1000 in different stages (a) On the early stage; (b) On the later stage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The 1st and 2nd dimensions position of DE and SLPSO on the early stage. (a) in the 7th iteration; (b) in the 9th iteration; (c) in the 99th iteration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The standard deviation of the 1 st dimension of the individuals in SLPSO and GTPSO on sphere function with DIM=1000 in different stages (a) On the early stage; (b) On the later stage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2019 Evolutionary Algorithms Review

    A. N. Sloss and S. Gustafson, “2019 Evolutionary algorithms review,” Jun. 2019, [online] Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1906.08870

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Evolutionary algorithms and their applications to engineering problems,

    A. Slowik and H. Kwasnicka, “Evolutionary algorithms and their applications to engineering problems,” Neural Comput. Appl., vol. 32, no. 16, pp. 12 363-12379, Aug. 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    The application of Evolutionary and Nature Inspired Algorithms in Data Science and Data Analytics,

    F. G. Mohammadi et al. , “The application of Evolutionary and Nature Inspired Algorithms in Data Science and Data Analytics,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Comput. Sci. Comput. Intell., 2021, pp. 255-261

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Multi -objective topology optimization using evolutionary algorithms,

    T. Kunakote and S. Bureerat, “Multi -objective topology optimization using evolutionary algorithms,” Eng. Optimiz., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 191 – 212, May 2011

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Evolutionary deep learning: a survey,

    Z. H. Zhan, J. Y. Li, and J. Zhang, “Evolutionary deep learning: a survey,” Neurocomputing, vol. 483, pp. 42-58, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Learning-aided evolution for optimization,

    Z, H. Zhan, J. Y. Li, S. Kwong, and J. Zhang, “Learning-aided evolution for optimization,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. , vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1794- 1808, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    DNA sequence design under many objective evolutionary algorithm,

    H. Guo, D. Zhu, C. Zhou, and C. Zou, “DNA sequence design under many objective evolutionary algorithm, ” Cluster Computing , vol. 2 7, pp. 14167–14183, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Protein structure prediction using a new optimization -based evolutionary and explainable artificial intelligence approach,

    J. Hong, Z. H. Zhan, L. He, Z. Xu, and J. Zhang, “Protein structure prediction using a new optimization -based evolutionary and explainable artificial intelligence approach,” IEEE Trans. Evol.Comput., 2024, DOI: 10.1109/TEVC.2024.3365814

    arXiv 2024

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Memory-based ant colony system approach for multi -source data associated dynamic electric vehicle dispatch optimization,

    L. Shi, Z. H. Zhan, D. Liang, J. Zhang, “Memory-based ant colony system approach for multi -source data associated dynamic electric vehicle dispatch optimization,” IEEE Trans Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 17491-17505, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    A genetic approach to portfolio selection,

    S. Arnone, A. Loraschi, and A. Tettamanzi, “A genetic approach to portfolio selection,” Neural Netw. World, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 597-604, 1993

    1993

  3. [11]

    Multi-objective heuristic algorithms for practical portfolio optimization and rebalancing with transaction cost ,

    S. S. Meghwani and M. Thakur, “Multi-objective heuristic algorithms for practical portfolio optimization and rebalancing with transaction cost ,” Appl. Soft. Comput., vol. 67, no. pp. 865–894, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    An inexact two -stage stochastic programming model for water resources management under uncertainty,

    G. H. Huang and D. P. Loucks, “An inexact two -stage stochastic programming model for water resources management under uncertainty,” Civil Eng. Environ. Syst., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 95–118, 2000

    2000

  5. [13]

    Multi -objective optimization of a hybrid renewable energy systems supplying a residential building using NSGA- II and MOPSO algorithms,

    P. Chowdhury and S. Ghosh, “Multi -objective optimization of a hybrid renewable energy systems supplying a residential building using NSGA- II and MOPSO algorithms,” Energy Conv. Manag., vol. 196, 2023, Art. no. 117515

    2023

  6. [14]

    Computing high-quality solutions for the patient admission scheduling problem using evolutionary diversity optimisation,

    A. Nikfarjam, A. Moosavi, A. Neumann, and F. Neumann, “Computing high-quality solutions for the patient admission scheduling problem using evolutionary diversity optimisation,” in Proc. Parallel Prob. Solving Nature, 2022, pp. 250-264

    2022

  7. [15]

    Working principles of binary differential evolution,

    B. Doerr and W. Zheng. “Working principles of binary differential evolution,” Theor. Comput. Sci., vol. 801, pp. 110-142, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    On the choice of the update strength in estimation-of-distribution algorithms and ant colony optimization,

    D. Sudholt and C. Witt. “On the choice of the update strength in estimation-of-distribution algorithms and ant colony optimization,” Algorithmica, vol. 81, pp. 1450-1489, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Adaptive drift analysis,

    B. Doerr and L. A. Goldberg, “Adaptive drift analysis,” Algorithmica, vol. 65, pp. 224–250, 2013

    2013

  10. [18]

    Optimizing linear functions with the (1+λ) evolutionary algorithm —Different asymptotic runtimes for different instances,

    B. Doerr and M. Künnemann, “Optimizing linear functions with the (1+λ) evolutionary algorithm —Different asymptotic runtimes for different instances,” Theor. Comput. Sci., vol. 561, pp. 3–23, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    Runtime analysis for self -adaptive mutation rates,

    B. Doerr, C. Witt, and J. Yang, “Runtime analysis for self -adaptive mutation rates,” Algorithmica, vol. 83, pp. 1012–1053, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Computational complexity analysis of simple genetic programming on two problems modeling isolated program semantics,

    G. Durrett, F. Neumann, and U.-M. O'Reilly, “Computational complexity analysis of simple genetic programming on two problems modeling isolated program semantics,” in Proc. Conf. Found. Genet. Algorithms , 2011, pp. 69–80

    2011

  13. [21]

    Drift analysis and average time complexity of evolutionary algorithms,

    J. He and X . Yao, “Drift analysis and average time complexity of evolutionary algorithms,” Artif. Intell., vol. 127, no. 1, pp. 57-85, 2001

    2001

  14. [22]

    On convergence analysis of particle swarm optimization algorithm,

    G. Xu and G. Yu, “On convergence analysis of particle swarm optimization algorithm,” Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 333, pp. 65–73, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    The global convergence analysis of particle swarm optimization algorithm based on Markov chain,

    Z. Ren, J. Wang, Y. Gao, “The global convergence analysis of particle swarm optimization algorithm based on Markov chain,” Control theory & applications, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 462-466, April. 2011

    2011

  16. [24]

    The particle swarm -explosion, stability, convergence in a multidimensional complex space,

    M. Clerc and J. Kennedy, “The particle swarm -explosion, stability, convergence in a multidimensional complex space,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 58-73, Feb. 2002

    2002

  17. [25]

    The particle swarm optimization algorithm: convergence analysis and parameter selection,

    I. C. Trelea, “The particle swarm optimization algorithm: convergence analysis and parameter selection,” Inf. Process. Lett., vol. 85, pp. 317-325, 2003

    2003

  18. [26]

    An analysis of particle swarm optimization,

    F. van den Bergh, “An analysis of particle swarm optimization,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pretoria, South Africa, 2002

    2002

  19. [27]

    The convergence basis of particle swarm optimization,

    K. Wang and J. H. Shen, “The convergence basis of particle swarm optimization,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Ind. Control Electron. Eng. , 2012, pp. 63-66

    2012

  20. [28]

    Order-2 stability analysis of particle swarm optimization,

    Q. Liu, “Order-2 stability analysis of particle swarm optimization,” Evol. Comput., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 187-216, Jun. 2015

    2015

  21. [29]

    Order -3 stability analysis of particle swarm optimization,

    W. Y. Dong and R. R. Zhang, “Order -3 stability analysis of particle swarm optimization,” Inf. Sci., vol. 503, pp. 508-520, Nov. 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Stability analysis of the particle dynamics in particle swarm optimizer,

    V. Kadirkamanathan, K. Selvarajah, and P. J. Fleming, “Stability analysis of the particle dynamics in particle swarm optimizer,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 245-254, 2006

    2006

  23. [31]

    Stochastic analysis of the particle dynamics in the PSO algorithm,

    V. Gazi, “Stochastic analysis of the particle dynamics in the PSO algorithm,” in Proc. IEEE Multi-Conf. Syst. Control, 2012, pp. 708-713

    2012

  24. [32]

    On the asymptotic convergence of differential evolution in continuous spaces: a control theoretic approach,

    S. Ghosh, S. Das, and S. Das, “On the asymptotic convergence of differential evolution in continuous spaces: a control theoretic approach,” in Proc. Genet. Evolutionary Comput. Conf. Companion, 2010, pp. 2073- 2074. > REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DO...

    2010

  25. [33]

    Parameter analysis based on stochastic model for differential evolution algorithm,

    L. Wang and F.-Z. Huang, “Parameter analysis based on stochastic model for differential evolution algorithm,” Appl. Math. Comput., vol. 217, no. 7, pp. 3263-3273. Dec. 2010

    2010

  26. [34]

    On stability and convergence of the population -dynamics in differential evolution,

    S. Dasgupta, S. Das, A. Biswas, and A. Abraham, “On stability and convergence of the population -dynamics in differential evolution,” AI Commun., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1-20, 2009

    2009

  27. [35]

    Minimization by random search techniques,

    F. J. Solis and R. J. -B. Wets, “Minimization by random search techniques,” Math. Oper. Res., vol. 6, pp. 19-30, 1981

    1981

  28. [36]

    Convergence of evolutionary algorithms in general search spaces,

    G. Rudolph, “Convergence of evolutionary algorithms in general search spaces,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Evol. Comput., 1996, pp. 50-54

    1996

  29. [37]

    A convergence proof for the particle swarm optimizer,

    F. van den Bergh and A. P. Engelbrecht, “A convergence proof for the particle swarm optimizer,” Fund. Inform., vol. 105, no. 4, pp. 341 -374, 2010

    2010

  30. [38]

    Markov model and convergence analysis based on firefly algorithm,

    T. Hu, X. He, and X. Yang, “Markov model and convergence analysis based on firefly algorithm,” Basic Sci. J. Text. Univ. , vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 496-501, Dec. 2014

    2014

  31. [39]

    Artificial rabbit optimization: A new bio -inspired meta -heuristic algorithm for solving engineering optimization problems,

    L. Wang, Q. Cao, Z. Zhang, S. Mirjalili, and W. Zhao, “Artificial rabbit optimization: A new bio -inspired meta -heuristic algorithm for solving engineering optimization problems,” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. , vol. 114, Sep. 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    A partition -based convergence framework for population-based optimization algorithms,

    X. Li, S. Hua, Q. Liu, and Y. Li, “A partition -based convergence framework for population-based optimization algorithms,” Inf. Sci., vol. 627, pp. 169-188, May 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Convergence analysis of butterfly optimization algorithm,

    P. Chakraborty, S. Sharma, and A. Saha, “Convergence analysis of butterfly optimization algorithm,” Soft Comput., vol. 27, pp. 7245 -7257, Apr. 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Global convergence analysis of grey wolf optimization algorithm based on martingale theory ,

    L. Sun, B. Feng, and T. Chen, “Global convergence analysis of grey wolf optimization algorithm based on martingale theory ,” Journal of Control and Decision, vol. 37, no. 11, pp. 2839-2848, Nov. 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Research on convergence of grey wolf optimization algorithm based on Markov chain,

    M. Zhang, D. Long, X. Wang, and J. Yang, “Research on convergence of grey wolf optimization algorithm based on Markov chain,” Acta Anatomica Sinica, vol. 48, pp. 1587–1595, Nov. 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Research on the A.S. convergence properties of basic ant colony algorithm,

    H. B. Duan, D. B. Wang, and X. F. Yu, “Research on the A.S. convergence properties of basic ant colony algorithm, ” Journal of Basis Science and Engineering, no. 2, pp. 297-301, 2006

    2006

  37. [45]

    Gene targeting differential evolution: a simple and efficient method for large scale optimization,

    Z. J. Wang, J. R. Jian, Z. H. Zhan, Y. Li, S. Kwong, and J. Zhang, “Gene targeting differential evolution: a simple and efficient method for large scale optimization,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 964 - 979, 2022

    2022

  38. [46]

    Gene targeting particle swarm optimization for large - scale optimization problem,

    Z. F. Tang et al., “Gene targeting particle swarm optimization for large - scale optimization problem,” in Proc. IEEE Conference on Artificial intelligence (CAI), Singapore, Singapore, 2024, pp. 620-625

    2024

  39. [47]

    Empirical study of particle swarm optimization,

    Y. Shi and R. C. Eberhart, “Empirical study of particle swarm optimization,” in Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Washington, DC, USA, 1999, pp. 1945-1950

    1999

  40. [48]

    A Markov chain analysis on simple genetic algorithms,

    J. Suzuki, “A Markov chain analysis on simple genetic algorithms,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 655-659, 1995

    1995

  41. [49]

    On the convergence rates of genetic algorithms,

    J. He and L. Kang, “On the convergence rates of genetic algorithms,” Theor. Comput. Sci., vol. 229, no. 1-2, pp. 23-39, 1999

    1999

  42. [50]

    An improved differential evolution with a novel restart mechanism,

    M. Tian, X. Gao, and X. Yan, “An improved differential evolution with a novel restart mechanism,” in 2016 12th International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Security (CIS), 2016, pp. 28–32

    2016

  43. [51]

    Adaptive differential evolution algorithm based on restart mechanism and direction information,

    Y. X. Zhang and J. Gou, “Adaptive differential evolution algorithm based on restart mechanism and direction information,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 166803–166814, 2019

    2019

  44. [52]

    An adaptative differential evolution with enhanced diversity and restart mechanism,

    X. Lin and Z. Meng, “An adaptative differential evolution with enhanced diversity and restart mechanism,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 249, p. 123634, 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    An improved self -adaptive differential evolution algorithm in single objective constrained real - parameter optimization,

    J. Brest, B. Boškovič, and V. Žumer, “An improved self -adaptive differential evolution algorithm in single objective constrained real - parameter optimization,” in IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 2010, pp. 1–8

    2010

  46. [54]

    The multi-start mayfly optimization algorithm,

    J. Zhao and Z. M. Gao, “The multi-start mayfly optimization algorithm,” in 2020 7th International Forum on Electrical Engineering and Automation (IFEEA), 2020, pp. 879–882

    2020

  47. [55]

    Differential evolution –a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces,

    R. Storn and K. Price. “Differential evolution –a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces,” J. Glob. Optim. vol. 11, pp. 341–359. Dec. 1997

    1997

  48. [56]

    Particle swarm optimization,

    J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, “Particle swarm optimization,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Neural Netw., 1995, pp. 1942–1948

    1995

  49. [57]

    A social learning particle swarm optimization algorithm for scalable optimization,

    R. Cheng and Y. Jin, “A social learning particle swarm optimization algorithm for scalable optimization,” Inf. Sci., vol. 291, pp. 43 -60, Jan. 2015

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.